IF CORPORATIONS HAVE LEGAL RIGHTS THAN SO SHOULD MOTHER NATURE!
Joseph Raglione
May 24, 2011
Gentle readers of this American Chronicle, Maude Barlow is one fine writer! She may also be a great carpenter because not only does she hit the nail on the head, she also pounds it in with one hard and brilliant concept! The idea that Mother Nature must have the same legal rights as human beings and that it is the duty of every human being on this Planet to actively protect what is our common heritage...our natural bio-diversity. The following is from Alternet.org.. >
AlterNet / By Maude Barlow 24 COMMENTS Vision: Nature Needs Rights -- Why Our Human-Centric Model Will Doom Us and the Rest of the Planet
We have built our economic and development policies based on a human-centric model and assumed that nature would never fail to provide or that technology would save us.
May 12, 2011 | LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our Alternet mailing list:
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.
Editorīs Note: The following is excerpted from the recently released book, The Rights of Nature: The case for a Universal Declaration on the rights of Mother Earth, produced by the Council of Canadians, Global Exchange and Fundacion Pachamama. This book reveals the path of a movement driving transformation of our human relationship with nature away from domination and towards balance. This book gathers the wisdom of indigenous cultures, scientists, activists small farmers, spiritual leaders and US communities who seek a different path for protecting nature by establishing Nature's Rights in law and culture. In addition to this excerpt, the book includes essays from Vandana Shiva, Desmond Tutu, Thomas Goldtooth, Eduardo Galeano, and many others. Copies of the book may be obtained through Global Exchange.
The world needs the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth and all humans need to internalize its key principles if the planet, and we, are to survive.
While it is true that many people still live on the land in harmony with the natural cycles of Nature, it is also true that with every passing year, more and more people around the world are moving into the "modern" consumer economy, seeking out a living based on capital exchange and no longer living in sustainable communities and traditional societies. In 2008, the number of city dwellers equalled the number of rural dwellers for the first time in history. By 2030, says the United Nations (UN), more than half the population of the large urban centres in the Global South will be slum dwellers with no access to sanitation. There is a huge scramble by the private companies of the Global North to convert the lands they leave behind into free trade zones to serve a global economy based on the doctrine of economic globalization, unregulated markets, more and cheaper consumer goods and unlimited growth.
Unlimited growth assumes unlimited resources and this is the genesis of the crisis. From fish in the sea, and old growth forests and wetlands, to oil, clean air and water, we are plundering our planet's natural resources. Quite simply, to feed the increasing demands of our consumer-based capitalist system, humans have seen nature as a great resource for our personal convenience and profit, not as a living ecosystem from which all life springs. So we have built our economic and development policies based on a human-centric model and assumed either that nature would never fail to provide or that, where it does fail, technology will save the day.
Even when we recognize the effect of our behavior on the natural world, we pass inadequate laws based on curbing the worst practices, but leave intact the system of economic globalization at the heart of the problem, which gives transnational corporations almost unfettered and unregulated access to the genetic, mineral, timber and water resources of even the most remote parts of the Earth. Thomas Linzey, a U.S. lawyer working to develop the new legal framework to protect Nature, explains that the dominant form of environmental protection in industrialized countries is based on the regulatory system, legalizing the discharge of large amounts of toxic substances into the environment, and is not working. Under a new regime recognizing the Rights of Mother Earth, compensation would not be measured in terms of an injury to people, but according to damage to the ecosystem.
In the absence of such fundamental protections for Nature, political leaders and their big business advisors continue, for instance, to promote international trade and investment agreements that not only limit the ability of domestic governments to protect the natural world for fear such protection may be seen as a "trade barrier," but also award the trade in "green" technology that will be needed to clean up the ecosystems we refuse to protect. If the principles of the Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth were firmly entrenched in international jurisprudence, nation-state constitutions, and the hearts and minds of decision-makers, trade agreements would be very different than they are today and would be built around the need for more local sustainable systems of food and industrial production, and the protection of natural ecosystems.
False solutions
Protecting the Rights of Mother Earth will also challenge the current trend to commodify Nature in the name of a green economy. While there are many definitions of what a green economy could look like that fit very well with an Earth-centred vision, many in power now use the term to essentially protect the current economic system that promotes more growth, production and global trade. There is no need to change our lifestyle or to curb global production and trade, goes the argument; we simply have to replace bad technology with good technology and we can keep our economic and development models intact.
Let's be clear: no amount of talk of green futures, green technology, green jobs and a green economy can undo the fact that most business and nation state leaders, as well as UN and World Bank officials, continue to promote growth as the only economic and development model for the world. Until the growth model is truly challenged, great damage to the Earth's ecosystems will continue. Further, much of their false green vision is based on a market model to save Nature and create new opportunities for growth and profit.
One example of this false vision includes emissions (or carbon) trading. Governments set a cap on greenhouse emissions (ratcheted down over time) and then give away or sell licences to pollute (carbon permits) to major industries that are supposed to add up to the cap. Firms are enabled to buy and sell the licences on the "carbon market," which sets the price for emissions - the carbon price.
Carbon trading, in effect, privatizes the atmosphere, suggesting that the Earth's capacity to regulate its climate can be understood as a measurable commodity that can be bought, sold and traded. It is predicated less on reducing emissions than on the desire to make carbon cuts as cheap as possible for large corporations. It maintains the essence of the current human-centred market model that has led us - and the planet - to the current crisis. Corporations and governments can buy their way out of needed structural changes to energy practice, production and consumption patterns allowing business-as-usual to reign. Success is narrowly measured simply in terms of cost effectiveness, ignoring issues of power, social justice, inequality and community control over local ecosystems.
In the European Union (EU) Emissions Trading System (the world's largest carbon trading scheme) corporate lobbying has seen the over- allocation of permits, free giveaways of permits, and rules which have allowed some of the worst polluters windfall profits while carbon prices fluctuate widely - all undermining needed emission reductions. In other words, carbon trading opens up needed climate action to market volatility, "gaming" and corporate influence. Carbon offsets have also seriously compromised the EU scheme's effectiveness.
Carbon offsets are another form of carbon trading and an example of using the market to do a job that should be legislated. Carbon offsets are a "created commodity" that let consumers (under the voluntary market), corporations and sometimes international financial institutions and governments (under cap and trade systems) to invest in emission savings projects outside of the capped area. It is trading perceived as "good behaviour" - such as investing in a tree plantation far away - on the open market in order to offset their right to continue to pollute. Offsets typically involve a shift from the global North to South where "reductions" are cheapest.
Carbon offsets are a multi-billion dollar poorly regulated industry that permit the growth in trade of all kinds and lulls the public into thinking something real has been done for the planet. The United Nations Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), a "flexible market mechanism" under the Kyoto Protocol, is the world's largest scheme. Since carbon offsets are created against a hypothetical business-as-usual scenario baseline, it is extremely difficult to ensure that the offset credits actually equate to carbon cuts. David Victor, the head of Stanford University's Energy and Sustainable Development Program, has found that "between a third and two-thirds of CDM offsets do not represent actual emission cuts." It is also extremely difficult to demonstrate that emission cuts are additional to what may have happened with offset credit financing. Worse still, there is clear evidence that certain projects applying for the CDM are causing serious social and environmental harm and human rights violations in the Global South. According to Michael Wara of Stanford University, the use of carbon offsets under the EU scheme meant that in 2008 European polluters will have emitted roughly one per cent more than they did in 1990.The now failed U.S. proposals for a cap and trade system would have seen up to two billion tons of offsets per year.
Another example is Payments for Ecological Services (PES), a growing movement endorsed by several major environmental groups, many governments and the private sector, that promotes conservation of natural resources through market mechanisms. "Ecological Services," such as water purification, crop pollination and carbon sequestration, are seen to have a direct dollar benefit to humans; therefore, it is reasoned, it is important to try to put an actual price tag on them. The UN Environment Program has recently done just that, and estimates that ecosystems and the biodiversity that underpins them generate services worth as much as $72 trillion a year - well over the World Gross National Income in 2008 of $58 trillion. The harvest and trade in these "natural capital" services is seen as an integral part of the global economy and so this approach seeks to pull the actual protection of nature into the market economy.
Some PES proponents cite examples that would be well suited to an Earth-centred model. For instance, the U.S. Conservation Reserve Program has for years paid participating farmers to protect their soil and water rather than use harmful chemical pesticides to grow more cash crops. This is not a pure market model, however; rather it is an example of public funds being used to promote diversity and conservation.
But others have a profit model in mind. A market model of PES is an agreement between the "holder" and the "consumer" of an ecosystem service, turning that service into an environmental property right. The consumer pays the holder or owner for protecting the biological diversity of an ecosystem property in accordance with an agreed upon price. Clearly this system privatizes Nature, be it a wetland, lake, forest or mountain, and sets the stage for private accumulation of Nature by those wealthy enough to be able to buy, hoard, sell and trade it. Already, governments and private corporations are studying Public-Private Partnerships to set up lucrative PES projects.
Similarly, there is a strong trend to turn the world's freshwater supplies into a private commodity in the name of conserving it. By turning water into a tradable market good, the case goes, the natural price of it will skyrocket, leading to its conservation. However, the model being promoted is not charging more properly for the true cost of bringing water services to the public or protecting source water, but for the private accumulation of water assets and the hoarding and trading of water. Water trading is growing around the world. Australia converted its water permits to water property rights, with the result that the government now cannot afford to buy back enough water to save the Murray-Darling water basin. Chile actually holds public water auctions and has sold most of its water rights in the South to a private Spanish company.
As well, in the name of a "blue economy," a number of governments and corporations are using their water resources to promote a water-based high tech industry as an incentive to foreign investment and wealth creation. While there is of course a place for water clean-up technology, it will be a tragedy if governments continue to allow the destruction of source water while promoting profit-making water reuse technologies. Already, utility corporations control drinking water services in many poor communities. Billions in the Global South do not have access to clean water simply because they cannot afford it, and many suffer further from water shortages when bottled water companies get long term extraction rights to local water supplies. When private interests control water sources, public oversight is lost as is the ability to manage and protect watersheds. Privatizing water puts watershed health at risk. Commodifying water renders an Earth-centred vision for watersheds and ecosystems unattainable.
An Earth-centred approach
The alternate, Earth-centred model promoted in the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth, would protect biological diversity as a global Commons and a strictly managed and more equitably shared public trust. The Commons approach is very old and based on the notion that common heritages, such as the atmosphere and oceans, freshwater and genetic diversity, cannot "belong" to anyone. In most traditional societies, it was assumed that what belonged to one belonged to all. Many indigenous societies to this day cannot conceive of denying a person or a family basic access to food, air, land, water and livelihood. Many modern societies extended the same concept of universal access to the notion of a social Commons, creating education, health care and social security for all members of the community.
At the same time, it is not a return to the notion that Nature's capacity to sustain our ways is unlimited and anyone can use whatever they want, however they want, whenever they want. It is rooted rather in a sober and realistic assessment of the true damage that has already been unleashed on the world's biological heritage as well as in the knowledge that our ecosystems must be managed and shared in a way that protects them now and for all time. A central characteristic of a true Commons is its careful collaborative management by those who use it and allocation of access based on a set of priorities set by the community.
The Earth-centred model also goes beyond Commons law, which is usually interpreted to mean protecting the right of access by the public to certain natural Commons, such as parks and waterfronts, not the Commons itself. The quest is a body of law that recognizes the inherent rights of the environment, other species and water itself outside of their usefulness to humans. Already, some jurisdictions are beginning to enact laws to protect Earth democracy.
The Rights of Nature was the inspiration behind a 2006 ordinance in Tamaqua Borough, Pennsylvania that recognized natural ecosystems and natural communities within the borough as "legal persons" for the purposes of stopping the dumping of sewage sludge on wild land. Earth rights have been used throughout New England in a series of local ordinances to prevent bottled water companies from setting up shop in the area. Residents of Mount Shasta, California successfully campaigned to have an ordinance on a November 2010 election ballot to prevent cloud seeding and bulk water extraction within city limits. Undemocratically, the ballot question was pulled, though it has not deterred the community and their efforts continue for the 2011 election.
In 2006, the Indian Supreme Court ruled that protection of natural lakes and ponds is akin to honouring the right to life - the most fundamental right of all according to the Court. In 2008, Ecuador's citizens voted two-thirds in support of a new constitution that says, "Natural communities and ecosystems possess the unalienable right to exist, flourish and evolve within Ecuador. Those rights shall be self-executing, and it shall be the duty and right of all Ecuadorian governments, communities, and individuals to enforce those rights."
Bolivia has recently amended its constitution to enshrine the philosophy of "living well" as a means of expressing concern with the current model of development and signifying affinity with nature and the need for humans to recognize inherent rights of the Earth and other living beings. The government of Argentina recently moved to protect its glaciers by banning mining and oil drilling in ice zones. The law sets standards for protecting glaciers and surrounding ecosystems and creates penalties for harming the country's fresh water heritage.
Every now and then in history, the human race takes a collective step forward in its evolution. Such a time is upon us now as we begin to understand the urgent need to protect the Earth and its ecosystems from which all life comes. The Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth is a crucial link in this process and will one day stand as the companion to the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights as one of the guiding covenants of our time.
Maude Barlow is the National Chairperson of the Council of Canadians, Chair of the board of Food and Water Watch, as well as an international best-selling author. She has received ten honorary doctorates as well as many awards; including the 2005 Right Liveliehood Award. She served as Senior Advisor on Water to the 63rd President of the United Nations General Assembly.
Posted by Green For All at 4:03 pm
May 13, 2011COMMENT NOW! Oil Executive to Young People: īAs Long I Make Money, I Donīt Care What Happens to Youī
Posted by Green For All on @ 4:03 pmArticle printed from speakeasy: http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasyURL to article: http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2011/05/13/oil-executive-to-young-people-as-long-i-make-money-i-dont-care-what-happens-to-you/?akid=6970.231621.On28oa&rd=1&t=25
Phaedra Ellis-Lamkins is the CEO of Green For All
Cross-posted from Jack & Jill Politics
Quick question: Do you think that tax subsidies for the "big five" oil companies — which earned $32 billion in profit during the first quarter of the year — are more important than the financial aid we give to low-income college students?
My answer: Of course not. Investing in our young people is a far better use of taxpayer dollars than giving handouts to some of the worldīs most profitable corporations. My guess is that you agree.
How does the oil industry feel? Well, they arenīt sure. When asked this question by Senator Schumer at a congressional hearing yesterday, James Mulva, CEO of ConocoPhillips, uncomfortably refused to answer the question.
Additionally, he and his peers from ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron and Shell repeatedly complained about unfair and "discriminatory" treatment, saying that the American people — who face outrageous prices at the gas pump — are unjustly scrutinizing the four billion dollars a year in tax breaks oil companies receive.
Really? Clearly they donīt see or recognize that Americans are facing hardship and unfair challenges every day.
Just ask the young people who may lose their chance to go to college because the House leadership has proposed cuts to the Federal Pell Grant program.
Itīs unfair that more than two-thirds (70%) of Hispanics live in areas that do not meet federal air quality standards for one or more pollutants, according to the National Alliance for Hispanic Health.
Itīs unfair that 1 in 6 African-American children suffer from asthma, and that children of color are more likely to grow up in areas with dangerous levels of ozone.
Itīs unfair the food stamp program is threatened with a 20% cut at a time when so many families are hungry.
I have news for oil companies: There are true injustices occurring on a daily basis in America. Eliminating your tax subsidies is not one them.
Itīs the truth plain and simple; and itīs time we called out these companies. For this opinion, Mr. Mulva would say that I, and the many others who share this view, are "un-American." And, when asked about these comments at the hearing, he refused to apologize for his rhetoric.
Again, really?
During times of crisis, true Americans, especially those in positions of power, ask themselves, "What can I do to help?" Instead, these executives ask themselves, "What can I do to ensure that government keeps helping me?"
Now is the time for government to choose who it serves: the oil companies or everyone else?
This is not a Democratic or Republican issue; itīs about who we are as a country and where we want to go.
Do we want an America based on those timeless values and ideals of fairness and opportunity for all?
Or, do we want a country where the rich play by their own rules, while budgets are balanced on the backs of the middle class and poor?
The answer is clear and itīs time to take action.
Oil companies have been given generous tax breaks for too long; now itīs the American peopleīs turn to have a chance at the American Dream.
Follow Green For All @greenforall (http://twitter.com/greenforall) and Green For All CEO Phaedra Ellis-Lamkins @PhaedraEL (http://twitter.com/PhaedraEL)
A MESSAGE FROM GREENPEACE:
Joseph,
It´s time to quit coal. Tell Edison International CEO Ted Craver to shut down Chicago´s Fisk and Crawford coal-fired power plants.
Community activists in Chicago are fighting for their lives right now against Edison International -- the giant utility company that owns the city´s two coal-fired power plants.
Pollution from the Fisk and Crawford plants prematurely kills 42 people every year. That human cost is paid entirely by the communities who live in the shadows of these two aging plants. You won´t find it on Edison International´s bottom-line.
But Chicagoans are fighting back. And Greenpeace is supporting them. That´s why I´m on the smokestack at the Fisk power plant today taking action with other Greenpeace activists. We´re sending a simple message to Edison International: Shut down these plants and quit coal.
The corporate bottom-line for Edison International says that they can´t make money on these plants if they can´t poison the local community for free. Simple as that. It´s why they´re fighting city efforts to reduce toxic pollution and it´s why they really can´t afford the bad publicity right now. Which is why it´s so important you speak out.
Join us and tell Edison International CEO Ted Craver to shut down Fisk and Crawford.
What´s happening in Chicago isn´t unique. It plays out again and again every day in communities just like yours from Texas to Colorado to Pennsylvania. In fact, coal is costing Americans up to an extra HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS every year. Meanwhile, companies like Edison International are making a killing.
It has to stop and it´s why what these community activists in Chicago are doing is so important.
Edison International can make this change. They´ve already done it in California where their local subsidiary has become the largest purchaser of renewable energy among American utility companies and has plans to phase out ALL coal power by 2016.
Chicago deserves the same. Every community affected by a dirty coal-fired power plant deserves the same. That's why Greenpeace is working and will continue working with communities across the country to make sure that coal companies like Edison International are no longer allowed to poison people for profit.
You can help support these communities by sending a message to Edison International CEO Ted Craver today. Let´s quit coal.
Sincerely,
Kelly Mitchell
Greenpeace Coal Campaigner
P.S. Please forward this to your friends and family.
CUT AND PASTE this message. https://secure3.convio.net/gpeace/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=851
Greenpeace
702 H Street, NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20001 | 1-800-326-0959
You received this mailing because human4us@sympatico.cais subscribed to our mailing list. To change your subscriptions please click here. To change your e-mail address please login to your account here.
We value your privacy. If you have any questions about how we use your information please read our privacy policy.
AlterNet / By Maude Barlow 24 COMMENTS Vision: Nature Needs Rights -- Why Our Human-Centric Model Will Doom Us and the Rest of the Planet
We have built our economic and development policies based on a human-centric model and assumed that nature would never fail to provide or that technology would save us.
May 12, 2011 | LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our Alternet mailing list:
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.
Editorīs Note: The following is excerpted from the recently released book, The Rights of Nature: The case for a Universal Declaration on the rights of Mother Earth, produced by the Council of Canadians, Global Exchange and Fundacion Pachamama. This book reveals the path of a movement driving transformation of our human relationship with nature away from domination and towards balance. This book gathers the wisdom of indigenous cultures, scientists, activists small farmers, spiritual leaders and US communities who seek a different path for protecting nature by establishing Nature's Rights in law and culture. In addition to this excerpt, the book includes essays from Vandana Shiva, Desmond Tutu, Thomas Goldtooth, Eduardo Galeano, and many others. Copies of the book may be obtained through Global Exchange.
The world needs the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth and all humans need to internalize its key principles if the planet, and we, are to survive.
While it is true that many people still live on the land in harmony with the natural cycles of Nature, it is also true that with every passing year, more and more people around the world are moving into the "modern" consumer economy, seeking out a living based on capital exchange and no longer living in sustainable communities and traditional societies. In 2008, the number of city dwellers equalled the number of rural dwellers for the first time in history. By 2030, says the United Nations (UN), more than half the population of the large urban centres in the Global South will be slum dwellers with no access to sanitation. There is a huge scramble by the private companies of the Global North to convert the lands they leave behind into free trade zones to serve a global economy based on the doctrine of economic globalization, unregulated markets, more and cheaper consumer goods and unlimited growth.
Unlimited growth assumes unlimited resources and this is the genesis of the crisis. From fish in the sea, and old growth forests and wetlands, to oil, clean air and water, we are plundering our planet's natural resources. Quite simply, to feed the increasing demands of our consumer-based capitalist system, humans have seen nature as a great resource for our personal convenience and profit, not as a living ecosystem from which all life springs. So we have built our economic and development policies based on a human-centric model and assumed either that nature would never fail to provide or that, where it does fail, technology will save the day.
Even when we recognize the effect of our behavior on the natural world, we pass inadequate laws based on curbing the worst practices, but leave intact the system of economic globalization at the heart of the problem, which gives transnational corporations almost unfettered and unregulated access to the genetic, mineral, timber and water resources of even the most remote parts of the Earth. Thomas Linzey, a U.S. lawyer working to develop the new legal framework to protect Nature, explains that the dominant form of environmental protection in industrialized countries is based on the regulatory system, legalizing the discharge of large amounts of toxic substances into the environment, and is not working. Under a new regime recognizing the Rights of Mother Earth, compensation would not be measured in terms of an injury to people, but according to damage to the ecosystem.
In the absence of such fundamental protections for Nature, political leaders and their big business advisors continue, for instance, to promote international trade and investment agreements that not only limit the ability of domestic governments to protect the natural world for fear such protection may be seen as a "trade barrier," but also award the trade in "green" technology that will be needed to clean up the ecosystems we refuse to protect. If the principles of the Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth were firmly entrenched in international jurisprudence, nation-state constitutions, and the hearts and minds of decision-makers, trade agreements would be very different than they are today and would be built around the need for more local sustainable systems of food and industrial production, and the protection of natural ecosystems.
False solutions
Protecting the Rights of Mother Earth will also challenge the current trend to commodify Nature in the name of a green economy. While there are many definitions of what a green economy could look like that fit very well with an Earth-centred vision, many in power now use the term to essentially protect the current economic system that promotes more growth, production and global trade. There is no need to change our lifestyle or to curb global production and trade, goes the argument; we simply have to replace bad technology with good technology and we can keep our economic and development models intact.
Let's be clear: no amount of talk of green futures, green technology, green jobs and a green economy can undo the fact that most business and nation state leaders, as well as UN and World Bank officials, continue to promote growth as the only economic and development model for the world. Until the growth model is truly challenged, great damage to the Earth's ecosystems will continue. Further, much of their false green vision is based on a market model to save Nature and create new opportunities for growth and profit.
One example of this false vision includes emissions (or carbon) trading. Governments set a cap on greenhouse emissions (ratcheted down over time) and then give away or sell licences to pollute (carbon permits) to major industries that are supposed to add up to the cap. Firms are enabled to buy and sell the licences on the "carbon market," which sets the price for emissions - the carbon price.
Carbon trading, in effect, privatizes the atmosphere, suggesting that the Earth's capacity to regulate its climate can be understood as a measurable commodity that can be bought, sold and traded. It is predicated less on reducing emissions than on the desire to make carbon cuts as cheap as possible for large corporations. It maintains the essence of the current human-centred market model that has led us - and the planet - to the current crisis. Corporations and governments can buy their way out of needed structural changes to energy practice, production and consumption patterns allowing business-as-usual to reign. Success is narrowly measured simply in terms of cost effectiveness, ignoring issues of power, social justice, inequality and community control over local ecosystems.
In the European Union (EU) Emissions Trading System (the world's largest carbon trading scheme) corporate lobbying has seen the over- allocation of permits, free giveaways of permits, and rules which have allowed some of the worst polluters windfall profits while carbon prices fluctuate widely - all undermining needed emission reductions. In other words, carbon trading opens up needed climate action to market volatility, "gaming" and corporate influence. Carbon offsets have also seriously compromised the EU scheme's effectiveness.
Carbon offsets are another form of carbon trading and an example of using the market to do a job that should be legislated. Carbon offsets are a "created commodity" that let consumers (under the voluntary market), corporations and sometimes international financial institutions and governments (under cap and trade systems) to invest in emission savings projects outside of the capped area. It is trading perceived as "good behaviour" - such as investing in a tree plantation far away - on the open market in order to offset their right to continue to pollute. Offsets typically involve a shift from the global North to South where "reductions" are cheapest.
Carbon offsets are a multi-billion dollar poorly regulated industry that permit the growth in trade of all kinds and lulls the public into thinking something real has been done for the planet. The United Nations Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), a "flexible market mechanism" under the Kyoto Protocol, is the world's largest scheme. Since carbon offsets are created against a hypothetical business-as-usual scenario baseline, it is extremely difficult to ensure that the offset credits actually equate to carbon cuts. David Victor, the head of Stanford University's Energy and Sustainable Development Program, has found that "between a third and two-thirds of CDM offsets do not represent actual emission cuts." It is also extremely difficult to demonstrate that emission cuts are additional to what may have happened with offset credit financing. Worse still, there is clear evidence that certain projects applying for the CDM are causing serious social and environmental harm and human rights violations in the Global South. According to Michael Wara of Stanford University, the use of carbon offsets under the EU scheme meant that in 2008 European polluters will have emitted roughly one per cent more than they did in 1990.The now failed U.S. proposals for a cap and trade system would have seen up to two billion tons of offsets per year.
Another example is Payments for Ecological Services (PES), a growing movement endorsed by several major environmental groups, many governments and the private sector, that promotes conservation of natural resources through market mechanisms. "Ecological Services," such as water purification, crop pollination and carbon sequestration, are seen to have a direct dollar benefit to humans; therefore, it is reasoned, it is important to try to put an actual price tag on them. The UN Environment Program has recently done just that, and estimates that ecosystems and the biodiversity that underpins them generate services worth as much as $72 trillion a year - well over the World Gross National Income in 2008 of $58 trillion. The harvest and trade in these "natural capital" services is seen as an integral part of the global economy and so this approach seeks to pull the actual protection of nature into the market economy.
Some PES proponents cite examples that would be well suited to an Earth-centred model. For instance, the U.S. Conservation Reserve Program has for years paid participating farmers to protect their soil and water rather than use harmful chemical pesticides to grow more cash crops. This is not a pure market model, however; rather it is an example of public funds being used to promote diversity and conservation.
But others have a profit model in mind. A market model of PES is an agreement between the "holder" and the "consumer" of an ecosystem service, turning that service into an environmental property right. The consumer pays the holder or owner for protecting the biological diversity of an ecosystem property in accordance with an agreed upon price. Clearly this system privatizes Nature, be it a wetland, lake, forest or mountain, and sets the stage for private accumulation of Nature by those wealthy enough to be able to buy, hoard, sell and trade it. Already, governments and private corporations are studying Public-Private Partnerships to set up lucrative PES projects.
Similarly, there is a strong trend to turn the world's freshwater supplies into a private commodity in the name of conserving it. By turning water into a tradable market good, the case goes, the natural price of it will skyrocket, leading to its conservation. However, the model being promoted is not charging more properly for the true cost of bringing water services to the public or protecting source water, but for the private accumulation of water assets and the hoarding and trading of water. Water trading is growing around the world. Australia converted its water permits to water property rights, with the result that the government now cannot afford to buy back enough water to save the Murray-Darling water basin. Chile actually holds public water auctions and has sold most of its water rights in the South to a private Spanish company.
As well, in the name of a "blue economy," a number of governments and corporations are using their water resources to promote a water-based high tech industry as an incentive to foreign investment and wealth creation. While there is of course a place for water clean-up technology, it will be a tragedy if governments continue to allow the destruction of source water while promoting profit-making water reuse technologies. Already, utility corporations control drinking water services in many poor communities. Billions in the Global South do not have access to clean water simply because they cannot afford it, and many suffer further from water shortages when bottled water companies get long term extraction rights to local water supplies. When private interests control water sources, public oversight is lost as is the ability to manage and protect watersheds. Privatizing water puts watershed health at risk. Commodifying water renders an Earth-centred vision for watersheds and ecosystems unattainable.
An Earth-centred approach
The alternate, Earth-centred model promoted in the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth, would protect biological diversity as a global Commons and a strictly managed and more equitably shared public trust. The Commons approach is very old and based on the notion that common heritages, such as the atmosphere and oceans, freshwater and genetic diversity, cannot "belong" to anyone. In most traditional societies, it was assumed that what belonged to one belonged to all. Many indigenous societies to this day cannot conceive of denying a person or a family basic access to food, air, land, water and livelihood. Many modern societies extended the same concept of universal access to the notion of a social Commons, creating education, health care and social security for all members of the community.
At the same time, it is not a return to the notion that Nature's capacity to sustain our ways is unlimited and anyone can use whatever they want, however they want, whenever they want. It is rooted rather in a sober and realistic assessment of the true damage that has already been unleashed on the world's biological heritage as well as in the knowledge that our ecosystems must be managed and shared in a way that protects them now and for all time. A central characteristic of a true Commons is its careful collaborative management by those who use it and allocation of access based on a set of priorities set by the community.
The Earth-centred model also goes beyond Commons law, which is usually interpreted to mean protecting the right of access by the public to certain natural Commons, such as parks and waterfronts, not the Commons itself. The quest is a body of law that recognizes the inherent rights of the environment, other species and water itself outside of their usefulness to humans. Already, some jurisdictions are beginning to enact laws to protect Earth democracy.
The Rights of Nature was the inspiration behind a 2006 ordinance in Tamaqua Borough, Pennsylvania that recognized natural ecosystems and natural communities within the borough as "legal persons" for the purposes of stopping the dumping of sewage sludge on wild land. Earth rights have been used throughout New England in a series of local ordinances to prevent bottled water companies from setting up shop in the area. Residents of Mount Shasta, California successfully campaigned to have an ordinance on a November 2010 election ballot to prevent cloud seeding and bulk water extraction within city limits. Undemocratically, the ballot question was pulled, though it has not deterred the community and their efforts continue for the 2011 election.
In 2006, the Indian Supreme Court ruled that protection of natural lakes and ponds is akin to honouring the right to life - the most fundamental right of all according to the Court. In 2008, Ecuador's citizens voted two-thirds in support of a new constitution that says, "Natural communities and ecosystems possess the unalienable right to exist, flourish and evolve within Ecuador. Those rights shall be self-executing, and it shall be the duty and right of all Ecuadorian governments, communities, and individuals to enforce those rights."
Bolivia has recently amended its constitution to enshrine the philosophy of "living well" as a means of expressing concern with the current model of development and signifying affinity with nature and the need for humans to recognize inherent rights of the Earth and other living beings. The government of Argentina recently moved to protect its glaciers by banning mining and oil drilling in ice zones. The law sets standards for protecting glaciers and surrounding ecosystems and creates penalties for harming the country's fresh water heritage.
Every now and then in history, the human race takes a collective step forward in its evolution. Such a time is upon us now as we begin to understand the urgent need to protect the Earth and its ecosystems from which all life comes. The Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth is a crucial link in this process and will one day stand as the companion to the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights as one of the guiding covenants of our time.
Maude Barlow is the National Chairperson of the Council of Canadians, Chair of the board of Food and Water Watch, as well as an international best-selling author. She has received ten honorary doctorates as well as many awards; including the 2005 Right Liveliehood Award. She served as Senior Advisor on Water to the 63rd President of the United Nations General Assembly.
Posted by Green For All at 4:03 pm
May 13, 2011COMMENT NOW! Oil Executive to Young People: īAs Long I Make Money, I Donīt Care What Happens to Youī
Posted by Green For All on @ 4:03 pmArticle printed from speakeasy: http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasyURL to article: http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2011/05/13/oil-executive-to-young-people-as-long-i-make-money-i-dont-care-what-happens-to-you/?akid=6970.231621.On28oa&rd=1&t=25
Phaedra Ellis-Lamkins is the CEO of Green For All
Cross-posted from Jack & Jill Politics
Quick question: Do you think that tax subsidies for the "big five" oil companies — which earned $32 billion in profit during the first quarter of the year — are more important than the financial aid we give to low-income college students?
My answer: Of course not. Investing in our young people is a far better use of taxpayer dollars than giving handouts to some of the worldīs most profitable corporations. My guess is that you agree.
How does the oil industry feel? Well, they arenīt sure. When asked this question by Senator Schumer at a congressional hearing yesterday, James Mulva, CEO of ConocoPhillips, uncomfortably refused to answer the question.
Additionally, he and his peers from ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron and Shell repeatedly complained about unfair and "discriminatory" treatment, saying that the American people — who face outrageous prices at the gas pump — are unjustly scrutinizing the four billion dollars a year in tax breaks oil companies receive.
Really? Clearly they donīt see or recognize that Americans are facing hardship and unfair challenges every day.
Just ask the young people who may lose their chance to go to college because the House leadership has proposed cuts to the Federal Pell Grant program.
Itīs unfair that more than two-thirds (70%) of Hispanics live in areas that do not meet federal air quality standards for one or more pollutants, according to the National Alliance for Hispanic Health.
Itīs unfair that 1 in 6 African-American children suffer from asthma, and that children of color are more likely to grow up in areas with dangerous levels of ozone.
Itīs unfair the food stamp program is threatened with a 20% cut at a time when so many families are hungry.
I have news for oil companies: There are true injustices occurring on a daily basis in America. Eliminating your tax subsidies is not one them.
Itīs the truth plain and simple; and itīs time we called out these companies. For this opinion, Mr. Mulva would say that I, and the many others who share this view, are "un-American." And, when asked about these comments at the hearing, he refused to apologize for his rhetoric.
Again, really?
During times of crisis, true Americans, especially those in positions of power, ask themselves, "What can I do to help?" Instead, these executives ask themselves, "What can I do to ensure that government keeps helping me?"
Now is the time for government to choose who it serves: the oil companies or everyone else?
This is not a Democratic or Republican issue; itīs about who we are as a country and where we want to go.
Do we want an America based on those timeless values and ideals of fairness and opportunity for all?
Or, do we want a country where the rich play by their own rules, while budgets are balanced on the backs of the middle class and poor?
The answer is clear and itīs time to take action.
Oil companies have been given generous tax breaks for too long; now itīs the American peopleīs turn to have a chance at the American Dream.
Follow Green For All @greenforall (http://twitter.com/greenforall) and Green For All CEO Phaedra Ellis-Lamkins @PhaedraEL (http://twitter.com/PhaedraEL)
A MESSAGE FROM GREENPEACE:
Joseph,
It´s time to quit coal. Tell Edison International CEO Ted Craver to shut down Chicago´s Fisk and Crawford coal-fired power plants.
Community activists in Chicago are fighting for their lives right now against Edison International -- the giant utility company that owns the city´s two coal-fired power plants.
Pollution from the Fisk and Crawford plants prematurely kills 42 people every year. That human cost is paid entirely by the communities who live in the shadows of these two aging plants. You won´t find it on Edison International´s bottom-line.
But Chicagoans are fighting back. And Greenpeace is supporting them. That´s why I´m on the smokestack at the Fisk power plant today taking action with other Greenpeace activists. We´re sending a simple message to Edison International: Shut down these plants and quit coal.
The corporate bottom-line for Edison International says that they can´t make money on these plants if they can´t poison the local community for free. Simple as that. It´s why they´re fighting city efforts to reduce toxic pollution and it´s why they really can´t afford the bad publicity right now. Which is why it´s so important you speak out.
Join us and tell Edison International CEO Ted Craver to shut down Fisk and Crawford.
What´s happening in Chicago isn´t unique. It plays out again and again every day in communities just like yours from Texas to Colorado to Pennsylvania. In fact, coal is costing Americans up to an extra HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS every year. Meanwhile, companies like Edison International are making a killing.
It has to stop and it´s why what these community activists in Chicago are doing is so important.
Edison International can make this change. They´ve already done it in California where their local subsidiary has become the largest purchaser of renewable energy among American utility companies and has plans to phase out ALL coal power by 2016.
Chicago deserves the same. Every community affected by a dirty coal-fired power plant deserves the same. That's why Greenpeace is working and will continue working with communities across the country to make sure that coal companies like Edison International are no longer allowed to poison people for profit.
You can help support these communities by sending a message to Edison International CEO Ted Craver today. Let´s quit coal.
Sincerely,
Kelly Mitchell
Greenpeace Coal Campaigner
P.S. Please forward this to your friends and family.
CUT AND PASTE this message. https://secure3.convio.net/gpeace/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=851
Greenpeace
702 H Street, NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20001 | 1-800-326-0959
You received this mailing because human4us@sympatico.cais subscribed to our mailing list. To change your subscriptions please click here. To change your e-mail address please login to your account here.
We value your privacy. If you have any questions about how we use your information please read our privacy policy.
Print
Email
