|
COP15
Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 13:33:16 PM PST
|
|
Fifth in a series of interviews with farmers affiliated with La Via Campesina, an alliance of international peasant farmer organizations. This interview was conducted with the assistance of an LVC translator. Also, even if farming isn't your usual interest, I encourage you to read this, on account of how we in the US might soon need to learn a thing or two from the world's peasant farmer and landless peasant movements.
Renaldo Chingore João works a 5-7 acre farm with his family. There, they grow maize, beans and vegetables, keeping 15 cows for meat and milk, as well as draft labor. Though it's a small farm, João and his family don't face the world alone.
They're part of a community that's organized itself for advocacy and mutual support, both within Mozambique and the larger global community of peasant farmers.
|
|
There's More...
:: (0
Comments, 1162 words in story)
|
|
Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 21:43:26 PM PST
|
|
Following the Copenhagen agreement, the group Via Campesina, a global organization of farmers, put out a statement. I've posted it below.
|
|
There's More...
:: (0
Comments, 481 words in story)
|
|
Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 17:35:51 PM PST
|
|
I never thought I would be able to say this but something IS rotten in the state of Denmark. Copenhagen is all over, and we might have just written ourselves a suicide pact. Here's the scoop...
|
|
There's More...
:: (4
Comments, 556 words in story)
|
|
Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 11:13:32 AM PST
|
|
Below, you'll find the draft language of the ag agreement for Copenhagen. Anything in brackets is tentative. It's pretty similar to the previous draft from a few days ago. My take on this (which you can see in full here) is that this paves the way for the U.S. to basically continue business as usual AND for the expansion of industrial ag to the developing world. I say this because the emphasis here is on productivity (yield) and efficiency. That's typically a justification of industrial ag. Furthermore, while they call for sustainability, there are any number of nasty agribiz companies who call their products sustainable when they really aren't.
In addition to this, there's the issue of ag offsets, which Annie Shattuck of Food First writes about, saying:
This comes at the same time that radical proposals to subsidize soil carbon storage (likely through 'biochar', RoundUp Ready GM crops and industrial tree plantations) with carbon offsetting schemes made it back into the draft after having been presumed dead. The proposals would allow wealthy countries to buy carbon credits through the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) instead of reducing emissions at home.
The inclusion of agriculture in the CDM is extremely problematic - transaction costs to participate in the program are high, giving structural advantage to large-scale industrial technologies like GM monocultures. Moreover, a recent civil society study of CDM projects found that 75% did not provide any emissions reductions whatsoever.
All in all - with this along with the bombshell dropped yesterday that the U.S. is shooting for a 3 degree Celsius global temperature increase and 550 ppm CO2 - this is very bad. (Developed countries were previously talking about a 2 degree increase, which Africa was calling a death sentence and developing nations were advocating "1.5 to stay alive." And, of course, the science says we need 350 ppm, NOT 550!)
I've heard via Amy Goodman's show Democracy Now that the U.S. is more or less trying to bribe their way into getting what they want by calling for very lax carbon limits and then offering up $100 billion in aid to developing nations. Developing nations all want a stronger agreement BUT with $100 million per year at stake, they also fear that those who give into the U.S. will get the money - and those who don't, won't.
|
|
There's More...
:: (0
Comments, 362 words in story)
|
|
Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 16:00:00 PM PST
|
The Worldwatch Institute just released a report called "Roadmap to Low-Carbon Energy by 2030." While it doesn't really deal with food or agriculture, it is very interesting and very relevant to what is going on in Copenhagen right now. Here are a few quotes from the report that I found particularly interesting.
Between 1990 and 2007, world gross domestic product increased 156 percent while global energy demand rose 39 percent, pushing up
global CO2 emissions by 38 percent. Were it not for advances in energy efficiency - gains achieved without aggressive policies - the increase in energy use and associated emissions would have been much greater. Even so, more than half of the energy that we consume does not provide us with useful services, and there is enormous potential for improvement in all sectors of the economy.
In 2007, renewable energy provided more than 18 percent of total final energy supply. Solar energy, wind power, and other renewable technologies have experienced double-digit annual growth rates for more than a decade. The renewable share of additional global power generation (excluding large hydropower) jumped from 5 percent in 2003 to 23 percent in 2008, and this ratio is significantly greater in many individual countries.
A recent study revealed that there is an enormous gap between the nation's most and least efficient states and that by simply closing that gap, up to 30 percent of U.S. electricity consumption could be curtailed, displacing more than 60 percent of the nation's coal-fired generation and dramatically reducing national CO2 emissions.
Below you'll find the press release announcing the publication of this report along with a link to download it.
|
|
There's More...
:: (0
Comments, 902 words in story)
|
|
Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 12:00:00 PM PST
|
|
Yesterday, a new group - the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases - was announced in Copenhagen. It will be led by the U.S. and New Zealand (it was New Zealand's idea) but about 20 other countries are participating as well. The goal of this group is "to better understand -- and prevent -- greenhouse-gas emissions from farms." So far so good, right? But the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (whose press release on this is below) is not so sure. They see this as a U.S. effort to throw more money into making the same mistakes we already make. Below the IATP press release, I've also included the USDA press release announcing the alliance.
|
|
There's More...
:: (0
Comments, 1004 words in story)
|
|
Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 10:25:26 AM PST
|
|
Subsidies for Forest Destruction and Land Grabs? Yep... that's the latest I'm hearing from Copenhagen. The idea is that polluters can buy "offsets" - an idea that makes some sense in theory. Get a little bit of carbon OUT of the atmosphere, then put that much carbon INTO the atmosphere, and you break even. Right? Except when offsets are used completely fraudulently, as it seems that they are (and plan to be under this new agreement in Copenhagen). For a basic understanding of this, I HIGHLY recommend watching the short animated online film The Story of Cap and Trade.
The news from a press release I've included below is that Copenhagen is paving the way for carbon offsets (called CDMs or Clean Development Mechanisms in the language of the agreement) that are totally bogus. This is very bad.
|
|
There's More...
:: (0
Comments, 718 words in story)
|
|
Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 17:52:03 PM PST
|
|
Here's the actual draft language on ag from the Copenhagen agreement that I received. Anything in brackets is tentative. Word on the street is that this is already out of date, and in the newest version, the ag offsets are back in. I will keep following this to post whatever I learn.
|
|
There's More...
:: (2
Comments, 372 words in story)
|
|
Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 13:47:39 PM PST
|
|
I've just received a draft version of the agriculture section of the agreement in Copenhagen. The document has a number of items in still up for debate, which are noted in brackets. Here's what they've got:
First off, they call for increasing efficiency and productivity in a sustainable manner. This worries me, because "sustainable" has become a very fungible word. In other words, it gets thrown around a lot and applied to things that are NOT sustainable at all. Also, this language reaffirms the idea that yield and efficiency are all that matter. More food! More food! What we need is healthy food and equitable distribution. Yes, we need to have enough for all of us, but we DO have enough for all of us and we still have record numbers of hungry people. And among those who have enough (or too much) to eat, we have epidemic health problems. So clearly, we're missing something there.
Next up, they say they recognize the interests of small and marginal farmers, the rights of indigenous people and traditional knowledge and practices. THAT is awesome. They also plan to take into account the link between agriculture and food security, and they plan to make sure that the agreement to reduce emissions and combat global warming will not adversely affect food security. Cool! There's also an up-for-negotiation point in there recognizing the problem of land degradation. So that one might not make it into the final agreement.
The next point kind of sucks. They have a bit in there about international trade, basically noting that the climate agreement shouldn't mess with international trade. Given that international trade is the cause of so many agricultural problems in the first place, this isn't something I find reassuring. I worry that free trade orthodoxy will mean that nations will be prohibited from enacting meaningful carbon laws and then importing their food from countries with lax, pollution-promoting laws instead.
After that, they make a point that's kind of the meat of the whole agreement. All parties who sign on should work on reducing man-made emissions of greenhouse gases, especially when they can do so while also improving agricultural productivity in a sustainable manner. They may or may not include bits specifying that the efforts to reduce greenhouse gases should also safeguard food security and livelihoods security. That remains to be seen.
My hunch is that the language here is loose enough that the U.S. could sign on and still stick to business as usual while claiming they are trying to improve productivity and sustainability. This also paves the way for the expansion of industrial agriculture into the developing world. Yuck.
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 11:40:21 AM PST
|
The latest from Copenhagen comes from the the G77, a group of 77 developing nations that includes India and China. According to Annie Shattuck of Food First:
The U.S has indicated it would support limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius, a level that the top UN scientific body, the IPCC, says would effectively warm Africa 3.5 degrees on average - a level of warming the G77 is now calling a "death sentence."
I have to say I agree with Africa on that. The G77 is calling for limiting temperature increases to 1.5 degrees Celsius. As Annie notes, this has a lot to do with food:
The demand - "1.5 to Stay Alive" - is especially salient in the context of the food crisis. Without significant, genuine, immediate action, the world's food systems, and especially those of Africa, will suffer significant water shortages and crop failure. With over 1 billion hungry people in the world, "1.5 to Stay Alive" is an imperative we cannot afford to underestimate.
In an email to me, Annie also said "Ag is getting fast-tracked and the text on it will be sealed by tonight." In other words, stay tuned for news about agriculture in Copenhagen.
|
|
Discuss
:: (3
Comments)
|
|
Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 22:15:22 PM PST
|
|
The entire world's eyes are on Copenhagen this week, and I've been following along via Amy Goodman's show, Grist, and updates from friends who are there.
|
|
There's More...
:: (3
Comments, 750 words in story)
|
|
|
|
|
|