From: Jaap Rijnsburger [mailto:jaap@...]


Dear Friends and Colleagues,

Please find below an inspiring reflection on the Poznan conference by a
leading evironmentalist from the developing world, Sunita Narain, Director
of
CSE Centre for Science and Environment in India. In my opinion her
reflection provides a very useful perspective for our own stand as I-CE in
the
climate debate. Her sharp analysis is that everyone -also civil society- in
the
developed world now accepts that home reduction targets are predominantly
met by purchase of CO2 credits created in the developing world. Also I-CE
policies could be understood in this way, particularly the Cycling Lab
ambition to create a validation method for substituted vehicle emissions by
cycling mobility. Once certified as CER or VER (still a long way to go!), we

believe a Dutch enterprise like KLM is a perfect match to buy cycling
generated CO2 credits from municipalities investing in cycling, and so
provide municipal finance for that investment. There we are, supported by
Dutch civil society we facilitate the creation of CO2 credits for
municipalities
in Asia, Africa and LAC to be bought by KLM so that we can meet European
reduction targets and still continue flying abundantly! Is it really as
absurd as
it sounds? Not if we take Sunita's analysis serious and apply it in our
development of an I-CE climate policy. What do we have for such I-CE
policy?

First of all we have a big asset at the basis of I-CE's very existence and
actions: we are cyclists ourselves in a country where 30% of mobility is by
bicycle. Everyone visiting I-CE's web space and premises should be able to
read the CO2 value of our cycling culture. This is our climate profile: we
practise zero-emission and act as Dutch citizens to maintain this voluminous

substitution of Dutch vehicle emissions. And, how much is the substitution?
A provisional answer will soon come out of the newly started Cycling Lab
project assessing the BPP climate footprint. The project is further meant to

generate ideas and actions to reduce the BPP footprint, particularly in the
international flying.

Secondly, the purpose of creating cycling based credits is driven by the
interests of municipalities in the developing world, not by the interests of

KLM. Sunita uses the example of forests to make clear that the demand for
sinks and sellable credits can lead to overruling of indigenous development
values. In our case I don't believe we run this risk, because of our
participative approach the local use of cycling infrastructure becomes an
indigenous value in itself. At least that is an outcome we monitor in the
BPP.

Thirdly, in our work we strongly contribute to a paradigm shift in the
thinking
on urban transport and climate change: from vehicle orientation to people
orientation. The current vehicle paradigm is obvious, climate strategies are

geared towards lower-emitting engines (in vehicles) and not towards more
effective mobility choices (by people). The international lobby group we
partake in to promote sustainable transport is by its nature also
preoccupied
by vehicles: busses. Bicycle-fed bussystems are definitely a solution to be
promoted in the climate arena, but as I-CE we are in the position to add
another dimension: people's mobility choices. We interact with civil society

organisations promoting and practicing sustainable mobility choices; we
practice these sustainable mobility choices ourselves. And the challenge is,

ambition if you like, to develop and lobby mechanisms that give hard credit
to peoples' sustainable mobility choices. Development of a people oriented
credit mechanism for cycling mobility is one of the objectives of the
Cycling-
lab which comes into operation this year. A people oriented credit
mechanism will also solve an irritating aspect of the vehicle paradigm:
emission reductions are measured at the exhaust but bicycles don't have
one.

Happy new year,

Jaap

=============================
Editorial: 2009 is full of promise (By Sunita Narain)
=============================

I spent a week at the climate change conference in Poznan, and realized the
world is in deep trouble and deeper denial. Worse, the denial is now
entirely
on the side of action. It is well accepted that climate change is a reality.

Scientists say we need to cap temperature increases at 2°C to avoid
catastrophe, which means capping emissions at 450 ppm. We know global
average temperatures have already increased by 0.8°C and there is enough
greenhouse gas in the atmosphere to lead to another 0.8°C increase. There
is still a window of opportunity, a tiny one, to tackle the crisis.

But where´s the action? In the 1990s, when the world did even not
understand, let alone accept, the crisis, it was more willing to move to
tackle
climate change. Today, we are in reverse gear. The rich world has realized
it
is easy to talk big, but tough to take steps to actually reduce emissions.
The
agreement was that these countries would reduce so that the developing
world could increase. Instead, between 1990 and 2006, their carbon dioxide
emissions increased by a whopping 14.5 per cent; even green countries of
Europe are unable to match words with action.

So it was that, at the Poznan conference, rich countries aggressively pushed

a new climate-tack. They cannot reduce at home, so they have decided to
find every way to (1) `offset´their fossil fuel emissions by buying emission

reduction certificates in developing countries; or (2) pay to protect
emission-
absorbing forests; or (3) simply pump their carbon deep into the ground.
Indeed, every dirty way not to cut, but to pay, bribe and cajole others to
cut
will do. Then if all this fails there is the easy fallback: use China and
India as
punching bags as well as excuses for not taking on hard reductions at
home.

In Poznan the effort was to devise a mechanism to pay developing countries
to `avoid´ deforestation. Why? Because the Nick Stern report said 20 per
cent of the world´s emissions were from deforestation in the developing
world. Now, this has become a quick-fix solution: stop deforestation and
take a 20 per cent advantage in our carbon balance sheet, without doing
anything at home.

As a result the mechanism, in negotiators´ parlance called REDD or
`reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation´ - naturally,
in
developing countries - is being built with absolutely no understanding that
forests here are not mere carbon sticks to beat the world´s conscience with,

or sinks for garbage carbon, but habitats of millions of people. There is no

comprehension of the role forests play in a developing country´s economy or
in people´s lives. Instead, the intent is misbegotten and single-minded: pay

as cheaply as possible to buy rights over forests in the developing world
and
build as many accounting and certification procedures as possible to make
sure there are no `leakages´ in the transaction. It is clearly a great
business
for the crashed and failed consultancy companies of the western world -
creative carbon accounting, this time in the forests of the poor. So, this
opportunity, which could have enjoined the interests of forest-economies
and its people to plant, protect and manage forests so that the world would
in addition get the benefit of reducing emissions, is being lost to the
self-
interest of greedy polluters.

But this is not enough. The world´s addiction to fossil fuel is increasing.
So,
at Poznan, the second move was to aggressively push for carbon capture
and storage (CCS) technologies - a delicious but still experimental and
expensive way to bury carbon dioxide emitted from power plants deep
underground - to be used, naturally, in the developing world. Rich
countries-
and, interestingly, their civil society - piled on to include this
technology in
the Clean Development Mechanism. Now the developed world, instead of
cutting emissions at home, would simply buy carbon credits to invest in this

technology in the developing world. More seriously, we would become
guinea pigs, for very little is still known of CCS´s risks and viability. As
a
Venezuelan delegate at the plenary asked, why, if this was such a great
technology, was the developed world not building more CCS plants in its
own backyard.

But why ask? Just look at the European Union´s much awaited climate
package, tactically released on the last day of the Poznan conference. It
has
a grand 20/20/20 objective - 20 per cent reduction in emissions by 2020,
over its 1990 levels; 20 per cent renewables and 20 per cent energy
efficiency target. But what the package forgets to highlight is that 80 per
cent
of these targets will be achieved through `offsets´ - payments for action
abroad. In all this, let us not even begin to discuss the Australian
government´s gutless climate policy, ironically of the new Labour
government, which came to power on a climate vote, released in the week
post-Poznan.

The gloves are off. There are also no real game-changers here. Today,
western media, civil society and all its well-meaning and not-so-retired
climate converts (Tony Blair to Al Gore and Nick Stern and others) have all
bought this position - hook, line and sinker. They are madly running around
the world convincing Indians and Chinese to change their behaviours and
join the game. They all don´t speak of their country emissions. They only
use our black smoke as their shield.

My cynical, year-end, response is maybe Indians and Chinese should join
the party and take on emission reduction targets. Best to be on the drinking

side; best to be so emission-tipsy that there is little to do. We, too,
could play
the same non-solution: emit madly but pay and fix others to clean up.

But this is not acceptable. Let´s work on a new future, 2009 on. This is my
promise.

Read this editorial online >>
http://www.downtoearth.org.in/cover_nl.asp?mode=1
To comment, write to >> feedback@...

==============
Also read >>
Interview: Guy Ryder, general secretary of the International Trade Union
Confederation, went to Poznan to attend his first UN climate meet. He sees
green opportunity in the financial crisis.
Read the full interview: http://www.downtoearth.org.in/cover_nl.asp?mode=2

Climate inaction: The climate talks in Poznan failed on all counts. Read the

first-hand report on the shenanigans of the still climate-indifferent world
http://www.downtoearth.org.in/cover_nl.asp?mode=3

=============================