Jump to content
Green Blog

Simon

Administrators
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,912

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    60

 Content Type 

Blog Entries posted by Simon

  2. Simon
    This is the full text of Hugo Chavez’s speech at the December 2009 Copenhagen climate conference. In the speech Chavez linked climate change and capitalism, saying if the climate were a bank, they [the rich governments] would already have saved it. Translation by Kiraz Janicke.

    - - - -
    Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen, Excellencies, friends, I promise that I will not talk more than most have spoken this afternoon. Allow me an initial comment which I would have liked to make as part of the previous point which was expressed by the delegations of Brazil, China, India, and Bolivia. We were there asking to speak but it was not possible. Bolivia’s representative said, my salute of course to Comrade President Evo Morales, who is there, President of the Republic of Bolivia.

    [Audience applause]

    She said among other things the following, I noted it here, she said the text presented is not democratic, it is not inclusive.

    I had hardly arrived and we were just sitting down when we heard the president of the previous session, the minister, saying that a document came about, but nobody knows, I’ve asked for the document, but we still don’t have it, I think nobody knows of that top secret document.

    Now certainly, as the Bolivian comrade said, that is not democratic, it is not inclusive. Now, ladies and gentlemen, isn’t that just the reality of the world? Are we in a democratic world? Is the global system inclusive? Can we hope for something democratic, inclusive from the current global system?

    What we are experiencing on this planet is an imperial dictatorship, and from here we continue denouncing it. Down with imperial dictatorship! And long live the people and democracy and equality on this planet!

    [Audience applause]

    And what we see here is a reflection of this: Exclusion.

    There is a group of countries that consider themselves superior to us in the South, to us in the Third World, to us, the underdeveloped countries, or as a great friend Eduardo Galeano says, we, the crushed countries, as if a train ran over us in history.

    In light of this, it’s no surprise that there is no democracy in the world and here we are again faced with powerful evidence of global imperial dictatorship. Then two youths got up here, fortunately the enforcement officials were decent, some push around, and they collaborated right? There are many people outside, you know? Of course, they do not fit in this room, they are too many people. I’ve read in the news that there were some arrests, some intense protests, there in the streets of Copenhagen, and I salute all those people out there, most of them youth.

    [Audience applause]

    Of course young people are concerned, I think rightly much more than we are, for the future of the world. We have – most of us here – the sun on our backs, and they have to face the sun and are very worried.

    One could say, Mr. President, that a spectre is haunting Copenhagen, to paraphrase Karl Marx, the great Karl Marx, a spectre is haunting the streets of Copenhagen, and I think that spectre walks silently through this room, walking around among us, through the halls, out below, it rises, this spectre is a terrible spectre almost nobody wants to mention it: Capitalism is the spectre, almost nobody wants to mention it.

    [Audience applause]

    It’s capitalism, the people roar, out there, hear them.

    I have been reading some of the slogans painted on the streets, and I think those slogans of these youngsters, some of which I heard when I was young, and of the young woman there, two of which I noted. You can hear among others, two powerful slogans. One: Don’t change the climate, change the system.

    [Audience applause]

    And I take it onboard for us. Let’s not change the climate, let’s change the system! And consequently we will begin to save the planet. Capitalism is a destructive development model that is putting an end to life; it threatens to put a definitive end to the human species.

    And another slogan calls for reflection. It is very in tune with the banking crisis that swept the world and still affects it, and of how the rich northern countries gave aid to bankers and the big banks. The U.S . alone gave, well, I lost the figure, but it is astronomical, to save the banks.They say in the streets the following: If the climate were a bank it would have been saved already.

    [Audience applause]

    And I think that’s true. If the climate were one of the biggest capitalist banks, the rich governments would have saved it.

    I think Obama has not arrived. He received the Nobel Peace Prize almost the same day that he sent 30 thousand soldiers to kill more innocents in Afghanistan, and now he comes to stand here with the Nobel Peace Prize, the president of the United States.

    But the United States has the machinery to make money, to make dollars, and has saved, well, they believe they have saved the banks and the capitalist system. Well, this is a side comment that I wanted to make previously. We were raising our hand to accompany Brazil, India, Bolivia, China, in their interesting position that Venezuela and the countries of the Bolivarian Alliance firmly share. But hey, they didn’t let us speak, so do not count these minutes please, Mr. President.

    [Audience applause]

    Look, over there I met, I had the pleasure of meeting this French author Hervé Kempf. Recommending this book, I recommend it, it is available in Spanish – there is Hervé – its also in French, and surely in English, How the Rich are Destroying the Planet. This is what Christ said: it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. This is what our lord Christ said.

    [Audience applause]

    The rich are destroying the planet. Do they think the can go to another when they destroy this one? Do they have plans to go to another planet? So far there is none on the horizon of the galaxy.

    This book has just reached me, Ignacio Ramonet gave it to me, and he is also around somewhere in this room. Finishing the prologue or the preamble this phrase is very important, Kempf says the following, I’ll read it:

    “We can not reduce global material consumption if we don’t make the powerful go down several levels, and if we don’t combat inequality. It is necessary that to the ecological principle that is so useful at the time of becoming conscious, ‘think globally and act locally,’ we add the principle that the situation imposes: ‘Consume less and share better.’”

    I think it is good advice that this French author Hervé Kempf gives us.

    [Audience applause]

    Well then, Mr. President, climate change is undoubtedly the most devastating environmental problem of this century. Floods, droughts, severe storms, hurricanes, melting ice caps, rise in mean sea levels, ocean acidification and heat waves, all of that sharpens the impact of global crisis besetting us.

    Current human activity exceeds the threshold of sustainability, endangering life on the planet, but also in this we are profoundly unequal.

    I want to recall: the 500 million richest people, 500 million, this is seven percent, seven percent, seven percent of the world’s population. This seven percent is responsible, these 500 million richest people are responsible for 50 percent of emissions, while the poorest 50 percent accounts for only seven percent of emissions.

    So it strikes me as a bit strange to put the United States and China at the same level. The United States has just, well; it will soon reach 300 million people. China has nearly five times the U.S. population. The United Status consumes more than 20 million barrels of oil a day, China only reaches 5-6 million barrels a day, you can’t ask the same of the United States and China.

    There are issues to discuss, hopefully we the heads of states and governments can sit down and discuss the truth, the truth about these issues.

    So, Mr. President, 60 percent of the planet’s ecosystems are damaged, 20 percent of the earth’s crust is degraded, we have been impassive witnesses to deforestation, land conversion, desertification, deterioration of fresh water systems, overexploitation of marine resources, pollution and loss of biodiversity.

    The overuse of the land exceeds by 30 percent the capacity to regenerate it. The planet is losing what the technicians call the ability to regulate itself; the planet is losing this. Every day more waste than can be processed is released. The survival of our species hammers in the consciousness of humanity. Despite the urgency, it has taken two years of negotiations for a second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol, and we attend this event without any real and meaningful agreement.

    And indeed, on the text that comes from out of the blue, as some have called it, Venezuela says, and the ALBA countries, the Bolivarian Alliance say that we will not accept, since then we’ve said it, any other texts that do not come from working groups under the Kyoto Protocol and the Convention. They are the legitimate texts that we have been discussing so intensely over the years.

    [Audience applause]

    And in these last few hours, I believe you have not slept, plus you have not eaten, you have not slept. It does not seem logical to me to come out now with a document from scratch, as you say.

    The scientifically substantiated objective of reducing the emission of polluting gases and achieving an agreement on long-term cooperation clearly, today at this time, has apparently failed, for now.

    What is the reason? We have no doubt.

    The reason is the irresponsible attitude and lack of political will from the most powerful nations on the planet. No one should feel offended, I recall the great José Gervasio Artigas when he said: “With the truth, I neither offend nor fear.” But it is actually an irresponsible attitude of positions, of reversals, of exclusions, of elitist management of a problem that belongs to everyone and that we can only solve together.

    The political conservatism and selfishness of the largest consumers, of the richest countries shows high insensitivity and lack of solidarity with the poor, the hungry, and the most vulnerable to disease, to natural disasters. Mr. President, a new and single agreement is essential, applicable to absolutely unequal parties, according to the magnitude of their contributions and economic, financial and technological capabilities and based on unconditional respect for the principles contained in the Convention.

    Developed countries should set binding, clear and concrete commitments for the substantial reduction of their emissions and assume obligations of financial and technological assistance to poor countries to cope with the destructive dangers of climate change. In this respect, the uniqueness of island states and least developed countries should be fully recognized.

    Mr. President, climate change is not the only problem facing humanity today. Other scourges and injustices beset us, the gap between rich and poor countries has continued to grow, despite all the millennium goals, the Monterrey financing summit, at all these summits as the President of Senegal said here, revealing a great truth, there are promises and unfulfilled promises and the world continues its destructive march.

    The total income of the 500 richest individuals in the world is greater than the income of the 416 million poorest people. The 2.8 billion people living in poverty on less than $2 per day, representing 40 per percent of the global population, receive only 5 percent of world income.

    Today each year about 9.2 million children die before reaching their fifth year and 99.9 percent of these deaths occur in poorer countries.

    Infant mortality is 47 deaths per thousand live births, but is only 5 per thousand in rich countries. Life expectancy on the planet is 67 years, in rich countries it is 79, while in some poor nations is only 40 years.

    Additionally, there are 1.1 billion people without access to drinking water, 2.6 billion without sanitation services, over 800 million illiterate and 1.02 billion hungry people, that’s the global scenario.

    Now the cause, what is the cause?

    Let’s talk about the cause, let’s not evade responsibilities, and let’s not evade the depth of this problem. The cause, undoubtedly, I return to the theme of this whole disastrous panorama, is the destructive metabolic system of capital and its embodied model: Capitalism.

    Here’s a quote that I want to read briefly, from that great liberation theologian Leonardo Boff, as we know a Brazilian, our American. Leonardo Boff says on this subject as follows:

    “What is the cause? Ah, the cause is the dream of seeking happiness through material accumulation and of endless progress, using for this science and technology with which they can exploit without limits all the resources of the earth.”

    And he cites here Charles Darwin and his “natural selection”, the survival of the fittest, but we know that the strongest survive over the ashes of the weakest.

    Jean Jacques Rousseau, we must always remember, said that between the strong and the weak, freedom is oppressed. That’s why the Empire speaks of freedom; it’s the freedom to oppress, to invade, to kill, to annihilate, and to exploit. That is their freedom, and Rousseau adds this saving phrase: “Only the law liberates.”

    There are countries that are hoping that no document comes out of here precisely because they do not want a law, do not want a standard, because the absence of these norms allows them to play at their exploitative freedom, their crushing freedom.

    We must make an effort and pressure here and in the streets, so that a commitment comes out of here, a document that commits the most powerful countries on earth.

    [Audience applause]

    Well, Mr. President, Leonardo Boff asks… Have you met Boff? I do not know whether Leonardo might come, I met him recently in Paraguay, we’ve always read him.

    Can a finite earth support an infinite project? The thesis of capitalism, infinite development, is a destructive pattern, let’s face it.

    Then Boff asks us, what might we expect from Copenhagen? At least this simple confession: We can not continue like this. And a simple proposition: Let’s change course. Let’s do it, but without cynicism, without lies, without double agendas, no documents out of the blue, with the truth out in the open.

    How long, we ask from Venezuela, Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen, how long are we going to allow such injustices and inequalities? How long are we going to tolerate the current international economic order and prevailing market mechanisms? How long are we going to allow huge epidemics like HIV/AIDS to ravage entire populations? How long are we going to allow the hungry to not eat or to be able to feed their own children? How long are we going to allow millions of children to die from curable diseases? How long will we allow armed conflicts to massacre millions of innocent human beings in order for the powerful to seize the resources of other peoples?

    Cease the aggressions and the wars! We the peoples of the world ask of the empires, to those who try to continue dominating the world and exploiting us. No more imperial military bases or military coups! Let’s build a more just and equitable economic and social order, let’s eradicate poverty, let’s immediately stop the high emission levels, let’s stop environmental degradation and avoid the great catastrophe of climate change, let’s integrate ourselves into the noble goal of everyone being more free and united.

    Mr. President, almost two centuries ago, a universal Venezuelan, a liberator of nations and precursor of consciences left to posterity a full-willed maxim: “If nature opposes us, let’s fight against it and make it obey us.” That was Simón Bolívar, the Liberator.

    From Bolivarian Venezuela, where a day like today some ten years ago, ten years exactly, we experienced the biggest climate tragedy in our history (the Vargas tragedy it is called), from this Venezuela whose revolution tries to win justice for all people, we say it is only possible through the path of socialism!

    Socialism, the other spectre Karl Marx spoke about, which walks here too, rather it is like a counter-spectre. Socialism, this is the direction, this is the path to save the planet, I don’t have the least doubt. Capitalism is the road to hell, to the destruction of the world. We say this from Venezuela, which because of socialism faces threats from the U.S. Empire.

    From the countries that comprise ALBA, the Bolivarian Alliance, we call, and I want to, with respect, but from my soul, call in the name of many on this planet, we say to governments and peoples of the Earth, to paraphrase Simón Bolívar, the Liberator: If the destructive nature of capitalism opposes us, let’s fight against it and make it obey us, let’s not wait idly by for the death of humanity.

    History calls on us to unite and to fight.

    If capitalism resists, we are obliged to take up a battle against capitalism and open the way for the salvation of the human species. It’s up to us, raising the banners of Christ, Mohammed, equality, love, justice, humanity, the true and most profound humanism. If we don’t do it, the most wonderful creation of the universe, the human being, will disappear, it will disappear.

    This planet is billions of years old, and this planet existed for billions of years without us, the human species, i.e. it doesn’t need us to exist. Now, without the Earth we will not exist, and we are destroying Pachamama as Evo says, as our indigenous brothers from South America say.

    Finally, Mr. President, and to finish, let’s listen to Fidel Castro when he said: “One species is in danger of extinction: Humanity.”

    Let’s listen to Rosa Luxemburg when she said: “Socialism or Barbarism.”

    Let us listen to Christ the Redeemer when he said: “Blessed are the poor for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”

    Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen, we are capable of not making this Earth the tomb of humanity. Let us make this earth a heaven, a heaven of life, of peace, peace and brotherhood for all humanity, for the human species.

    Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much and enjoy your meal.

    [Audience applause]
  3. Simon
    Martin Fredriksson spräcker hål på Sverigedemokraternas högerextrema våldtäktsmyter:

    "Inför valet 2010 tog Sverigedemokraterna fram en rapport om ”våldtäktsvågen” i Sverige, och pekade ut invandrare som skyldiga. Men majoriteten av dem som förekommer i våldtäktsmål har ”svenska” namn som Mikael eller Andreas. Sexuella övergrepp är inte ett integrationsproblem – ändå har de konspiratoriska fördomarna fått fäste hos långt fler än redan frälsta högerextremister," skriver Martin Fredriksson från Researchgruppen.

    Läs artikeln här: http://goo.gl/ze6qi

    Bilden visar de vanligaste namnen i våldtäktsmål.
  4. Simon
    Uppmana Naturvårdsverkets generaldirektör Maria Ågren om att omedelbart stoppa licensjakten på varg!

    Naturvårdsverket trotsar EU och den svenska folkopinionen genom sitt beslut om en genetisk rensningsjakt på varg.

    Beslutet om att skjuta 16 vargar innebär en oförsvarlig och oetisk vargjakt i åtta revir i vinter. Jakten är planerad på ett sätt som lär göra många valpar föräldralösa och de riskerar att svälta ihjäl. Ta en sista chans att påverka Naturvårdsverket och protestera mot vargjakten här.
  5. Simon
    Since a while back website owners are required by EU law to offer clear information about the use of cookies on the website to its users. It's a stupid and pointless law. But Greenpeace has found a fun way to notify their visitors about all this:

    "This site uses cookies -- tiny bits of code that help us keep track of your interests and auto-fill petitions. We also use cookies to improve site performance and find better ways to make it easier for you to take action and make change. The European Union has decided that rather than safeguard your future with aggressive laws on carbon emissions, that they were going to crack down on this major threat to civilization: the cookie. Sure, cookies can be abused by sites that use them for marketing. But not us. So say yes to our cookies. And tell the EU to do better things with their power, like looking after the planet."

    Click on the image to make it bigger.
  6. Simon
    Al Jazeera acquires Al Gore's Current TV cable network, reports Forbes and the New York Times.

    Al Jazeera is apparently planning to scrap the programming lineup and replace the Current brand with a new network called Al Jazeera America which will have a focus on international news. Forbes has also published Current CEO Joel Hyatt's memo about the purchase, in which the CEO touts Al Jazeera's journalistic work:

    "We were impressed with all that we learned about Al Jazeera and its journalistic integrity, global reach, award-winning programming, and growing influence around the world."

    Current was cute when it was first launched. But today it’s been turned into an overly biased and pathetic "news" channel. So Current shutting down is great news in my opinion. I am confident that Al Jazeera will - with their unbiased, unique, and refreshing perspective of world events - bring the best journalism one can find today to US viewers. Just like the Qatar-based news broadcaster has done for viewers around the world with their international channel.
  7. Simon
    COP28 was close to falling apart. But after two weeks of deliberations, the nearly 200 countries participating in the COP28 climate summit finally agreed on a climate deal. The deal has been lauded as an historic agreement – but critics say that the deal contains too many loopholes.
    More than 130 countries, countless of scientists and civil society groups had urged for the agreement to include an explicit commitment to “phase out” fossil fuels. But ultimately, the agreement reached was a compromise and the text only calls for countries to “transition away” from fossil fuels. And the COP28 climate agreement is truly historic. It is, after all, the very first climate agreement that even mentions fossil fuels. And that alone shows just how far behind we – as a collective – are when it comes to taking meaningful climate action.
    “We have delivered a robust action plan to keep 1.5C in reach,” said Sultan Ahmed al-Jaber, the president of COP28 this year (who also just happens to be the head of UAE's state-owned oil company). “It is an enhanced, balanced, but make no mistake, a historic package to accelerate climate action. It is the UAE consensus. We have language on fossil fuel in our final agreement for the first time ever.”
    But critics are not as jubilant. The Alliance of Small Island States, representing 39 countries at the summit, said in a response that “the process has failed us” and that the deal included a “litany of loopholes”. But the alliance did not formally object to the agreement. “We have made an incremental advancement over business as usual when what we really needed is an exponential step change in our actions and support,” the alliance’s lead negotiator, Anne Rasmussen, said.
    The COP28 text calls for “transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner, accelerating action in this critical decade, so as to achieve net zero by 2050 in keeping with the science.” The deal calls on countries to work toward “accelerating efforts towards the phase-down of unabated coal power.”
    A commitment to “phase down” is clearly a much weaker language than one to “phase out” dirty coal power. And by using the word “unabated” for fossil fuels – such as coal and oil – could introduce dangerous loopholes for polluters. It allows countries and companies to continue to invest in and burn dirty fossil fuels, just as long as they pair it with new and unproven technologies that (hopefully) can capture and store most of the dangerous greenhouse gas emissions. The COP28 agreement also continues to allow countries to use “transitional fuels”, such as natural gas, that also emits dangerous greenhouse gas emissions.
    The COP28 deal also includes a call for tripling the use of renewable energy and doubling energy efficiency.
    United Nations Climate Secretary Simon Stiell cautioned delegates at the conference that what they adopted was a “climate action lifeline, not a finish line.”
    To be able to stay within the 1.5C target, the COP28 deal projects – or rather, it hopes – that the world’s carbon pollution will peak in just two years. After the year 2025, the world’s carbon emissions must fall.
    And if this doesn't happen, if our carbon emissions do not start to sharply fall, then we will move into an unknown and extremely dangerous future.
    The world, on average, is now about 1.2C degrees hotter than it was before the industrial revolution. And our emissions keep growing at a rapid pace. It thus seems highly unlikely that the world’s emissions will peak in just two years when the emission curve is constantly going up.
    Both climate scientists Pierre Friedlingstein and Johan Rockström sees it as "extremely unlikely" that the world will meet the 1.5C target. “We need a corona reduction every year for 30 years. That is the size of our transition,” Friedlingstein said in an interview that took place during the COP28 conference. Prof Johan Rockström, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, said in a response to the COP28 agreement: “No, the Cop28 agreement will not enable the world to hold the 1.5C limit, but yes, the result is a pivotal landmark. This agreement delivers on making it clear to all financial institutions, businesses and societies that we are now finally – eight years behind the Paris schedule – at the true ‘beginning of the end’ of the fossil fuel-driven world economy.”
    Following the agreement, the UN secretary general, António Guterres, tweeted: “Whether you like it or not, fossil fuel phase-out is inevitable. Let’s hope it doesn’t come too late.”
    Yes, for all our sake, let’s hope it really isn’t too late.
  8. Simon
    Today, the annual United Nations climate conference starts. From today and all the way through December 12th, thousands of people – including government leaders and representatives, business officials, scientists, and activists – will gather at COP28 in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, to discuss and agree on policies aimed at staving off the growing threats of climate change.
    COP28 is the 28th annual “Conference of the Parties”. But not all top government officials will attend the conference this time around. Among the top three emitters of greenhouse gases, only India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi is expected to attend the conference. Chinese President Xi Jinping will not attend the conference. And US President Joe Biden has announced that he will not travel to the COP28 climate summit. Instead, U.S. climate envoy John Kerry will lead the US delegation. According to Biden's schedule, he will instead meet the Angolan president and carry out a ceremonial Christmas tree lighting.
    So, what will the delegates discuss and what kind of outcomes are expected? 
    The first “global stocktake” is expected to be released following the conference. This is supposed to be the first assessment since the Paris Climate Accord in 2015, and it will evaluate how participating nations are doing in efforts to keep global temperature rise below 1.5 degrees Celsius, as agreed in Paris, France, during COP21.
    Spoiler: they are not doing that well.
    Global emissions and temperatures are still rising rapidly, and we are starting to reach the “tipping points” for irreversible and runaway climate disaster. According to a new report that the UN Meteorological Organization WMO released today, 2023 will be the hottest year on record – and next year is expected to be even worse.
    “Record global heating should send shivers down the spines of world leaders. And it should trigger them to act,” UN chief António Guterres said. “We have the roadmap to limit the rise in global temperature to 1.5 degrees Celsius and avoid the worst of climate chaos. But we need leaders to fire the starting gun at COP28 on a race to keep the 1.5-degree limit alive,” Guterres said.
    Climate negotiations at these conferences have a long history of nations failing to deliver on their commitments. And unfortunately, that hasn’t changed. Progress from nations to cut their greenhouse gas emissions has been slow and inadequate, and nations are severely failing to reach the watered-down goals they set for themselves in the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement. Unless major efforts are made to cut greenhouse gas emissions, global temperatures could reach 3 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial average by the end of the century – a level that would be a disaster for our modern human civilization, and all life on this fragile blue earth.
    Delegates at the COP28 are also expected to agree to a plan that will accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels. But scientists and activists are worried that the final COP28 agreement won’t call for a “phase out” of fossil fuels, and that it will instead call for a “phase down” of fossil fuels. Obviously, the latter is a much more watered-down and weaker language.
    Every participating nation must agree to every single word of the final agreement, so any substantial progress has proven difficult in the past. And just like in past conferences, the debates surrounding the final agreement will most likely be intense and last long into the late hours. There will be diplomatic backstabbing between the “North and South”, and many secret meetings between top government officials and diplomats will take place. And there will be countless revisions until a final agreement can be unveiled at the very last minute – mostly to save world leaders’ reputation. Furthermore, any agreement reached is not binding.
    This has obviously led to criticism, with critics calling these events a waste of time and activists accusing world leaders of making empty promises. This year, there is extra controversy surrounding the host nation and the conference’s president. As mentioned before, the conference will be held in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), which is world's fifth largest oil producer. And the president of COP28 this year, Sultan Ahmed al-Jaber, is also the head of UAE's state-owned oil company. BBC News has already reported on leaked briefing documents that shows that al-Jaber has planned to use the conference to make oil deals.
    Michael Jacobs, a professor at England's Sheffield University who focuses on UN climate politics, said to BBC that it looked "breathtakingly hypocritical."
    "I actually think it's worse than that, because the UAE at the moment is the custodian of a United Nations process aimed at reducing global emissions," he told the BBC. "And yet, in the very same meetings where it's apparently trying to pursue that goal, it's actually trying to do side deals which will increase global emissions."
    During the coming days, we’ll see what kind of progress – if any – world leaders will make. Hopefully, for all of our sake, the conference will not be yet another failure.
  9. Simon
    If China and the rest of the world’s biggest emitters do nothing, we will fail. But we will also fail if small emitters like Sweden do nothing.
    Swedish media today reported on a new poll that showed that nine out of ten right-leaning voters in Sweden considered China’s emissions to be more important than Sweden’s own emissions. The question asked was: "Does China affect the climate more than Sweden? Claim: The most important thing is not if Sweden reduces its emissions - the most important thing is that China does."
    91 percent of people who vote for the right-wing parties in Sweden thinks that the most important thing is that China reduces its emissions, not that Sweden reduce its own emissions.
    Interestingly, the poll also shows that there is a big difference between the right-leaning and left-leaning political blocs regarding how many "fully" or "partially" agree with the statement, even if there is a majority on both sides. Of the voters who vote for "left-leaning" parties, only 57 percent agree with the above argument.
    Obviously and to no surprise to no one, a whopping 96 percent of people who vote for the Sweden democrats, which is a nationalist and far-right populist political party with literal Nazi roots, agrees with the statement.
    This might not sound like such a big deal. After all, China’s share of global CO2 emissions (30,9 percent in 2021) dwarfs Sweden’s share of global emissions (0,1 percent in 2021). Considering this, of course the most important thing is that China reduces its emissions, not that Sweden does.
    Right? Well, yes, but mostly no.
    It’s true that the emissions of many – if not most – countries in the world are dwarfed by a few big countries; namely China, United States (USA), India, and Russia (in that order). But that doesn’t mean that smaller and rich countries like Sweden, that has what some might consider negligible emissions, are off the hook when it comes to climate change. What Sweden and these other small countries does actually do matter a lot.
    Yes, if China and the rest of the world’s biggest emitters do nothing, we will never be able to tackle climate change. Obviously. But we will also fail if small emitters like Sweden do nothing.
    Just have a look at the graphic below (and read this excellent article by Hannah Ritchie that explores this topic much deeper).

    The graphic shows that the emissions from countries that emit less than 2 percent of global CO2 emissions collectively emit more than China.
    Now imagine if all of these countries decided to do nothing.
    And yes, these are “production-based” emissions, i.e. how much each country emits domestically. The numbers therefore don’t take into consideration how many of the world’s richest countries – like Sweden – have offshored some of their production emissions to countries like China. But even if you compare “consumption-based” emissions, the result doesn’t change much. China’s emissions go down a little, and the emissions from the United States goes up a little. This doesn’t give the argument that China’s emissions are more important any more weight.
    Consider the moral argument that’s based in climate justice. Rich countries have emitted more historically. In 2021, Germany’s share of global CO2 emissions was 1,82 percent. That’s not much. But Germany accounts for more than 5 percent if we consider the country’s historical emissions. Rich countries like Sweden and Germany have developed their countries and economies thanks to the cheap extraction and use of fossil fuels.
    There is also the technical aspect of this. Rich countries have the ability and the money to easily innovate, invest and deploy low-carbon technologies. For example, the price of solar and wind and battery technology have plummeted in recent decades as rich countries invest in and deploy more low-carbon technologies. And when rich countries invest in low-carbon technologies, they will bring prices down for the rest of the world.
    And this will directly benefit poorer countries and help them to use renewable energy instead of fossil fuels to develop their economies. And this is exactly what we need. We need low-carbon technologies to be cheaper than fossil fuels.
    Small countries can also become climate leaders and set expectations for the rest of the world. They can act as role models and show that it is possible to decarbonize our economies and transition to renewable energy.
    Rich countries have a moral obligation to reduce their emissions – no matter their size and share of CO2 emissions today. And they need to get their emissions down to zero as quickly as possible so that poorer countries can also develop their economies and improve the lives of their citizens while the world stays within the global carbon budget.
    Climate change is a global problem that requires international collaboration – from everyone. We can only succeed if we work together. The argument that my own small country shouldn’t reduce its emissions before one of the big polluters like China does is nothing more than a nationalistic cop-out.
    The people who use and push for this argument online are mostly the same people who a few years back were climate deniers. But these days they would sound crazy if they denied the overwhelming science of climate change, and no one in their right mind would take them seriously. So now they’ve evolved, but their agenda is still the same. They wouldn't call for emission reductions even if they lived in one of the big polluting countries because they don’t consider climate change a man-made crisis. It’s just another argument they use to downplay the climate crisis and their own responsibilities while slowing down meaningful climate action.
    Don’t believe them. Continue to push for climate action that is just and based on science.
    The cover photo shows smoke rising towards the sky from the chimneys of a paper mill in Sweden. Photo by Daniel Moqvist.
  10. Simon

    Klimataktivister får upprättelse

    By Simon,


    Miljö och klimat
    Idag har det rapporterats om två intressanta nyheter som gäller uppmärksammade klimataktioner som ägde rum i Sverige under den gångna sommaren.
    En felaktig nyhetshistoria om hur en klimataktion stoppade en ambulans
    Igår rapporterades det febrilt i media – och i sociala medier – om hur en svårt sjuk patient i en ambulans hade avlidit i bilköerna som hade skapats vid en uppmärksammad klimataktion på E4 i Stockholm.
    Bland annat rapporterade SVT om hur det i polisens förundersökning förekom uppgifter om hur personen som befanns sig i ambulansen som inte kom fram ska ha avlidit till följd av förseningen. SVT skrev bland annat om hur Åklagarmyndigheten bedömde brottet som klimataktivisterna nu stod åtalade för som grovt då personen i ambulansen hade avlidit.
    Problemet var bara att uppgifterna som spreds var falska och de har senare tillbakavisats av kammaråklagaren själv.
    - När polisen skrev anmälan så hade man de uppgifterna men under utredningens gång så har det visats sig att det inte var så. Patienten i ambulansen klarade sig, säger Marina Ivic, kammaråklagare i Västerorts åklagarekammare till SVT.
    En av de största nyheterna igår visade sig alltså vara felaktig. Men inte stoppade det spridningen av den falska nyheten - och hatet mot klimataktivister fick således ny fart i sociala medier. För ingen bryr sig om en rättelse så länge historien bekräftar deras världsbild.
    Expressen har kartlagt varför det blev så fel i rapporteringen. Enligt kartläggningen så berodde den felaktiga nyheten bland annat på en kavalkad av missförstånd som uppstod tidigt i polisutredningen. Men Expressen kan även avslöja att allt började med ett telefonsamtal från en tidigare SD-nämndeman. Läs deras artikel om hur den "döda" patienten i ambulansen blev en sanning.
    Ett felaktigt ingripande mot klimataktivister som saknade lagstöd
    Samtidigt rapporterar Dagens ETC att de sex finländska klimataktivisterna som tidigare i somras frihetsberövades av gränspolisen och som senare avvisades och förbjöds att besöka Sverige under två år har fått upprättelse av Migrationsverket. Dagens ETC skriver:
    Enligt rapporter i media medgav insatschefen att det fanns "oklarheter" och "missförstånd i kommunikationen" kring ingripandet mot de sex klimataktivisterna. Men enligt personer som finska Hufvudstadsbladet har pratat med så "var det en civil gruppchef som bestämde att aktivisterna skulle omhändertas, trots att hen saknade befogenheter att ta sådana beslut." Insatschefen hävdar dock att han själv tog de avgörande besluten att frihetsberöva klimataktivisterna. Men det var naturligtvis inte polisen själva som tog beslutet om att omhänderta och avvisa klimataktivisterna. Det var en Moderat politiker som tog det beslutet:
    Men historien slutar inte där.
    Polisinspektör Saša Ristić, som tidigare har arbetat som nationell utbildare inom gränspolisen, transporterade klimataktivisterna till förvaret och berättade för medier kort efter ingripandet att "han ansåg att finländarna frihetsberövades utan laglig grund, samt att han fått vetskap om att protokoll fingerats i efterhand för att motivera det inträffade." Enligt Ristić har han under en längre tid försökt larma internt om vad han menar är pågående allvarliga missförhållanden och oegentligheter inom gränspolisenheten – men utan att få något gehör.
    Kort efter att Ristić hade pratat med media så kallades han in på ett korrigeringssamtal med sina överordnade. Dagens ETC skriver att:
    Och det är inte första gången som polisen överreagerar mot klimataktivister och de journalister som bevakar aktionerna. Exempelvis utreder JK just nu polisen för grundlagsbrott efter att de förde iväg två journalister som bevakade en klimataktion som ägde rum i juni i Stockholm. Och i slutet av augusti stoppade polisen ytterligare två journalister från att bevaka en klimataktion. De båda journalisterna fick sin utrustning beslagtagen av polisen och blev även tvungna att klä av sig nakna. Såväl Journalistförbundet som Reportrar utan gränser har reagerat starkt mot gripandet, rapporterar Dagens ETC:
    - Sammantaget är det tre tillfällen vi vet om i närtid och det man kan notera är att det har stegrats, från att journalister blivit hindrade eller bortförda till att de helt sonika grips, hålls i en cell och får sin utrustning beslagtagen, säger Erik Halkjær, ordförande för Reportrar utan gränser.
    Vad är det med klimataktivister som gör att det totalt brister för polisen? Nazister ska skyddas till absurdum, men demonstrations- och yttrandefriheten för klimataktivister betyder tydligen ingenting - de ska bara sättas dit, med eller utan lagstöd.
  11. Simon
    Last year we could see how the global coronavirus pandemic led to huge drops in air pollution around the world. The coronavirus had such massive effect on slowing down human activity and the global economy that even Earth Overshoot Day was slightly delayed compared to previous years. But even with all of this, the climate crisis remained relentless in 2020 and continued seemingly unabashed by the economic effects of the pandemic.
    So how did the coronavirus pandemic affect climate change and global greenhouse gas emissions? According to IEA data, global energy-related CO2 emissions fell by 5.8 percent - which is the largest annual percentage decline since World War II. But despite this, a UN report released last month said that the global coronavirus pandemic had no effects on atmospheric CO2 levels. In fact, according to the report the pandemic was a "double blow" as the various lockdown restrictions made the impacts of global warming even worse for millions of already vulnerable people.
    "This is a frightening report," UN Secretary-General António Guterres said at the press conference where it was published. "We are on the verge of the abyss... We are seeing record levels in tropical storms, in the melting of ice sheets or glaciers, in relation to drought, heat waves and wildfires," U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres told Reuters.
    Despite La Niña cooling down large parts of the world last year, 2020 was still ranked among the hottest years on record with experts warning that "we can expect more of the same" as rising global greenhouse gas emissions have caused the warmest six years in recorded history to take place since 2015.
    "We have been saying this for decades – more and more greenhouse gases will lead to more and more warming," Ed Hawkins, from Reading University, told BBC News. "One degree of heating is dangerous for some people, as we've seen," Hawkins said last year while presenting new data that showed that September of 2020 was the hottest ever recorded globally since the 19th century. "Two degrees is more dangerous still, and three degrees even more dangerous. We really don’t want to find out what that’ll be like."
    According to analysis and projections, total energy emissions for 2021 is expected to be slightly lower than in 2019. But as pandemic-induced restrictions have been loosened, global CO2 emissions has had a roaring comeback. More worryingly still, emissions are expected to increase sharply after the pandemic. According to a recently released report from the International Energy Council, IEA, emissions are expected to reach the second highest levels ever historically as the world economy recovers after the coronavirus pandemic.
    "This is a dire warning that the economic recovery from the Covid crisis is currently anything but sustainable for our climate," Fatih Birol, executive director of the IEA, said in the report. "Unless governments around the world move rapidly to start cutting emissions, we are likely to face an even worse situation in 2022," he added.
    And just last month a gloomy symbolic milestone was achieved as atmospheric CO2 levels exceeded a daily average of 420 parts per million (ppm) – which is halfway to a doubling compared to pre-industrial times. When the measurements began in 1958, the level was just over 315 ppm. The pre-industrial level, before humans began to burn fossil fuels, has been calculated to slightly below 280 ppm.
    When it comes to climate change, 2021 is looking just as bleak as 2020 and previous years. But like the famous climate activist Greta Thunberg have said: we have not yet failed, but we must now do the seemingly impossible.
    Photo by Maxim Tolchinskiy.
  12. Simon
    Ingka Group, which is the largest franchise owner of Ikea, has announced that they will invest four billion euros in renewable energy to reduce the company’s climate footprint and reach 100% renewable energy across the company’s whole business chain. The new investments will include a solar energy plant in Russia that will produce enough energy for all 17 Ikea department stores in the country.
    "We are in the most important decade in the history of humankind – climate change is no longer a distant threat, and we must all do our part to limit global warming to 1.5°C. The cost of inaction is just too high and brings substantial risks to our business and humanity," said Jesper Brodin, CEO of Ingka Group, in a comment.
    Ingka Group has previously invested around 2,5 billion euros in renewable energy, and they currently own and operate 547 wind turbines and ten solar parks in 15 different countries. And several Ikea department stores and warehouses are also equipped with solar panels on the roofs. In total, its installed renewable energy power accounts for more than 1.7 Gigawatt.
    According to Brodin, the renewable energy investments are in alignment with the Paris Agreement and they will also help future proof their business. "For us, it is good business to be a good business," Brodin said.
    Photo credit: IKEA
  13. Simon
    Jag såg partiledardebatten i SVT i söndags kväll och den var tyvärr lika bedrövlig som jag anade att den skulle bli. SVT tar upp alldeles för många ämnen på en så pass kort tid att det inte blir någon riktig debatt om någonting. Partiledarna har bara tid att slänga ut några käcka one-liners innan deras tid är över och det är dags för ett nytt ämne. Det känns lite som att SVT behandlar partiledardebatterna som om de vore som vilket annat sportevenemang som helst. Det ska vara för- och eftersnack (helst också gärna analyser i halvlek) med så kallade expertkommentatorer som ger snabba kommentarer och utvärderingar kring partiledarnas insatser – som om tittaren var halvdum och inte kunde komma fram till några egna slutsatser. Vi slipper i alla fall slipper numera de löjliga retorikexperterna.
    Men allra värst är nog det faktum att SVT inte verkar kunna hålla i en enda debatt om klimatet.
    För när det tillslut var dags att ta upp klimatet som debattämne så handlade den första frågan naturligtvis – precis som alla andra partiledardebatter – om den svenska kärnkraften. Så istället för att prata om hur partierna vill att Sverige ska minska utsläppen genom att exempelvis diskutera transporter, konsumtion och matvanor så vill SVT att vi istället ska diskutera kärnkraft. Det är så fruktansvärt tröttsamt att klimatet skulle handla om kärnkraftens vara eller icke vara.
    En sådan diskussion hade väl varit hedervärd om nu kärnkraften spelade någon som helst roll i att rädda klimatet, i Sverigeeller i övriga delar av världen. Men när det kommer till klimatet är kärnkraften en icke-fråga. Kärnkraften är på grund av sina begränsningar oförmögen att rädda klimatet och det kvittar hur mycket Jan Björklund käbblar om det. Det finns ingen som tycker kärnkraften är lönsam, inte ens kärnkraftens ägare gör det. Framtiden är förnybar energi, smarta nät och lagring.

    Vad är egentligen problemet med att Vattenfall stänger Ringhals 1 och 2?
    Det är oerhört skamligt att SVT tramsar bort diskussionen om klimatet, den enskilt viktigaste framtidsfrågan av alla. Jag vill se en riktig klimatdebatt där partiledarna på allvar diskuterar hur vi faktiskt ska lösa klimatkrisen. Snälla SVT, kan vi inte en enda gång få en riktig diskussion om klimatkrisen och inte en debatt om den svenska kärnkraften?
    Klimatkrisen är så pass allvarlig att vi skulle behöva en partiledardebatt som enbart handlade om klimatet.
  14. Simon
    Alla partiledare som ingick i decemberöverenskommelsen har fått ökat förtroende av det svenska folket, det visar en ny Sifo-undersökning gjord på uppdrag av Aftonbladet.
    Under slutet av förra året minskade förtroendet för Stefan Löfven (S) med hela nio procentenheter. Trots detta har han fortsatt störst förtroende av alla partiledare. Sedan Löfven rodde hem decemberöverenskommelsen så har hans förtroende ökat med fyra procentenheter. Enligt Sifo-undersökningen så har alla partiledare som ingick i decemberöverenskommelsen fått ökat förtroende.
    När det kommer till partierna som stod utanför decemberöverenskommelsen så har Vänsterpartiets ledare Jonas Sjöstedt faktiskt också fått ökat förtroende. Medan Sjöstedt ökar med hela tre procentenheter så minskar det redan bottenlåga förtroendet för Sverigedemokraternas Jimmie Åkesson och hans vikarierande partiledare Mattias Karlsson.
    Det verkar alltså som att partierna som tog ansvar faktiskt vann väljarnas förtroende. Och Sverigedemokraterna som skapade kaos förlorade sin vågmästarroll, och det lilla förtroende som Åkesson faktiskt hade lyckats skrapa ihop fick sig en riktig smäll.
    Här är resultatet från Sifo-undersökningen:
    Regeringspartierna
    Stefan Löfven (S)December: 44 procent -9Januari: 47 procent +3 Åsa Romson (MP)December: 23 procent -6Januari: 25 procent +2 Gustaf Fridolin (MP)December: 37 procent -5Januari: 38 procent +1 Alliansen Anna Kinberg Batra (M)December: 36 procent NYJanuari: 37 procent +1 Annie Lööf ( C )December: 36 procent +14Januari: 37 procent +1 Jan Björklund (FP)December: 33 procent +5Januari: 35 procent +2 Göran Hägglund (KD)December: 33 procent +6Januari: 34 procent +1 Övrig opposition Jonas Sjöstedt (V)December: 28 procent -1Januari: 31 procent +3 Jimmie Åkesson (SD)December: 14 procent +4Januari: 13 procent -1 Mattias Karlsson (SD)December: 7 procent NYJanuari: 7 procent Oförändrat
  15. Simon
    I am cross-posting this from my Google+ profile.

    Lately I've seen a lot of posts about the Syrian conflict from people in my circles here on G+. Many of them are critical of the war. Not the two-year long civil war in the country. No, instead they are against the potential involvement of US-forces and what they see will be another costly Iraqi-style war in the Middle East. But Syria is not comparable to the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

    First of all, it's not a war. It's a limited military intervention with the goal to stop, or at least deter, a dictator from killing his own people with chemical weapons. The intervention in Syria is more in line with the military interventions in Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Iraq (1990-2003), and more recently in Libya. Furthermore, the United States is the major economic and military super power in the world today. And that comes with certain responsibilities and moral obligations to act against international and human rights violations - just like the crimes done by the Syrian regime. I think it's selfish and dangerously isolationistic to say that the world's richest country cannot afford to intervene and stop a genocide.

    I believe that an intervention is necessary. The use of chemical weapons is a dangerous escalation of the conflict and shouldn't be downplayed. But even without that, the more than 100 000 dead, the millions of refugees and the threat to the security of neighboring countries is more than enough to justify some kind of intervention in Syria by the outside world.

    Also, many people seem to hold the notion that the UN investigation will prove who is responsible for the gas attack. But the UN investigation will not be able to determine who is responsible, it can only show if a chemical attack has taken place. But considering the evidence we've seen so far it’s silly to claim that chemical weapons haven't been used by the regime in Syria. Heck, even the Syrian regime acknowledges the fact that chemical weapons have been used in the conflict. The difference is that they blame it on the rebels.

    But let's say it's the rebels who are responsible for the gas attack, which despite their gains against government forces seems highly unlikely, then that would be an even worse scenario. Because it would mean that the Syrian regime and military have completely lost control of the country's chemical stockpiles and that dangerous chemical weapons could be spread to other hot spots around the world, sold to terrorists, black market arms dealers and so on. If that were the case, the response from the international community would have to be on an even larger scale and much more powerful, i.e. boots on the ground and a potential occupation of Syria to find, secure and destroy the stockpiles of chemical weapons.

    Just like with Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Iraq and Libya, a military intervention was necessary to end the killings. In most of these cases the intervention happened with the support of the UN and the full backing of the international community. The only reason why we haven't seen an UN-approved intervention in Syria yet is because Russia and China are effectively blocking it. Many people seem content with this. But when did China and Russia with their dreadful democracy and human rights records become our moral compass?

    Considering all this, I believe that a limited military intervention by the US, and possibly also France and Turkey, is the morally right thing to do.
  16. Simon
    The environmental activists who last year protested against government plans to build 20 new climate killing gas-fired power stations in the UK are now being sued for £5 million by the French state-owned energy company EDF.

    If EDF wins these activists face bankruptcy and the very possibility of losing their homes. Besides this personal tragedy, a win for EDF could also have far-reaching consequences for the whole environmental movement in the UK as it would deter other organizations from taking direct action.

    Here's how you can help and show solidarity around EDF's civil action: http://goo.gl/nKWYX
  17. Simon
    The effectiveness of the Swedish recycling and garbage system has been making the news recently. Here's one story about it: Sweden imports waste from European neighbors to fuel waste-to-energy program
    I am not sure what to think of this really, an effective garbage system is good but...
    The 96% recycle rate that this blog post talks about sounds amazing (the official number is actually 98,6%!). But it's not a completely honest number. All the waste that is sent to one of these incinerators to be burned is also counted as recycled waste in the statistics. So plastic that could have been recycled and reused is instead being burned up to create heat or electricity. I wouldn't call that recycling, but maybe that's just me. And just like the above mentioned blog post says, these incinerators creates a highly toxic environmental waste.
    But the more serious problem with Sweden's focus on garbage incinerators is that we are making us dependent on waste by overbuilding and thinking that this is a long-term energy source.
    There is a real risk that these incinerators will do more harm than good for the environment as they will make us more prone to just burn the waste instead of reusing and recycling the waste. They can also take away important investments for better and more effective renewable energy sources. We can already see this happening right now with Sweden having to import garbage's from other countries in Europe to keep their incinerators running.
    And then we have this problem with consumption. The Swedish waste system has made it possible for us to continue increasing our consumption levels without having to see the immediate negative effects of them. But as our consumption levels increase so does the strain we put on the environment and climate. So instead of building more incinerators we should focus on the three R's instead: reduce, reuse, and recycle. We need to reduce our consumption levels so that we produce less waste.
    So no, I don't really think we have it figured out. In 2010 we had 30 incinerators that burned waste to create heat and electricity in Sweden. I don't have the exact number of incinerators in Sweden today, but every self-respecting municipality is building one these days. I live in a rather small municipality, with only around 60000 citizens, but this summer we started building a second and much larger incinerator for 750 million SEK. It's worth noting though that this incinerator will mostly burn waste products from the forest industry in the region.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. We use cookies and other tracking technologies to improve your browsing experience on our site, show personalized content, analyze site traffic, and understand where our audience is coming from. To find out more, please read our Privacy Policy. By choosing I Accept, you consent to our use of cookies and other tracking technologies.