Simon

The level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere reached a symbolic milestone late last week when it hit historic record levels of 400 parts per million (ppm). Climate scientists warns that the milestone is a wake-up call for people and world leaders as it shows the alarming urgency of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions before it's too late. "Crossing 400 ppm is not a reason for celebration," said Pieter Tans, a scientist with NOAA's Global Monitoring Division, after the latest reading was released from the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. Because CO2 is the main greenhouse gas contributing to global warming it is imperative that we reduce our CO2 emissions rapidly. But this latest milestone shows the world is moving in the wrong direction. Global CO2 levels have increased since the beginning of the industrial revolution, we passed 300 ppm during early 20th century and since then the rate have increased ever so rapidly. The rate has accelerated since the 1950s from around 0.7 ppm per year to 2.1 ppm per year for the last 10 years. "That increase is not a surprise to scientists," said Tans. "The evidence is conclusive that the strong growth of global CO2 emissions from the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas is driving the acceleration." And once emitted the CO2 stays in the atmosphere for thousands of years, making it more and more difficult to mitigate and adapt to the devastating effects of runaway climate change. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), this is the first time in human history that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere crosses 400 ppm. In fact, the planet haven't experienced these levels of CO2 in millions of years. The last time the level of CO2 was near these levels was during the Miocene Period, about 10 million years ago. Back then the Earth looked completely different from today. Global temperatures then were much hotter. At the poles it was perhaps as much as ten degrees warmer, and the great ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica had not been formed. Sea level was around 5 to 40 meters higher than today. But "it took nature hundreds of millions of years to change CO2 concentrations through natural processes such as natural carbon burial and volcanic outgassing," Michael Mann, climate change author and director of the Earth System Science Centre at Penn State, told the AFP. "We're unburying it and burning it over a timescale of 100 years, a million times faster." And this rapid speed in which global concentrations of CO2 are increasing is the main concern for climate scientists. "There is no precedent in Earth's history for such an abrupt increase in greenhouse gas concentrations," Mann said. It's easier for living things to adopt to slow changes that take place over tens of millions of years than to adjust to this abrupt change in climate. World leaders want to stop climate from rising further than 2 degrees in global temperatures. A 2C increase in global temperatures will mean that we have to stabilize our greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at about 445 to 490 ppm. But 350 ppm is the level climate scientists have identified as the safe upper limit for CO2 in our atmosphere. If the current trend is allowed to continue we will not be able to reach neither of these two targets. "We are creating a prehistoric climate in which human societies will face huge and potentially catastrophic risks," Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at London School of Economics and Political Science, said.

A TV ad which attacks Coca-Cola for trying to stop a recycling scheme in Australia has been stopped from airing on TV. In recent weeks Greenpeace has been campaigning in support of the implementation of nationwide 10-cents-a-bottle recycling scheme in Australia. The environmental organization has called the scheme "a no brainer" and they've been critical of Coca-Cola's efforts to undermine and stop the recycling legislation. Last week Greenpeace raised $20,000 in donations in just one day to get the TV ad, which attacks Coca-Cola for lobbying against the recycling scheme, shown during Channel Nine's Friday Night Football broadcast in Australia. But the ad was pulled just minutes before it was supposed to air after being deemed "too offensive" by the channel. Greenpeace quickly blamed Coca-Cola and other beverage makers for putting pressure on Channel Nine to stop the ad from airing. "They took the money and now they've bottled it," Greenpeace's Reece Turner said. "Coke has been accused of bullying politicians into blocking cash for containers. It's a reasonable assumption their influence is behind Channel Nine's last-minute choking." Seabirds and other animals often mistake plastics with food. These plastic objects slowly fills their stomachs over time until they are unable to ingest any real food. A slow death by starvation then follows for these poor seabirds. In Australia, this plastic rubbish is estimated to affect up to 65% of the seabird population. And Coca-Cola is currently trying to fight legislation that is key to fixing this problem. This short ad by Greenpeace exposes how Coca-Cola, even though being a longtime supporter of WWF, is willing to let plastic pollution trash our oceans and kill our marine life. Despite being banned from TV, Greenpeace's campaign is still making waves. The actual ad has been seen over 700,000 times and is the most shared video in Australia. And now shareholders has started to question Coca-Cola's efforts to stop a national Cash for Containers scheme. During an annual meeting in Sydney, Coca-Cola Chairman David Gonski called the scheme "old fashioned", inefficient and warned that it would increase the price of soft drinks. But his comments were challenged by shareholders as well as protesters outside the meeting. "What's wrong with old fashioned?" one shareholder asked. "We have container deposit legislation in South Australia and only 4% of containers are found in litter. That's a stark contrast to the 40% of containers in the eastern states." By blocking the ad from airing on TV, Channel Nine have successfully given Greenpeace's campaign more media attention. And in the end Coca-Cola is the one who will suffer the most from the public backlash that follows.

Speaking at a climate conference in Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel warned that inaction on global warming is "not an option" and called on nations to redouble efforts to secure an internationally binding climate change treaty. After being invited by the governments of Poland and Germany, environment and climate ministers from 35 countries "“ who together are responsible for around 80% of world carbon emissions - gathered earlier this week at the Petersberg Climate Dialogue conference in Berlin for a round of dialogue and informal negotiations ahead of the UN climate summit (COP19) in Warzaw, Poland, later this year. While stressing that all countries need to act, Merkel demanded immediate and bold action on climate change so that a binding climate treaty that limits emissions that cause global warming can be reached by 2015. "I'm under no illusion that there is a long road ahead," Merkel said at the conference. But "doing nothing only means that it will get a whole lot more expensive." These are indeed strong words for global action against climate change. But while Germany's carbon emissions rose by two percent last year, Merkel has so far seemed uninterested in fixing Europe's severely broken cap-and-trade program and failed to push for tougher climate policies for the European Union.

A new bicycle index has ranked the 20 most bicycle-friendly cities in the world. Already world-renowned bike-friendly cities such as Copenhagen and Amsterdam are of course on the list. But there are several newcomers as well, such as Malmö in Sweden and Seville in Spain. Unfortunately, there is still no US city on the top 20 list. The new Copenhagenize Index has ranked the 20 most bicycle-friendly cities in the world. The index, which ranks a total of 150 cities, has been compiled by Copenhagenize Design, an urban planning consultancy who specializes in bicycle planning. More than 400 people from around the world has helped rank the various cities. Each city have been ranked on the basis of 13 different parameters that takes everything from the availability of satisfying bicycle infrastructure and facilities to the overall bicycle culture in the city and the political climate regarding urban cycling into account. Unsurprisingly, especially considering it already has a world-renowned reputation of being a bike-friendly city, Amsterdam in the Netherlands is ranked as the most bicycle-friendly city in the world. "The cycling atmosphere is relaxed, enjoyable, and as mainstream as you can get. This is the one place on the planet where fear-mongering about cycling is non-existent and it shows. There are few places we enjoy urban cycling as much as in Amsterdam," the Copenhagenize Index says. The photo shows afternoon traffic on the world's busiest bicycle street in Copenhagen, Denmark. Photo by Copenhagenize Design Co. Copenhagen is ranked as the second most bicycle-friendly city in the world. No other city beats Copenhagen when it comes to "a well-designed and uniform bicycle infrastructure network."But the Index warns that a lack of clear political leadership and new massive car infrastructure projects makes Copenhagen's future seem uncertain and bleak for cyclists. Utrecht, yet another Dutch city on the top 20 list, is the third most bicycle-friendly city in the world. The Index highlights the "fantastic" infrastructure that can be found in the small city. According to the Index, Utrecht is a "world-leader" and "a splendid city" for cyclists. But the city, just like Amsterdam, haven't seen much new significant progress lately. So to avoid getting stuck in status quo the Index calls for increased efforts, more creative thinking and innovation to improve cycling conditions even further. "With urbanisation on the rise, the city needs to move forward in order to accommodate more cycling cities and really establish themselves as leaders of the future, not just the present," the Index asserts. Below is the complete list of the top 20 most bicycle-friendly cities in the world - with their 2011 ranking in brackets: 1. Amsterdam (1) 9. Dublin (9) 2. Copenhagen (2) 10. Tokyo (4) 3. Utrecht (new) 11. Munich (6) 4. Seville (new) 11. Montreal (8) 4. Bordeaux (new) 11. Nagoya (new) 5. Nantes (new) 12. Rio de Janeiro (18) 5. Antwerp (new) 13. Barcelona (3) 6. Eindhoven (new) 13. Budapest (10) 7. Malmö(new) 13. Paris (7) 8. Berlin (5) 14. Hamburg (13) If you want more information on why these cities rank the way they do just check out the Copenhagenize website, which has extended explanations on the different pros and cons of each of the top 20 cities. No cities in the US made the cut While the majority of the top-scoring cities are located in Europe, the US still has no city that can compete with more bike-friendly cities such as Copenhagen in Denmark, Tokyo in Japan, Rio in Brazil or Montreal in Canada. But the League of American Bicyclists recently released their yearly ranking of the most bicycle-friendly states in the US. Their list shows how Washington continues to be the most bike-friendly state in the country. Washington has a good performance in all of the five categories. The state gets especially good grades when it comes to its work on legislation, education and its encouragement to get more people to use their bikes. "We're encouraged to see significant progress in top states like Washington, Delaware, Colorado and Oregon," says League President, Andy Clarke. "But as the scores clearly highlight, there's much work to be done in critical areas like infrastructure and planning in every state." The 14 most bicycle-friendly states are: Washington, Colorado, Oregon, Minnesota, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Illinois, Arizona, Maryland, Michigan, Maine and Utah on 14th place.

Concerns about the dramatic decline in bee populations around the world in recent years has resulted in a continent-wide ban in Europe on insecticides that allegedly causes serious harm to bees. Bees are vital to our ecosystem and food production because they pollinate three-quarters of all crops in the world. This pollination indirectly contributes over €22 billion annually to European agriculture alone. Their decline has been blamed on loss of habitat, diseases and the use of neonicotinoid pesticides by farmers. The suspension of neonicotinoid pesticides has been backed by both the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and environmental campaigners, who have called the ban “a significant victory for common sense.” But the proposal to ban neonicotinoid pesticides was only supported by 15 member states, eight voted no and four member nations abstained, and therefore failed to reach a qualified majority when the 27 EU member states voted on it (a complete list of the countries can be found further down). Because of this failure to reach a majority it was up to the European Commission to decide on the adoption of the proposed ban – a suspension which the commission supported. Tonio Borg, Health and Consumer Commissioner, said that “although a majority of Member States now supports our proposal, the necessary qualified majority was not reached. The decision now lies with the Commission. Since our proposal is based on a number of risks to bee health identified by the European Food Safety Authority, the Commission will go ahead with its text in the coming weeks,” Borg concluded. The UK voted against a suspension by arguing that the ban wasn’t supported by science, that it would harm food production and result in increasing costs for farmers. But experts and environmentalists alike discards these arguments. Professor Simon Potts, a bee expert at the University of Reading, said that "the ban is excellent news for pollinators” and that science is clear on the need for a ban. “The weight of evidence from researchers clearly points to the need to have a phased ban of neonicotinoids”, Potts said. “There are several alternatives to using neonicotinoids and farmers will benefit from healthy pollinator populations as they provide substantial economic benefits to crop pollination.” Environmental campaigners blamed the UK’s vote on heavy lobbying from chemical and agriculture companies. Greenpeace’s chief scientist, Doug Parr, said to the Guardian that "by not supporting the ban, environment secretary, Owen Paterson, has exposed the UK government as being in the pocket of big chemical companies and the industrial farming lobby." The ban will come into effect from 1 December 2013. The UK, Czech Republic, Italy, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Austria and Portugal voted no the suspension. Ireland, Lithuania, Finland and Greece abstained from the vote. Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Spain, France, Cyprus, Germany, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovenia and Sweden voted in favor of the ban.

Despite commitments from Australia to limit global warming to below 2 degrees the country’s coal export are planned to expand by more than double current levels in the coming years. For that reason six Greenpeace activists boarded a ship from Australia carrying coal for the Asian market earlier this morning. The dramatic stunt is part of a ramped up campaign from Greenpeace against Australia's ever increasing coal exports. “We’ve taken the action today because Australia is on track to almost double coal exports in the next decade. Both major political parties have no solutions on the table. It is time to slow down the coal boom,” Greenpeace Activist Emma Giles told the Guardian from on board the ship. “Our leaders are failing us so it’s up to us to take civil disobedience and to slow down and stop these coal ships. We are set to stay here as long as it takes,” Giles said. Along with this action, Greenpeace are calling on people to join their campaign by signing a statement in support of today’s action. Once they reach 10 000 names, the statement will be published in the Australian Financial Review. The video below shows how Greenpeace activists boarded the coal ship.

President Hugo Chavez has lost his two year long battle against cancer. But "those who die for life, can’t be called dead," Vice-president Nicolas Maduro said when he made his heartfelt announcement of the death of Chavez on Venezuelan public television. While hundreds of thousands of people have gathered on the streets of Caracas to bid a final farewell to their late president, only a month before elections to pick his successor, it can be worth remembering Chavez stance on climate change. Personally I’ll never forget his speech at the COP15 climate conference in Copenhagen in which he linked capitalism to global warming. The full text of Hugo Chavez’s speech at the December 2009 Copenhagen climate conference can be found below. In the speech Chavez linked climate change and capitalism, saying that “if the climate were a bank, they [the rich governments] would already have saved it”. The translation has been done 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] "Let’s not change the climate, let’s change the system!" 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?" 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]