This blog has moved

Hello! My blog has moved, it is now at http://changingclimates.info
Over the next year, i will completing a Watson fellowship. find out more in at my new blog!
Thanks
j

Graduation Speech

I have been quiet. I graduated two weeks ago, and I have been readjusting. I am also getting ready for next year, when i will completing a fellowship on climate adaptation (more details soon).

For now, some people have asked me to share my graduation speech, here it is.... feel free to make comments (good and bad)

6/2/07
I first applied to COA five years ago, but I got rejected - which actually gave me another
full year to think about it.
Maybe everyone should have to apply twice
But I applied again; I realized that COA had exactly what I wanted, but I just wasn’t sure
that I could move to the US. The five months between the day I was admitted to COA and
when I actually arrived in Maine were full of questions and doubts.

When I decided I wanted to come to the US for college, I was not too confident with my decision. I came to the US with many assumptions, assumptions based on how the US is perceived in the world. I thought that everyone was rich, and that the wealth of the nation made its citizens oblivious to the social or environmental issues beyond national boundaries. I thought that McDonalds and KFC were the icons of American cuisine.

I was wrong.

The past four years have showed me that the Us portrayed in the media is very different from the US I have seen with my own eyes. I have come to see a nation of hardworking people,
Hard working people who can empathize with the harsh realities faced by many in the
world, Hard working people who hope for a better world for all.

But If this is the US I have seen, then why isn’t that the image reflected in the rest of the world? Why is the US government so different from the people that it is supposed to represent? From my perspective, the distance between American people and the American government and the setback in the exercise of democracy in the United States is not an issue of public or foreign policies. I believe that distance is due to a market-driven approach to freedom of speech that does not allow Americans to be informed of the cost associated with their choices, nor to question the price, roots, and implication of the policies that rule them.

The public space to challenge discourse has been reduced to what is catchy for the nightly news, making news coverage of Paris Hilton’s last spring break partying more profitable and suitable than critical coverage of the debate and lies surrounding the war in Iraq.

With great surprise I have seen that the politics of fear disseminated through the mass media are undermining the ability of the American people to question the policies that rule them. Democracy is in danger; freedom of speech and critical thinking could become a footnote in history books.

But today I feel hopeful, honored, and fortunate.
I feel hopeful of the tremendous potential of my peers and friends to make use of the democracy inherited from the Founders of this nation,
I feel honored to share this stage with my class,
I feel fortuned to have worked for the past four years in an environment where we are
encouraged to ask the uncomfortable questions that guide us to the truth.

Although we all graduate with the same degree, we are all ready to face different challenges, challenges that will require our ability to be critical thinkers; challenges that will help us find our own truths.

When I look back, I realize that I could have gone to some other school to concentrate on international relations or economics, but I would have missed out on one of the most valuable skill I have gained at COA: The ability to work with others, who might otherwise be classified as artists, biologists, designers, or whatever other tag you can think of. Us, the human ecologists integrating our skills and experiences has given me new hope. If we can collaborate for common goals, we can challenge the current paradigm of democracy handicapped by fear, a paradigm that limits debate and discussion to a series of prefabricated messages, messages that are rendering democracy useless.

I am proud to be a human ecologist, and I believe we can work for common goals. I know that today, when we leave this stage, we will all walk in different direction, but that will not stop us from sharing common visions. We will continue to find our own truths, to try to understand our world better, we will continue to be critics and visionaries able to solve the dialectical opposition between social convention and individual libertarianism.

My time in the United States is coming to an end.
I am not sure if the admissions office regrets having accepted me the second time I applied,
but I am thankful for their decision.

Coming to COA fundamentally changed the way I see the world. Not only I have realized that there is more to the US than McDonalds and KFC, but I have come to strongly believe that all of us, American people and those of us who are not from this land, can collaborate and take global leadership to critically shape how we relate to our world. Critical judgment is needed, and I am proud to know that there are 50 new human ecologists walking away from this institution today ready to engage in that challenge. I believe in the potential for change in this room.

I like to share the words of Arundhati Roy, an Indian writer who has inspired my work at
COA:

“Another world is not only possible, she’s on her way.
Maybe many of us won’t be here to greet her, but on a quiet day,
if I listen very carefully, I can hear her breathing.”

Class of 07, I am honored to have grown with you for this past four years. Thank you,
and good luck.

The Road to Bali: So much at stake

The next meeting of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change/Kyoto Protocol will be taking place in Bali, Indonesia in December. Bali will determine the future international policy on climate change, and youth must make their voice heard. Between now and December, youth from across the globe will organize to bring a sense of urgency and rationality to the meeting. The future of the UNFCCC process is up for debate, and with it the future of international action to stop climate change. If the UNFCCC cannot respond to the urgent conclusions contained in the report of the IPCC, the ability of the international mechanism to respond to global challenges might become irrelevant.

The Oceans have had Enough

Science Magazine just published a peer-reviewed article with some scary findings. The southern ocean has slowed its natural process of carbon absorption. The reason: climate change and ozone depletion. The breakdown in efficiency of these sinks was a expected, but not for another 40 years.

Because of feed-back mechanisms, the decline of Antarctica's Southern Ocean carbon sink means that atmospheric CO2 levels may be higher in future than predicted.

Thinking of Tomorrow: A call to rationality

After hours of work, i want to share this little rant of mine. This writing is part of my thesis. Comments are welcomed and encouraged. All Rights Reserved.

The horizon for adaptation for climate change is not positive. While we continue to hold political debates on the subjects at stake, we are sacrificing the life of many – exclusively the life of those who cannot come to the bargaining table to make their voice heard. To change the course of action on adaptation to climate change, a consensus that recognizes that as the most advanced species on earth, and also the one responsible for the current state of our planet, we need to modify our life styles for a sustainable way of producing and consuming.
Reducing the risk associated with climate change will require of immediate action, action for which we have the resources and knowledge. In history, we could the generation that, because of the political unwillingness to agree on action to respond to the needs of vulnerable groups, -particularly in Africa-, allowed for the devastation of entire regions; our political unwillingness could make our generation responsible for a massive genocide, a genocide that we could have been stopped but that we choose to ignore while comfortably relishing in a carbon-intensive world.
The window of opportunity is still open, but it closes with every tonne of carbon we keep trying to stuff in the atmosphere. Global leaders will be meeting again in a few months to continue discussing the future of the Adaptation Fund and post-2012 action to mitigate climate change. This meeting represents yet another opportunity to put things back on track, to agree on effective mechanism to focus action. The lessons learned to promote an effective adaptation operational strategy are clear, and they only require of political willingness and the recognition we are passed ‘no regrets’ measures. Protection our future will require of more than market-led strategies. The options for effective action are available; the political game has to end.
For millennia, humanity has adapted to the changes in the environment to secure survival. That capacity to adapt has been the result of our more advanced evolutionary skills, which allow us to make informed, conscious decisions to respond to challenges that jeopardize our survival. Those skills, however, could be questioned vis-à-vis our heinous and wicked response to the environmental challenges ahead of us. The science of climate change is clear, the information and solutions are available, but we continue to pursue an outrageous political model that could cost the life of millions. While we concentrate on debates over the role of market vs. government in combating climate change, we all responsible for the proliferation of what would the most lethal threat to humanity. Weather of Mass Destruction is on the horizon. The time to act is now.

Discussing: AOSIS at the CSD

The 43 members of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) are a coalition of small island and low- lying coastal countries that share similar development challenges and concerns about the environ- ment, especially their vulnerability to the adverse effects of global climate change. Me and good friend, Chris Kyriacou, as part of the Outreach Issues team of SDIN/SF spoke with AOSIS Chairman, Ambassador Angus Friday of Grenada, about the group’s concerns and goals at CSD 15. (photo: ENB, Ambassador Friday)

What are your feelings about the proceedings so far at the CSD? Is the Commission helping to advance the priority of SIDS?

What is most interesting is that the CSD is the mandated intergovernmental body for dealing with the Mauritius Strategy of Implementation (MSI) which embodies some of the key issues for SIDS. From a policy point of view, SIDS, LDCs and LLDCs are dealt with in quite a special way throughout a lot of the deliberations here, particularly in terms of the four thematic clusters. The CSD is mandated to deal with it

When it comes to negotiating the outcome document, as you can appreciate a lot of people make statements that AOSIS puts it points across. Once the Chairman has produced his text, as many of our members are in the G77 we work through this group to express our opinion and negotiate the editing of the document. My observation of the CSD is that it is a hugely energetic process, and as a newcomer to the UN and multilateral system I wonder whether there isn’t another approach which could help to save time and energy? I’m not saying I know what the answer is I’m just looking at the huge amount of energy that goes into the CSD and the cost of all these sessions at $200-1000 per day per delegate. It takes a lot of energy, so we must ask ourselves if were doing this in the right manner.

Are these words being translated into provisions for action in the final text?

In the final text we’ll see significant reference to SIDS – our partners and other bodies ensure that they continue to be high on the agenda and are well represented in the document. In terms of follow up and implementation this is where we move toward the multilateral process and the UN bodies and also implementation through bilateral arrangements. A number of countries, such as New Zealand, are especially good at follow up.

AOSIS have been pushing for the establishment of a Global Renewable Energy fund. How do you envision such a fund operating?

The fund we are proposing needs to be a fund of funds – a large pool money that is then directed toward smaller dedicated funds. These would be funds dedicated to grant oriented R&D, funds toward technology transfer, funds for the commercialisation of new forms of renewable energies and another that simply deals with the large scale implementation of big renewable energy projects. In each case, they represent a different type of financing, which may be grant, soft loan, project mezzanine of equity financing.

This might begin to sound complex, but this fund should not be something that is just done through the UN. There are large philanthropic organisations that have significant levels of funding who can contribute to this type of fund. Below the level of the fund of funds, private institutions should also be involved in helping toward commercialisation and project finance This will become possible as they can rely on the fund of funds to guarantee backups.

Has the idea for a Global Renewable Energy fund been well received?

There are already renewable energy funds that are available, but the problem with a lot of these, such as the Renewable Energy Fund and the Global Environmental facility is that these funds have very high transaction costs. It costs lots of money just to develop a proposal to apply for funds, which acts as a huge barrier to entry.

Also, where countries then need to apply matching funding there simply aren’t the local funding sources to meet that. There are no local financial institutions with a mandate to become involved with untried technologies.

At the beginning of this CSD you outlined 11 ‘areas of emphasis’ for the effective implementation of sustainable development, but what about adaptation?

In all the things we’ve talked about we’ve put a heavy and particular emphasis on adaptation. We’ll continue to press for legislation for mitigation strategies, but from a practical point of view, we have to focus on adaptation because that is what will make a difference on the ground in many of our constituent states between this and next year.

Has adaptation been welcomed in the negotiating text as much as it should?

There is a lot of talk of adaptation at CSD, but we’re not convinced that, left on its own, we would have many more adaptation projects between now and this time next year. The role of AOSIS is to actually implement the outcome document by lobbying the UN system, partner countries and various agencies, and our focus between now and next year is to put in place a program of activity to ensure that this happens. The number one priority is to make sure that financing is available to do all of the things we have spoken about at CSD, in terms of developing strategies to put in place local legislative frameworks, and actually implement renewable energy and adaptation projects in SIDS.

We are actually putting a program into place to ensure that this process is not just about meetings. This will compile a list of all the ideas we’ve heard at CSD and ensure that actual projects can start on the ground, for example projects that convert sewage into energy, help to build reefs faster, or harness geothermal and tidal energy.

On the mitigation side, as SIDS we can only have a very small impact on the global picture, so it is the developed countries who need to focus on their mitigation strategies. We are the most vulnerable countries - the canary in the coalmine - and the first affected are the first to focus on adaptation strategies and projects.

Much has been said recently about the connections between sustainable development and adaptation, especially in the latest IPCC report. Since much of the management on this is coming from the UNFCC, is enough guidance coming from the CSD?

That is difficult to answer as we’re not yet at the end of the process – I would prefer to wait until the end of the CSD before I can give a more balanced and thought-through answer. I’m not sure it’s the role of the CSD to give direction to the UNFCC. If anything else I think the CSD looks to the UNFCC for guidance on critical issues. In terms of adaptation plans and strategies it’s then up to the relevant UN agencies and member countries to go forward and multiply, which we’ll be doing in conjunction with UN Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States (OHRLLS). We will hold a three monthly review to ensure that our adaptation plans are implemented and monitored.

The critical point for us is that we’d like to see the Mauritius strategy of implementation being promoted and reviewed in both the review and the policy year of the CSD. Currently it is only reviewed in the review year which means we have to wait 2 years to know how successful we’ve been. It’s important to review progression on an annual basis and if we’re able to do that our adaptation strategies would be happening more quickly.

Sustainable Development: More than Inspiration

An article co-authored by Jennifer Peer and myself for CSD15

Actions for realising the contribution of trade to sustainable development, as detailed in the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (JPOI)’s means of implementation chapter, are simply a form of “guidance” and the JPOI is a mere “inspiration” for Member States.
Actions for realising the contribution of trade to sustainable development, as detailed in the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (JPOI)’s means of implementation chapter, are merely a form of “guidance” and the JPOI is a mere “inspiration” for Member States. At a side-event held yesterday on “The WTO and Sustainable Development” these and similar statements about sustainable development and trade were expressed. After this barrage of pro trade statements, it seems clear that the CSD, the UN’s highest level commission on sustainable development, needs to be able to address issues related to trade and sustainable development.

As the CSD struggles to conclude this cycle with policy recommendations that advance sustainable development, it is time to ask ourselves: Should the WTO, an organisation that barely contributes to the CSD dialogue, dictate the scope and usefulness the CSD agenda? The answer is no. By ignoring important issues for the implementation of Agenda 21 and the JPOI, the CSD is unfulfilling its mandate to avoid disturbing the big trade giant. The CSD must realise its potential; it must take the chance to serve a trust-building policy forum to create far-sighted policies that do not centre on economics. Sustainable development is not an 'inspiration', it's a promise we have made to future generations

Trade is considered by many to be the engine of growth. In many cases, however, such growth prioritises economic benefits at the expense of social and environmental capital. We know that sustainable development requires a balancing of environmental, social, and economic concerns. The WTO founding documents define sustainable development as an overarching objective of the WTO. Ministers in Johannesburg pledged to “promote open, equitable, rules-based, predictable, and non-discriminatory multilateral trading and financial systems that benefit all countries in the pursuit of sustainable development.” Given these explicit links of trade and sustainable development in both international sustainable development agreements and international trade agreements, one would expect to see a WTO that is upholding and promoting sustainable development.

To date, however, this has not proved possible. After almost two years of working towards a CSD outcome that favours sustainable development, and hearing time and time again at CSD 14 that fair trade practices are necessary and that energy subsidies are distorting the global market, we are now faced with a text that excludes any recommendations on trade policy or trade-related practices. The text has been watered down to avoid any conflict with the WTO, as though the global trade policies that have led us into this current state of unsustainability do not need to change. The CSD has chosen to stay on the sidelines, making only superficial and tangential policy recommendations, while letting the WTO define the scope and meaning of the policies that are supposed to get our world on a sustainable track.

Given the current deadlock in the WTO, this is a potentially deadly approach for sustainable development. Though the speaker at yesterday’s event did highlight potential areas of progress for the sustainable development agenda, she focused only on areas where we can anticipate a positive outcome for environment in the Doha Round, namely: fishery subsidies, the liberalization of environmental goods, and the defining of the relationships between multilateral environmental agreements and trade rules. Yet, there are more areas where a positive agreement is desperately needed (agricultural subsidies, non-agricultural market access, and special differentiated treatment)—areas of critical importance to the promotion of sustainable development, and where the CSD must exercise leadership.

The relationship between industrial development and non-agricultural market access (NAMA) is a case in point. Our cautious approach to industrial development at this session has weakened any policies calling for tariff reductions for developing and least developed countries. As though there are no links between trade and industrial development, Commission Members have avoided speaking on the fundamental social and environmental aspects surrounding issues of non-agricultural good and market access. Policy recommendations to provide guidance for poverty reduction and industrial development are hopeless because the CSD has surrendered its power while waiting for the WTO to conclude negotiations on NAMA.
Looking ahead to the next cycle of the CSD, the potential for trade sensitivities to weaken the outcome is high. Focusing on agriculture, rural development, land, and Africa, CSD 16/17 will address issues that strike at the heart of the current Doha impasse. The WTO has, to date, failed to deliver an agreement that promotes principles of sustainable development in these areas. We have yet to see a definition of “special products” that addresses Africa’s food security, livelihood security, and rural development needs. Similarly, the “early harvest” in the cotton negotiations, called for by the ‘Cotton 4’ (Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad and Mali), has not yet materialised. In light of this, we must not shy away from putting the critical issues for agriculture and sustainable development on the table at CSD16/17. Furthermore, in the absence of progress at the WTO, we need to create space for ‘confidence building’ between developed and developing countries on sustainable development and agriculture. The CSD offers a forum for this and shoul not e wasted. the JPOI is not a token inspirational reference: it is a blueprint for achieving sustainable development.