Yvo de Boer

"Skip the Reformation - Indulgences Are Enough". At least, so seems to say Yvo de Boer, head of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Rich nations should be absolved from the need to cut emissions if they pay developing countries to do it on their behalf, a senior UN official has said. - BBC

This has always been the fear with carbon trading and carbon offsets; where carbon trading was intended to be used as a last ditch approach to dealing with emissions cuts - i.e. an action you take after you've made every possible adjustment to your industry that you can - critics of the schemes have always feared they would be merely used as a means for wealthy nations to absolve their climate sins, and continue with the status quo.

He said rich nations should be able to buy their way out of 100% of their responsibilities...

Green groups said the proposal was against the spirit of the UN, which agreed that wealthy countries - who were responsible for climate change - should do most to cure it. - BBC

The logic is simple, really. Our global warming problems, to date, are the result of the actions of a small percentage of the world's population - primarily the U.S. and European nations. Even if everyone in 'developing' nations were to be whisked off to another planet today (i.e. if there were no one left to pay for our climate misdeeds), and we were left alone to deal with the consequences of our own emissions, we would still suffer the results of climate change over the coming decades. Although reducing the emissions of developing nations is critical, it is beyond naive to believe that this on its own is enough. If that were the case, we would need to find another phenomenon to blame for the last decade's escalation in global temperatures and extreme weather patterns.

Some of the results of global warming are now inevitable, we have set in motion changes that cannot be easily reversed. But, they can be minimized, if we act decidedly and quickly. We can do something to improve our future prospects. But, a scenario that has developed nations continuing as they are, whilst seeking to minimise the damage from the inevitable 'development' of The South is setting a target of minimised increases, not maximum possible reductions. Such a target is not a target at all.

Mike Childs from Friends of the Earth said: "This proposal simply won't deliver the cuts we need in time. The scientists are telling us that we need to cut carbon dioxide (CO2) by 50-80% by 2050.

"Unless rich countries start to wean themselves off fossil fuels right away this won't happen." - BBC

I would like to take the opportunity to reiterate an important, but not oft considered aspect of the whole carbon trading scenario:

Anyone that has observed the last few decades of globalised economics will recognise that resources and labour from the South have been systematically utilised by the North. We have increased our wealth at their expense, so, theoretically, returning that wealth to the South in the form of clean technology investment is arguably a fair trade, particularly when you consider their nations are already suffering the strongest consequences of our historical polluting.

As logical as it all sounds, it’s not quite so simple (it never is!). This mass transfer of funds (annual estimates are in the multi billions of dollars) has inherent complications associated with it. Monies will not be gifted outright, of course. Donors, and the public, will expect 1) independent verification that the money sent thousands of miles away to villages and cities they’ve never heard of, let alone seen, is serving the purpose intended (not an easy task to accurately validate), and 2) financial return on investment... Donor industries in the North can effectively control industry in the South - potentially making such investment more self-serving than may initially be apparent.

"However, this would not be dead money, handed over with no prospect of any financial return. If UK businesses were for example financing low-carbon power generation in China, those businesses would expect a share of the profits and dividends generated by the power generation."

We’re talking about compelled philanthropy that would in fact yield future financial gains, quite apart from its impact on the environment." - BBC

So, the question that has yet to be answered is could said investment remove the rights of the nations in the South? Will the money sent South simply bounce back to Northern bank accounts - with the South worse for wear because of it? Will those funds sponsor technologies not welcome in the North, but that, for some, still ’slide’ under a pale green banner - like Nuclear? Will it be poured into ‘carbon sinks’ (monoculture forests) that have proven to be disastrous to indigenous peoples already, and that can have dubious offsetting merit (i.e. can be destroyed by natural or manmade fires, or that are planted after first clearing carbon absorbing grasses already in place, etc.)? Also, if new industries are created in developing countries via CDM funding, there is the risk that we’re actually increasing CO2 output, by speeding their transition, unless strict carbon-neutral standards are adhered to. Will we convert thatched roofs into solar-panel plated iron versions - covering industries that those nations may never have begun in the first place?

... The world needs to eschew its energy intensive lifestyle. That’s a given. And, there are significant changes that can be made within developed society, if only we have that determination. The fact remains, however, that whether we support CDM projects or not, it is critical that we recognise they have both the potential to help, or, they may simply relax any fragile resolve we’ve accrued to make those changes, and may speed the already rapid advance of globalisation - under a bright green banner of peace and philanthropy. - Is the UK on the Right Track?

Developing nations are keen to attract CDM funding, but some are already realising that the funds received are not wholly philanthropic. For more on this, please see the documentation referred to in the 'Further Reading' section at bottom of this post.

Rather than a mechanism to decrease carbon emissions, if we are not careful these schemes will simply become a means to increased profits, increased consumption and increased corporate control.