Co-sponsored by The Environmental Law Institute The American Bar Association Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources The National Association of Environmental Law Societies
The Constitution has long been interpreted by the courts and understood by most Americans to support comprehensive environmental protections. However, arguments targeting the constitutional legitimacy of environmental laws continue to gain traction in the federal courts. To inform the debate, we invite law students to submit papers exploring current issues of constitutional environmental law.
AWARD: $2000 cash prize and an offer of publication in the Environmental Law Reporter.
TOPIC: Any topic addressing recent developments or trends in U.S. environmental law that have a significant constitutional or “federalism” component. (See sample topics below.)
ELIGIBILITY: Students currently enrolled in law school (in the U.S. or abroad) are eligible, including students who will graduate in the spring or summer of 2009. Any relevant article, case comment, note, or essay may be submitted, including writing submitted for academic credit. Jointly authored pieces are eligible only if all authors are students and consent to submit. Previously published pieces, or pieces that are already slated for publication, are ineligible.
DEADLINE: Entries must be received no later than 5:00 PM ET on April 6, 2009. Email essays (and questions) to Lisa Goldman at email@example.com. You will receive a confirmation by email.
SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS: Cover page. This page must include the following information: • Title; • Author’s name, year in law school, and expected graduation date (to facilitate impartial judging, the author’s name and law school must NOT appear anywhere in the essay, other than on the cover page); • Law school name and address; • Author’s permanent and school mailing address, email address, and phone number (IMPORTANT: indicate effective dates for all addresses); • Abstract (limited to 100 words) describing the piece; • Certification that the article has not been published and is not slated for future publication (while authors may submit their articles to other competitions, publication elsewhere will disqualify an entry from further consideration); and • Statement as to where the author(s) learned about this competition
Format. Submissions may be of any length up to a maximum of 50 pages (including footnotes), in a double-spaced, 8.5 x 11-inch page format with 12-point font (10-point for footnotes). Citation style must conform to the Bluebook. Submissions must be made by email attachment in Microsoft Word format, with the cover page as a separate attachment.
CRITERIA AND PUBLICATION: The prize will be awarded to the student work that, in the judgment of ELI, ABA-SEER, and NAELS, best informs the debate on a current topic of constitutional environmental law and advances the state of scholarship. ELI reserves the right to determine that no submission will receive the prize. While only one cash prize is available, ELI may decide to extend multiple offers of publication in the Environmental Law Reporter.
For more about ELI and its Endangered Environmental Laws Program, including past writing competitions, please visit www.eli.org and www.endangeredlaws.org. Information about ABA/SEER may be found at www.abanet.org/environ/. Information about NAELS may be found at www.naels.org.
SAMPLE TOPICS FOR THE 2008-09 ELI-ABA-NAELSWRITING COMPETITION Students may choose a topic from below or develop their own constitutional environmental law topic. 1) Challenges to environmental plaintiffs’ standing to be heard in federal courts– a) Standing to sue to enforce environmental laws. E.g., Earth Island Institute v. Ruthenbeck, 490 F.3d 687 (9th Cir. 2007), cert. granted, Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 128 S. Ct. 1118 (Jan. 18, 2008); implications of Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), and progeny; Coalition for a Sustainable Delta v. Carlson, 2008 WL 2899725 (E.D. Cal. July 24, 2008). b) Standing to sue for “increased risk of harm.” E.g., implications for environmental protection of an ever-higher bar in the D.C. Circuit for establishing standing in risk-based injury cases. See Public Citizen v. NHTSA, 513 F.3d 234 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (Sentelle, C.J., concurring) and 489 F.3d 1279 (D.C. Cir. 2007); NRDC v. EPA, 440 F.3d 476 (D.C. Cir.), vacated, 464 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2006). 2) Application to climate-change cases of other constitutional theories, such as statutory and foreign affairs preemption, political question doctrine, dormant Commerce Clause, and Compact Clause. E.g., possible challenges to regional cap-and-trade schemes, such as RGGI and the WCI; the impact of a future federal cap-and-trade law on state and regional climate frameworks; challenges to California’s tailpipe emissions regulations, as adopted by 16 other states; and efforts by states and local entities to recover damages from industry for contributions to global climate change. See Green Mountain Chrysler Plymouth Dodge Jeep v. Crombie, 508 F.Supp.2d 295 (D. Vt. 2007), appeal filed, No. 07-4342, -4360 (2d Cir.); Central Valley Chrysler-Jeep, Inc. v. Goldstene, 529 F. Supp. 2d 1151 (E.D. Cal. 2007), aff’d on reh’g, 563 F. Supp. 2d 1158 (E.D. Cal. 2008); Lincoln Dodge, Inc. v. Sullivan, 2008 WL 5054863 (D.R.I. Nov. 21, 2008); California v. General Motors Corp., 2007 WL 2726871 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2007), appeal filed, No. 07-16908 (9th Cir.); Comer v. Murphy Oil, No. 05-436 (S.D. Miss. Aug. 30, 2007) (granting motion to dismiss), appeal argued, No. 07-60756 (5th Cir. Nov. 3, 2008); Connecticut v. American Electric Power Co., 406 F.Supp.2d 265 (S.D.N.Y. 2005), appeal filed, No. 05-5104 (2d Cir.); and Kivalina v. Exxonmobil Corp., No. 08- 01138 (N.D. Cal. filed Feb. 26, 2008). 3) Legislative developments and potential court challenges to Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause and other constitutional provisions (e.g., Spending Power, Property Clause, and Treaty Power) to afford comprehensive protection to the “waters of the United States.” E.g., Clean Water Restoration Act (H.R. 2421, S. 1870). In the wake of SWANCC v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001), and Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006), and the resulting confusion for Clean Water Act administration and enforcement, much of the debate over the constitutional reach of federal water protections has shifted from the federal courts to Congress. 4) Invocation of constitutional due process to cap punitive damages in environmental cases. See Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 128 S. Ct. 2605 (2008), establishing as an upper limit in maritime cases a 1:1 ratio between compensatory and punitive damages. Justice Ginsburg, writing separately, wondered if the Court intended to signal that this ratio would eventually become a ceiling imposed by due process. 5) Impact of preemption jurisprudence (including in non-environmental cases) on environmental protection. See Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., 128 S. Ct. 999 (2008); Levine v. Wyeth, 944 A.2d 179 (Vt. 2006), cert. granted, Wyeth v. Levine, 128 S. Ct. 1118 (Jan. 18, 2008); Pacific Merchant Shipping Association v. Goldstene, 517 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2008).
A new study by Stanford
Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering Mark Jacobson entitled “Review
of Solutions to Global Warming, Air Pollution, and Energy Security” Jacobson study linkcomprehensively analyzes various energy solutions, addressing
associated impacts on water supply, land use, wildlife,
resources, and pollution. Ultimately, the study finds that “In sum, the use
of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, solar, wave, and hydroelectric to provide
electricity for BEVs [battery-electric vehicles] and HFCVs [hydrogen fuel cell
vehicles] result in the most benefit and least impact among the options
considered. Coal-CCS and nuclear provide less benefit with greater negative
impacts. The biofuel options provide no certain benefit and result in
significant negative impacts.”
Due to the poor EO/EI ratio of biofuel and its competition with food crops, most of us are skeptical about widespread use of biofuel to meet transportation needs. However, air transportation is one of the few sectors where finding alternative energy sources is difficult. So, the recent and forthcoming tests of various biofuels in the air transportation sector are noteworthy, especially when strict conditions are placed on biofuel production. In one recent test, Air New Zealand set three requirements for sustainable biofuel:
(1) the fuel source must be environmentally sustainable and not compete with existing food resources;
(2) the fuel must be a drop-in replacement for traditional jet fuel
and technically be at least as good as the product used today; and
(3)the fuel must be cost competitive with existing fuel supplies and be readily available.
A passenger jet
with one of its four engines running on a biofuel blend today completed
the world's first commercial aviation test flight to test a biofuel
made from jatropha. The test flight was a joint initiative with partners Boeing,
Rolls-Royce and Honeywell's UOP. The two hour Air New Zealand test flight was powered by a
second-generation biofuel made from the seeds of the jatropha plant
that could reduce emissions and cut costs. The flight was the first to
use jatropha jatropha seed oil as part of a biofuel mix [50% jatropha, 50% jet fuel]....
Air New Zealand test plane (Photo courtesy Air New Zealand)
Jatropha seed pods (Photo courtesy Air New Zealand)
Jatropha is a plant that produces seeds that contain inedible lipid
oil that is used to produce the fuel. Each seed produces 30-40 percent
of its mass in oil and jatropha can be grown in a range of difficult
conditions, including arid and otherwise non-arable areas, leaving
prime areas available for food crops....
The jatropha used on Tuesday's flight was grown in Malawi, Mozambique
and Tanzania, the airline said. The criteria for sourcing the jatropha
oil required that the land was neither forest land nor virgin grassland
within the previous two decades.
Jatropha grows on poor soil and in arid climates not suitable for most
food crops. The jatropha farms that grew the seeds for this test flight
are rain-fed and not mechanically irrigated.
The test flight partners engaged Terasol Energy, a leader in
sustainable jatropha development projects, to independently source and
certify that the jatropha-based fuel for the flight met all
sustainability criteria. Once received from Terasol Energy, the jatropha oil was refined
through a collaborative effort between Air New Zealand, Boeing and
refining technology developer UOP. The process utilized UOP technology
to produce jet fuel that can serve as a direct replacement for
traditional petroleum jet fuel.
Air New Zealand aims to meet 10 percent of its fuel needs through sustainable biofuel by 2013. In February, Virgin Atlantic was the first airline to test a commercial
aircraft on a biofuel blend, using a 20 percent mixture of coconut oil
and babassu oils in one of its four engines. In January, two more airlines will test their biofuel blends.
Continental Airlines on January 7 will conduct a test flight powered by
a blend involving algae and jatropha. The flight will be the first
biofuel flight by a commercial carrier using algae as a fuel source,
the first using a two-engine aircraft, and the first biofuel
demonstration flight of a U.S. commercial airliner. On January 30, Japan Airlines is planning a test flight from
Tokyo using a fuel based on the camelina oilseed as a way to cut
greenhouse gas emissions.
Anthropogenic fossil-fuel burning is increasing the concentration of
CO2 in the atmosphere, which in turn is causing more
CO2 to dissolve in the ocean, thereby lowering the water's pH.
Such ocean acidification in turn decreases the concentration of carbonate
ion (CO3)2-, which makes it more difficult for
calcifying organisms such as foraminifera, pteropods, and corals to build
their skeletons. So far, most of the attention paid to this process has
focused on the time-averaged chemistry of the ocean, but organisms actually
experience seasonal carbonate and pH variations. McNeil and Matear examine
these variations and show that anthropogenic CO2 uptake is
likely to induce winter aragonite undersaturation in some regions of the
ocean when atmospheric CO2 levels reach 450 parts per million.
These findings underscore the importance of understanding the seasonal
dynamics of marine carbonate chemistry, as natural variability could hasten
the deleterious impacts of future ocean acidification. --
HJS Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.105, 18860 (2008).
Science reports on a new study showing that both rising ocean water temperatures and ocean acidification are causing a reduced rate of calcification of coral reefs in the Great Barrier Reef. Coral reefs are threatened by from rising sea-surface
temperatures, ocean acidification (the declining pH of surface seawater
layers caused by the absorption of increasing amounts of atmospheric
CO2), pollution, and overexploitation. Other studies have demonstrated declines in the
coverage and numbers of live coral reefs, as well as reduced coral diversity, but few examined how rates of coral calcification have been
affected. The study by De'ath et al. examined growth patterns of 328 massive Porites corals from the Great
Barrier Reef of Australia and found that their rates of calcification have
declined by nearly 15% since 1990, to values lower than any seen for the
past 400 years. The main causes of this continuing decline appear to be
increasing water temperatures and ocean acidification.Science today link
The Economist summarized the December Poznan, Poland meeting as fiddling with words. Economist link Likewise, in 2007, I characterized the G8 summit in these words, "Nero became infamous for fiddling as First
Century Rome burned. This month, the parties at the G8 summit followed
Nero's insanely frivolous, time-wasting lead. Unfortunately, this time
the whole planet is burning."Findlaw: Smith commentary But the Economist captured the situation with a different metaphor.
IMAGINE that some huge rocky projectile, big enough to destroy most
forms of life, was hurtling towards the earth, and it seemed that deep
international co-operation offered the only hope of deflecting the
lethal object. Presumably, the nations of the world would set aside all
jealousies and ideological hangups, knowing that failure to act
together meant doom for all. At least in theory, most of the world’s governments now accept that
climate change, if left unchecked, could become the equivalent of a
deadly asteroid. But to judge by the latest, tortuous moves in
climate-change diplomacy—at a two-week gathering in western Poland,
which ended on December 13th—there is little sign of any
mind-concentrating effect. To be fair to the 10,000-odd people (diplomats, UN bureaucrats, NGO
types) who assembled in Poznan, a semicolon was removed. At a similar
meeting in Bali a year earlier, governments had vowed to consider ways
of cutting emissions from “deforestation and forest degradation in
developing countries; and the role of conservation [and forest
management]”. After much haggling, delegates in Poland decided to
upgrade conservation by replacing the offending punctuation mark with a
comma. At this pace, it seems to hard to believe that a global deal on
emissions targets (reconciling new emitters with older ones) can be
reached next December at a meeting in Copenhagen, seen as a
make-or-break time for UN efforts to cool the world.
The Economist went on to explain some of the background factors that influenced the events at Poznan and why it was not a totally depressing waste of time:
In the background of the Poznan meeting, there was mild optimism
(and a reluctance by others to put fresh cards on the table) ahead of
an expected change of stance by an Obama administration in America;
resentment (among the poor and green) over the refusal of Japan and
Canada to promise deeper cuts; and strong demands from China for the
transfer of technology from the rich to others. In the final hours of
the conference, the governments of small, sinking island nations were
delighted to learn that they, and not some global body, would control a
fund to help them adapt to a warming world. Their mood changed when it
became known that no extra money had been set aside for this purpose. However hard it looks to put this global jigsaw together, there were
some encouraging unilateral moves, especially from Latin America.
Mexico vowed to halve greenhouse emissions by 2050; Brazil said it
could reverse a recent rise in deforestation and cut the rate of forest
loss by 70% over the next decade; Peru said that with help it could
reduce deforestation to zero.
But the economist made the case that the key to progress towards an agreement in Copenhagen is the willingness of the EU to continue to provide climate leadership. The EU's attitude seems a bit ambivalent. As the Economist reported,
At a summit on December 11th and 12th, the EU’s leaders eventually
decided to keep their targets intact while also allowing opt-outs which
may yet undermine their stated goals. President Nicolas Sarkozy, who
chaired the summit, boasted of a “terrific fight” which French
diplomacy had managed to finesse. Despite many concessions for heavy
industry and poor newcomers to the EU, the final deal (perhaps to its
credit) left everybody unhappy. European industry felt too much was
being asked of it, while green groups thought industry had gained
rather too many concessions. In the background of the EU’s wrangling were some goals laid out
last year in pre-recession times. By the year 2020, the EU promised
three things: to cut overall greenhouse gas emissions by 20% over 1990
levels; to obtain 20% of overall EU energy from renewables like wind,
waves and plant waste; and to make efficiency savings of 20% over
forecast consumption. The new EU deal kept the targets, but offered sops to countries that
fear an emphasis on the “polluter pays” principle may drive up
electricity costs, or push heavy industry away to places, like Asia,
that in Copenhagen will oppose big emission cuts. Opt-outs were granted
from plans to force large polluters to buy allowances to emit carbon at
auction. Poorish ex-communist countries that rely on coal for power
will be allowed to dish out up to 70% of the carbon allowances needed
by power firms, for no payment, for a few years after 2013. Heavy industries that face global competition will also get up to
100% of their allowances free, at least initially, if they use the
cleanest available technologies. And EU nations will be allowed to buy
in credits for emissions reductions far from Europe, and count them
against as much as 90% of their national reduction targets. Eurocrats say a reduced emphasis on auctioning permits won’t
undermine the benefits of the package; carbon-cutting discipline still
comes from the ceiling on the number of allowances issued. That cap
will be cut each year after 2013: this should help to support carbon
prices in the EU’s Emissions-Trading Scheme. The concessions risk prolonging some follies. For example, big power
firms that now get carbon allowances free have been passing on their
nominal cost to customers. Handing out free allowances may also reduce
revenues available to governments for investment in greenery. Moreover,
some pro-market countries fret that using climate-change policies to
redistribute money within the EU will cause trouble in global talks. It
will make it harder to resist China and India when they seek transfers
of money in the name of “solidarity”.
The ECN had a more optimist view of the EU's action, arguing that the final package passed the political test:
The energy and climate policy package was proposed
in January 2008 by the European Commission and, after some adjustments,
agreed by the Member States last week during a meeting of EU government
leaders. The central objectives remained in place: For the year 2020,
(i) to save energy use by 20%, (ii) to increase the share of renewable
energy in total energy use to 20% (compared to some 8% in 2005), and
(iii) to reduce total EU greenhouse gas emissions by 20% (compared to
The main instrument to achieve the greenhouse gas
reduction target is the EU-wide harmonised Emissions Trading Scheme
(ETS). The most contested issue in the package was whether industries
would receive their emission allowances for free or whether they would
have to buy them in an auction. Currently, the allowances are given out
for free, which has led to power companies charging their consumers as
if they are paying a carbon price, resulting in billions of windfall
profits. Auctioning of the emission allowances would solve this
problem, but is politically controversial as it would lead to high
costs for greenhouse gas emitting industries.
On auctioning in the ETS the following was decided:
from 2013, power companies have to buy all their emission allowances at
an auction. Contrary to the original EC proposal, however, the EU
government leaders agreed that for existing power generators in some
(mainly East-European) countries the auctioning rate in 2013 will be at
least 30% and will be progressively raised to 100% no later than 2020.
This means that for instance existing coal-fired power plants in Poland
still get their allowances for free, but that new power plants need to
pay. In the Netherlands, all power plants will have to buy their
• For the industrial sectors under the ETS, the
government leaders agreed that the auctioning rate will be set at 20%
in 2013, increasing to 70% in 2020, with a view to reaching 100% in
2027. The original EC proposal included 100% auctioning in 2020 rather
than 2027. Industries exposed to significant non-EU competition,
however, will receive 100% of allowances free of charge up to 2020.
With regard to greenhouse gas reduction in the
sectors that are not covered by the ETS, such as households and
transport, which cover about 55-60% of EU emissions, the Commission
proposal allowed Member States to use offset credits to meet up to
two-thirds of the emission reduction and the remaining part by domestic
abatement measures. The EU leaders, however, agreed to allow 11 (mainly
West-European) countries – including Spain and Italy – to use
additional offset credits to meet their non-ETS targets.
My bottom line from all of this is that the U.S. needs to assert serious leadership on climate change -- and the green team Obama has assembled gives every reason for hope that it will do so. In just less than a month!
Obama's picks for key members of his energy and environment team have
not just drawn praise -- they've set off a wave of optimism that the
time for serious action on climate change has arrived.
"This is a team with a keen interest in addressing climate change,
and the talent and skills to get the job done," Eileen Claussen,
President of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, said in a statement.
"With Steven Chu, Carol Browner, Lisa Jackson and Nancy Sutley at the
helm, President-Elect Obama's Administration will be well-equipped to
tackle the challenge of building a new clean energy future that
preserves the climate while revitalizing our economy."
"These selections form a green dream team that will help
President-elect Obama’s vision for solving our economic and global
warming challenges through clean energy become reality," Gene
Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters, was quoted
as saying by Congressional Quarterly's Politics blog.
In the press conference yesterday introducing the new team,
President-elect Obama said of Energy Secretary-desginate and
Nobel-prize winning physicist Steven Chu, "His appointment should send
a signal to all that my Administration will value science, we will make
decisions based on the facts, and we understand that the facts demand
That signal has been heard loud and clear.
"Obama has chosen about the most qualified scientist one can imagine to make the case for putting the E back into DOE," Science Insider, a blog run by the same organization that publishes the influential journal Science, wrote of President-elect Obama's choice to lead the Department of Energy.
Under the headline "Science Born Again in the White House, and Not a Moment Too Soon,"Wired
magazine's Science blog wrote that Secretary-designate Chu "recognizes
the need to invest in science, from grade schools to universities to
industry. He sees the imperative for the government to think in new and
big ways about the energy problem. He understands we have to face up to
climate change. And, most importantly, he has ideas about how to get it
all done and the character to make them happen."
Reid Detchon, executive director of the Energy Future Coalition,
praised the creation of a new White House post to coordinate energy and
climate policy, and the choice of Carol Browner to fill it.
"The President-elect's decision...to integrate policy on the
intersection of energy, environment and climate change is both
visionary and overdue," he said in a statement.
"All the agencies of government must be involved, and his selection of
Carol Browner to lead the Council signals the importance he attaches to
an effective inter-agency process."
Know your source: American Council for Capital Formation contends that CO2 controls will conflict with job creation and economic stimulus plans
E & E:
Can President-elect Barack Obama successfully stimulate the economy,
create jobs and reduce emissions? What are some of the pitfalls of
pursuing a "green" stimulus? During today's OnPoint, Margo Thorning,
senior vice president and chief economist at the American Council for
Capital Formation, gives her take on why some of the incoming
administration's aggressive climate and economic goals may conflict
with each other. Thorning assesses Obama's energy and environment
Cabinet picks and explains how she believes the chairmanship shift in
the House Energy and Commerce Committee will affect the push for
ACCP has been an ExxonMobil-funded, conservative think tank with a climate skeptic slant. For example, in March 2003, Dr. Thorning had this take on the minor cuts required by the Kyoto Protocol:
Given the severe macroeconomic impacts the Kyoto Protocol would
impose on the United States, including reducing U.S. GDP by 1-4
percent, slowing wage growth significantly, worsening the distribution
of income, and reducing growth in living standards, Dr. Thorning called
for a new approach. Voluntary measures to reduce CO2 emissions should
include modifications to U.S. tax policy that reduce the cost of
capital for energy-efficient investments
ExxonSecrets.org reported that American Council for Capital Formation Center for Policy Research has received $1,619,523 from ExxonMobil between 1998-2006. The 2007 report indicates that ExxonMobil still supports ACCF-CPR, again providing a $15,000 additional contribution.
Last week, among 34 development-related actions put forward by
its Second Committee (Economic and Financial), the UN General Assembly
(UNGA) adopted a number of resolutions including consideration of the economic
ramifications of climate change.
Among the climate change-related resolutions, the UN General Assembly:
supported international efforts and funding to prevent and manage
natural disasters, as well as extreme weather patterns;
stressed the need to further advance and
implement the Bali Strategic Plan for Technology Support and
Capacity-Building (document A/63/414/Add.7);
called for urgent global
action to address climate change for the benefit of present and future
generations, and urged parties to the UNFCCC to continue using the
Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change in their work (document A/63/414/Add.4);
urged all governments,
relevant organizations, UN bodies and the Global Environment Facility
to take timely action to effectively follow-up and implement the
Strategy and the Mauritius Declaration, and called upon the
international community to help Small Island Developing States adapt to
the adverse impacts of climate change (document A/63/414/Add.2);
encouraged governments to promote sustainable urbanization to improve
the living conditions of vulnerable populations, including
slum-dwellers and the urban poor, and to help mitigate climate change
(UN-Habitat document A/63/415); and
reaffirmed its partnership with the
Pacific Island Forum through the lens of the serious threats posed to
vulnerable island States by climate change and the global economic
recession (document A/63/L.56).
The Plight of the South Pacific Islands -- visit Kiribati with PBS
In the Poland climate change meeting just concluded, a top UN official predicted that by the middle of this
century, the world should expect six million people a year to be
displaced by increasingly severe storms and floods caused by climate
But as the PBS program NOW recounts:
for many island nations in the South Pacific, climate
change is already more than just a theory -- it is a pressing, menacing
reality. These small, low-lying islands are frighteningly vulnerable to
rising temperatures and sea levels that could cause flooding and
contaminate their fresh water wells. Within 50 years, some of them
could be under water. NOW travels to the nation of Kiribati to see up close how these changes
affect residents' daily lives and how they are dealing with the reality
that both their land and culture could disappear from the Earth. We
also travel to New Zealand to visit an I-Kiribati community that has
already left its home, and to the Pacific Island Forum in Niue to see
how the rest of the region is coping with the here-and-now crisis of
It is so difficult this time of year to decide how to spend one's limited resources in a way consistent with our duty to reduce human suffering and make the world a better place. It is especially difficult now, when all of us are a bit uncertain about our financial future and have lost a considerable amount of our paper wealth. But, I am concentrating for now on Haiti, the most impoverished nation in the Western hemisphere. Below I post a letter from a friend in Haiti, in the hope that some of you may help in the resurrection of Haiti after this fall's hurricane season. Obviously, my friend is a Christian (as I am), but human need knows no religion. Be assured that any money sent him through the church will be used to meet profound human need, not the promotion of a creed. And, if you are reluctant to send money to a faith-based organization, just let me know and I'll be happy to find a secular route for your gift.
[We] are writing you all with a great mix of emotions – sadness and frustration, great doubts, fear, but also some sense of hope. Many of you already know that in the past five weeks, Haiti was affected by four hurricanes – Fay, Gustav, Hanna and Ike, resulting in profound destruction throughout the entire country. Chavannes Jean Baptiste, the director of MPP (Mouvman Peyizan Papay–Farmer’s Movement of Papay) noted this past Monday that the situation is without precedent. MPP along with other national and international organizations are beginning to get a grasp of the level of havoc and devastation, but it seems impossible that anyone will ever be able to make a full accounting of the loss of life and property.
Many of the root causes of the poverty in Haiti–weak government, inadequate communication, lack of roads and other infrastructure, virtually non-existent social services–have always kept Haitind other countries with similar conditions, open to the full effects of disasters such as this. These same conditions now make it difficult and in some cases impossible for a quick response to those who need help the most. It is even nearly impossible to know who needs the help the most. In the last two days, I have received reports via e-mail of whole communities without food and water, with no help in sight. Lack of real roads have always been part of the isolation of many of these communities. Now, the serious damage to bridges and other weak points along the roads that do exist has increased the number of people who are isolated from any easy access, as well as deepening the level of isolation for those who have always lived at the limits.
Given all this, [our] sense of sadness is easy to understand. We live along side people who carry on their daily lives with grace, great generosity and wonderful senses of humor, despite the profound limitations. Now, these same people, some of whom are close personal friends, have lost homes and possessions and we know they have no real resources, or hope, for recuperating their losses. We have a great need to help, but we ourselves do not have the ability to provide any help that seems significant, even at the local level. Not even for just the families who are part of MPP – at least 52 families whose homes were flooded last week. Multiply the needs of the folks in Hinche by all of communities in nearly every part of Haiti, you can easily understand our frustration. What can we do? Within the sadness and frustration I also feel some guilt, because we ourselves are safe and suffered no damage at all to our home or even to the project where I work.
We also wonder whether the kind of help that is starting to come could possibly be adequate, given the enormous need. And will the assistance that comes be directed to address some of the root causes of poverty in Haiti? Will the funds help rebuild roads and bridges so that they are better than they were, or will the be used to make the highways and byways merely passable, subject as always to rapid degradation by even normal use? And will the international lending agencies, such as the International Monetary Fund, encourage the Haitian government to create “safety nets” that can help families and communities recuperate losses? Or will they follow their standard policy, insisting on budgetary stringency, regardless of the needs of the most vulnerable–the poor in general, and women, children and the aged in particular?
It is impossible to write about the current catastrophe without mentioning as well the ongoing global wide crises of food prices which are spiraling out of US control. In the project that I help coordinate – the crew prepares and shares two meals a day. We produce all of the vegetables for these meals ourselves, but for the items we can’t produce (corn, rice, coffee, oil etc), we paid a total of around $100 in May. In August, we spent around $135 for the same supplies and in September we spent $175. In a country where over half the population earns less than $US 1.00 a day, the situation was devastating, before the flooding will now die from hunger, giving in at last to ongoing deprivation?
And the fear we feel, where does that come from? Haitians have a marvelous way of dealing with difficult situations that I have come to respect a great deal. They sing, they laugh, they joke and suddenly, the load lightens and the way forward opens up again. There is also a great deal of tolerance, or patience, with unjust conditions. But there are limits. The suffering from the food crisis was becoming nearly insufferable before the hurricanes. If there is not a rapid, reliable and comprehensive response to the current situation, especially by the Haitian government, there will almost surely be massive unrest, probably focused, as always, in Port au Prince, the capital of Haiti.
At the end of such a letter, what could we say about hope that could balance the discouragement I’m sure you can sense in what I write? First and foremost is faith – [our] faith as well as the profound faith of Haitians in general. We do believe in a God who makes a way where there is no way – our God who sent our savior, Jesus Christ, to die on the cross, not only to demonstrate God’s profound solidarity with his chosen people, but also to completely and finally put an end to despair. Because we are Christ followers, we hope, and there is nothing that can separate us from that hope, from the constant renewal of that hope. As [we] and several crew members were heading south, into Port au Prince,... we passed through an area just north of the city of Mirebelais (Mee be lay) where the farmers have access to irrigation. In field after field as we traveled down the road, farmers were out in those fields transplanting rice, hoeing rice, irrigating rice. Just one day after Hurricane Ike had passed through, the fields were already moving from devastation into abundance, farmers moving from being victims to being the agents of their own resurrection. What a miracle. What a God.
Please be part of Haiti’s resurrection. Contributions for the crisis in Haiti may be sent to Presbyterian Disaster Assistance (PDA). Please write on the check “DR-000064 Haiti Emergency.” Mail it to:
Presbyterian Church (USA) Individual Remittance
Processing P.O. Box 643700 Pittsburgh PA 15264-3700
- Submit artwork for
PIELC 2009 posters and t-shirts now! Email submissions to firstname.lastname@example.org, or mail them to 1221
University of Oregon School of Law, Eugene, OR 97403, attn: LAW
mid-January, our website will be updated with more travel, lodging, and
childcare options than ever at www.pielc.org.
keynote speakers are:
Katherine Redford – Co-Founder and US Office Director of Earth
Rights International, is a graduate of the University of Virginia School of
Law, where she received the Robert F. Kennedy Award for Human Rights and Public
Service. She is a member of the Massachusetts State Bar and served as counsel
to plaintiffs in ERI's landmark case Doe v. Unocal. Katie received an Echoing
Green Fellowship in 1995 to establish ERI, and since that time has split her time
between ERI's Thailand and US offices. In addition to working on ERI's
litigation and teaching at the EarthRights Schools, Katie currently serves as
an adjunct professor of law at both UVA and the Washington College of Law at
American University. She has published on various issues associated with human
rights and corporate accountability, in addition to co-authoring ERI reports
such as In Our Court, Shock and Law, and Total Denial Continues. In 2006, Katie
was selected as an Ashoka Global Fellow.
Riki Ott – Experienced firsthand the devastating effects of the Exxon
Valdez oil spill—and chose to do something about it. She retired from fishing,
founded three nonprofit organizations to deal with lingering social, economic,
and harm, and wrote two books about the spill. Sound Truth and Corporate Myths
focuses on the hard science-ecotoxicology, and the new understanding (paradigm
shift) that oil is more toxic than previously thought. Not One Drop describes
the soft science--the sociology of disaster trauma, and the new understanding
that our legal system does not work in cases involving wealthy corporations,
complex science, and class-action. Ott draws on her academic training and
experience to educate, empower, and motivate students and the general public to
address the climate crisis and our energy future through local solutions. Ott
lives Cordova, Alaska, the fishing community most affected by the disaster.
Stephen Stec – Adjunct Professor at Central European University (HU) and
Associate Scholar at Leiden University (NL). As well as the former head
of the Environmental Law Program of the Regional Environmental Center (REC),
Stec is one of the authors of The Aarhus Convention Implementation Guide and
main editor for the Access to Justice Handbook under the Aarhus Convention. The
subject of the Aarhus Convention goes to the heart of the relationship between
people and governments. The Convention is not only an environmental agreement;
it is also a Convention about government accountability, transparency and
responsiveness. The Aarhus Convention grants the public rights and
imposes on parties and public authorities obligations regarding access to
information and public participation and access to justice.
Fernando Ochoa – Legal Advisor for Pronatura Noroeste a
Mexican non-profit organization and the Waterkeeper Program for the Baja
California Peninsula, and founding member and Executive Director for Defensa
Ambiental del Noroeste (DAN), an environmental advocacy organization. Mr. Ochoa
has helped establish more than 60 conservation contracts to protect more than
150 thousand acres of land in Northwest Mexico. As the Executive Director
of DAN, Mr. Ochoa has successfully opposed several development and industrial
projects that threatened ecosystems in the Sea of Cortes and the Baja
California Peninsula, having saved critical habitat for Gray Whales, Whale
Sharks and other endangered species. His work has set important legal
precedents on environmental law in order for local communities to gain participation
in decision making processes, transparency and access to justice.
Claudia Polsky – Deputy Director of the Office of
Pollution Prevention and Green Technology (P2 Office) in California’s
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). The P2 Office is
central to the implementation of new (2008) legal authority that gives
California expansive ability to regulate toxic chemicals in consumer
products. Instead of focusing on cleanup of past pollution -- the
historic emphasis of DTSC -- the P2 Office looks to the future by
preventing the use of toxic materials in consumer products and industrial
operations. Ms. Polsky's duties include implementing California’s
Green Chemistry Initiative, overseeing hazardous waste source-reduction
programs, and working with staff engineers to evaluate and deploy new
environmental technologies that reduce the need for toxic chemicals.
The Office's work involves interaction with stakeholders as diverse as
electronics manufacturers, breast cancer activists, analytical chemists, and
venture capitalists. Before joining DTSC, Ms. Polsky worked for the
California Department of Justice, Earthjustice, Public Citizen Litigation
Group, and The Nature Conservancy. She holds an undergraduate degree from
Harvard University, and a J.D. from Boalt Hall School of Law, where she was
Editor in Chief of Ecology Law Quarterly. She is also a former Fulbright
Scholar to New Zealand, receiving a Masters of Applied Science in Natural
Gail Small – The director of Native Action, an environmental justice
organization in Lame Deer, Montana. Small's political engagement in energy
issues began in the early 1970s, when she and other high school students were
sent by the tribal government to visit coal extraction sites on the Navajo
Reservation and in Wyoming, after the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) signed
leases opening the Northern Cheyenne Reservation to strip-mining. Small later
served on a tribal committee that successfully fought for the cancellation of
the BIA coal leases. She received her law degree from the University of Oregon
and formed Native Action in 1984. Her work at Native Action includes
litigation, drafting tribal statutes, and creating informational resources for
One Reason Why I'm Skeptical of Carbon Markets: UN Suspends CDM Carbon-Offset Verification Firm
Quirin Schiermeier of Nature News reported today Nature link that the UN has suspended the main company that validates
carbon-offset projects in developing countries, "sending shockwaves
through the emissions-trading business." Certified
emission-reduction credits from verified projects are traded and
sold on the carbon emissions market, helping industrialized countries to meet
their emissions-reduction targets under the Kyoto Protocol. However,
only environmentally sustainable projects that would demonstrably not
go ahead without additional revenue from sales of these credits (thus meeting the "additionality" requirement) may be certified.
Det Norske Veritas is the largest verification company, a billion dollar business employing 8000 staff. In the past four years, DNV validated and
certified almost half of the 1,200 projects approved under the CDM. At its November meeting, the CDM's executive board temporarily withdrew
DNV's accreditation after an audit revealed serious flaws in
project management. The CDM board did not specify the projects affected by the problems, but indicated that there were problems with the company's internal auditing
processes and staff qualifications, with at least one staff member who verified CDM
projects without proper sectoral expertise. DNV cannot propose new CDM projects to the UN
for formal approval while suspended. 20–30 projects currently in the
process of validation may be delayed and DNV cannot take new projects as long as the suspension remains in effect. DNV will continue to validate and verify ongoing projects.
CDM projects under way in 51
countries are supposed to save some 250 million tons in
greenhouse-gas emissions. The UN hopes the CDM will abate almost 3 billion tons by the end of 2012,
CGD Contribution to Development Index - Environment
Go check out the Center for Global Development's 2007 Commitment to Development Index page. Its got some great graphics that you have to see to appreciate. Unsurprisingly, EU countries lead the way on the Center for Global Development's index of commitment to environmentally sustainable development and the US trails the pack, scoring under 3 on a 10 point scale, while EU countries tend to score 6 or above with Norway near 9. Center for Global Development Commitment to Development Index
Norway tops this year’s environment standings. Its net
greenhouse gas emissions fell during 1995–2005, the last ten years for
which data are available, thanks to steady expansion in its forests,
which absorb carbon dioxide. Also high is Ireland, whose economy grew
6.6 percent per year faster in the same period than its greenhouse gas
emissions; and the U.K., which has steadily increased gasoline taxes
and supported wind and other renewable energy sources. Spain finishes
low as a heavy subsidizer of its fishing industry while Japan is hurt
by its high tropical timber imports. The U.S. has not ratified the
Kyoto Protocol, the most serious international effort yet to deal with
climate change. That gap, along with high greenhouse emissions and low
gas taxes, puts the U.S. last. Two notches up, Australia cuts a similar
profile, with the highest per-capita greenhouse gas emissions in the
environment component of the CDI compares rich countries on policies
that affect shared global resources such as the atmosphere and oceans.
Rich countries use these resources disproportionately while poor ones
are less equipped to adapt to the consequences, such as global warming.
Countries do well if their greenhouse gas emissions are falling, if
their gas taxes are high, if they do not subsidize the fishing
industry, and if they control imports of illegally cut tropical timber.
A healthy environment is sometimes dismissed as a luxury for the
rich. But people cannot live without a healthy environment. And poor
nations have weaker infrastructures and fewer social services than rich
countries, making the results of climate change all the more damaging.
A study co-authored by CGD senior fellow David Wheeler predicts that a
two-meter sea level rise would flood 90 million people out of their
homes, many of them in the river deltas of Bangladesh, Egypt, and
The environment component looks at what rich countries are
doing to reduce their disproportionate exploitation of the global
commons. Are they reining in greenhouse gas emissions? How complicit
are they in environmental destruction in developing countries, for
example by importing commodities such as tropical timber? Do they
subsidize fishing fleets that deplete fisheries off the coasts of such
countries as Senegal and India?
Crude-oil futures are climbing above $58 a barrel this morning based on the Federal Reserve's report that industrial output from US factories, mines and utilities increased in October, moderating September's sharp losses. Industrial production in October increased 1.3% recovering at least a third of the 3.7% loss in September, which remains the biggest decline in 60 years. September's losses were due in part to the fact that fierce hurricanes in the Gulf shut down oil drilling, oil refining and chemical production.
Special Guest Contribution: Will we leave the Great Barrier Reef for our children? -- Dr. Chris McGrath
Dr Chris McGrath is an Australian lawyer
and researcher on laws protecting the GBR from climate change. This article is
based on a previously published research paper, McGrath (2008). Submitted 30 October 2008.
Amidst the current policy
debate in Australia and internationally on climate change is a surreal argument
that policies that will destroy the Great
Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (GBR) and other coral reefs around the
globe are acceptable and economically rational.
Nicolas Stern (2007: 330)
concluded that “coral reef ecosystems [will be] extensively and
eventually irreversibly damaged” by temperature change relative to
pre-industrial levels of 0.5-2°C. He found
that at 2°C warming “coral reefs
are expected to bleach annually in many areas, with most never recovering, affecting
tens of millions of people that rely on coral reefs for their livelihood or
food supply” (Stern 2007: 94).
Yet for what were clearly reasons of pragmatism and feasibility herecommended the global stabilisation
goal should lie within the range of 450-550 parts per million carbon dioxide
equivalents (ppm CO2-eq), thereby implicitly accepting a likely warming
of 2-3°C and loss of coral reefs, including the GBR.
Ross Garnaut, the
Australian Government’s handpicked economic advisor on responding to climate
change, followed Stern’s approach and was alive to the damage to the GBR. He
recommended that Australia should initially aim for a global consensus next
year at COP-15 in Copenhagen to stabilise
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at 550 ppm CO2-eq
and hope that global consensus can be reached later for lower stabilisation.
Garnaut (2008a: 38) was
brutally frank in his supplementary draft report: “The 550 strategy would be expected to lead to the destruction of the
Great Barrier Reef and other coral reefs.” His final report does not shy away
from this conclusion (Garnaut 2008b).
The new Australian Government
has silently avoided the issue of the expected impacts to the GBR when
explaining the costs and benefits of its climate policies. It does not yet have
a stabilisation target for the rise in global temperatures or greenhouse gases
but recent modelling of economic impacts of mitigating climate change
considered only three stabilisation targets.
The Australian Treasury (2008)
considers only stabilisation at 450, 510 and 550 ppm CO2-eq, aiming to stabilise mean global
temperature rises between 2-3°C. The only reference to impacts on the GBR is to a “very
high risk [of] loss of complete ecosystems, such as the Great Barrier Reef [if]
the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere rises to over 1,500 ppm
CO2-eq by 2100 [giving an] increase in global average temperature of
5°C above pre-industrial levels by 2100” (Australian Treasury 2008: 35).
In fact, as Stern
recognised, the current science indicates that the GBR will be devastated long
before such levels are reached and within the lower stabilisation range the Australian
Government appears to be aiming for.
Stern and Garnaut’s frank
admissions of the expected impacts to the GBR reflect research findings since
mass coral bleaching occurred globally in 1998 and 2002. Rising sea
temperatures and increasing acidity of the oceans due to our use of fossil
fuels are now well-recognized as major threats to coral reefs and the marine
ecosystem generally in coming decades.
to coral bleaching the IPCC (2007b: 12) found that:
“Corals are vulnerable to thermal stress and
have low adaptive capacity. Increases in sea surface temperature of about 1 to
3°C are projected to result in more frequent coral bleaching events and
widespread mortality, unless there is thermal adaptation or acclimatisation by
The findings of the IPCC suggest
that a rise of 1°C in mean global temperatures and, correspondingly, sea
surface temperatures above pre-industrial levels is the maximum that should be
aimed for if the global community wishes to protect coral reefs. The range of
1-3°C is the danger zone and 2°C is not
safe. Supporting this conclusion Ove Hoegh-Guldberg
and his colleagues concluded in a review of the likely impacts of climate
change to the GBR edited by Johnson and Marshall (2007: 295):
studies of the potential impacts of thermal stress on coral reefs have
supported the notion that coral dominated reefs are likely to largely disappear
with a 2°C rise in sea temperature over the next 100 years. This, coupled with
the additional vulnerability of coral reefs to high levels of acidification
once the atmosphere reaches 500 parts per million [CO2], suggests
that coral dominated reefs will be rare or non-existent in the near future.”
The IPCC’s (2007a: 826) best estimate of climate sensitivity found that stabilising greenhouse
gases and aerosols at 350 ppm CO2-eq would be expected to lead to a rise
in mean global temperatures of 1°C,
stabilising at 450 ppm CO2-eq will lead to a rise of 2°C, and stabilising at 550 ppm CO2-eq will lead to a rise of 3°C.
Atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and
aerosols have already passed 350 ppm CO2-eq making stabilisation at
that level extremely difficult if not impossible in practice, particularly in
the context of current global growth and energy use patterns. Atmospheric CO2
reached 379 ppm in 2005 and was increasing by around 2 ppm per year (IPCC 2007c: 102).
Including the effect of other greenhouse gases such as methane, the total concentration of
atmospheric greenhouse gases was around 455 ppm CO2-eq in 2005 (IPCC
2007c: 102). However, the cooling effects of aerosols and landuse changes
reduce radiative forcing so that the net forcing of human activities was about
375 ppm CO2‑eq for 2005 (IPCC 2007c: 102).
Global emissions of carbon dioxide,
the major anthropogenic greenhouse gas, are growing at approximately 3% per
annum, which exceeds even the “worst case” IPCC projections (Raupach et al 2007). This places global greenhouse gas
emissions on a trajectory to rise by 150% between 2000 and 2050 on “business as
When the conclusions
of the IPCC are synthesised, it is clear that reductions of greenhouse
emissions of 60% by 2050, such as proposed by the Australian Government (2008),
even if they can be achieved, are not likely to prevent serious damage to the GBR
and other coral reefs. A 60% reduction in global emissions by 2050 is
likely to lead to a mean global temperature rise around 2.4°C (IPCC 2007d: 67),
which is likely to severely degrade coral reefs globally. Stabilising
greenhouse gases and aerosols around 350 ppm CO2-eq and allowing a rise in
mean global temperature of 1°C appear to be the highest targets
that should be set if coral reefs are to be protected from serious degradation.
This brings us back to the current policy debate – Stern
and Garnaut’s frankness in recognizing the likely damage to the GBR and coral
reefs from the targets they recommend is welcome but their conclusions leave us
to wonder: is this the best we can do? Should we be prepared to write-off the
GBR and other coral reefs and their economic, social environmental values?
a young boy growing up in Australia’s Whitsundays Islands in the 1970s I
did not dream that the GBR that I swam and fished on would be severely damaged
by human activity within my own lifetime. Much less would I have dreamt that we
would choose to allow these impacts to occur, as we are currently doing.
and Garnaut’s targets are not ambitious enough and we should not accept them.
should judge our climate change policies by this simple test: will we leave the
GBR and other coral reefs around the world for our children? At present the
answer we are giving to this question is “no”. We are all responsible for
changing the answer to “yes”.
should demand targets based on what we as a society want to achieve. We should
not accept targets that will produce unacceptable outcomes.
current science indicates our aim should be stabilising atmospheric greenhouse
gases at 350 ppm if we want to protect the GBR and other coral reefs, but this
is rarely even mentioned as a potential target.
do not yet know if we can stabilise atmospheric greenhouse gases as 350, 450 or
550 ppm CO2-eq but think of it this way: if we want to build a
bridge across a river that is 1 kilometre wide we would not ask our engineers
to build us a bridge that is 500 metres long. We should apply the same logic to
climate change policy and set targets for our engineers and scientists to
achieve that produce results that we want to achieve.
need vision, ambition, and hard work to solve the climate crisis. Stern and Garnaut’s
approaches lacks the vision and ambition that is needed. We need to add these
ingredients to the global community’s many hard workers to solve the climate
Here are some predictions/picks on the Cabinet positions of most significance to environmental matters according to Politico's semi-official leaks. My picks and comments are in green.
Attorney general: Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine; Eric Holder, who was deputy AG under Clinton
and is now with Covington & Burling and led Obama’s vice presidential
search; Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick; Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano. Odds on favorite is Holder
Supreme Court nominee: Washington superlawyer Robert Barnett; legal
scholar Cass Sunstein; Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick; 2nd U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor of New York; Elena Kagan, dean of Harvard Law
School. Consensus is it would most likely be a woman. First nominee has got to be a woman - Kagan is smart and has credibility, but this is a much shorter list than Obama will look at.
Secretary of State: New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson; Sen. John F. Kerry
(D-Mass.); Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind) State is too important to give to a Republican, Kerry's too valuable in the Senate, and Richardson was UN Ambassador so he knows international diplomacy
Environmental Protection Agency administrator: Former Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.); Kathleen
McGinty, former head of the Pennsylvania Environmental Protection Agency Again, McGinty is an odds on favorite who knows her stuff
Commerce secretary: Penny Pritzker, Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, Sen.
Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) Need some Republicans and Olympia Snowe is a liberal one; although she's more valuable in the Senate. So maybe one of the non-environmental positions will go to a Republican and Obama will stick with a Democrat. I'd take Sebelius -- she's articulate and mid-Western.
Secretary of the Interior: Rep. Jay Inslee(D-Wash.), Robert F. Kennedy
Jr.This is the position most likely to go to someone who hasn't been in the running.
Secretary of Energy: California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), Sen.
Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.); My pick would be Lincoln Chafee, a liberal Republican who understands environmental issues as well as energy issues. Again, Bingaman's too valuable in the Senate.
Secretary of Agriculture: Former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, Rep. Collin
Peterson (D-Minn.) Vilsack is odds on favorite.
World leaders must commit to forming new
international organisations better suited to solving the economic crisis
Monday November 03 2008 12.00 GMT
President Bush has taken a welcome
step by inviting the G-20 to Washington
November 15 to discuss the global financial crisis. This meeting should put in
place a stability package that includes the developing countries and lays the
groundwork for the creation of a new multilateral financial architecture.
Over the past five years, GDP per
capita in the world's developing economies has been rising faster than in rich
countries for the first time in history. According to statistics released by
the World Bank last week, the developing world has pulled 232 million people
over the global poverty line of $2.50 per day since 1999.
These gains in economic growth and
poverty alleviation are the result of an economic model that
significantly deviates from the Washington Consensus. Nations like China, India, South Africa and Brazil all have
recognised that markets and trade are important for development, but they have
also shown the world that markets must be guided by appropriate governmental
policy. In the World Trade Organisation, where each nation has an equal
vote, the developing world has worked hard to preserve the ability to deploy
the mix of state and market policies that have been working for them.
Until a week ago it was thought that
poorer nations were "de-coupled" from the current economic crisis
because they had piled up reserves and their banks weren't heavily involved in
mortgage markets. Now it is clear that the crisis, which was not of their
making, is at their doorstep.
Much of the economic boom in the
developing world was fueled by commodities exports. Demand for exports has
declined as prospects of a recession increase, causing a sharp decline in the
prices of those exports. Global credit, which is crucial to exporters, has all
but frozen. Banks in developing countries weren't heavily involved in the
mortgage business, but they did swap with and borrow money from banks in
developed countries, creating a credit squeeze for the local economy as well.
If that wasn't enough, rising interest rates and credit tightening has
strengthened the dollar, and currencies across the developing world are losing
World leaders should swiftly
coordinate interest rate cuts and provide massive liquidity to markets in
developing countries. New capital should also come from the larger developing
countries, like ,
and from the IMF's new short-term liquidity facility.
Developing countries can't do this
on their own. Many of these nations simply don't have the capital. Some have
reserves from the commodity boom but are draining them to save their
currencies. What's more, when developing nations unilaterally mimic a rich
country's methods of dealing with this crisis by nationalising private assets,
such actions can instill even less confidence in a developing country's markets
and provoke more capital flight.
New capital can be used in the short
term to fend off runs on their currencies. Just as important, new credit and
capital can be coupled with coordinating governmental policies to build the
productive capacities of promising and strategic domestic enterprises and
toward domestic consumers to stimulate demand. With jobs becoming scarce and
food prices still high, small farmers are also among the strategic sectors
worthy of government attention.
Non-OECD countries are now half the
global economy and more than half the destination of OECD exports. Maintaining
the growth in developing countries not only saves them from meltdown but can
also help rich countries dig themselves out of a downturn with new demand.
Under no circumstances should a
developing country's capital infusion have IMF-like conditionalities.
Historically, the IMF often gave loans only if recipients deregulated markets,
privatised industries, slashed government budgets and devalued currencies. A
new book, “Development Redefined: How the Market Met Its Match” by
Robin Broad and John Cavanagh, documents how IMF conditionality often caused
irreversible social and environmental costs on recipient countries and created
a global backlash against the IMF and other international institutions. There
is simply no legitimate reason for these conditionalities today. Indeed, it was
the deregulation in rich countries that helped get us into this economic mess
in the first place.
Finally, the global summit should be
the first step toward a "Bretton Woods II" that supports
multilateralism and policy diversity as core principles. This summit must be
dedicated to setting counter-cyclical capital standards, regulating all parts
of financial markets (including the rating agencies) and creating a credible
lender of last resort. Under the current system, Luxembourg,
the Netherlands and Belgium have more votes in the IMF than China, India
and Brazil. A truly multilateral organisation must have a one country-one vote system.
Without a new infusion of capital and a multilateral approach to reform, the
November meetings will be one step forward, two steps backward.
The book "THE
FUTURE CONTROL OF FOOD: A Guide to International Negotiations and Rules
on Intellectual Property, Biodiversity and Food Security," edited by Geoff
Tansey and Tasmin Rajotte, has become available for free download at http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-118094-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html.
addresses key issues of intellectual property and ownership, genetics,
biodiversity, and food security. In addition to an introduction and overview of
the issues, the book’s chapters cover negotiations and instruments in the World
Trade Organization, Convention on Biological Diversity, UN Food and Agriculture
Organization, World Intellectual Property Organization, the International Union
for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, and various other international
bodies. The final part discusses civil society responses to relevant changes
and developments in these issues, how they affect the direction of research and
development, the nature of global negotiation processes and various alternative
Linking the Global Financial Crisis and the Environment: Respite for Resources or Increased Pressure?
Admittedly, it is guesswork, but last week in Geneva, I raised the global financial crisis as a challenge and an opportunity for those of us committed to bringing clean drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene education to everyone. It is a challenge, of course, to find funding in such times. But it is an opportunity because finally the mesmerizing power of the myths about unfettered free enterprise has been broken.
Although I was not in Barcelona for the IUCN World Congress, apparently everyone there was considering the same question. Here is one of the reports that came out of Barcelona:
Global Financial Crisis a Bad Sign for Andean Biodiversity by
Julio Godoy* - Tierramérica
BARCELONA, Oct 16 (IPS) - The crisis affecting the financial sector and
stock markets around the world could fuel the expansion of extractive industries
in South America's Andean region, warn experts.
Investors from the industrialised world may feel pressure to seek alternative
means for financial liquidity, forced by divestment from stocks in recent
weeks, Stewart Maginnis, director of forest conservation for the World
Conservation Union (IUCN), told Tierramérica.
Debate on the environmental repercussions of the financial crisis overtook much
of the World Conservation Congress held by the IUCN Oct. 5-14 in Barcelona, Spain, which drew some 8,000 experts.
But the uncertainty is such that others predict reduced pressure on natural
resources as a result of the economic crisis.
Maginnis pointed to the current high prices of fuels, noting that investment in
the expansion of mining and oil company activities now is attractive -- and
constitutes a threat to protection efforts in areas like the Amazon jungle
region in Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela.
The phenomenon could be intensified by the existing policies of the Andean
Community trade bloc, made up of Columbia, Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia, that favour extractive
industries and clash with the interests and development ideas of local
indigenous communities. That contradiction was evident in Barcelona during a debate among environmental
experts, government delegates and representatives of indigenous groups from the
four Andean Community nations.
"Our idea of development does not coincide with that of the white man.
us, the most sacred thing is to protect Mother Earth. For the
the governments, drilling holes in her is part of development," Gerardo
Macuna, an indigenous representative from Columbia, told Tierramerica.
In contrast, Francisco Dallmeier, a biologist with the Centre for Conservation
Education and Sustainability at the U.S.-based Smithsonian Institution, said
that some oil production areas in South America
meet high biological conservation standards.
The Bolivia-Brazil natural gas pipeline, inaugurated in 1999 by the Brazilian
oil giant Petrobras, "is one of those examples of excellent environmental
management" of an oil industry project, according to Dallmeier.
A more nuanced view was taken by César Ipenza, a researcher with the Peruvian
Association for the Conservation of Nature, who said, "We need to develop
tools for research and evaluation that allow us to reconcile exploitation of
hydrocarbon resources as a factor of development with the effective
preservation of biodiversity in the protected areas of the Andean
The Andean region is rich in petroleum and natural gas deposits. According to
the latest official data from the Andean Community, from 2004, production of
oil and derivatives in Columbia
was 686,000 barrels per day -- three times the average national consumption. Columbia
exported some 460,000 barrels per day. Bolivia produces around 41
million cubic metres of natural gas per day, 35 million of which is exported to Brazil and Argentina.
This enormous source of wealth is difficult to bring into line with
environmental conservation and the standards for protected areas. It also
challenges the effectiveness of international agreements ratified by the Andean
Community nations, such as Convention 169 of the International Labour
Organisation, which protects the rights of indigenous peoples.
Governments and indigenous communities interpret the Convention text in
Article 6 of the Convention states that "governments must consult the
peoples concerned, through appropriate procedures and in particular through
their representative institutions, whenever consideration is being given to
legislative or administrative measures which may affect them directly..."
According to the Andean Community governments, "this article only requires
them to consult indigenous communities, but they interpret it to mean that they
are free to decide on the policies for the extractive industries," María
Amparo Albán, Ecuadorian attorney and environmental consultant, told
The governments of the Andean bloc are not generally concerned about preventing
extractive industries from operating in protected areas -- and which are often
also the lands of indigenous peoples -- "merely for reasons of
biodiversity conservation," she said.
The indigenous communities, meanwhile, interpret the ILO Convention "as
giving them the power to make decisions on extractive policies that take place
in their territories," said Albán.
This interpretation is based on Article 7: "The peoples concerned shall
have the right to decide their own priorities for the process of development as
it affects their lives, beliefs, institutions and spiritual well-being and the
lands they occupy or otherwise use, and to exercise control, to the extent
possible, over their own economic, social and cultural development."
According to Oscar Castillo, a Bolivian expert on the oil and natural gas
industry at the Wildlife Conservation Society, "the challenge for the
Andean region is to conduct a comprehensive analysis, one that is
supra-national, about the environmental impacts of the extractive industries,
in order to draft policies for the entire region."
But Albán believes a region-wide policy is currently impossible for the bloc.
"The internal conflicts of the Andean Community, derived from ideological
differences separating Columbia and Peru on the one side,
and Ecuador and Bolivia on the
other, have brought to a halt all progress towards regional integration,"
There are more than 180 oil and natural gas fields across the western Amazon,
which comprises the five Andean countries, and 72 percent of the jungle territory of Peru is affected by plans for fossil
fuel exploitation, according to a study published in August by the online
scientific journal PLoS ONE.
In times of uncertainty, many more interests could go in search of those
treasures, says Maginnis.
"This expansion occurs to the detriment of our peoples and of Mother
Earth," warned José Antúnez, a leader of the Asháninka people of Peru.
(*Julio Godoy is an IPS correspondent. This story was originally published by
Latin American newspapers that are part of the Tierramérica network.
Tierramérica is a specialised news service produced by IPS with the backing of
the United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Environment Programme
and the World Bank.) (FIN/2008)