Klein highlighted the need for the issue of the Tar Sands to be brought to the table before an honest and fair conversation on our climate’s future may begin.

Full story here.

The announcement was made during quot;Youth and Future Generations Dayquot; on Thursday at the Bella Centre.



 



Miller is also the chair of the C-40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, a

coalition of the worldrsquo;s largest cities committed to tackling climate

change. He will be joining the youth on Saturday morning for

the march to the conference centre where the negotiations are taking

place. 

With Canada consistently taking an obstructionist role at these negotiations, civil society has been unable to motivate negotiators to take on a constructive role by appealing to their emotions or ethics. At the moment, Canada’s position denies the human rights implication involved in this climate crisis.

A young man from the Maldives asked an audience at the UN “Would you commit murder, although your victim begs for mercy?”.  While Harper does his best to insist he is just like any other human that enjoys breathing oxygen and consuming earth food for energy – no amount of photos singing in Bollywood or playing with kittens can erase the legacy of injustice and human rights transgressions that Stephen Harper is writing for us.

nbsp;

nbsp;

What should a group of canadian youth do when the first week of a COP is coming to a close and theyrsquo;re wishing with all of their beings that they could be more effective, that their government would listen, and that a paradigm shift would occur within the UNFCCC negotiating world?

They should talk to Sheila Watt-Cloutier and Naomi Klein, thatrsquo;s what.nbsp;

nbsp;

read more

Imagine that we’re into the final days of the UN climate change negotiations in Copenhagen, little progress has been made, and the official representatives from Tuvalu (a small island state under threat from global warming) lead a walkout to protest the negotiating process.

It’s certainly believable, and not even unheard of at past negotiations.

Now imagine that the walkout happens on just the third day of negotiations, it’s highly disruptive, and that it’s just the tip of the iceberg. That’s the kind of energy and escalation we’re seeing in Copenhagen mdash; the kind of rising tide of frustration around climate injustice that has people pre-emptively comparing Copenhagen to the World Trade Organization protests in Seattle a decade ago.

Poland scored first place for actively blocking the proposed unconditional upgrade of the EUrsquo;s carbon emissions reduction target to 30%. The Polish EU affairs minister, Mikolaj Dowgielewicz, who told the

EU Observer, “Clearly, in Copenhagen begins a sequence of events that

will end, we hope, in Mexico City and there we will have the tools to

assess whether we can make the transition from 20 to 30 percent EU

objective.”

Second Place: Germany

Germany won the second place fossil for failing to clarify that climate finance should be additional to existing aid. A week ago, several leaders of

the ruling coalition–with support from Development Minister Dirk

Niebel, who will be here tomorrow–proposed to the Bundestag that no

climate finance should be additional to money already pledged for

development assistance.

Third Place: New Zealand

The third place fossil goes to New Zealand for a statement made yesterday by Prime Minister John Key:

“I am

not focused on increasing New Zealand’s target. What I am focused on is

going to Copenhagen and making sure that New Zealand can successfully

negotiate the conditions that we think are important in order for us to

achieve a target of 10 to 20 percent. If we do not negotiate those

conditions, we will not be able to achieve a target of 10 to 20 percent

and we would have to have a lower target. …If New Zealand were to

achieve a target of 10 percent less, that would be a significant

milestone.”

Remember to subscribe on iTunes, look for us on Citizenshift, follow the podcast RSS feed, or look for us on your local radio stations.

Share us on Facebook!

In the words of a presenter from the African Delegation, ldquo;Climate Justice means that people everywhere are safe from danger and free from suffering due to climate change.rdquo; Bernaditas Muller, representative for the G77 + China at COP, takes it further, stressing the principle that access to atmospheric space should also be fair. Other definitions of climate justice also consider the democratic principle meaningful participation of groups that are affected by climate issues.

Unfortunately, the Danish text leaked yesterday goes against all three of these components of climate justice:

1) By accepting targets from the developed world that are inadequate in preventing even a modest 2 degree temperature rise, vulnerable people will be very much prone to danger and suffering due to climate change.

2) Proposed 2050 per-capita emission levels are entirely inequitable, with rich contries permitted to continue emitting more far than their fair share. Clearly, this denies the principle of equal access to atmospheric space for the next four decades!

3) Perhaps most importantly, the danish text flies in the face of democratic principles of climate justice, entirely disregarding the right of those affected by environmental issues to have a voice in decision-making. The meetings which took place to construct the draft text only involved an exclusive group of the most influential, developed country parties including the EU, UK, USA, and Denmark. That the draft text describes a financing body controlled by groups outside the UN may also dilute the influence of developing nations on their own climate finance priorities, with serious potential for these funds to be managed by the World Bank.

While the Danish text represents just one document, it contributes to an atmosphere of suspicion and mistrust that greatly damages the process. If we are to have any chance of achieving climate justice, leadership in the developed world must be as open and transparent as possible, actively collaborating on fundamental text-writing with developing nations.

Remember to subscribe on iTunes, look for us on Citizenshift, follow the podcast RSS feed, or look for us on your local radio stations.

Whatrsquo;s the carbon footprint of a cigarette? Yes, I smoke. I know I shouldnrsquo;t because my mother routinely tells me so. But I like to think smoking is carbon neutral, so Irsquo;m only hurting myself (and my poor mother).

One thing I like about Copenhagen is that, unlike Yellowknife, I can buy unfiltered cigarettes and all the public garbage cans are outfitted with ashtrays. The only Canadian city Irsquo;ve recently visited with both these fine qualities is Calgary, which seems strange to me considering itrsquo;s the stronghold of the tar sands beast that is preventing Canada from meeting our Kyoto commitments.

Remember to subscribe on iTunes, look for us on Citizenshift, follow the podcast RSS feed, or look for us on your local radio stations.

Remember to subscribe on iTunes, look for us on Citizenshift, follow the podcast RSS feed, or look for us on your local radio stations.

According to organizers, Canada was awarded a Fossil of the Day for its commitment to stand on its targets and not to negotiate them throughout the conference.

At a speech in Montreal on Friday, Environment

Minister Jim Prentice said that he “wont be swayed by the Copenhagen hype.”

The groups disapprove of the Danish Governmentrsquo;s alleged role in developing and distributing a draft text known as the Copenhagen Accords.  Under current negotiating norms, any draft text is submitted to conference chairs for open distribution; the Copenhagen Accords were distributed among select countries outside the official process.

The groups also expressed concern over the Presidencyrsquo;s support for a political agreement, even when we have witnessed here today that many negotiators (from the worldrsquo;s most vulnerable countries) still demand a legal agreement.

The multilateral process is intended for open and transparent debate.  If the very structure of the proceedings privilege back-door tactics, then weary conference attendees can anticipate a protracted string of future negotiations.