climate protection after COP-15 disaster

The 2009 UN Climate Change conference - better know as COP 15 - ended with a surprise. Many expected the conference to fail, but even the notorious naysayer  was staggered by its apparent collapse. Though I can not hide my satisfaction about COP-15s triumphal disgrace, the "outcome" of the conference was a disaster for the planet. Basically, there's no agreement on any limitation of CO2 emissions, no roadmap how to support each other to combat climate change nor even the will, to achieve any kind of binding agreement in the new future. To say, we don't want the global average temperature to rise by more than 2 degree until 2100 won't bother the climate at all. Considering, that most states and scientist were frankly aware of the dimension of the threat of global warming before the summit, the result is the more embarrassing. It's like Spock asking "Captain Kirk, our starship is about to crash into that huge rocky planet in front of us. Do you want me to slow down and change direction?" And Captain Kirk answering "Thank you for that information. Please, open another bottle of wine."So who has lost? Most obviously, the victims of climate change - that is future generations, third world countries, peace - are the main losers. But as I will point out later, there's still hope for them. However, the idea that the climate crisis can be controlled on a governmental level has shown to be false. Not only that the so called political leaders had been unwilling and incapable to seriously fight against global warming and climate justice, the problem was way too complex and the positions to diverse to be solved by one huge summit. This fact challenge the role of the United Nations to host a framework in the fight against the climate catastrophe. If the UN fail to develop new forms of global governance, there historical doom is inevitable. Moreover, both the United States of America and the European Union passed up a chance to take a leading role in the global struggle against global warming. Consequently, they missed a chance to increase political, international influence and to open new markets. As a result, the saving of the planet will take place without  governments, or it won't take place at all.The COP-15 conference showed clearly, that the support of the civil society wasn't welcome. The number of NGO delegates has been reduced from day to day and the peaceful demonstrations faced with police violence. On the other hand, the politicians and delegates who felt to be in charge, failed as mentioned above. As a result, we - the civil society -  have to claim leadership. It's our last change. We have to build local communities to fight against global warming. We have to inspire and empower each other to find creative and working solutions, we have to exercise non-violant disobedience to stop the building of new coal-power stations, highways etc. and we have to organise climate protection bottom-up. If we lead the turn of our carbon addict society into a zero-emission society, our elected representatives will follow.

warming up for COP-15

Piteå - Copenhagen, 20 hours time to sum up my expectations for the Climate Summit COP-15, the reason of journey.

A lot has been said in the run-up to the summit, at which nothing less than the future of our planet will be negotiated. If mankind fails to decrease carbon-dioxide emissions dramatically in the next 4 decades, climate change will cause unimaginable disasters and destroy most of the basic conditions of human life. Already now - after two centuries of reckless economical growth and constant increase of CO2-emissions - many regions in the developing world are suffering from climate change. And what ever result COP-15 will bring, the world wide average temperature would raise for a while, causing even more suffering and destruction. Therefore, COP-15 won't just discuss how to limit climate change, but also who will have to pay for its consequences.

Hence, COP-15 is basically a summit about justice. Whereas most of the western countries can look at the climate question from a pure economical point of view, developing countries have to fight for there survival. It's the developed part of the world which stands for the vast majority of CO2 emissions, but it's the developing part, which suffers most. Whether this gross injustice can be solved, will to a great extent determine, if the summit was an success or not.

But, of course, sharing the costs of climate change is not enough. The summit will have to decide a road map for the transformation from our emission extensive economy to a sustainable, low-to-zero emission one until 2050. This is true with any branch of economy and every country in the world. Most obviously, the developed countries will have to manage the turn to renewable energies and higher energy efficiency. Though the energy need of these countries is insane, they have the best conditions (money and know-how) to master these tasks.

However, that won't be enough. The poorest countries in the world will have to find a way to develop their economy in a sustainable way. As there's not a lot to transform, this is a relatively easy problem. Given, the west provides green know-how and link its foreign aid with strict ecological conditions.

The biggest problem will be the newly industrialising countries, though. They already emit ridiculous amounts of CO2 (China for instance, is the biggest CO2 emitter in the world) and they are determined to continue their partly rapid growth in the future. They will have to find a way to both replace their old, dirty power plants and to base future investments in sustainable, green technology. Again, the west will have to provide know-how, but a great effort has do be done by the emerging nations itself. To find a way, how to combine sustainability and economical growth, will be a key question.

If the COP-15 conference agree on such a road map, it will be a success. In my eyes, the question is not, which country emits how much carbon-dioxide in 2020, 2030 and 2050. They question is, how every country reduce their emissions to the most possible extend and how they can help each other in that enormous task.

Obama deserves another award

Barack Obama will be awarded with the Nobel prize, the Norwegian nobel-committee  declared today. That's nice for him, but may I ask why? Neither Guantanamo has been closed, nor is there piece in Afghanistan or between Israel and Palestine. It doesn't seem that the United State will insist on a powerful climate regime at the UN climate change conference in Copenhagen nor does the turn of the G8 into a G20 mean a strengthening of the United Nations. Obama is still the leader of the biggest and most powerful army in the world and of a country which still exercise the death penalty like almost no other country (apart from China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan). To sum up, the short reign of Obama is not yet characterised by peace.To be honest, Obama certainly raised hope for a better and peaceful world all over the globe. Moreover, he seem to be very committed in many fields regarding multi-polar diplomacy and climate change, but he can't proof any success. Let's hope that his award with the Nobel prize will support him in his ongoing struggles with the congress.However, this day proofs again, that Obama deserves one prize most of all: The award for the most overrated politician in the world.

kollektives stockholm-syndrom

Deutschland hat gewählt und der spaß ist vorbei. Während das schlechte ergebnis der union und gerade der SPD ja noch verständlich und wohl auch verdient war, sind knapp 15 für die neoliberale FDP ein alamierendes ergebnis. Leidet ein erheblicher teil der deutschen an dem stockholm syndrom und wählt den eigenen peiniger? Haben wir nicht gerade gesehen, dass ein auf schwindelerregenden spekulationen und ausbeutung beruhendes, kontrollfreies finanzwesen katastrophal zum scheitern verurteilt ist? Oder kann es sein, dass die 15% für die FDP dem deutschen egoismus entsprechen, der seine pfründe davon schwimmen sieht und nun seine stimme auf die FDP setzt und sein kapital auf die großen atomkonzerne?Man kann jetzt nur noch darauf hoffen, dass die künftige schwarz-gelbe koalition nur die dinge durchsetzt, die sie bereits angekündigt haben - verlängerung der laufzeiten für atomkraftwerke, mehr gentechnik auf den feldern, steuerliche entlastung von spitzenverdienern bei riesigem haushaltsloch und dass sich die FDP mit ihren bürgerrechtlichen forderungen durchsetzt. Nicht unwahrscheinlich aber, dass die regierung nun allerlei andere vorhaben angeht, die sie im Wahlkampf lieber verschwiegen hat. Guttenberg hat ja bereits eine studie zum bau neuer atomkraftwerke in auftrag gegeben und es ist wohl auch nur noch eine frage der zeit, bis der wirtschaftsflügel der union - angefeuert von den liberalen - das leipziger programm aus der mottenkiste hervorkramt.So oder so wird dieses wahlergebnis den kompletten turn back der rot-grünen regierungsjahre bedeuten. Während die rückkehr der atomenergie den boom der erneuerbaren energien deutlich bremsen wird, werden sich auf der anderen seite die sozialdemokraten der linkspartei anbiedern und jeglichen realismus über bord werfen. Zur erinnerung: Die Agenda 2010 hat niemanden spaß gemacht, sie war gerade vor dem hintergrund des demographischen wandels unabdingbar.Ob aus dieser nationalen katastrophe gar ein zivilisatorischer rückschritt wird, werden die nächsten monate zeigen. Andere konservative partei in europa könnten sich ein vorbild an der FDP nehme, einen deutlich neoliberaleren kurs fahren und damit offenbar auch wahlen gewinnen. Zurück in den 90ern.Viel dramatischer wird es allerdings im dezember werden. Es ist nicht davon auszugehen, dass die deutsche schwarz-gelbe delegation bei der Kopenhagener UN-klimakonferenz für ein neues, starkes klimaregime nach dem Kyoto-abkommen streiten wird. Da von den anderen wichtigen ländern ebenfalls wenig zu erwarten ist, ist also ein scheitern von COP-15 praktisch vorprogrammiert. Und damit wohl auch die letzte chance die erderwärmung bis zum ende dieses jahrhunderts auf 2 grad zu beschränken. Historische Chance vertan.Fazit: Politik macht nicht immer spaß.