Wednesday, May 25, 2011

UPDATE: EJ lawsuit vs. CA carbon trading + Chiapas REDD scheme

http://climate-connections.org/2011/05/23/new-ruling-puts-california%E2%80%99s-cap-and-trade-on-permanent-hold/

New Ruling Puts California’s Cap and Trade on Permanent Hold

Implications Unclear for Chiapas REDD Program

- by Jeff Conant

San Francisco, May 23 – San Francisco’s Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment (CRPE) announced today that it received the judge’s writ in its lawsuit against the California Air Resources Board (CARB); the writ gives the green light to most of the policies advanced under AB32, California’s Global Warming Solutions Act, but puts a permanent hold on cap and trade.

“Judge Ernest Goldsmith of the San Francisco Superior Court ruled that CARB violated CEQA (the California Environmental Quality Act) when, among other things, it failed to properly consider alternatives to a ‘cap and trade’ program in its Scoping Plan to implement AB 32,” CRPE’s statement says. “The Court’s Writ, issued Friday, enjoins, or stops, all implementation and actions in furtherance of cap and trade until CARB completes a lawfully adequate CEQA review.”

CRPE’s Brent Newell, the lead council on the case, called this “the best possible outcome we could have hoped for. The Judge essentially  gave us the writ exactly as we submitted it.”

“[CARB] are enjoined now from doing anything on cap and trade,” Newell told me, in a mood that can only be described as giddy, immediately after receiving the news on Friday.

The ruling, Newell said, “allows the good parts of AB32 to go forward.”

Beyond its now defunct cap and trade provision, AB32 contains sixty-eight other regulations, from motor vehicle fuel standards to renewable energy mandates, aimed at reducing California’s greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2020.

While cap and trade failed in Congress last year, and the European carbon market has shown itself to be ineffective at actually reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the California Air Resources Board chose in 2008 to make cap and trade – which CRPE has called “a Wall Street trading scheme” – the center piece of the state’s plan to confront global warming, rather than requiring major greenhouse gas sources like refineries, power plants, and factories to reduce their emissions.

Bill Gallegos, Executive Director of Communities for a Better Environment, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, said, “We are encouraged that the Judge is now requiring CARB to take a hard and honest look at cap and trade. We have even more evidence now that cap and trade does not work to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In the European Union, emissions have increased by 3% in the past year under their program, and we also know that cap and trade has the worst impact on health in low income communities and communities of color.”

CARB must now look at alternatives to cap and trade; according to Newell, CRPE’s position is to push for direct regulations, to cut emissions directly at the source.

A major question hanging in the air upon announcement of the ruling is, what does this mean for California’s agreement with Chiapas, Mexico and Acre, Brazil?

Last November, then-Governor Schwarzenegger signed Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with both foreign states to begin advancing direct carbon trading mechanisms predicated on the emerging, and highly embattled, forest carbon scheme known as REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation), and, in its more comprehensive incarnation which includes protections for biodiversity and accounting of carbon sequestration in soils, as REDD +.

Since late March, when the program in Chiapas began to come under intense scrutiny by local community-based organizations and international environmental and indigenous rights advocates, the governor of Chiapas, Juan Sabines, has grown increasingly vocal in his promotion of the program. The governor has made several highly-publicized visits to communities in the Lacandon Jungle to hand out funds associated with REDD+, but until last week it was unclear where the money was coming from, given that the deal with California was  still in the pipeline.

It is unknown whether his administration is aware of the lawsuit, which has now effectively put an end to the promise of funds from California in the foreseeable future.

In a May 17 article in Mexican daily La Jornada, Sabines elaborated on the REDD+ program: “We made an agreement with California, the most polluting state in the world. The objective of the polluting governments is to clean their consciences by paying for carbon credits under REDD+.”

Sabines told La Jornada that a forest inventory is being prepared with the participation of the environmental organization Conservation International, and that inhabitants of the jungle will be trained to participate in this inventory, to define “how many trees there are and how many tons of Greenhouse Gases they can capture.” The Lacandon jungle, along with the Amazon, are the areas of the Americas that capture the most Greenhouse gases; therefore, said Sabines, “the international resources will go directly to the communities.”

In February of this year – three months after signing the MOU with Schwarzenegger – Governor Sabines began distributing payments of 2000 pesos a month to members of the Lacandon Community (as reported here). The payments, Governor Sabines said at the time, were “to allow the completion of the forest inventory so that [members of the Lacandon Community] can access federal and international funds, as well as complement these funds with projects such as agricultural conversion outside the Reserve with species such as oil palm and rubber.”

“You conserve the earth, and I pay you to conserve it,” Sabines told the recipients of the first REDD + payments. “I don’t buy the land; I commit you to conserving it.”

La Jornada reported last week, that “the 2000 pesos a month [per land-owner within the designated Lacandon Community] come from a tax on vehicle registration, because, as of yet, California is not able to put up the money.”

“Our goal,” Governor Sabines told La Jornada, “is that the entirety of the surface of Chiapas will enter into the market for carbon credits and methane credits, beginning through agreements with polluting sub-national states, like California.”

Last Friday’s writ on AB32, however, prevents any such agreement from going forward. What this means for the Chiapas state government and its plans to put the entirety of its forests into sub-national carbon markets remains to be seen. With no money forthcoming from California,  it is unclear how, and whether, the governor of Chiapas will be able to continue paying the Lacandon Community.

Late on Friday afternoon, as Newell celebrated CRPE’s court victory in his San Francisco office before heading home to spend the weekend relaxing with his family, I asked him what it was about cap and trade that persuaded him to take on the crusade.

“Poor people are getting screwed on both sides of the transaction,” he said. “Only the polluters are benefitting. It’s just [expletive deleted] wrong.”

# # #

Posted via email from Decolonizing Environmentalism

Friday, May 20, 2011

Judge issues order staying Cap and Trade only (not whole Scoping Plan)

AIR v ARB 52011 plaintiffs press release.pdf Download this file


CLIMATE: Judge stays Calif. cap-and-trade program (05/20/2011)
 
Debra Kahn, E&E reporter

SAN FRANCISCO -- A California judge today blocked the state's cap-and-trade program until regulators provide sufficient justification for imposing a market-based system for curbing emissions.

The decision by Judge Ernest Goldsmith of San Francisco County Superior Court could upset state plans for starting a cap-and-trade system next January under a landmark law that mandates lowering emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

Goldsmith ruled that the state Air Resources Board (ARB) violated the California Environmental Quality Act by not adequately exploring alternatives to cap and trade, like a carbon tax or direct regulation.

The board must set aside its December 2010 decision approving the trading system for emitters over 25,000 metric tons per year, and must cease all rulemaking activities related to cap and trade until it complies with the law, Goldsmith ruled. The trading program was designed to cover 85 percent of the state's industrial emissions by 2020, including emissions from power plants, oil and gas refineries, transportation fuels and other heavy industries.
The plaintiffs -- led by the Association of Irritated Residents and other environmental justice groups -- had alleged that a cap-and-trade system would hurt low-income communities by allowing emitters to avoid local limits on greenhouse gases by buying credits or offsets (E&ENews PM, April 25).

The agency's "functionally equivalent document" that it released in December 2008 to explain its selection of cap and trade was insufficient, the judge ruled.

"ARB committed a prejudicial abuse of discretion when it failed to proceed in a manner require[d] by law by inadequately describing and analyzing project alternatives sufficient for informed decision making and public participation," Goldsmith wrote.

ARB will have 15 months to comply with the order.
Goldsmith ruling didn't go as far as it could have under two proposals submitted by the plaintiffs. One of the plans would have stayed California's entire suite of greenhouse gas reduction policies -- 69 in all, including a low-carbon fuel standard, local development and smart growth guidelines, and emissions reductions from ships and trucks.

But the judge also could have allowed the market to move forward while requiring ARB to redo an alternatives analysis, as the state requested.
Look for more details in Monday's edition of ClimateWire.

Posted via email from Decolonizing Environmentalism

Thursday, May 19, 2011

theory of love

i'm all twisted up about a conversation i had recently and needed to write to think more about the matter.

i think i'm finally articulating that i'm just not really excited about the whole "being in love" frame. it happens. it's exhilarating when it does. but it also is a lot, in my experience, reliant on some types of blinders.

i like: love, loving kindness, beloved community, justice as the public practice of love, revolutionary, unconditional love, liberatory love, respect, dignity, as some other kinds of love, as practice and as concepts.

i like the kind of love that comes from knowing and seeing clearly another person or organizations strengths and faults and inconsistencies and contradictions and accepting that's how they are and deciding to continue to be in love and struggle and relationship with them anyway.

and i'm interested in happiness, connection, inspiration, cooperation, mutually supportive and respecting relationships that may become interdependent without becoming co-dependent, over time,

"in love" and even romantic love in the U.S. popular cultural context, without having been excavated and reclaimed, hold lots of patriarchal and hetero and colonial/imperial relationship structures and expectations, including when between two queer women of color. and i think fundamentally i'm not interested in that project or that practice.

and this love i'm writing about can be between friends, lovers, comrades, colleagues, students and teachers, familial relationships, neighbors, and even, occasionally, strangers.

do you have a theory of love?

* * * * *

"Your task is not to seek love, but merely to seek and find all the barriers within yourself that you have built against it." -- Rumi

Posted via email from Decolonizing Environmentalism

james baldwin / nothing personal

"If a society permits one portion of its citizenry to be menaced or destroyed, then, very soon, no one in that society is safe. The forces thus released in the people can never be held in check, but run their devouring course, destroying the very foundations which it was imagined they would save.

 

But we are unbelievably ignorant concerning what goes on in our country--to say nothing of what goes on in the rest of the world--and appear to have become too timid to question what we are told. Our failure to trust one another deeply enough to be able to talk to one another has become so great that people with these questions in their hearts do not speak them; our opulence is so pervasive that people who are afraid to lose whatever they think they have persuade themselves of the truth of a lie, and help disseminate it; and God help the innocent here, that man or womn who simply wants to love, and be loved. Unless this would-be lover is able to replace his or her backbone with a steel rod, he or she is doomed. This is no place for love. I know that I am now expected to make a bow in the direction of those millions of unremarked, happy marriages all over America, but I am unable honestly to do so because I find nothing whatever in our moral and social climate--and I am now thinking particularly of the state of our children--to bear witness to their existence. I suspect that when we refer to these happy and so marvelously invisible people, we are simply being nostalgic concerning the happy, simple, God-fearing life which we imagine ourselves once to have lived. In any case, wherever love is found, it unfailingly makes itself felt in the individual, the personal authority of the individual. Judged by this standard, we are a loveless nation. The best that can be said is that some of us are struggling. And what we are struggling against is that death in the heart which leads not only to the shedding of blood, but which reduces human beings to corpses while they live."


http://radicalprofeminist.blogspot.com/2010/05/portion-of-nothing-personal-by-james.html

Posted via email from Decolonizing Environmentalism

Tuesday, May 3, 2011

Which "Green" Organizations Are Benefiting from (developing) Carbon Markets, Offset and REDD Initiatives?

About a month ago I posted on this blog about the major arguments I get from environmental science "studies" people on my presentation of the climate justice movement is what they perceive as a peculiar view against markets.

And I responded, I don't see why those people have such peculiar attachments to markets and such aversion to thoroughly examining the many options that we have as a society. Their reluctance to discuss all the options is akin to monopoly corporations setting the standards for product development and regulations on a product that they exclusively make.

And I say, that given the experience of the peoples and communities I work with, am aligned with, come from, our experience of markets is more than negative. This knowledge and wisdom is what Guha calls the "environmentalism of the poor" and what DuBois and hooks called "double consciousness" and Pulido, Haraway and Butler have called "situated knowledge" or "strategic essentialism" and so forth.

And one of the questions that many of my colleagues have had for me, is "which ones?"

Which of the Big Greens, or "mainstream environmental organizations," are positioning themselves to profit from these carbon marketing, offsetting, schemes?

The big ones are, to the best of my knowledge, The Nature Conservancy (TNC), World Wildlife Federation (WWF), Conservational international (CI), World Resources Institute (WRI) and Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). At least one intergovernmental agency is also pushing REDD and offsets (IUCN) and at least one Scandinavian government is attempting to buy off women's organizations and youth organizations to be in support of REDD and other market-based offset mechanisms in advance of this year's upcoming COP17 talks in Durban, as they attempted, with partial success, in Cancún at COP16.

In the United States, these Big Greens are also instrumental in drafting US climate change policy - certainly, a conflict of interest if they are also in the business of selling carbon credits for projects that are still waiting to take shape, for a maret that is not yet developed.

The Nature Conservancy

For instance, the Nature Conservancy "partnered" with Dow Chemical - to the sum of $10 million - to help Dow incorporate "valuing nature" - ecosystem services and biodiversity - in its corporate business practices.

And, by the way, Mike Tercek, the CEO of TNC, is a former managing director at Goldman Sachs, where he headed the firm's Environmental Strategy Group and Center for Environmental Markets. Goldman Sachs are the men who brought us the economic meltdown and financial crisis that led to millions middle and low income homeowners losing their houses through foreclosure in the last two years.

Environmental Defense Fund

EDF makes no attempts to hide what it is doing. On their "Environmental markets" page, EDF describes potential markets, likely markets (California is one), and operating markets. The page also trumpets that EDF was "the first nonprofit to use markets for environmental progress."
 
Using_markets_to_find_environmental_solutions

EDF propaganda notwithstanding, a recent research report by Carbon Trade Watch found that the cap-and-trade market in the EU has failed to reduce emissions!

 

Additionally, the EU and potential emerging markets are already well known for structural problems:

1. vulnerability to fraud and scams in the market / verification of credits

2. the creation of a global land grab, especially on the lands of peasants, small farmers and indigenous peoples

Here is a video produced by SommerFilms from an interview from the Upper Xingu (Amazonas, Brasil) - showing the problems with REDD programs in relationship to indigenous peoples:

 

 

similar stories abound in Papua New Guinea, Ecuador, Indonesia, the Atlantic Forest of Brazil and other places and are documented in the No REDD Reader

 

Posted via email from Decolonizing Environmentalism