Cochabamba, Bolivia. It was 11 am and Evo Morales had become the football stadium into a giant classroom, and gathered a variety of objects props: paper plates, plastic cups, disposable waterproof, handmade gourds, wooden plates and colorful ponchos. All played a role to prove a point: to combat climate change "we need to retrieve the values \u200b\u200bof indigenous people."
However, rich countries have little interest in learning these lessons and, conversely, promote a plan that, at best, average global temperature increase in two Celsius. "That would imply that melted the glaciers in the Andes and the Himalayas," Morales told thousands of people gathered at the stadium, part of the World People's Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of the Mother Earth. What we do not need to say is that no matter how you choose to live sustainably the Bolivian people, because it has no power to save the glaciers.
climate summit in Bolivia has had its moments of joy, levity and absurdity. However, in the end, you feel the emotion that caused this event: rage against impotence.
not no surprise. Bolivia is in the midst of a dramatic political transformation, one that nationalized key industries and raised as never before the voices of the Indians. But in regard to your most pressing existential crisis-the fact that glaciers are melting at an alarming rate, threatening the water supply in two major cities, Bolivians can not change their fate by themselves alone.
This is because the actions that cause the melt are not made in Bolivia, but on the highways and industrial areas of highly industrialized countries. In Copenhagen, the leaders of nations at risk, such as Bolivia and Tuvalu, argued passionately in favor of such reductions on emissions of gases that could prevent a catastrophe. Politely told them that the political will North simply did not exist. And more: the United States made it clear he did not need that small countries like Bolivia were part of a climate solution. Negotiate an agreement with other heavy emitters in camera and the rest of the world would be informed of the results and invited to sign, which is precisely what happened to the Copenhagen agreement. When Bolivia and Ecuador refused to approve it on automatic, the U.S. government cut its aid climate at 3 million and $ 2.5 million, respectively. "It's not a free process," said Jonathan Pershing, U.S. climate negotiator. (Here's the answer for anyone ask why the activists in the South rejected the idea of \u200b\u200b"climate support" and, instead, demanded payment of "debts weather.") Pershing's message was chilling: if you're poor, you have no right to prioritize your own survival.
When Morales invited "social movements and defenders of Mother Earth, scientists, academics, lawyers and governments" to come to Cochabamba for a new type of climate summit, was a revolt against this feeling of helplessness was an attempt to build a power base around the right to survive.
The Bolivian government started discussions proposing four ideas: that it should grant rights to nature, to protect the ecosystem annihilation (a "universal declaration of the rights of mother earth"), that those who violate these rights and other international environmental agreements should face legal consequences (a "court climate") that poor countries should receive various types of compensation for a crisis they face but had little to do in create ("climate debt"), and should be a mechanism for people in the world to express their views on these issues (a "global referendum peoples on climate change).
The next step was to invite global civil society to be discussing the details. Were installed 17 working groups and after weeks of online discussion for a week met in Cochabamba, in order to present its final recommendations at the end of the summit. The process is fascinating but far from perfect (for example, as noted by Jim Shultz at Democracy Center, apparently, the working group on the referendum spent more time discussing whether to add a question to abolish capitalism by discussing how it does for carry out a comprehensive consultation.) However, the enthusiastic commitment of Bolivia with participatory democracy could be the most important contribution of the summit.
This is because after the debacle in Copenhagen an issue became highly dangerous viral: the real culprit was the failure of democracy itself. The process of United Nations Organization (UNO), which gives equal weight votes to 192 countries, it was just too unwieldy. It was better in small groups to find solutions. Even the environmental voice of confidence, as James Lovelock, fell into the trap: "I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as the war," he told The Guardian recently. "It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while." But in fact, these small groups, like the private club that forced the Copenhagen Agreement, which have caused us to lose ground and weakened the existing agreements, which themselves are inadequate. In contrast, climate change policy carried Bolivia Copenhagen was drawn up by social movements through a participatory process and the end result was, so far, the most transformative and radical vision.
With the summit in Cochabamba, Bolivia tries to globalize what he achieved national and invite the world to participate in drafting a climate agenda together, before the next meeting of the UN climate change in Cancun. In the words of the ambassador of Bolivia to the United Nations, Pablo Solon, "The only thing that can save humanity from a tragedy is the practice of global democracy."
If correct, the Bolivian process could not only save our planet is warming, but also our democracies in the process of failure. Not a bad deal.
The text was published in The Nation. Translation: Tania Molina Ramirez
http://www.naomiklein.org.
Hi everyone! How are you? 