Climate: Real problem, false solutions. No.3: REDD+ [1]
Published on Wednesday, 02 December 2015 20:37
TO SOLVE THE GLOBAL WARMING CRISIS, MULTINATIONALS ARE SUGGESTING FALSE
SOLUTIONS. FAR FROM SOLVING THE PROBLEM THEY ARE CONTRIBUTING WITH THEIR
SHARE OF DAMAGES. THIS ARTICLE IS THE 3RD IN A SERIES OF FIVE TO APPEAR
THIS WEEK.
[2]_3/ REDD+_
"Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation" a very
worthwhile aim, and a + too which is the icing on the cake! The system
is simple: the country (or local population, associations etc.) owning
any substantial resources located within forests assesses the financial
loss of not carrying out deforestation and the quantity of carbon that
will therefore not be introduced into the atmosphere. Then
industrialised countries (or collectives, NGOs, multinationals etc.) pay
these forested nations to avert the destruction of their forests. In
exchange for their forest saving investment, they are offered a means of
offsetting their emissions and/ or carbon credits. A fair deal then! And
the + is for when we're also talking about the enhancement of carbon
stocks, sustainable forest management and forest conservation.
_ Really?_
On closer inspection it becomes clear that REDD+ serves as little more
than the means of concealing the negotiated disappearance of forests
that occurs during a COP, instead of anyone posing the question of how
greenhouse gases resulting from the use of fossil fuels can be
effectively reduced.
This covers no more than potential deforestation, and therefore nothing
concrete. In contrast, the carbon credits on offer are very real indeed,
and represent a license to emit greenhouse gases at will. Furthermore,
peasant populations who call these forested areas home, often find
themselves obliged to reduce their food production in order to plant
trees, thereby reducing their food sovereignty. Conservation agreements
can also result in their loss of access to areas routinely used for the
harvesting of plants, hunting or shifting cultivation.
Now climate negotiations are examining the possibility of making
agricultural land eligible for these carbon offsetting systems and
compensation. This would be an open door for land grabs by
multinationals eager to secure opportunities to continue disrupting the
environment without this process ever being redressed.
Corporate solutions are false solutions, and will not solve the climate
crisis.
Link to the Grain report
https://www.grain.org/article/entries/5322-how-redd-projects-undermine-peas…
[3]
Follow us on twitter and facebook:
@via_campesina [4] and https://www.facebook.com/viacampesinaOFFICIAL [5]
Also join the global movement with the hashtag:
#PeasantsCoolThePlanet #FoodSovereigntyForClimateJustice #COP21
#FoodSystemChangeNotClimateChange
Links:
------
[1]
http://viacampesina.org/en/index.php/actions-and-events-mainmenu-26/-climat…
[2] http://viacampesina.org/en/images/2015-12-02-REDD.jpg
[3]
https://www.grain.org/article/entries/5322-how-redd-projects-undermine-peas…
[4] https://twitter.com/via_campesina
[5] https://www.facebook.com/viacampesinaOFFICIAL
Climate: Real problem, false solutions. 2: Agrocarburants [1]
Published on Wednesday, 02 December 2015 10:30
[2]
TO SOLVE THE GLOBAL WARMING CRISIS, MULTINATIONALS ARE SUGGESTING FALSE
SOLUTIONS. FAR FROM SOLVING THE PROBLEM THEY ARE CONTRIBUTING WITH THEIR
SHARE OF DAMAGES. THIS ARTICLE IS THE SECOND IN A SERIES OF FIVE TO
APPEAR THIS WEEK
_ 2/ Agrofuels_
For those advocates of false solutions, they are known as "bio" fuels.
The goal is to produce something that would have the very worthy benefit
of reducing our dependence on oil, and in so doing lower greenhouse gas
emissions, through the creation of energy derived from plants, a
limitless resource by all accounts, which is certainly not the case with
fossil fuels!
_Really?_
The truth is that producing agrofuels involves the use of vast swathes
of agricultural land at the expense of food production. Thousands of
hectares of fertile land once destined to provide nourishment are
repurposed, jeopardising local populations' right to food sovereignty.
Furthermore, the expulsion of peasant farmers from these lands,
occasionally by violent means represents a denial of people's dignity
and rights.
As has always been the case, land is being sought everywhere, now the
decision has been made to fell the trees of the Amazon and elsewhere.
The destruction of these areas, often recognised as major carbon sinks,
leads to significant CO2 emissions.
Add to that a means of ultra-intensive agriculture, heavily reliant on
chemical input, well so much for "bio"…
Lastly, the food crisis of 2007-2008 and the food riots they triggered,
brought things into sharp focus: agrofuels put intense pressure on food
product prices, and multinationals have wasted no time in sizing up the
potential rewards. With a notably large presence in this market is the
French company Sofiprotéol-Avril managed by Xavier Beulin (President of
France's largest agricultural union).
Links:
------
[1]
http://viacampesina.org/en/index.php/actions-and-events-mainmenu-26/-climat…
[2] http://viacampesina.org/en/images/2015-12-2-agro-carburants%20en.jpg
Climate : Real problem, false solutions. 1. GMOs [1]
Published on Monday, 30 November 2015 23:43
TO SOLVE THE GLOBAL WARMING CRISIS, MULTINATIONALS ARE SUGGESTING FALSE
SOLUTIONS. FAR FROM SOLVING THE PROBLEM THEY ARE CONTRIBUTING WITH THEIR
SHARE OF DAMAGES. A BRIEF OVERVIEW FOLLOWS. THIS ARTICLE IS THE FIRST IN
A SERIES OF FIVE TO APPEAR THIS WEEK.
According to those who promote them, they are a wonderful dual-power
technology. To start with, GMOs would have the ability to slow down
climate change by: reducing the use of pesticides, which constitute a
significant source of Green House Gases when they are produced and used;
and by reducing tillage, which releases carbon emissions. What's even
better is that GMOs would allow us to have plants that resist droughts
and floods, which therefore adapt to climate change!
REALLY?
In fact, GMOs' tolerance to one (or many) herbicides or insecticides
quickly develops resistance and makes plants adapt, which leads to many
unwanted plants and pests appearing in fields. You therefore have to use
even more pesticides to get rid of them!
Regarding the issue of no-tillage, it doesn't make any sense and doesn't
have an impact if it is carried out using an industrial agriculture
approach; which favors systems that don't use crop rotation and where
herbicides are widespread. In Argentina, no-tillage using Monsanto's
Round Up Ready soya beans has destroyed hectares of meadows and forests,
therefore needing carbon sinks.
Adapting to climate change is the ultimate decoy. It is genetic
complexity and rich natural biodiversity that allows nature to adapt,
not its destruction!
GMOs belong to an industrial agri-food system that patents living
beings, monopolizes peasants' knowledge, halts and destroys peasant
agricultural practices and the whole chain significantly releases Green
House Gases and is devastating for the climate. So it is a great way to
make profit off climate change whilst despising peasants!
Links:
------
[1]
http://viacampesina.org/en/index.php/actions-and-events-mainmenu-26/-climat…
