‽istis follows the climate money - no small change needed (weekending November 6th 2021)
A delayed posting this week as ‽istis has been pondering the financial implications and arrangements of responding to the climate crisis. And the head has been spinning while the earth has kept on spinning, and seems likely to - with or without us!
There are some astronomic figures to be found in reports and in analyses, relating perhaps to both the potential cost of inaction and action, money pledged (and lesser amounts delivered). Just possibly the tide is turning to a systemic and structural recognition (individuals, households, boardrooms, Cabinets, houses of government, internationally) that maybe we cannot afford not to - and even that the economic advantage lies in change.
There is certainly plenty to read in the newspapers and online with multiple column inches, graphs, and tables of statistics, and leagues (of the good, the bad and the seemingly indifferent) ranked in a reminder that competition and advantage is perhaps a dynamic not far away from the problem; and graphics that add detail and depth, as well as adding to the impression that things are very complex... (1)
So after some naive dabbling, what are the ‘residual messages’ and headlines that ‽istis is left with:
i) That perhaps there are at least four major areas for consideration when calculating cost, who might bear that cost, where the money might be spent, and the target of spending:
‽ Emissions: accumulated over time to recognise the historic contribution (e.g: up until 1882 more than half of the world’s cumulative emissions came from the UK alone- see reference (2) below - during a key period of over-development at the expense of others’ lives, freedoms, livelihoods and under-development, perhaps?) as well as now (US calculated as being responsible for 410.24 billion tonnes in total since 1751; India: 51.94bn tonnes; China: 219.99 bn tonnes; Russia: 113.88 bn tonnes; UK: 77.84bn tonnes; New Zealand: 1.85bn tonnes - see reference below). Recognising differential contribution across time, across nations (2), across industries, across social position/status/class/wealth, across sources: CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, cement etc.; across causes: burning fossil fuels, deforestation, agriculture (3)
‽ Consumption: to recognise the locus of demand (across nations and social position within societies in particular) that may be met through emissions elsewhere (e.g: goods made in China for the UK and US markets).
‽ Crisis response to the effects (and the destination of spending - already shown in something like the projects funded by the ‘Green Climate Fund’ portfolio: e.g: ‘Supporting vulnerable communities in the Maldives to manage climate-change induced water shortages’ (see reference 1 again, below)
‽ Mitigations and transformations: reforestation, renewables, recycling; towards a zero-carbon future; disinvesting; reinvesting; slowing, halting, reversing - again shown in the list of projects funded by the ‘Green Climate Fund’ e.g: ‘Large-scale ecosystem-based adaptation in Gambia: developing a climate-resilient, natural resource-based economy’ (again see reference 1)
ii) That managing an effective response and evaluating the beneficial impact and/or unintended consequences in order to increasingly inform, refine and ‘smarten up’ the response, seems very complicated (4) and may derail confidence and commitment. But that we surely have to find a way.
iii) That this is a problem ‘on earth’, for the earth and for all that dwell upon it. A problem that crosses imposed or claimed borders and the constructs of nationalism that have wrought them (so often through blood or theft or domination). That if we have to use these constructs to manage the politics, the finance, the distribution, the impact evaluation etc, etc. then let us at least do this through reinvigorated and representative international institutions whilst also recognising that in any and each specific ‘nation’ or society some are likely to have benefitted far more - and are more greatly liable
iv) That principles may matter most and may be crucial in guiding policy and practice, in underpinning decisions and actions - when the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of an effective response is complex, when so much is uncertain and when what may be needed is improvisation and jazz for there may be no well-composed score or blueprint playbook. Some suggestions:
‽ The polluters and the beneficiaries pay, proportionately; from each according to cause (past and present, accumulatively)... (2, 5 & 6, below)
‽ Those most at risk and those least able to meet the cost need help first; to those according to danger,hazard, impact and need... (6 & 7 below)
‽ Nothing about us without us!
‽ Transparency
‽ Accountability
‽ That the parable in The Bible of the sower (and similar tales) may hold some seeds to ‘getting on with it’, irrespective of the difficulties - for whilst some grain/finance may be eaten by birds, may fall on rocky ground and be scorched by the sun, or may fall on thorns; some will fall on good soil and the effect will multiply. (8)
And finally, ‽istis returns to the words of Gus Speth (9) (cited in an early blog from September 2019): ‘I used to think the top environmental problems were biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse, and climate change. But I was wrong. The top environmental problems are selfishness, greed, and apathy.’ ‘...to deal with those issues we need a spiritual and cultural transformation – and we scientists do not know how to do that.’
Maybe we have to find a way to either break out of the dynamic that has perhaps so driven change since the origin of our species, or radically redefine fitness for survival - not in individual terms, not in species terms, but in earthly, global, planetary, universal and interplanetary and cosmic terms? And ‽istis wonders whether that might constitute a necessary spiritual and cultural transformation?
Fully waking up and recognising the threat; rebelling against the risk of extinction; developing and agreeing guiding principles; finding a way to raise, manage and spend effectively just perhaps, possibly, may be both the necessary tasks and the very processes that transform, evolve and save us... The words of Mia Mottley, Prime Minister of Barbados this week ring out: ‘Act for all people - and if we don’t we will allow the path of greed and selfishness to sow the seeds of our common destruction.’
Discuss - in no less than several weeks of the ‘Conference of the Parties’, in presentations, speeches (performative or heartfelt, through a sound system or through a megaphone), in the halls, seminar rooms and corridors; in reports and tables and graphs and data sets; in online forums and web-based calls; in TV and radio studios; on the streets; in schools and colleges and universities; in cafés and pubs, in community and village halls; in places of worship, in sports stadia and gyms; in board rooms and offices and on the factory and shop floor; in homes; and, perhaps above all, in minds and souls and hearts...
© Pistis
NB: further reflections and comments linked to this week’s theme and past blog
entries to be found on Twitter: replies, retweets (which don’t necessarily indicate approval, sometimes the very opposite!) and ‘likes’: @Pistis_wonders. ‘Follows’ and respectful comment and dialogue welcome...
The UK’s Financial Times has what seems to be a very helpful ‘big read’ - ‘COP 26: where does all the climate finance money go?’: https://www.ft.com/content/d9e832b7-525b-470b-89db-6275853315dd The webpage banner headline says: ’A new world is possible. Let’s not go back to what wasn’t working anyway’.
See, for example: https://ourworldindata.org/contributed-most-global-co2 Article by Hannah Ritchie
UK Met Office website: https://metoffice.gov.uk/weather/climate-change/causes-of-climate-change
There is little agreement on how to spend the money, who should receive it, or how to make sure it is used effectively. There is even a dispute about how it should be measured, and what should be counted as climate finance.’ https://www.ft.com/content/d9e832b7-525b-470b-89db-6275853315dd again. Amar Bhattacharya: 'To date there has been very little impact measurement. It is a very important issue. People look at impact in terms of the composition of finance, things that relate to the financing side. But in terms of real impact of climate finance, and efficacy across different donors, there has been no development impact or climate impact study done to date.'
ODI report and Table 3: Scorecard of progress towards a fair share of international climate finance (2017-2018): https://cdn.odi.org/media/documents/ODI_WP_fairshare_final0709.pdf
Molwyn Joseph, Minister of the Environment, Antigua and Barbuda: ‘We are not asking for handouts, we are asking for compensation for damages as a result of the profligacy of the developed countries. Those that emit this carbon, that is causing climate events, should pay.’ In the FT ‘big read’ https://www.ft.com/content/d9e832b7-525b-470b-89db-6275853315dd
Recalling the words of Mia Mottley (Prime MInister of Barbados) at the COP26 this week: ‘Can there be peace and prosperity if one third of the world literally prospers and the other two thirds of the world live under siege and face calamitous threat to our well-being?’ ‘Are we so blinded and hardened that we can no longer appreciate the cries of humanity?’
The Bible, Matthew 13; Mark 4.
Gus Speth, former dean of the School of Forestry & Environmental Studies at Yale. Cited in: https://reflections.yale.edu/article/crucified-creation-green-faith-rising/dean-s-desk
