An idea that could save lives
Continuing with the theme of covering some of the 'hot topics' at this week's Cancun climate summit, I wanted to delve into an issue that Oxfam is hoping to see progress on during the coming week or so – international climate finance. Not the most inspiringly named topic, I know. But stick with me now – it's not as dry as it sounds.
If you were to break down Oxfam's climate change campaign (and I'm probably going to upset some of my colleagues in the policy team by simplifying the issue like this), it could roughly be separated into two demands.
- Firstly, greenhouse gas production must be reduced internationally, with developed countries cutting their emissions first and fastest.
- And secondly, poor communities should be provided with support.
Finance is connected to the second of these issues. With climate change undermining progress on tackling poverty, poor communities must be provided with funds (ie. the finance) to help them adapt as climate change kicks in.
In Bolivia, ancient farming techniques are helping protect crops from more severe drought
In Bangladesh, floods are getting higher, lasting longer and threatening more lives. In response, local people are moving their homes onto higher foundations. In areas of north east Thailand, rainy seasons have become unpredictable with a devastating effect on rice production. With support from Oxfam, people are fighting back. But for every success story, there are many more cases where climate change is pushing communities backwards.
Rich country governments, with more wealth and having polluted for longer, agreed in Copenhagen to establish a climate fund. Put simply, it's a pot of cash to help communities avoid the worst effects of climate change – with institutions like the World Bank estimating that developing countries will need between $70bn-$100bn a year between 2010 and 2050.
That's a big figure. And though generating that kind of amount of money will be no walk in the park, innovative ways of raising cash do exist.
Ideas such as taxing aviation and shipping – two industries that escape current legislation because they pollute across national borders – could raise $20 billion a year.
Or ideas like the Robin Hood Tax – a tiny tax on the banking sector that could raise hundreds of billions worldwide, a portion of which could go toward tackling climate change.
Throughout the Cancun summit, Oxfam will be continuing to push for a global Climate Fund. Working to make sure that it's set up in a way that meets the needs of the most vulnerable. You can help add an injection of political will by joining Oxfam's call for a Global Cimate Fund.
Comments
Need a new strategy
Think tanks in international financial bodies are starting to think that climate change is unstoppable. The simple reasonong is that as time passess more and more people advance economically like in China and in India and they start consuming more energy, burning more fuel, releasing more carbon dioxide. Such increase will be much more than any GHG reduction achieved through Kyoto or other mechanisms. Now countries are negotiating about the quota of carbon dioxide each country can emit in an year. In the current situation reducing GHG emission means most countries will not be able to have further economic development like the kind of development achived by the developed countries. Therefore such discussion will not bear fruits. An alternate approach is that all countries agree to do the same thing. It also means changing life styles. It is impossible to address climate change without changing lifestyles. All people should agree to change lifestyles and make small sacrifices, in order to save the planet.Huge amount of energy is spent on lighting. Does the world need all this electric lighting during night and especially during day? In broad daylight, why should there be so much electric lighting in shops? Large amount of carbon dioxide is released to produce electricity required for street lighting. I have driven in highways without street lighting and with heavy traffic at 100km/h safely. If street lights are switched off, the maximum driving speed may come down from 120 to 100 km/h at night. Such a minor price everyone should be prepared to pay to save our planet. Some people may argue that without street lights accidents may increase. I believe with reduced speed accidents need not increase but may even decrease. Even if an accident happens, the damage or injury will be lesser at lower speed.World leaders can agree that all street lights will be permanantly switched off in a phased manner within one year. This is something very practical since street lighting is controlled by government controlled bodies world wide.Like this you can think of other items applicable world wide.