Blog
5 Major AIDA Achievements of the Past 6 Months
1. Colombia Suspends Aerial Spraying of Glyphosate In May 2015, Colombia announced its intentions to suspend the aerial spraying of a toxic herbicide containing glyphosate, the main ingredient in RoundUp, which has been used for more than 20 years to eradicate coca and poppy crops. The decision was made final on September 30, when the environmental management plan allowing such spraying was suspended. Pressure on the government mounted with a couple of key court decisions after AIDA and allies in Colombia and the U.S. launched an online petition. Together we collected almost 25,000 signatures from people calling on President Juan Manuel Santos and the Minister of Justice to end the spraying. Colombia’s spraying has doused homes, farms, forests, and water in vast rural areas, wreaking havoc in sensitive ecosystems, and damaging water sources and food crops in one of the most biodiverse nations on our planet. It has even forced families, including some in indigenous communities, off their lands. AIDA has worked to end the spraying over a period spanning 17 years. When the Minister of Health recently recommended suspending the program over fears that the chemical causes cancer, AIDA worked with the media and organized partners to generate and participate in a national debate. 2. Panamanian Congress Protects Panama Bay Wetland Wildlife Refuge After years of legal wrangling, Panama passed a law on February 2, 2015—World Wetlands Day—that grants permanent protection to the ecologically critical Panama Bay. The law staves off proposed tourist resorts that would harm mangrove forests essential for wildlife, coastal protection, the local fishing industry, and climate change mitigation. AIDA’s collaboration with its local partner, CIAM (the Center for Environmental Defense), ensured that this law is strong enough to guarantee rational uses of wetland resources throughout the country. Panama Bay is one of the world’s most important nesting sites for migratory birds and provides a home for endangered loggerhead turtles and jaguars. Mangroves in the bay buffer increasingly strong storm surges and capture 50 times more carbon than tropical forests. Under the Ramsar Convention, an international treaty for wetland conservation, the Bay is listed as a Wetland of International Importance. AIDA’s work is helping protect all the ecosystem services that this critical area provides. 3. Colombian Government Protects 76% of the Santurbán Páramo AIDA joined with local organizations to build public support for protection of Colombia’s páramos, high-altitude wetlands unique to Latin America. Our work garnered 20,000 petition signatures and generated significant media attention. The Colombian government’s decision to enlarge the protected area of the páramo known as the Santurbán is an important victory for the people of Colombia. The Santurbán supplies fresh water to nearly two million people and provides habitat for threatened species. It also captures large amounts of carbon, mitigating climate change. Several years ago, Colombia passed a law that protects páramos—an important step, because the land in and around the Santurbán contains gold and other minerals that international corporations are eager to mine. To implement the law and truly protect the Santurbán, Colombia had to establish the borders of the protected area. The boundaries initially proposed included only a small fraction of the páramo. Now most of it is protected. 4. Major Reference Reports Published One of the key services AIDA provides—producing Spanish-language reports based on legal research and analysis—benefits government officials, journalists, civil society groups and industry decision makers who are striving to protect our shared environment. We compile extensive information about threats to natural resources and best practices for environmental protection. Our reports fill gaps in knowledge among key Latin American policymakers and advocates. Recent AIDA publications that can help guide efforts toward environmental protection include: International Regulatory Best Practices For Coral Reef Protection. Protecting Coral Reefs in Mexico: Rescuing Marine Biodiversity and Its Benefits for Humankind. Basic Guidelines for the Environmental Impact Assessment of Mining Projects: Recommended Terms of Reference. 5. Regional Fracking Group Established: 30 Organizations in Seven Nations In Latin America, many countries are opening their doors to fracking—the practice of injecting water, sand and chemicals at high pressure to shatter rocks and release natural gas from deep underground. Governments are doing so with little or no understanding of the environmental and health impacts of this technology, and with the absence of adequate processes to inform, consult, and engage affected communities. With AIDA’s help, the Regional Group on Fracking was formed to raise awareness, generate public debate, and prevent risks associated with fracking. The group seeks to ensure that the rights to life, public health, and a healthy environment are respected in Latin America. The Group consists of civil society organizations and academic institutions mainly from Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Colombia, and Mexico, collaborating to: Identify affected communities and fracking operations in the region, and document impacts; Advance strategies to stop harmful projects and slow the spread of fracking; and Organize seminars and provide educational materials about the risks and impacts of fracking to ensure that a precautionary approach is taken.
Read more6 Things You Should Know About The Paris Climate Talks
Across Latin America, and the world, communities are facing the severe effects of a changing climate. As floods destroy ancestral homes, and droughts threaten livelihoods, the urgency with which world leaders must act is becoming increasingly apparent. It is in this critical global climate that world leaders will meet this December in Paris for a pivotal meeting of the United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change (UNFCCC), also known as COP21. The conference is expected to produce a new global agreement on climate change, which we hope will set the stage for the transition to a low carbon, climate resilient economy. AIDA’s lead Climate Change attorney Andrea Rodríguez has been monitoring key elements of the ongoing climate negotiations and bringing information and analysis to policy makers and NGOs throughout the Americas. To prepare you for the barrage of news that will come out of COP21, we’ve asked Rodríguez some questions we thought you’d like to know the answers to: What is the COP21? The meeting in Paris will be the 21st yearly session of the Conference of Parties to the global climate change convention, also known as the UNFCCC. World leaders will convene in Paris with the goal of signing a new global agreement on climate change. The primary goal of the agreement will be to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and limit global temperature increase to 2° C above pre-industrial levels, so we can adapt to the new changes in climate. Why is the conference so important? Climate change is a global problem that requires global solutions. No matter what governments do, if they don’t work together and take collaborative actions, we are never going to succeed at providing an effective solution. That’s why a global space that coordinates what countries do to tackle the problem is crucial for finding a way forward. The global treaty on climate change has been established for more than 20 years. What we need from COP21 is further guidance to ensure its effective implementation. If we don’t provide clarity on exactly how we’re going to achieve reduced emissions in a timely manner, we’re putting at risk the future of the planet. What are the key issues AIDA is following? AIDA is following two key components in the development of the new climate accord: climate finance and the protection of human rights in climate related activities. Climate finance entails providing money for developing countries—which are generally the least responsible for and the most impacted by climate change—to implement climate related actions effectively. COP21 needs to provide clarity on the specifics of that support—when and how will it arrive, and where will the money come from? A baseline of $100 billion per year by 2020 has already been agreed upon. But how do we make sure that goal is reached, and that is continues to grow? And, once resources are distributed, there must be mechanisms in place to ensure those resources are used properly and effectively. AIDA is pushing governments to incorporate human rights protections into the agreement, because climate change directly affects human rights. We need to create a broad consciousness of the human rights dimensions of climate change. That includes incorporating specific language to ensure the protection of human rights in all climate actions. When governments or institutions are planning climate-focused projects, programs, plans and strategies, they must also think about how those projects will affect people and the realization of their human rights. What will the agreement mean for governments? Governments of the world need to start looking within. They must do an internal analysis to see what they have, and what they need, to ensure they can strategically implement the agreement. In order for a nation to commit to taking action, it must first make sure it has the institutional capacity and the means to succeed. What will it mean for the average person? The climate agreement is a political commitment, but it will certainly have repercussions at the local level. It will influence national policies. If leaders create an effective agreement, you will see your government shifting to low-emission, climate-resilient development. There will be better local regulations, and you will begin to see policy improvements, and eventually more climate resilient actions taken in your own communities. You will be less vulnerable to the effects of climate change. How can the average person engage on this issue? You can begin by demanding more of your government. Climate change is a political fight, and your voice can help influence outcomes. Learn what your government wants and what their expectations are—you can start now by familiarizing yourself with their INDC. Then get organized and push your government to take a more proactive stance. Familiarize yourself with climate finance, follow the negotiations, and help inform others by sharing our work. It is our duty as citizens to hold our governments responsible, and to do our part to protect and defend this beautiful planet as best we can.
Read moreRights of the Environment: The Pope is on our Side
In his speech before the United Nations today in New York, Pope Francis argued passionately in defense of the environment, proclaiming that the natural world should have the same rights and protection as humanity. The Pope insisted on the “rights of the environment” because, according to His Holiness: We human beings are part of the environment. We live in communion with it, since the environment itself entails ethical limits which human actions must acknowledge and respect (…) Any harm done to the environment, therefore, is harm done to humanity… In all religions, the environment is a fundmental good. The Pope also proclaimed the fundamental nature of the fight against climate change, which requires concrete and effective actions. A decisive moment in this fight will come this December at the Paris Climate Conference, where governments from around the world will meet and commit to global actions to confront the climate crisis. The Pope declared: I’m confident that the Paris Conference on climate change will secure fundamental and effective agreements. During the UN General Assembly, before leaders and representatives of the people of the world, the Pope added: Our world demands of all government leaders a will that is effective, practical and constant, concrete steps and immediate measures for preserving and improving the natural environment. This speech is a milestone in the struggle for the defense of the environment and against climate change. It’s yet another push to continue fighting every day for the preservation of biodiversity, ecosystems, freshwater, and the balance of life on this planet, this marvellous creation that we humans share with so many other forms of life. At AIDA we strive every day to defend the right to a healthy environment in the Americas, and in our Climate Change program we monitor and support the negotiations to reach a new global climate accord. As long as humanity and the environment suffer at the hand of irresponsible development, we will continue to fight in defense of the environment.
Read more
A World Without Ozone
By Laura Yaniz In Mexico, on September 16th, people rest from a night of partying, and so does the sky. In that country, Independence Day begins contaminated by the excessive fireworks used in patriotic celebrations. The irony is that, worldwide, that same day is reserved to celebrate the preservation of the ozone layer. What would have happened had we not decided to care for the ozone? Each 16th of September, Mexico City wakes up with its air hanging thick and dirty. Although the streets are nearly empty, the government maintains a “Don’t Drive Today” program and sanctions distracted drivers whose plate numbers are forbidden from driving that day. I call them “distracted” because on holidays, the government often suspends the “Don’t Drive Today” program, but not on September 16th. On this day, everyone must recover from his or her hangover, including the sky. This is a result of September 15th, when Mexico celebrates its “motherland night.” In cities across the country, thousands of fireworks are launched from plazas packed full of partiers. And so, the next day, the sky hangs even greyer than usual. It’s a bit ironic that September 16th is International Day for the Preservation of the Ozone Layer. More ironic still is that a Mexican named Mario Molina was part of the group of scientists who discovered what was causing the hole in the ozone layer: chemicals expelled into the air by human beings. The discovery became a turning point in the war against gases that damage our atmosphere. It led to diplomatic actions worldwide: the Montreal Protocol was signed with the specific purpose of protecting the ozone, prohibiting the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs, commonly known as Freon) and spurring the elimination of other harmful substances. “My first environmental panic,” is how Florencia Ortúzar, AIDA climate change attorney, remembers it. And why not? Destroying the ozone meant weakening protection against the UV rays that cause skin cancer and cataracts, not to mention the fact that extremely dangerous radiation could cause drastic changes in the ecosystems we rely upon in our own lives. We’ve had 40 years of scientific investigation into the effects of chemicals on the ozone, and 30 years of global and political actions to confront them. Have they mattered at all? Yes. The world we avoided NASA published a simulation that explains the world that might have been had we not acted so quickly to protect our ozone: By 2020, 17 percent of all ozone would have disappeared on a global level. By 2040, UV radiation would have reached an index of 15 in mid-latitudes. An index of 10 is considered extreme and can cause burns within 10 minutes. By 2065, we would have lost two-thirds of the ozone, causing never-before-seen UV radiation levels, which could cause burns in only 5 minutes of exposure. Would we have reached 2100? NASA didn’t say. The hope: What we can do Richard Stolarski, a scientific pioneer in ozone studies and the co-author of NASA’s simulation, expressed his admiration for the global work to confront the problem: “I didn’t think the Montreal Protocol would work, it was very naïve in terms of politics. Now it is a remarkable international agreement and should be studied by all those involved in seeking a global agreement on global warming.“ Certainly, what was achieved was inspirational, because a catastrophic situation was avoided. But we can’t let down our guard just yet. When the Montreal Protocol prohibited chlorofluorocarbons, industry replaced them with hydrofluorocarbons. Like the CFCs they replaced, HFCs are potent greenhouse gases. As part of our Climate Change program, we work to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants, which include hydrofluorocarbons. Although they represent only a small percentage of greenhouse gases, their production and use are growing and will continue to increase if action is not taken. That’s why at AIDA we are working to identify ways to strengthen regulations that reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants. Because these pollutants persist in the atmosphere only briefly, reducing their concentrations can provide near-term climate benefit, giving us more time to implement renewable energy and efficiency programs that lessen the severity of climate change. Are you with us?
Read moreThe new climate agreement should help nations meet existing commitments!
The governments of the world are working on the negotiating text of a new global agreement to combat climate change. It will be signed in December, during the Paris Conference of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and will take effect in 2020. AIDA is advocating for the new climate agreement to be a tool that adequately addresses the effects of extreme changes in climate, especially in the most vulnerable countries. "We want the new climate agreement to help implement existing agreements effectively and strengthen national commitments made through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change; we cannot start from scratch and the new agreement should not replace the Convention, but rather improve its implementation, "said Andrea Rodriguez, AIDA senior attorney. With a view to the Paris Conference, delegates from various countries are meeting to work on the elements that will form the basis of the "Paris package." The package includes a new climate agreement (overarching commitments) and a decision (provisions likely to change over time) that spell out commitments made under the Convention. The next meeting will be held in Bonn, Germany, from August 31 to September 4. To contribute positively to the draft negotiating texts of the agreement and decision, AIDA prepared remarks for the negotiators aimed at strengthening two key issues: the financing of activities to combat climate change, and protection of human rights in carrying out such activities. On climate financing, the comments emphasize the need for the new climate agreement to help mobilize sufficient, adequate and predictable financial resources effectively, establishing concrete commitments, such as terms of responsibilities and timeframes. On the second point, the comments ask the Paris agreement countries to commit themselves to protecting human rights in all actions related to climate change, a commitment already made in the Cancun Agreements of 2010 that needs to be reaffirmed in the new legally binding climate change agreement in order to ensure compliance. Countries have already committed to provide 100 billion dollars to the fight against climate change, beginning in 2020. "The Paris decision on climate finance must provide assurance that countries will make every effort to ensure that commitment from 2020 on; then we will be able to trust that the new climate agreement will actually work," Rodriguez said. Learn more about our comments on climate finance and human rights for the new climate deal!
Read more
Indifference to life and health in Peru
By María José Veramendi Villa, @MaJoVeramendi In Peru, every year around 400 children die of cold. I learned this dramatic figure a few weeks ago when I read a column titled “Dying from Indifference,” by Congresswoman Veronika Mendoza. I asked with genuine indignation: How is it possible that children could die of cold in a country that prides itself on its mineral wealth, its great attraction for foreign investment, its tourism and culinary strengths? A country that hosts major world events such as the Conference of State Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change? Besides the lack of political will from our leaders, who worry more about looking good in photos taken at grand events, the answer can be found in a key paragraph of Mendoza’s column: “Where could such political will come from if no one is moved, if no one is indignant that these children die, perhaps because they tend to be “somewhere else,” usually peasants, who often speak Quechua or Aymara?” Regret before prevention On July 18, 2015, the government issued a supreme decree that declared a state of emergency in some districts and provinces of the country, due to frost. The first paragraph of the decree states that “every year and on a recurring basis, between the months of May and September, our country experiences weather events related to low temperatures, such as frost in our highlands, as was observed in recent seasons with extreme temperatures well below 0 ° C ...” If these weather events occur every year, why not prevent their impacts? In 2004, information from the Tyndall Centre, University of Manchester, revealed that Peru is the third most vulnerable country to the effects of climate change, the main cause of such phenomena as increasingly intense frost. Indifference to the violation of human rights Indifference in Peru not only manifests itself in children dying of cold in remote communities, but also La Oroya, a city only 175 kilometers from Lima. In a context of extreme industrial pollution, the population, including children, has for many years suffered violations of the rights to life and health. On August 11, a strike organized by the workers of the metallurgical complex in La Oroya, and the subsequent closure of the main highway that provides access to the center of the country, set off alarm bells in the city. Not bells that should sound when pollution limits are exceeded, but those of a long-neglected social demand. The metallurgical complex, owned by the company Doe Run Peru, is for sale and in the process of liquidating. According to information released to the public, no interested party submitted a financial offer because Peruvian environmental standards are too strict. In response, the workers took control of the road, demanding that the State relax those standards so the complex can be sold and they retain their jobs. The protest left one dead and 60 wounded. It ended after the signing of a five-point agreement, which does not mention the rights to life and health of the population of La Oroya. In a city that has been subjected to unchecked contamination for more than 90 years, Doe Run Peru has continued to obtain extensions to meet its environmental obligations. In July 2015, the company obtained a further extension of 14 years for the complex to meet environmental standards. But what about the life and health of the people? The State has not seen that environmental standards are met in La Oroya. Neither has it fully safeguarded the health of its inhabitants: • The air quality alert system has not been activated properly. • The doctors in charge of health and the heavy metals strategy are scarce and face the constant risk of running out of resources to continue working. • The State insists on asking the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to lift the measures ordered in 2007 to protect the lives and health of a group of La Oroya residents. Speaking Loudly Children are as vulnerable to cold as they are to the effects of industrial pollution. However, the State only comes to their aid in times of crisis or when it is too late. It sounds like a cliché, but children are our hope. Let us listen so they don’t die of cold and are no longer poisoned! Otherwise, we will also be victims of the disease of indifference.
Read more
Watch Out! The Mining Industry Wants to Dump its Waste in the Ocean
By Florencia Ortúzar, AIDA attorney, and Karol Rodríguez, AIDA intern Mining gives rise to a serious problem: toxic waste. Tailings from ore extraction have been known to damage the environment and communities living near dump sites. Responsible management, then, is critical if we desire economic development that brings more benefits than problems. In Chile, mine companies are running out of places to dump their dangerous byproducts. Inadequate disposal has already caused substantial harm; nobody wants toxic waste near their home or community. Even depositing tailings in dry areas with low biodiversity is not safe, because rain and floods can wash contaminants into communities. In this context, Chilean mining companies have come up with the “brilliant” idea of depositing mine tailings into the sea, through a pipeline that would transport tons of waste to a valley on the ocean floor. The Ocean: delicate and mysterious cradle of life The ocean is one of the greatest mysteries on our planet. In fact, 95 percent of the ocean floor has not been mapped, which means we know only 5 percent of it. We know more about the surface of the moon than about the depths of the ocean. What’s more, oceans contain the most complex ecosystems on the planet. The variables involved in their health and dynamics are infinite. Given these unknowns, it is impossible to predict the effect that mine tailings would have on the ocean floor. This uncertainty is reason enough to apply the precautionary principle, an important legal tool to prevent environmental degradation caused by human development. We don’t know how the waste may affect complex marine ecosystems, their many species, or even ourselves, who take nourishment from fish and other seafood. So how could we sleep soundly while a pipeline funnels contaminated, and certainly hazardous, waste into our oceans? The effects of the environmental damage could be large and uncontrollable, and, once the water is released into the ocean, there would be no turning back. An international workshop on the idea To understand more about this worrying initiative, two renowned Chilean environmentalists—Juan Pablo Orrego, president of Ecosistemas, and Flavia Liberona, executive director of Fundación Terram—attended an international workshop in Lima in June. Participants at the workshop, convened by the Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection and the International Maritime Organization, discussed the viability of depositing mine tailings in the ocean. Orrego penned an article on the theme, which you can read here. In the workshop they learned that dumping mine waste into the ocean is nothing new. It happens in Canada, Turkey, Papua New Guinea, and in some African countries. The Norwegian government recently authorized the use of a pristine fjord (a narrow sea inlet) as a repository for mine tailings from a rutile mine. During the workshop, an official from the Norwegian government defended the decision, arguing, “The social benefits from the mine outweigh the destruction of the fjord.” According to whom? For and against Supporters of the Chilean proposal claim that dumping tailings into the sea does not necessarily entail a hazard. They say the risks are minimal because there’s no oxygen on the bottom of the ocean, so the chemical reaction that causes toxicity on the surface would not occur. Leonel Sierralta J., former official of Chile’s Environmental Ministry and current scientific director of Sustainable Initiatives for Mining, penned an open letter in response to Orrego’s article. In it, he says that although there have been disastrous cases involving mine waste in the ocean, there are also cases in developed countries in which waste dumping has been carried out based on science and following strict environmental criteria. His arguments have not convinced those who oppose the proposal, including five Chilean senators who sponsored a bill to prohibit the discharge of tailings into the ocean. An alternative: neutralize the risk Orrego proposes to regulate mining more strictly. He says that before tailings are deposited, mining companies must extract from them all heavy metals and neutralize their chemical compounds. In that way, it would be feasible to deposit practically inert tailings in places such as old mine shafts. It would even create an economic opportunity for companies to begin extracting and recycling dangerous elements. The neutralization of tailings is an appropriate alternative to continuing environmental destruction. Orrego’s proposal is sensible. It’s reasonable to assert that economic activities dangerous for the environment continue only if their impacts are neutralized. If we generate more waste than we can deal with, it’s because we are not acting sustainably, which means we are not assuring the conservation of a healthy planet for our descendants. This is why we at AIDA work daily to preserve the health of ecosystems in the face of highly polluting activities like mining.
Read more
If Cecil Had Lived in Costa Rica, He Might Still be Alive Today
By Camila Cossio, AIDA intern Last month Cecil, a 13-year-old African lion, was tracked and killed by a tourist from the United States. Cecil was a victim of trophy hunting, a cruel hobby that serves no conservation purpose. If Cecil had lived in Costa Rica, he might still be alive today. Costa Rica is home to many top predators, including big cats like pumas and jaguars—and the government is committed to their protection. Hunting animals for sport is illegal in Costa Rica. The Costa Rican Congress in 2012 unanimously approved an amendment to the nation’s Wildlife Conservation Law, which bans trophy hunting and the general hunting of wildlife. Costa Rica is the first country to ban hunting save for scientific studies, subsistence, and to reduce overpopulation. Hunters who fail to comply with the law may be fined up to $3,000 or jailed for up to four months. In light of Cecil’s death, many trophy hunters have argued that their actions help conservation efforts. Science, however, tells us otherwise. Natural predators, such as lions, wolves and bears, help balance natural ecosystems by killing the sickest and weakest individuals in a species. This is natural selection at its core. In contrast, trophy hunters aim to kill the most “desirable” animals – those that would look best hanging on their walls tend to be healthy top predators like Cecil. By hunting healthy predators, humans are interfering with the delicate balance of species populations. When a dominant lion like Cecil is killed, for example, it is common for a new lion to take over the pride and kill the former leader’s cubs. This pride disruption would not have occurred now had Cecil not been hunted to his death. Another kind of disruption is being seen in regard to United States wolf populations. The overhunting of red wolves led to an increase in coyote populations. As coyote populations grew, they suppressed the numbers of many smaller predators, such as foxes. Foxes prey on mammals responsible for infecting ticks with Lyme disease. It’s no coincidence that humans are currently facing the highest incidence of Lyme disease ever documented. Instances like this make it clear that predators play a vital role both for healthy animal ecosystems and for human health. Trophy hunting also creates a market for the poaching of threatened and endangered species. Organized trophy hunts imply that animal populations are “recovering” and not in danger, thus increasing the exploitation of already sensitive populations.[1] Costa Rica is a pioneer in wildlife law and wildlife protection – as evidenced by its landmark legislation, and by everyday actions I witness during my internship here in AIDA’s San José office. I see the nation’s concern reflected in the work our attorneys do to protect endangered species. And I see it on the streets, in bumper stickers bearing the image of a big cat like Cecil, captioned “Animals Have the Right of Way. Respect Them." [1] Cecil and the Myth of Conservation Through Sports Hunting, http://www.friendsofanimals.org/news/2015/august/cecil-and-myth-conservation-through-sport-hunting (accessed Aug. 5, 2015).
Read moreGod is an Environmentalist. Are You?
God is with us in the fight to defend the environment. He is the first environmentalist. In his encyclical Laudato Si, also known as the environmental encyclical, Pope Francis says, “The violence present in our hearts, wounded by sin, is also reflected in the symptoms of sickness evident in the soil, in the water, in the air, and in all forms of life.” All religions agree that divinity created the planet we share with all forms of life. Caring for this creation is one of our ancient religious duties. This sentiment has been echoed by high representatives of churches around the world, from Catholic to Muslim, Hindu to Orthodox. The planet and the beings that inhabit it are currently suffering grave environmental impacts. The contamination of oceans and rivers, climate change, soil deterioration, the extinction of species and the disappearance of forests are just some of the ills afflicting the environment. Given this bleak picture, various churches agree they must admonish believers to care for their surroundings. What did Pope Francis say? In Laudato Si, Pope Francis recounts the lessons of Juan Pablo II, who said that “the destruction of the human environment is extremely serious, not only because God has entrusted the world to us men and women, but because human life is itself a gift which must be defended from various forms of debasement.” The encyclical also recognizes the position of the Turkish Orthodox Church. “Patriarch Bartholomew has spoken in particular of the need for each of us to repent of the ways we have harmed the planet,” the text reads. The Pope also adds that Saint Francis of Assisi, who invited us to “care for all that exists,” always asked that part of his friary garden remain uncultivated, so that wild flowers and herbs could grow. Thus, those who admired them could raise their thoughts to the creator of such beauty: God. The Pope praises all who join forces in defense of the environment: “I want to recognize, encourage and thank all those striving in countless ways to guarantee the protection of the home which we share. “ In this same vein, the Conference of Bishops of South Africa stated that the “talents and involvement of all is needed to repair the damage caused by human abuse of God’s creation.” What do other religions say? Islam also encourages defending the environment. Muslim scholars have recently qualified climate change as a serious threat. The Islamic Foundation for Ecology and Environmental Science declared: “God created the world in mizan (balance), but through fasad (corruption), human beings have caused climate change, together with a range of negative effects on the environment that include deforestation, the destruction of biodiversity, and the pollution of the oceans and of water systems.” To learn how Confucianism, Hinduism, Christianity and traditional indigenous religions promote environmental defense, you can consult Ecology and Religion, a book by John Grim and Mary Evelyn Tuckner, published by Island Press in 2014. Better today than tomorrow These religious and environmental lessons are very important, especially when we come to defining moments in this fight to protect God’s creation, our planet. In December the 21st Conference of Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change will take place in Paris. This is the last opportunity for the nations of the world to reach a new binding agreement and avoid a global climate catastrophe. Humanity faces similar challenges with respect to energy sources, the use of fossil fuels, growing food, waste management and the protection of natural areas. The religions of the world, and their commitment to protecting the planet, give us a compelling reason to join in the fight. At AIDA we do so daily. We use the law to protect freshwater sources, the human rights of communities affected by environmental degradation, marine and coastal ecosystems, and to promote appropriate solutions to climate change. We can all do something, from changing personal habits that damage the environment, to pushing for structural solutions. These may include renouncing the use of plastic bags or telling your elected representatives you’ll only vote for people who support a rapid transition away from fossil fuels. Whatever we do, let’s do it soon! Amen.
Read more
New Zealand sets shameful emission-reduction target, completely ignores public consultation
By Natalie Jones Natalie is a legal intern on the Climate Change team at AIDA, based in Mexico City. She is a delegate to COP21 with the New Zealand Youth Delegation, and volunteers for NZ youth climate group Generation Zero. In this post, she covers an issue AIDA is following closely in Latin America—emission-reduction targets—in her native country. Last week New Zealand released its INDC, or “intended nationally determined contribution,” for the post-2020 climate deal set to be agreed upon in Paris this December. It’s not good news. An INDC is the target each country must set for its future greenhouse gas emissions—in other words, its intended contribution to the effort to reduce climate-changing pollutants to a sustainable level. At the UN climate talks, the world’s governments agreed that these targets should be nationally determined, to allow each nation to respond best to its own needs, priorities, and abilities. Because climate change is an issue we all face together, New Zealand’s announcement is relevant to people in all parts of the world, including Latin America. New Zealand is one of the world’s higher emitters: the small country emits more than three times its share of global emissions per capita. So far, however, New Zealand is failing to live up to its historic responsibility. The Government announced an emissions reduction target of 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. While this may sound okay – 30 is a big percentage, right? – it actually equates to a cut of just 11 percent below 1990 levels, which is not that much bigger than our already-pitiful 2020 target of 5 percent below 1990 levels. To stay in line with the international effort to limit global warming to below 2 degrees Celsius, New Zealand’s target would need to be a minimum of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 – a rate accepted by the European Union and other progressive nations. Instead, the target is worse than those proposed by China, Mexico and other developing countries. To make matters worse, New Zealand has already proposed a conditional target of 10-20 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, in addition to the unconditional 5 percent target. It is likely that all the conditions attached to the 10-20 percent target will be met. So the recent announcement is essentially lowering New Zealand’s ambition by giving the country ten more years to hit the low end of its conditional target. At this critical moment in history, we can’t afford a decade of inaction. Accounting rule mischief But it doesn’t stop there. The target will remain provisional until a final deal is reached in Paris, including rules on accounting for land sector emissions and carbon markets. This means the target is even worse than it seems. New Zealand’s existing 2020 target is based on gross emissions calculated for 1990, without accounting for the lower net amount of carbon once some of it is taken up and stored by forests. But for 2020, the target does account for forests as a carbon sink. This skewed approach means New Zealand is on track to meet its 5 percent reduction target by 2020, even though actual emissions are on track to increase 36 percent since 1990. If New Zealand plans to use the same methodology for the 2030 target, which seems likely, our target would actually be a 134 percent net increase from 1990 levels. A target for the 1% What’s more, the Government has completely ignored the results of its own public consultation, which overwhelmingly called for much stronger action. Ninety-nine percent of submitters called for a target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Over 15,000 submissions were made, and more than 4,600 of those submissions were mobilized by youth climate organization Generation Zero’s Fix Our Future campaign, which I helped run. Generation Zero spokesperson Paul Young characterized the target as being “for the 1 percent who deny the need to transition to a low carbon economy.” Failing to take responsibility for the Pacific New Zealand is a neighbour to many vulnerable Pacific Island countries, such as Samoa, the Marshall Islands, Tuvalu and Vanuatu. These countries are some of the lowest contributors to climate change, but are the first to face its devastating impacts, such as rising sea levels and more frequent and severe storms. New Zealand has a responsibility to care for its neighbours. Oxfam New Zealand called the country’s recent announcement a “slap in the face” to Pacific Island nations. A wasted opportunity Perhaps most disappointing about this announcement is the fact that New Zealand has the ability to lead the way to a thriving, zero carbon world. Currently running on more than 80 percent renewable energy, the country is in a prime position to transition to 100 percent renewable energy, shift its transport and heat needs to electricity and other clean energy sources, and absorb carbon by planting forests. Instead, New Zealand is leaving it to other countries to pick up its slack. Historically, New Zealand has used the inaction of major emitters like the US and China as an excuse for its own inaction, but that simply won’t cut it any more. What’s holding us back now is not technology, but political vision. AIDA’s work on INDCs AIDA advocates for public participation in the formation of INDCs throughout Latin America, and calls on nations to include information in their INDCs about the finance needed to meet their commitments and respond to the impacts of climate change. It is important to monitor the contributions of countries outside Latin America, particularly developed countries who have contributed the most to the problem, in order to determine whether each country is upholding their responsibility on this collective issue and to ensure political accountability for poor contributions. Find Natalie on Twitter at @nataliejonesnz.
Read more