I just now started working myself through the latest issuse of IJB Thinks which contains a ton of fantastic articles, many dealing with the Copenhagen conference. Personally I found Clemzi's points most interesting, which he nails with the folling quote:
He goes on and draws the conclusion that we should focus on local programmes instead, which of course is the most logical solution.
I had plans to discuss the Carbon question of CISV here at FTB, which I won't, because Clemzi already did all the maths and brought most of the arguments. Just two points, I'd like to add:
how to save the planet, and what CISV can do about it is a topic that I regard as underrepresented in all levels of our organisation, so I'm glad the latest issue of IJB Thinks brought us this fantastic input.
If climate change and natural resources depletion cause or aggravate conflict and war around the planet, then are we really working towards peace by continuously traveling on planes?
He goes on and draws the conclusion that we should focus on local programmes instead, which of course is the most logical solution.
I had plans to discuss the Carbon question of CISV here at FTB, which I won't, because Clemzi already did all the maths and brought most of the arguments. Just two points, I'd like to add:
- The IPP committee proposed to offset all of CISV flights through a motion in 2008. It was defeated for pretty lame reasons (my opinion), that were that a non-profit organisation can't donate to another organisation. And that we can't trust another organisation to use that money well.
- As far as I'm informed Carbon offset (check Wikipedia) goes beyond planting trees: You can also use the money to save CO2-emission by for example using the money to replace a coal-powered power plant through a wind mill. (I'm sure Clemzi is aware of this, but the article makes you think, planting trees is the only way...)
how to save the planet, and what CISV can do about it is a topic that I regard as underrepresented in all levels of our organisation, so I'm glad the latest issue of IJB Thinks brought us this fantastic input.
It's a very important point raised in this article. Climate change is quite a serious issue and in CISV we just refuse to answer questions that make us uncomfortable. Usually the thing that makes us uncomfortable is war but now its questioning the insane amount of traveling we do in order to reach our goals.
Its quite funny actually Nick that you raise the point of the IPP Committee and CISV Norway motion about Offsetting our carbon emissions because when I was putting together the issue, Clemzi's article got me thinking of just that. Since half of the issue was about Climate change and our impact on the environment, it got me wondering would the fate of that motion be the same if it came in AIM 2010 following such a huge and disappointing conference?
Thanks for the feedback! Keep it coming :)
Thanks a lot Nick for this very nice review.
I wasn't aware of the AIM motion, I'd be glad to help if we want to design a new one this year or the year after.
Keep up the excellent work at FTB.
Peace.
I wrote the original "climate motion" that was discussed, and defeated. On resources it is available if you search for motions from 2007.
I read Clemzi's article now, and I am very much in agreement with the point that it is a paradox that we as an organization travel so much, in order to learn that we need to be more sustainable.
However, both the world, and my knowledge of climate politics and CISV politics has changed since this motion. I believe we could propose a similar motion again now, but with some modifications.
The reasons Nick lists were truly lame, and straight forward wrong.
First, we were never going to donate money, but rather buing a service from an organization. Like we buy airline tickets from corporate organizations. So this argument is invalid.
Second, the point on how these organizarions manage their funds, is more valid. But now, in contrast to back then, it is possible to buy the Kyoto quotas (CERs) that are generated from emission reduction or EU quotas (EUAs) directly. See this link from the Norwegain government as an example: http://co2.klif.no/en/-HOVEDMENY-/English/
Buying the EU quota removes one quota from the cap-and-trade market for CO2-quotas meaning that no tree has been planted, but less CO2 is allowed to be submitted among the participants in the EU ETA
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/emission/index_en.htm.
It is a different approach from the NGOs selling "quotas" that are really just compansating for other emissions.
I believe that proposing a motion for buying such "official" quotas effectively takes away both the arguments that were used last time around.
The caveat is that with no new binding agreement, there will not be an "official" (and much less efficient) market for CO2 quotas after 2012 (which is when the Kyoto-market ends).
I am very enthustiastic about supporting any effort of getting this on the agenda again.
Wow, Lars - thanks for updating on the offsetting situation. And great links too. Now, I hope there are people out there, willing to spearhead an initiative to bring the topic back to the agenda.