PHM-Exch> FW: PHM and climate change: a contribution for discussion

[Del Weston]

Hi Claudio

 

I agree on the importance of PHM being involved in discussions and actions on global warming on the basis that global warming is here and now; is already having an enormous impact on the lives of millions of vulnerable people;  is set to be the biggest contributor to global inequality and poor health; and, unless the warming trajectory is stopped within a decade, will lead to the collapse of civilisation.

 

I would like to add a couple of points to David’s.

 

1.       To have an awareness campaign around what a just sharing of the remaining atmospheric commons would look like (i.e. in the wake of the high-consuming, industrially-developed societies having already used up more than their fair share of the atmospheric commons for dumping greenhouse gases, the question is then how the remaining atmospheric commons should be divided up - or should it be maintained in perpetuity for the security of future generations, the health of the planet, etc?

 

         The potential implications of this are:

                                                               i.       there is no further room for the rich industrialised nations and peoples to continue their current economic pathway or to continue to emit GHGs

                                                             ii.      the concept of carbon ‘offsets’ is a furphy – just another profitable way for corporations to relieve people’s consciences

                                                            iii.      the ‘bottom line’ for development must take into account carbon footprints and cap on consumption levels for non essential goods and services.

2.        Addressing historical ecological debt and atmospheric ecological debt requires a redistribution of wealth – between and within nations

3.       Emissions trading schemes (ETS), ie market mechanisms, will not solve the problem of global warming – too complex, too difficult to monitor, not equitable, not efficient, not sufficiently timely, at high risk of being controlled by such market institutions as stock exchanges, banks, etc. – the very institutions which nurtured the global financial crisis. Further ETSs amount to the privatisation of the atmospheric commons.  There is no evidence to date that any of the  carbon emissions trading schemes in existence work, but there is a growing body of evidence that they are open to large scale fraud, and have resulted in the transfer of billions to the largest polluters.

4.       One other point is that global warming is not an isolated issue – just the most urgent manifestation of an unsustainable political economy.  A real solution will not be found through the market or technology – perhaps the PHM can be one of the sites discussing what are the alternatives.

 

An excellent site to keep up to date with global warming issues is:  <http://www.carbonequity.info/> www.carbonequity.info

 

Regards

 

Del Weston

 

 





From: Claudio Schuftan <cschuftan at phmovement.org>

Date: 18 January 2010 2:55:32 AM

To: phm-exchange at phm.phmovement.org

Subject: PHM-Exch> PHM and climate change: a contribution for discussion

 

[The following note was written by David Legge as a contribution for discussion within the People's Health Movement Climate Change Circle. ]

 

There are a lot of organisations and networks working on global warming. Many of us are members and activists in such networks. So what are the special interests of PHM in relation to global warming and what special leverage might PHM structures give to carbon pollution control?

 

As I see it, PHM’s core business centres around the links between global inequities with respect to the determinants of health and access to quality health care; primary health care (both as a model for health care delivery and as an approach to social change); community mobilisation; the political economy of globalisation; and the possibilities for global solidarity including the building of a global movement for progressive global change. 

 

The People’s Charter for Health (adopted at PHA1 in 2000) provides some guidance with respect to PHM’s position on global warming. Under the heading “Environmental Challenges” the Charter commits us to: 

*	Hold transnational and national corporations, public institutions and the military accountable for their destructive and hazardous activities that impact on the environment and people's health. 
*	Demand that all development projects be evaluated against health and environmental criteria and that caution and restraint be applied whenever technologies or policies pose potential threats to health and the environment (the precautionary principle). 
*	Demand that governments rapidly commit themselves to reductions of greenhouse gases from their own territories far stricter than those set out in the international climate change agreement, without resorting to hazardous or inappropriate technologies and practices. 
*	Oppose the shifting of hazardous industries and toxic and radioactive waste to poorer countries and marginalised communities and encourage solutions that minimise waste production. 
*	Reduce over‐consumption and non‐sustainable lifestyles ‐ both in the North and the South. Pressure wealthy industrialised countries to reduce their consumption and pollution by 90 per cent. 
*	Demand measures to ensure occupational health and safety, including worker‐centred monitoring of working conditions. 
*	Demand measures to prevent accidents and injuries in the workplace, the community and in homes. 
*	Reject patents on life and oppose bio‐piracy of traditional and indigenous knowledge and resources. 
*	Develop people‐centred, community‐based indicators of environmental and social progress, and to press for the development and adoption of regular audits that measure environmental degradation and the health status of the population. 

 

These commitments remain very relevant.

 

Given the prevailing global inequities and in particular the disease burden and barriers to health care in the Global South it is important for PHM to consider carefully the North South dimensions of the Copenhagen fiasco and to ensure that we approach the politics of global warming with full understanding of these dimensions.


As I understand it the rich countries approached Copenhagen with low ambitions and high conditions; including conditions that tied rich country action to comparable commitments from the big developing countries (ignoring the role of rich country emissions in the historical accummulation of greenhouse gases and looking for parity in policy action from hereon). As I understand it the small island states and the delta countries wanted to see action from all polluters but faced opposition from both the big rich and the big developing countries. As I understand it the big developing countries (also known as 'the emerging economies’), led by China and India, were unwilling to accept the kind of restrictions on their economic development which were being canvassed and were unwilling to slow down (what they describe as) the liberation of millions of desparately poor people from poverty. 

 

Clearly the question of pathways to economic development links with the question of access to the necessary technologies which might support non-greenhouse economic development / poverty escape and clearly the developing countries were not happy with the offers from the rich countries on this front.

It is not possible to make sense of this impasse without recognising the role of the big transnational energy corporations (funding the global warming deniers and opposing restrictions on CO2 emissions). The big energy TNCs will oppose action on global warming to the bitter end. They have huge sunk investments in old technologies with correspondingly large profit flows. Action on global warming will require writing off these investments and choking off the profit flows and finding capital for the new energy infrastructure.

 

It is also necessary to contextualise both global warming and economic development within the wider regime of global economic governance. The inequities, imbalances and instabilities of the global economy, manifest in the global food crisis and the global financial crisis, are a consequence of this regime also. Neoliberal globalisation is built upon consumerism (with concomitant carbon pollution) and requires the marginalisation of a billion humans who are treated by this regime as ‘surplus to requirements’ (required neither for their labour power nor their buying power).


It is untenable that these global policy challenges should be allowed to resolve into a forced choice between economic development for the global South or mitigation of global warming (which seems to have been one of the deals on the table at Copenhagen). Rather we need to work towards a regime of global economic governance which reconciles the need for (sustainable) economic development in the global South and the need to contain global CO2 levels to 350ppm. Clearly such a regime is technically and economically possible; the main challenge is political.

So what are the core interests of the People's Health Movement in the politics of global warming? And where does the struggle for action on global warming intersect with the struggle for health?

First, we need to get our facts straight and build a robust analysis. The analysis I have set out above includes some speculation and over-simplifies some of the issues. We need to listen more carefully to the analysis of the developing country negotiators at Copenhagen, in particular, the negotiators from China and India to understand their perspectives. We need to investigate the positions being advanced by the rich countries and explore the implications of these positions. We need to contextualise these negotiations within the wider political economy of energy and of global economic governance.

We need to keep sustainable economic development at the forefront of our struggle. Not the high consumption low employment globalised model being promoted by the neo-liberals but sustainable autonomous development based in large degree on local production and supply.

We need to build pressure on the governments of the North and South to accelerate the reform of energy production and use domestically while continuing to work for binding international agreements.

We need to keep energy equity in the foreground as well as energy efficiency and renewables. This has implications for most people in the rich countries where the profligate use of carbon based energy is embedded in culture, economy and infrastructure. It also has implications for the elites and middle classes of the developing countries. Both energy equity and global economic reform require a strengthening culture of global solidarity.


So what are the implications of these policy priorities for PHM’s policy program.

Central to PHM’s policy program is comprehensive primary health care, first, as a platform for improving access to decent health care and for action on the social determinants of health; and second, as a strategy of social change, for creating healthy communities. So we need to ensure that energy reform is included in our discourse of the social determinants of health and community mobilisation for health but clearly contextualised in relation to economic globalisation and the challenge of global economic reform.

Central to PHM’s policy program is the development of global solidarity for health; building communication channels and opportunities for collaboration across various axes of difference (nation, race, gender, religion as well as class) so that the forces for progressive global change can be more coherent and effective. So we need to ensure that energy reform (including towards energy equity as well as efficiency and renewables) is part of the discourse on which such solidarity is built – and clearly contextualised in relation to economic globalisation.

Central to PHM’s policy program is the idea of intersectoral collaboration and in terms of PHM as a social movement this means working on our relationships with other social movements working in other sectors, such as global warming / environmental justice / energy reform. So we need to work towards creating and organisational relationships with organisations in other sectors whose perspective is congruent with ours.

PHM Global’s practical work program includes the Right to Health Campaign, Global Health Watch, IPHU and the People’s Health Assembly scheduled for 2011 in South Africa. There are clear implications for all of these departments from the above reflections. Particularly so for GHW, IPHU and PHA3 but also for PHM's national and local circles and other thematic circles.

Perhaps one of the first priorities for PHM in this field might be to stoke a conversation regarding these issues within the wider PHM community.

 

_______________________________________________
PHM-Exchange People's Health Movement
- To post, write to: PHM-Exchange at phm.phmovement.org
- To view the archive, receive one weekly posting with all the week's postings, edit your subscription's options or unsubscribe, please go to the PHM-Exchange webpage: http://phm.phmovement.org/listinfo.cgi/phm-exchange-phmovement.org

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://phm.phmovement.org/pipermail/phm-exchange-phmovement.org/attachments/20100118/74b8996a/attachment-0001.html>