View
1
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
1
PANAP • RICE SHEETS
PART A. WHAT’S CLIMATE CHANGE ALL ABOUT?
1. What is climate change? How is it different from normal weather or climatic variances?
Climate is the average weather
pattern for a particular region and a
period of time, usually 30 years. It
includes total weather conditions,
regular weather sequences like
winter, spring, summer and fall,
and extreme weather events like
tornadoes and floods.
Weather, on the other hand,
can change from hour to hour, day
to day, or season to season. It is
like a snapshot of the atmosphere
taken at a particular place and time,
and is measured in terms of rainfall
(or precipitation), temperature,
humidity, sunshine, wind velocity,
and phenomena such as fog, frost,
hailstorms and tornadoes.
Climate change therefore is
any long-term change in expected
weather patterns over a significant
period of time.1 The Earth has been
observed to be warming over the
last decades, a trend that has been
accelerating through the years. The
average global temperature rose
by more than 0.6°C (1.1°F) in the
last century, while some regions
warmed by as much as 2.2°C (4°F)
(See Figure 1).
2. What has caused climate change?
Many factors contribute to the
Earth’s temperature, including
the revolution around the sun, the
way it tilts and wobbles on its axis,
solar activities like sunspots, and
the chemical composition of its
atmosphere (78% nitrogen and 21%
oxygen). Less than one percent of the
atmosphere is composed of carbon
dioxide (otherwise called CO2), water
vapor, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide
(N2O) and ozone, which together
are known as greenhouse gases
(GHGs). Climate change is caused
by the increasing amount of GHGs,
especially CO2, in the atmosphere
to a level that far exceeds what is
needed to warm the Earth. This is
what scientists call the enhanced
greenhouse effect, and is different
from the natural greenhouse effect.2,3
The natural greenhouse effect
refers to the way GHGs act like
A GLOBAL CITIZEN’S GUIDE
— How you can be part of a global transformation to save the planet
TO CLIMATE CHANGE AND TRANSFORMATIONAL ACTION
Figure 1. Global warming trend – Average surface warming and ocean heat content
Source: Climate Change 101, Understanding and Responding to Global Climate Change. January 2009. PEW Center for Global Climate Change, The PEW Center on the States.
Note: The figure shows the changes in the Earth’s surface temperature and the ocean heat content since 1850. The Earth’s surface temperature is measured in degrees Fahrenheit (°F) while the ocean heat content is measured in Joules to the 22nd degree (1022 Joules). The ocean cools much later than the Earth’s surface, which means that it brings warmer tempera-tures over time.
2
PANAP • RICE SHEETS
glass panes in a greenhouse and
keep some of the Earth’s heat
from escaping to space, thereby
making the planet warm enough
for different life forms to exist in.
Without GHGs, creatures would die
from beams of ultraviolet rays. The
natural greenhouse effect has kept
the Earth’s temperature about 60°F
warmer than it would otherwise be.4
The enhanced greenhouse effect, on
the other hand, refers to the upsurge
of CO2 and other GHGs trapped at
atmospheric levels, making the Earth
warmer than normal5 (See Figure 2).
Scientific findings show that
GHG emissions have grown by
70% from 1970 to 2004. Changes
to the chemical composition of the
Earth’s atmosphere actually began
in the early 18th century, during the
Industrial Revolution. Since 1850,
CO2 has increased by 36%, CH4 by
17% and N2O by 151%. Over the same
time period, the average recorded
rise in the Earth’s temperature has
been about 0.8°C (1.44°F), with the
1990s being the warmest decade on
record6,7 (Figure 3a).
3. Who and what has been largely responsible for the phenomenal increase in GHGs?
Scientific findings have shown
that human activities, primarily
industrial activities, are largely
responsible for the increase in GHGs
in the atmosphere. Science calls
these “anthropogenic GHGs”, the
prefix “anthro” being the Greek word
for humans.
Among the identified human
activities that have led to increased
GHG emissions, the burning of fossil
fuels such as coal and crude oil is
the number one cause. In 2004, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), an agency set up by
the United Nations (UN) to analyze
and report scientific findings related
to climate change, reported that CO2
from fossil fuel use was responsible
for 56.6% of the total global GHG
emissions, followed by CO2 from de-
forestation which comprised 17.3%
(See Figure 3b).
By economic sector, energy
supply accounted for 25.9% of the
total GHG emissions in 2004, followed
by industry, forestry, and agriculture.
Specifically, the burning of fossil fuels
has been compounded over the last
century by land clearance and the
spread of industrial agriculture using
increasing amounts of chemical
inputs including inorganic fertilizers8
(See Figure 3c).
More than 85% of human energy
needs are sustained by the burning
of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are
non-renewable sources of energy
which were previously carbon in the
atmosphere and were extracted by
plants and animals that existed 300
million years ago. These make up
today’s coal, oil and gas deposits
found deep within the Earth.9
The problem, however, is that
it took millions of years for plants
and animals to make fossil fuels but
it is taking only a few centuries for
humans to burn them. The world
burns 400 years’ worth of fossil fuels
every year, resources that will not
be deposited underground again for
thousands of years.10
Much of the fossil fuel burning is
being undertaken by transnational
Figure 2. The greenhouse effect
Source: Climate Change 101, Understanding and Responding to Global Climate Change, http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Climate101-Complete-Jan09.pdf
3
PANAP • RICE SHEETS
Figure 3 (a, b and c). Global anthropogenic GHG emissions
Source: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2007, Synthesis Report. An Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf
corporations (TNCs) of advanced
capitalist countries, namely the US,
Japan, Canada, Australia and in
the European Union (EU). These
countries, characterized by unsus-
tainable patterns of production and
consumption, have used up most of
the world’s natural resources and are
responsible for the bulk of global CO2
emissions.
Being the largest economy in the
world, the US is responsible for 25%
of global CO2 emissions from burning
fossil fuels, and through this, it meets
85% of its energy needs.11 In 2003,
the US ranked first in CO2 emissions,
closely followed by China (See
Table 1).
China and India, so-called
emerging countries, are catching
up with the industrialized countries
in terms of CO2 emissions. In
reality, high concentrations in the
atmosphere are also being observed
because their economies are being
transformed by TNCs to feed the
energy demand and production and
consumption needs of the industrial-
ized countries.
To illustrate, a 2006 study by
the Energy Information Authority
(EIA) found that China is the largest
contributor to US emissions due
to its exports to the US. Figure 4
shows the top 20 countries whose
CO2 emissions contribute most to
US emissions, with China ranking
first, followed by Canada. India,
whose market is dominantly
European, ranks after Saudi Arabia,
an oil producer; Malaysia, a
relatively advanced economy; and
Russia and Mexico, which have
been aggressive in power-related
activities. The combined emissions
of these countries represent 98% of
the US’s offshore emissions and total
more than a billion metric tons12 (See
Figure 4).
High concentrations in the
atmosphere are recorded not only
in under-developed economies/
countries which cater to the demands
of industrialized countries, but also
where TNC operations are based. For
example, in South Africa, many TNCs
including Exxon, Royal Dutch Shell,
BP and BHP Billiton are engaged
in fossil fuel and mineral extraction
resulting in the country being ranked
as one of the top carbon emitters.13
According to the EIA, world
carbon emissions are expected to
increase by 1.9% every year, from
2001 to 2025, while emissions of
under-developed countries are
expected to grow annually at a faster
rate of 2.7% or above. The so-called
emerging economies of India and
China are expected to be responsible
for much of the increase14 (See
Figure 5).
As already mentioned, beyond the
countries and the economic sectors
being identified as responsible
for climate change are the TNCs.
These corporations dominate and
monopolize the sectors responsible
for climate change and operate in the
countries identified as large emitters.
TNCs account for more than half
of all oil, gas and coal extraction
with only 10 TNCs responsible for
about 41% of global oil and gas
production. TNCs control 80% of the
land worldwide which is cultivated for
cash crops and turned into corporate
4
PANAP • RICE SHEETS
farms. Only 20 TNCs account for
about 90% of the sales of hazardous
pesticides and other agro-chemicals.
Furthermore, only a few TNCs
dominate and control the extractive
industries such as metal mining,
logging and other natural resource
extraction. These practices have
caused irreversible damage to the
environment and its ecology and bio-
diversity.
4. Agriculture has been identi-fied as one of the main contrib-utors to climate change. How accurate is this claim?
There have been many claims
pointing at agriculture as a major
contributor to climate change. One
of them, made by the Internation-
al Rice Research Institute (IRRI),
argues that rice farming contributes
to climate change. According to the
June-September 2007 issue of IRRI’s
publication ‘Rice Today,’ rice grown
in flooded fields releases significant
amounts of methane (CH4). Methane
accounts for one fifth of the Earth’s
atmospheric warming. Methane, a
GHG, is 20 times more potent than
CO2.15
The high level of methane
released by rice fields is explained
by the Center for International
Earth Science Information Network.
According to their study, a flooded
rice field cuts off the oxygen supply
from the atmosphere which results
in anaerobic fermentation. This in
turn produces CH4, which is then
released from submerged soils into
the atmosphere through the roots and
stems of rice plants.16
However, as already mentioned
and shown in Figure 3, agriculture
contributed only 13.5% to total
GHG emissions in 2004, following
17.4% due to rapid deforestation.
According to the US Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), this 13.5%
came indeed from agriculture, but of
the total emissions coming from the
agriculture sector, only 10% came
from rice production. The biggest
chunk was from nitrous oxide (N2O)
emissions from the soil, responsible
for 40% of total N2O emissions.
This is associated with agricultural
chemical inputs such as pesticides
and fertilizers (See Figure 6).
N2O may be produced in soils
through natural processes and
subsequently released in all soils
regardless of cultivation or fertiliza-
tion. However, applying nitrogenous
fertilizers increases N2O emissions.17
Nitrogenous fertilizers therefore may
increase crop yields but in return emit
N2O to the Earth’s atmosphere.18
According to IRRI, the Japanese
International Research Center for
Agricultural Sciences is leading a
research project to develop strategies
to reduce the amount of water
needed by rice crops and significantly
cut CH4 emissions. IRRI Director
General Robert Zeigler also released
a statement saying that because
of the level of CH4 that is said to be
produced by flooded rice fields, there
is already a need to start developing
rice varieties that can tolerate higher
temperatures and other aspects of
climate change.19
It appears that the real purpose
of IRRI’s claim about agriculture
contributing to climate change is to
push for new rice varieties and “crop
management strategies”. In 2006,
Zeigler launched a US$18-23 million
funding appeal to conduct research
on rice varieties that will withstand the
effects of climate change.20
Historically, IRRI has been a
proponent of the Green Revolution, a
model of agricultural production that
aims to increase productivity through
the use of agricultural chemical
inputs and the development of rice
varieties. This is opposed to
the model of biodiversity-based
ecological agriculture, which aims to
protect traditional rice varieties and
ecosystems, ensure the quality of
the soil, and make use of agricultural
methods that are ecologically sound
and safe. It appears that it is not
agriculture after all that contributes
Table 1. Top 20 carbon dioxide emitters, 2003
Source: IBON Foundation. April 2009. Climate Change: Third World Vulnerability, First World Accountability.
Rank
123456789
1011121314151617181920
Country
United StatesChina
Russian FederationIndiaJapan
GermanyCanada
United KingdomSouth Korea
ItalyMexico
IranFrance
South AfricaAustraliaUkraineSpainPoland
Saudi ArabiaBrazil
CO2 emissions(in ‘000 metric tons)
1,580,1751,131,175407,593347,577336,142219,776154,392152,460124,455121,608113,542104,112102,06599,41596,65785,83684,40183,12182,53081,445
5
PANAP • RICE SHEETS
to climate change, but the use of
hazardous chemicals and unsustain-
able agricultural methods, which IRRI
itself promotes.
Apart from rice production, it
is also important to note that the
‘agriculture sector’ referred to as
one of the major contributors to
climate change is predominantly that
of corporate agriculture, which first
came to prominence in the 1950s
though the vertical integration of the
livestock and poultry sectors, and is
now known to be responsible for a
high proportion of methane emissions
and hazardous agro-chemical use.
5. What does climate change mean for the planet? What is at stake here? Is it already happening?
The first observations on a
warming Earth were made in 1898
by the Swedish scientist Svante
Ahrrenius, who warned that CO2
from coal and oil burning could warm
the planet. Fifty-seven years later
in 1955, American scientist Charles
Keeling found atmospheric CO2 had
risen to 315 parts per million (ppm)
compared with the 280 ppm recorded
in 1750. Fifty years later in 2004, CO2
emissions reached a record high of
379 ppm. The concentration of CO2
in the atmosphere in 2005 was far
higher than the natural range over
the last 650,000 years, and has been
growing at an increasing rate since
1960 when direct measurements
began.21
The year 1987 was the first
“warmest year” to be recorded in
history and the 1980s turned out to
be the warmest decade up to that
time. Even the coldest years in the
1980s were warmer than the warmest
years of the 1880s. The Earth has
continued to get warmer since then
as the hottest years following 1987
continue to beat earlier records. The
1990s is now considered the hottest
decade in the hottest century of the
millennium.
A warmer Earth may lead to
changes in rainfall patterns and a
rise in sea level. It may result in
climate extremes and unpredictable
climate-related events like wild fires,
mudflows, mudslides, avalanches,
droughts, severe flooding, tropical
cyclones, forest fires, heat waves,
heavy downpours, and torrential
rains. Climate change can also result
in changing sea levels.
Sea level rise is due to tempera-
ture rise. The sea absorbs heat from
the atmosphere, causing it to expand.
The ice caps have also been melting
due to global warming. Changes in
the surface water and ocean depths
in turn bring about changes in rainfall
patterns22 (See Figure 7).
Based on the studies done
by the US National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, the
increase in the Earth’s temperature
has caused a sea-level rise of 700
meters.23 Its scientists say that the
ocean has been warming for the
past five decades. According to their
studies, even if GHG emissions
were stabilized or reduced today,
the already warm temperature of
the ocean will cause a warmer
atmosphere over time, bringing an
additional 1°F rise by the end of the
21st century.
Scientists are also increasingly
convinced that the seas are dying
with the acidity of ocean surface water
Figure 4. The amount of CO2 the US economy created in other countries
Source: www.scholarsandrouges.com
6
PANAP • RICE SHEETS
increasing by 30% and foreseen
to triple by the end of the century.
They have found that the seas have
already absorbed about half of all
of the CO2 emitted since the start
of the Industrial Revolution, which
has made the water more acidic and
in turn could kill 40-70% of all the
world’s species. It will be a condition
of the seas that is unprecedented in
the last 20 million years.24
In the last four decades, the world
has witnessed the worst catastrophes
on record due to extreme weather
occurrences. Hundreds have died
from heat waves, tsunamis, floods
and cyclones while billions of dollars
in property and livelihoods have been
lost. Recent studies show that the
annual losses due to extreme weather
events have increased tremendously
in recent years and reached more
than US$170 billion (See Figure
8). Scientists have attributed these
climate extremes and hazards directly
to global warming.
The loss data on great natural
disasters in the last decades shows
a dramatic increase in catastrophe
losses. A decade comparison since
1960 is shown in the table. The
reasons for this development include:
the increase in world population, the
increase in urban population density,
the development of highly exposed
regions, the high vulnerability of
modern societies and technologies,
and finally, changes in the natural
environment like global warming
and related regional effects. As the
underlying factors for the observed
loss trend remain unchanged, a
further increase in losses from natural
disasters is inevitable.
Scientists have projected the
potential impacts of one-degree
incremental increases in global
temperature, and the results are
staggering. A 1°C change can
increase prolonged droughts; a 2°C
change may lead to the disappear-
ance of small mountain glaciers;
3°C could result in desertification
and extreme weather events; 4°C
may cause the West Antarctic ice
sheet to collapse; 5°C could result
in major declines in crop production
Figure 5. World carbon dioxide emissions by region, 2001-2025 (million metric tons of carbon equivalent)
Source: Energy Information Administration, International Energy Outlook, 2003 (Washington DC 2003)
Figure 6. GHGs from agriculture
Sources & Notes: EPA, 2004. See Appendix 2.A for data sources Appendix 2.B for sector definition. Absolute emissions in this sector, estimated here for 2000, are 6,205 MtCO2.
7
PANAP • RICE SHEETS
and ecosystem damage worldwide;
and a 6°C change could result in the
Earth losing 95% of its species (See
Table 2).
6. What are the impacts of climate change on the ecology, the economy and human life?
Climate change has grave
consequences on the ecology, the
economy and human life. These
include coastal inundation and
erosion from sea-level rise, loss
of ecosystems and biodiversity,
disease and heat-related mortality,
water shortages, and stresses
on agriculture, forestry, fishery,
aquaculture, and the entire economy
as well as human security25 (See
Figure 9).
A rise in sea level by one meter
will have tremendous conse-
quences for farmers and fisherfolk
whose dwellings, farms and marine
resources will be inundated. A rise
of about seven to twelve meters will
affect most cities in the world and
result in massive and permanent
migration. These events would
deepen land and other conflicts.26
Climate change results in
the erosion of beaches and coral
bleaching, which kills coral reefs and
threatens future marine biodiversity.
It leads to changes in high altitude
biomes; deserts and steppe systems
overtaking forests and grasslands;
and wildfires in boreal and tropical
forests. Together, these changes
could result in the extermination
and extinction of many species of
mammals, birds and other animals
which have innate value and are
important for human sustenance and
livelihood.27,28
Extreme weather conditions
can also spread diseases that are
transmitted by water, mosquitoes
or rodents. Climate change is likely
to cause changes in the distribu-
tion of dengue and malaria-carrying
mosquitoes. It will expose millions
of additional individuals to infectious
diseases by the end of the century.
Extreme torrential rains and droughts
can pollute drinking water sources or
cause water shortages, which make it
difficult to prepare food in a hygienic
way and may trigger diarrhea.29
Higher temperatures will increase
the number of heat-related deaths
on any given day. People with heart
problems are vulnerable as their
cardiovascular systems must work
harder to keep their bodies cool
during hot weather. Doctors also
warn of an increase in cardiovascular
diseases.
People will also die of heat
exhaustion and respiratory problems.
Higher temperatures increase the
concentration of ozone at the ground
level which damages lung tissues
and causes problems for people with
asthma and other lung diseases.30
Climate change will cause water
stress in the form of water shortages
in some areas and severe flooding
in others due to changes in rainfall
patterns and runoff. Forest fires can
also affect the distribution of water in
the mountains as well as in lowland
ecosystems.31
Water is expected to be insuf-
ficient to meet demand during low-
rainfall periods and also as large
river basins run dry. Meanwhile,
floods will be more frequent and
severe and glacial melt is expected to
increase. Because of the cumulative
Figure 7. What causes the sea level to change?
Source: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2001 Synthesis Report. http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/CLIMATE/IPCC_TAR/vol4/english/index.htm
8
PANAP • RICE SHEETS
Table 2. Potential impacts of incremental increases in average global temperature
Source: ECONorthwest, adapted from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Fourth Assessment Report. Retrieved January 22, 2009, from http://www.ipcc.ch/; Lynas, M. 2008. Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet. New York: National Geographic Society; and Stern N. 2006. The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved October 30, 2006, from http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm
Increased potential for prolonged drought, converting some parts of the American West to sandy deserts, on a scale much larger than the 1930s Dustbowl.
Small mountain glaciers will disappear and mountain snowpack diminish, as will stream flows dependent on snow melt. Large areas of the oceans will become too acidic for organisms with calcium carbonate shells, and for many species of plankton, the basis of the marine food chain. Onset of irreversible melting of the Greenland ice sheet would raise sea levels by about seven meters. Heat waves similar to the most extreme in recent history likely would occur every year in many places. About one-third of all species around the globe may be driven to extinction. Increased risk of hunger for many communities, especially in Africa and Asia.
An increase of this magnitude could be a tipping point that causes climate change to become uncontrollable. The middle areas of North America likely would become deserts. Extreme weather, such as hurricanes, may become more intense, doubling damage costs in the U.S. Millions, perhaps billions may face famine from extreme drought, flooding, and insect infestations. Perhaps 50 percent of species face extinction.
The West Antarctic ice sheet may collapse and raise sea levels another five meters. Crop yields likely would continue to fall in many regions. Significant shortages of water may affect more than a billion people, as some areas may see runoff increase by one-third. Perhaps 50 percent of species face extinction. Conditions typical of the Sahara Desert probably will materialize across southern Europe.
Entire regions of the Earth might see major declines in crop production and ecosystems unable to maintain their current form. Forest fires, droughts, flooding, and heat waves will increase in intensity. Increasing probability of abrupt, large-scale shifts in the climate system, e.g., tropical conditions, may materialize in Arctic regions. Rising sea level threatens major coastal cities.
The Earth would experience climate conditions associated with a period, about 250 million years ago, that saw perhaps 95 percent of all species go extinct.
1°C (1.8°F)
2°C (3.6°F)
3°C (5.4°F)
4°C (7.2°F)
5°C (9.0°F)
6°C (10.8°F)
impact of a water crisis, flooding,
land degradation, and inundation of
croplands, agricultural production will
be stressed in the decades to come.
Based on large-scale experiments,
global yields will be negatively
affected as higher amounts of
ground-level ozone gas will reduce
crop yields substantially.32
The impact on agriculture will
be felt particularly severely in low-
and mid-latitude countries. Climate
change will adversely affect wheat
productivity in the Indo-Gangetic
Plains and reduce rice yields in
tropical regions due to increased
night-time temperatures.
Climate change can also increase
disease epidemics for both livestock
and crops as well as fungal and
bacterial diseases for vegetables
like tomatoes, potatoes and beans.
Likewise, mud and stagnant water
due to heavy rains may lead to food
rot, foot and mouth disease and liver
flukes. Leaching, runoff and flash
floods will most likely render soil less
fertile for agriculture.
In the highland areas, the intensity
and frequency of rains are most likely
to influence landslides. The affected
marine ecology and rising sea level
also has impacts on aquaculture and
fish stocks.33
Overall, climate change is
projected to have a negative impact
on the economy. The Financial
Initiative of the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP)
recently calculated that the economic
costs of global warming are doubling
every decade.34 Climate change
reduces the goods and services that
may be produced, reduces jobs and
income, increases economic risks
and uncertainty, increases costs for
unprecedented economic conditions,
and increases the polarization
between rich and poor.
Finally, climate change has
a tremendous impact on human
security. Food and water crises
as well as epidemic diseases
have implications on the overall
development of nations. Likewise,
degraded or inundated landscapes
and settlements will displace millions
of people and force them to migrate
permanently. The IPCC suggests that
environmental refugees will increase
to 150 million by 2050 mainly because
of coastal flooding, beach erosion
and agricultural dislocation.35
7. Which countries and social sectors are most vulnerable to climate change? How do we measure their vulnerability?
One of the ironies of climate
change and the reason why it is an
issue that reflects social injustice is
that while the industrialized countries
are largely responsible for it, it is the
9
PANAP • RICE SHEETS
under-developed, poor countries and
their poorest social sectors which are
most vulnerable to it.
The most vulnerable regions are
Africa, Asia, small Pacific islands,
and the Arctic. The most vulnerable
economic sectors are water in the dry
tropics, agriculture in low latitudes,
human health in poor countries, and
ecosystems at the margins such
as the tundra, boreal, mountainous
areas and ecosystems that are
already stressed such as mangroves
and coral reefs.36
The most vulnerable social
sectors are those in under-developed
countries because the majority of them
depend on natural resources for their
livelihood and survival. These include
the poorest sections of the peasantry,
namely small-scale farmers,
small-scale fishers, indigenous
peoples, mountain and forest people,
upland farmers, pastoralists, and the
urban poor. The women and children
in these social sectors would be most
disadvantaged.37
In under-developed countries,
around 60-80% of the population is
generally engaged in small-scale
agriculture and live in rural areas
where a natural resource economy
is dominant. There are also high
percentages of coastal populations
and forest people in such countries.
The Food and Agriculture Organi-
zation (FAO) estimates that over 90%
of the 15 million people working in
coastal areas are small-scale fishers.
This does not include the tens of
millions of rural poor who fish in
inland rivers, lakes, ponds, and even
rice paddies. According to the World
Bank, 90% of the world’s 1.1 billion
poor derive a portion of their income
from forests, while over 600 million
keep livestock, a critical cash asset
Figure 8. Global costs of extreme weather events
Source: http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/global_costs_of_extreme_weather_events
Table 3. Climate hazard hotspots and dominant hazards in Southeast Asia
Source: Yusuf & Francisco. 2009. Climate Change Vulnerability Mapping for Southeast Asia. Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia. http://www.idrc.ca/eepsea/ev-135332-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html
Dominant hazards
DroughtsCyclones, droughtsSea level riseSea level rise, floods
Droughts, floodsCyclones, landslides, floods, droughtsDroughtsDroughts, floods, landslides, sea level rise
Climate hazard hotspots
Northwestern VietnamEastern coastal areas of VietnamMekong region of VietnamBangkok and its surrounding area in ThailandSouthern regions of Thailand The Philippines
Sabah state in Malaysia Western and eastern area of Java Island, Indonesia
10
PANAP • RICE SHEETS
for many.
The IPCC defines vulnerability
as “The degree to which a system is
susceptible to or unable to cope with
the adverse effects of climate change,
including climate variability and
extremes. Vulnerability is a function
of the character, magnitude, and rate
of climate variation to which a system
is exposed, its sensitivity, and its
adaptive capacity.” Vulnerability thus
is a function of exposure, sensitivity
and adaptive capacity38 (See
Figure 10).
The IPCC further defines
exposure as “the nature and degree
to which a system is exposed to
significant climatic variations”;
sensitivity as “the degree to which a
system is affected, either adversely
or beneficially, by climate-related
stimuli”; and adaptive capacity as
“the ability of a system to adjust to
climate change (including climate
variability and extremes), to moderate
the potential damage from it, to take
advantage of its opportunities, or to
cope with its consequences”.39
To illustrate, one can estimate the
vulnerability of a region or a country
that is historically exposed to cyclones
(exposure), is densely populated and
has threatened ecology (sensitivity)
by combining these with its socio-
economic status, technology and
infrastructure (adaptive capacity).
There have been several
proposals recently to calculate a ‘vul-
nerability index’ in order to come up
with exact measures of countries’
differing vulnerabilities to climate
change. One of the main purposes of
such proposals is to incorporate the
index in a global climate deal.40
There is no standard measure
of vulnerability at the moment, but
one interesting and recent mapping
study was done on the vulnerability
of Southeast Asia, using a multiple
climate hazard index, which combined
Figure 9. Potential climate changes impact
Source: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/potential-climate-change-impacts. 2000.
Figure 10. Vulnerability to Climate Change
Source: Yusuf & Francisco. 2009. Climate Change Vulnerability Mapping for Southeast Asia. Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia. http://www.idrc.ca/eepsea/ev-135332-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html
11
PANAP • RICE SHEETS
tropical cyclones, floods, landslides,
droughts and sea level rise, a human
and ecological sensitivity index
which uses population density and
protected areas, and an adaptive
capacity index. Combining all three,
the study came up with an overall
vulnerability index for the region.
The study concluded that the
most vulnerable areas in Southeast
Asia were: the north-western and
Mekong region of Vietnam, the
coastal regions of Vietnam facing the
South China Sea, Bangkok and its
surrounding areas in Thailand, almost
all regions of the Philippines, and the
western and eastern parts of Java
Island, Indonesia (See Table 3 and
Figure 11).
An IPCC study on Asia confirms
the region’s vulnerability, especially
in the sectors of food and fiber, bio-
diversity, water resource, coastal
ecosystems, human health, and land
degradation, with varying levels of
confidence (See Table 4).
A coordinated sea level
monitoring effort on the Pacific Islands
shows variable trends in sea levels
throughout the Pacific Islands (See
Table 5). Noteworthy is the fact that
over half of Asia’s population resides
in coastal locations and in low-lying
islands.
A similar map shows that the
Mekong region of Cambodia,
Bangkok, parts of Malaysia and
Indonesia are vulnerable to a rise in
sea level of 5 meters (See Figure 12).
Asia-Pacific is one of the most
vulnerable regions and its unique
characteristics are worth mentioning.
The region has experienced increased
frequency and severity of wildfires in
grasslands and rangelands in arid
and semi-arid Asia; glacial retreat of
almost 67% in the Himalayan and
Tienshan mountain ranges; major
droughts in China; severe flooding in
China, Korea and Japan; and floods,
droughts and cyclones in tropical
Asia, including the flooding of 3.1
million hectares in Bangladesh and
40 million hectares in India.41
The frequency and intensity of
tropical cyclones originating in the
Pacific have increased over the last
decade while those originating from
the Bay of Bengal and Arabian Sea
have been less frequent but more
intense since 1970. Both trends
have resulted in more deaths and
damage in affected countries such
as India, China, the Philippines,
Japan, Vietnam, Iran, and the Tibetan
Plateau.42
The number of great catastro-
phes, according to a UNDP report in
2005, has increased about fourfold.
Asia has been unduly affected,
accounting for more than 43% of all
natural disasters in the last decade
of the 20th century. During the same
period, Asia accounted for almost
70% of all lives lost due to natural
disasters. In China alone, floods
affected an average of more than 100
million people each year.43
Figure 11. Multiple climate hazard map of Southeast Asia
Source: Yusuf & Francisco. 2009. Climate Change Vulnerability Mapping for Southeast Asia. Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia. http://www.idrc.ca/eepsea/ev-135332-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html
12
PANAP • RICE SHEETS
Figure 12. Sea level rise (5-m inundation zone)
Source: Yusuf & Francisco. 2009. Climate Change Vulnerability Mapping for Southeast Asia. Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia. http://www.idrc.ca/eepsea/ev-135332-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html
Table 4. Sectoral vulnerability for key sectors for the sub-continental regions of Asia
Source: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.” Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, and C.E. Hanson, eds. (Cambridge, UK, 2007).
Notes: Key to vulnerability: -2 indicates highly vulnerable; -1, moderately vulnerable; and +1, moderately resilient. Key to level of confidence: VH indicates very high; H, High; M, medium; and L, low.
Food and fiber
+1/H
-2/H
+1/L
-2/VH
-2/H
-2/H
Biodiversity
-2/M
-1/M
-2/M
-2/H
-2/H
-2/H
Water resource
+1/M
-2/VH
-1/M
-2/H
-2/H
-1/H
Coastalecosystem
-1/M
-1/L
Not applicable
-2/H
-2/H
-2/H
Humanhealth
-1/M
-2/M
Informationnot available
-1/H
-2/M
-2/H
Land degradation
-1/M
-2/H
-1/L
-2/H
-2/H
-2/H
Settlements
-1/M
-1/M
Informationnot available
-1/H
-1/M
-1/M
Subregions
North Asia
Central Asia and West Asia
Tibetian Plateau
East Asia
South Asia
Southeast Asia
13
PANAP • RICE SHEETS
8. What are the worst things that can happen to vulnerable communities and the planet at large based on scientific predictions? What kind of time horizon are we looking at?
Using one-degree incremental
increases in global annual mean
temperature relative to the tempera-
tures from 1980-1999, the IPCC
has predicted what could happen to
the planet, particularly vulnerable
economic and social sectors, if
nothing is done about climate change.
The worst case scenario, which
is not projected in time horizons but
placed at a 5°C rise in temperature,
projects an additional 3.2 billion wa-
ter-stressed people, major extinctions
of amphibians, widespread coral
mortality, 49% of ecosystems
degraded or destroyed, decreased
production of cereals, a loss of ap-
proximately 38% of coastal wetlands,
2-15 million people at risk of coastal
flooding, a substantial burden on
health services, and inundation of
low-lying areas (See Figure 13).
The worst case scenario by region
includes: Sub-Saharan species at
risk of extinction in Africa; additional
people at risk of coastal flooding
every year in Asia; a reduction by 50%
of the Murray-Darling River flow in
Australia; potential extinction of about
45% of Amazonian tree species in
Latin America; a 70-120% increase in
forest areas burned in Canada or 3-6
times increase in heat wave deaths in
some cities in North America; 10-60%
of Arctic tundra replaced by forest in
polar regions; and increasing coastal
inundation in small islands (See
Figure 14).
These predictions are not
baseless. In fact, ten predictions
made previously on climate change
are already happening today. The
impacts we are currently experiencing
include: warming of the Earth as more
CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere;
noticeable changes to the Earth’s
climate apparent by the year 2000;
rising sea levels; rapid melting of the
Earth’s ice; hurricanes increasing
in intensity; species’ extinction; the
drying out of Australia; an increase
in tropical diseases; adverse effects
on food crops; and acidification of the
ocean as a result of increased CO2.44
Scenarios per region and sector
naturally vary because of differences
in exposure and sensitivity. It is worth
reiterating that in terms of the worst
things that can happen to vulnerable
communities, Asia and the Pacific is a
case in point. With regard to coastal
inundation and flooding, the region is
most at risk, especially the low-lying
river deltas of Bangladesh, India,
Vietnam, and China and the small
island states. Rising sea levels could
force some to migrate permanently.
In terms of biodiversity, Asia is likely
to lose 13% of its mangrove wetlands,
a proportion that could be much
larger for some individual nations.
The migratory patterns of fish stocks
will also change.
Pakistan, India and Bangladesh
are likely to suffer increased heat-
related deaths, as were experienced
Figure 13. Examples of impacts associated with global average temperature change
Source: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Plenary XXVII, Valencia, Spain, 12-17 November 2007. Synthesis Report, Summary Report for Policymakers. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf
14
PANAP • RICE SHEETS
in the not-so-distant past. The rest of
arid Asia including Pakistan, western
China and northern India will be
severely water stressed. Water will
become insufficient to meet demand
during low-rainfall periods. By the
2050s, freshwater availability in
Central, South, East, and South-East
Asia, particularly in large river basins,
is projected to decrease.45
The question among scientists
now is how much the Earth can
tolerate before critical thresholds
are crossed and consequences
become widespread, abrupt and/
or irreversible. The international
community appears to have arrived
at a consensus estimate of approxi-
mately 1.5°C above 1990 tempera-
tures or approximately 2°C above
pre-industrial temperatures (the
Earth is currently 0.8°C warmer than
1850).46 Beyond this threshold, risks
will be significant and changes in
ecosystems, economies and climate
systems will be irreversible.
If global GHG emissions continue
at current rates, the IPCC projects
that by the year 2100, the increase in
the global mean temperature will be
around 1.4-5.8°C and the sea level
will have risen by about 9 – 88 square
centimetres (cm2). Such predictions
will have tremendous implications
on the planet. Studies also reveal
that if GHG emissions continue (in
what they call the ‘business-as-usual’
scenario), the likelihood of remaining
below the 2°C threshold is rather
small.
9. What is the lesson climate change is teaching us?
Climate change is teaching
us what is inherently wrong in the
dominant way goods and services
in the planet are being produced,
supposedly for human needs. This
dominant way is otherwise called
the capitalist system, which feeds on
human greed.
Capitalism has inherent contra-
dictions. One is that no matter how
socialized (and supposedly efficient)
production has become, the social
surplus is still privately appropriat-
ed or pocketed by a few capitalists.
Another contradiction is that no
matter how organized production
has become, there is still anarchy in
production, i.e. there is no planning of
production based on human needs or
sustainable consumption because the
orientation is only towards increasing
profits. These contradictions have
brought about great crises and
untold human misery. A wide range
of commodities have been overpro-
duced reducing profitability, but the
solutions available within capitalism
(i.e. higher production, productiv-
ity and technology as well as debt
and speculation) have only brought
about greater crises. The market
has shrunk as retrenchments have
increased in scale and frequency and
bankruptcies of small producers and
small farmers have become rampant.
These contradictions are directly
linked to the issue of climate change.
The search for higher profits and
the aggressiveness to remain in
business, evidenced by the activities
of transnational corporations (TNCs),
have instilled unsustainable patterns
of production and consumption which
current natural processes can no
longer cope with. TNC production
works on maximizing returns without
taking into account the rhythm of
natural processes and time needed
for their formation or renewal.47
A report backed by 1,360
scientists from 95 countries (some
of them world leaders in their fields)
warns that almost two thirds of the
natural machinery supporting life on
Earth is being degraded by human
pressure.48 Humans would need
another planet by 2030, according
to the WWF, in order to sustain the
current way of living.49
Climate change has shown us
that the capitalist system has failed
us in every way. This inherent crisis,
which is expressed in the current
global economic crisis, has not only
threatened our jobs, our families,
our homes and comforts, it has
threatened our planet and our very
existence.
Another lesson we can draw
from the climate crisis is the need for
individual and collective accountabil-
ity. Our actions and omissions affect
Table 5. Recent trends in sea level rise in the Pacific island nations
Source: Preston, Benjamin et.al. 2006. Climate Change in the Asia/Pacific Region. A Consultancy Report Prepared for the Climate Change and Development Roundtable, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research. 11 October 2006. http://www.csiro.au/files/files/p9xj.pdf
Year of Gauge Installation
1993
1992
2001
1992
1993
1993
1994
1993
1994
1993
1993
1993
Trend (mm/year)
+2.5
+2.5
+21.4
+5.7
+5.2
+7.1
+8.1
+6.9
+6.8
+8.0
+6.4
+3.1
Nation
Cook Islands
Fiji
Federated States of Micronesia
Kiribati
Marshall Islands
Nauru
Papua New Guinea
Samoa
Solomon Islands
Tonga
Tuvalu
Vanuatu
15
PANAP • RICE SHEETS
Figure 14. Impacts on Regions
Source: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Plenary XXVII, Valencia, Spain, 12-17 November 2007, Synthesis Report http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf
every other living thing on this planet.
Today, people are suffering because
of the irresponsible and selfish actions
and omissions of those in power. The
world claims to have reached new
heights of development, science and
technology but the climate crisis in
fact tells us otherwise. The climate
crisis is a firm warning from nature
itself that the human race has failed
to be responsible stewards of the
planet and will have to face the con-
sequences of its acts and omissions
collectively, all of us, unfair as it
may be. This alone should tell us to
re-evaluate our concepts of ‘success’
and ‘development’. The issue is far
deeper than just reducing GHGs.
If we do not learn from the lessons
climate change is teaching us and
continue on this path of destruction,
then it is precisely that end that we
shall face.
Climate change does not differ-
entiate between those who caused it
and those who suffer from its impacts.
One might say that it treats all creation
as one. The sad truth however is that
we are not one but a race deeply
divided primarily by economic class,
estranged from our environment.
10. Can we really stop climate change?
Human activities have caused
climate change. Scientists are now
calling this the ‘anthropocentric
era’, a period during which human
activities have become the dominant
force, affecting not only the planet’s
landscape but also its atmosphere.
By all means, therefore, humans
can stop climate change. Putting a
stop to climate change will require
systematic and systemic changes.
It will require a substantial reduction
in GHG emissions as well as a com-
prehensive change in the system of
goods and services production, the
primary cause of the unprecedented
rise in GHG emissions.
To keep the future growth of GHG
emissions and future global warming
below the threshold, according to cal-
culations, GHG emissions should be
reduced in the order of 30-55% below
1990 levels over the 21st century.The
IPCC adds that reduction of up to 85%
from 2000 levels until 2050 should
be undertaken, which should peak
no later than 2015. The burden on
advanced capitalist countries will have
to be significantly higher. Scientists
are currently using global climate
models to measure how much the
Earth can tolerate. What the models
are showing is that the Earth can heal
itself. The more relevant question
therefore is how much we can tolerate;
global climate models are alarmingly
pointing to the fact that while the Earth
shall heal itself eventually, but it may
be without human beings.
We can stop climate change, but
we have to act now.
16
PANAP • RICE SHEETS
PART B. ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE
1. Which are the main organi-zations that are working on climate change? What are their roles?
The United Nations (UN) plays the
main role in the global work on climate
change. In 1988, the World Mete-
orological Organization (WMO) and
the UN Environmental Programme
(UNEP) founded the Intergovern-
mental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC). The focus of the IPCC is to
assess scientific, technical and socio-
economic information relevant to the
understanding of climate change,
its potential impacts, and options for
adaptation and mitigation.50
The structure of the IPCC is
composed of working groups and
technical support units which are
composed of experts, authors, con-
tributors and reviewers (see Figure
15). As of 2008, the IPCC had a
total of 24 participating organizations
(Table 6). Apart from these, there are
28 observer organizations and 26
other applicants for observer status.51
Among the participating or-
ganizations is the secretariat for
the UN Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC), the
significant document signed by 154
countries during the UN Conference
on Environment and Development
(UNCED) in June 1992 in Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil, otherwise known as
the Earth Summit. The UNFCCC
encourages advanced developed
countries to stabilize their greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels
by the year 2000. 52,53
Country-signatories to the Earth
Summit are called the Conference of
the Parties (COP) to the UNFCCC.
COP is the highest decision-mak-
ing body of the UNFCCC. It meets
annually to assess its progress in
dealing with climate change, review
related legal instruments that it may
adopt, and make decisions necessary
to promote effective UNFCCC imple-
mentation.
2. What are the targets, policies and steps being proposed and taken by the interna- tional community to address climate change? What is mitigation? What is adaptation? What is carbon trading? What are the other emerging issues and proposals?
Internationally, the policies,
targets and steps being proposed
are embodied in the Kyoto Protocol,
which was adopted at the COP3
held in Kyoto, Japan, on December
11, 1997. The Kyoto Protocol
commits countries listed in its Annex
B to implement cuts in their GHG
emissions, especially carbon dioxide
(CO2), by an average of 5% (against
the baseline of 1990) below levels
specified for each country between
2008 and 2012. The major feature
of the Kyoto Protocol is that it has
mandatory targets on GHG emissions
for the developed countries that have
accepted it (see Table 7).
Although the Kyoto Protocol
seems to have placed the heavier
burden on the industrialized countries,
it has some flexibility or compromises
for these countries to meet their
so-called binding targets. These
include increasing the area under
forests either in their own territories
or in other countries and paying for
foreign projects that result in GHG
cuts.
Through the Clean Development
Mechanism (CDM) of the Kyoto
Protocol, industrialized countries can
pay for projects in under-developed
countries which reduce or avoid GHG
emissions and in return, are awarded
‘credits’ that can be applied to their
own emission targets. The CDM is a
mechanism that allocates “certified
emissions reduction (CER)” credits,
which countries earning them may
‘bank’ for future use or may ‘sell’ to
other industrialized countries under
an “emissions-trading system”.54
For instance, if a country is
allowed a certain emissions level but
Figure 15. Structure of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
Source: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_structure.htm
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
Plenary Panel
Task force on national
greenhouse gas inventories
Working group IIIMitigation
Working group IIImpact and adaptation
Working group IThe science
of climate system
Technical supportunit in United Kingdom
Experts, authors, contributors, reviewers
Technical supportunit in The Netherlands
Technical supportunit in United States
Technical supportunit in Japan
UNFCCSecretariat WMO/UNEP
in Switzerland
17
PANAP • RICE SHEETS
has not reached it, the country may
sell this excess capacity to another
country that is over its target. If a
country has planted or expanded
forests, invested in environmentally-
friendly projects, or funded activities
to reduce emissions—all especially
in under-developed countries—that
country will earn ‘credits’ that it can
sell or bank for future use. This is
called carbon trading. Because the
credits when sold may command high
prices, the Kyoto Protocol expects
carbon trading to pressure countries
to use energy more efficiently and
use alternatives that have low or no
emissions.
Corporations are allowed to
engage in carbon trading. In fact,
23 TNCs came together in the G8
Climate Change Roundtable meeting
in the January 2005 World Economic
Forum, including Ford, Toyota, British
Airways, BP and Unilever. The group
published a statement saying that
there was a need to act on climate
change, stressing the importance
of market-based solutions. It called
on governments to establish “clear,
transparent, and consistent price
signals” through the “creation of a
long-term policy framework” that
would include all major producers
of greenhouse gases. By December
2007, this group had grown to
encompass 150 global businesses.
According to the World Bank,
carbon trading has been steadily
increasing in recent years, from 78
million metric tons (mt) of carbon
dioxide equivalent (mtCO2e) in 2003
to 110 mtCO2e in 2004 and 374
mtCO2e in 2005. Meanwhile, the
London financial marketplace has
established itself as the center of
the carbon market, valued at US$ 60
billion in 2007.55 In January 2005,
the European Union Greenhouse
Gas Emission Trading System (EU
ETS) started its operations as the
largest multi-country, multi-sector
greenhouse gas emission trading
system worldwide.56 Table 8 lists the
41 biggest carbon traders according
to the 2008 status reports submitted
by countries to the UNFCCC.
Unfortunately, carbon trading and
the direct involvement of TNCs only
replicate the workings of the market
economy. This system, character-
ized by unsustainable patterns of
production and consumption, is one
of the main causes of global climate
change.
In December 2007, 180 countries
convened at the COP13 Conference in
Bali, Indonesia, to launch a long-term
cooperative agreement under the
UNFCCC for the post-2012 period,
when the first phase of the Kyoto
Protocol expires. The most significant
result of the Bali conference was
the creation of an ad hoc working
group to discuss a wide range of
issues under four so-called building
blocks: mitigation, adaptation, finance
and investment, and technology
transfer.57
Mitigation is the action needed to
limit or reduce emissions. Adaptation
is putting in place a strategy (including
policies, actions and measures) to
help under-developed countries
adapt to the impacts of climate
change. Finance is about generating
investment that will allow under-devel-
oped countries to implement mitigation
and adaptation without harming their
primary goals of economic growth and
poverty alleviation. Technology refers
to helping countries limit or reduce
their emissions and adapt to the
impacts of climate change through the
supply of technology.
The so-called Bali Roadmap
was tackled in Poznan, Poland, in
December 2008 (COP14) where it
barely moved forward. Generally,
negotiations at such meetings center
around two subjects: the UNFCCC
and the Kyoto Protocol. At Bali, in
the UNFCCC negotiations, countries
agreed to launch a process to
consider mitigation activities by un-
der-developed countries as well as
address issues related to adaptation,
technology transfer and financing
while in the Kyoto Protocol negotia-
tions, industrialized countries agreed
on a work program for 2008 and to
plan for 2009.58 The negotiations
will be finalized at the COP15 in
December 2009 in Copenhagen and
will be based on a target of 25-40%
Table 6. The 24 participating organizations of the IPCC (2008)
Source: IPCC 28th Session, Budapest, April 2008
Name of organization
Climate Change Secretariat (UNFCCC)Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the PacificEconomic Commission for AfricaEconomic Commission for EuropeEconomic Commission for Latin AmericaEconomic and Social Commission for Western AsiaFood and Agriculture Organization (FAO)International Labour Organization (ILO)International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC/UNESCO)International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)International Maritime OrganizationOzone SecretariatSecretariat for Biological Diversity (CBD)Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP)United Nations Development Program (UNDP)United Nations Environment Program (UNEP)UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)UN-International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UN/ISDR)UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD)World BankWorld Tourism OrganizationWorld Meteorological Organization (WMO)World Health Organization (WHO)
No.
123456789101112131415161718192021222324
18
PANAP • RICE SHEETS
emissions reduction from 1990 to
2020.
Currently, the current debate
is centered around who will be
responsible for the two complemen-
tary strategies, namely mitigation
and adaptation. Mitigation will reduce
the magnitude of climate change
to which under-developed regions
are exposed over the long-term but
will do little to address climate risks
in the short-term, particularly in the
mentioned regions. Adaptation, on the
other hand, will increase the coping
capacity and resilience of systems for
both the short and long terms, but will
require strategic changes in policies
and measures.59 The advanced
capitalist countriesi have agreed
to take the lead in mitigation and to
include adaptation in development
aid and funding. Bearing in mind that
the advanced capitalist countries are
the main ones responsible for climate
change, they should do far more in
terms of adaptation and mitigation.
These countries, with pressure
from international financial institutions
(IFIs) particularly the World Bank,
are however dragging the debate
into the aid arena. They are coming
up with estimates on how much un-
der-developed countries will need to
enable them to adapt to the impacts
of climate change. Attached to this
so-called aid, however, are condi-
tionalities (some of them policies on
economic liberalization) that under-
developed countries must adopt and
implement in exchange for “climate
funding”. So in reality, TNCs and IFIs
are proposing ‘business-as-usual’
solutions combining neo-liberal glo-
balization and free-market environ-
mentalism, which will only exacerbate
ecological collapse.
3. Is it true that agrofuels will mitigate climate change? Is it true that genetically engineered climate-tolerant crops will help farmers cope better with the impacts of climate change?
Agricultural crops that may
be used as sources of alternative
fuels (a.k.a. agrofuels, biofuels
or energy crops) to fossil fuels
are being advocated by oil TNCs
and their so-called experts, some
governments, and even some non-
governmental organizations (NGOs)
as the solution to the twin problems
of poverty and climate change.
Added to this, pesticide, fertilizer
and seed TNCs such as Monsanto
and Bayer plus the International
Rice Research Institute (IRRI) are
advocating the need for genetically
engineered (GE) climate-tolerant
crops, which can withstand climate
hazards such as drought, floods and
salinity.
There are claims by the above
mentioned quarters that as countries
Table 7. Annex B Countries in the Kyoto Protocol
Source: The Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC); uk/dsgpollock/public_html/courses/environs/KPprog.pdf; Earth Trends Climate TablesNotes: * countries in transition to market economies; ** countries which refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol
Target for GHG2008-2012
percent base year
8-13
-7.5-8-6-5-8-21-800
-2125-61013
-6.5-6-8-8-8-28-8-601-627-80-80-8154-8
-12.5-7
i Capitalist countries include the US, Japan, United Kingdom, France, Germany and others in the European Union, which have built their wealth through a system of commodity production and private appropriation through the exploitation of human labor. Capitalist countries also have long histories of colonizing other countries in order to plunder these colonies in terms of their natural resources, raw materials and cheap labor.
Change in GHG emissions1990-2002 (%)
22.28.8
-44.42.9-5620.1-11.5-25.6-0.4
-55.26.8-1.9
-18.626-31-4.228.98.8
12.1-62.8-0.1
-65.7-19.531.71.1
21.66.1-3240.5-48
-38.5-28.4-38.5-1.140.5-3.5-1.7
-47.713.1
COUNTRY(& year of Kyoto
Protocol ratification)
Australia (2007)Austria (2002)
BelarusBelgium (2002)Bulgaria* (2002)Canada (2002)
CroatiaCzech Republic* (2001)
Denmark (2002)Estonia*
Finland (2002)France (2002)
Germany (2002)Greece (2002)
Hungary* (2002)Iceland (2002)Ireland (2002)
Italy (2002)Japan (2002)Latvia* (2002)Liechtenstein
Lithuania* (2003)Luxembourg
MonacoNetherlands (2002)
New ZealandNorway (2002)
Poland*Portugal (2002)
Romania* (2002)Russia* (2004)Slovakia*(2002)Slovenia* (2002)
Spain (2002)Sweden (2002)
Switzerland (2003)Ukraine* (2004)
UK (2002)US**
2003 C02 emissions (‘000
metric tons)
96,657
154,392
102,065219,776
336,142
83,121
407,593
84,401
85,836152,460
1,580,175
19
PANAP • RICE SHEETS
shift from fossil fuels to agrofuels for
their energy needs, GHG emissions
will be vastly reduced. Also, as
farmers shift from organic crops to GE
crops, the impact of climate change
on crop production will be mitigated.
These assertions are made by those
who simply aim to profit from agrofuel
production and the sale of GE seeds
and agro-chemicals, namely the oil
and agribusiness TNCs. In fact, these
claims are being debunked by current
scientific studies.
For example, according to a study
done by the University of Minnesota,
ethanol production has a modest net
energy gain of 25% (meaning the
difference between the energy used
to produce ethanol and the energy
it can provide once it is produced),
resulting in 12% less GHG emissions
compared with the same amount of
gasoline. These modest figures do
not yet take into account the impact
of increased nitrous oxide (N2O)
runoff as a result of the increased
use of pesticides and fertilizers
and increased demand for water
since agrofuels such as corn and
soy displace more drought-tolerant
crops such as wheat.60 In the same
study, it was found that if the entire
corn harvest of the US was used to
make ethanol and all soybeans to
make diesel, they would account
for only 12% of the total gas needs
and 6% diesel use in the country,
respectively. Another study by
Cornell University and UC Berkeley
concluded that corn required 29%
more fossil fuel than the energy
it generated, biodiesel from soy
resulted in a net energy loss of 27%,
switchgrass required 45% more
energy to harvest than the energy it
produced, wood biomass required
57% more energy than it produced,
and sunflowers required more than
twice the energy they produced.61
Apart from these arguments,
agrofuels also advance large-scale
industrial monocultures, which in turn
lead to increased use of fertilizers and
agro-chemicals, as well as deforesta-
tion, the displacement of other uses
of land, often land for food62, and the
displacement of indigenous peoples
from their homelands.
Huge tracts of tropical rainforests
have been cleared to make way for
agrofuel plantations in many countries
in the global South. Primary forests in
Indonesia have been found to hold
306 tonnes of carbon per hectare,
whereas mature oil palm plantations
hold only 63 tonnes per hectare, but
are not expected to survive more than
25 years at the most.63 This shows
that clearing forests for agrofuels
will worsen instead of mitigate global
warming.
At the same time, IRRI is
promoting and embarking on
research on GE crops that need less
water which are expected to reduce
emissions of methane (CH4) from rice
fields. As mentioned in the first part of
this primer, IRRI reported that flooded
rice fields release significant amounts
of CH4 (methane accounts for one fifth
of GHGs). However, according to the
US Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), of the total GHG emissions
from the agriculture sector in 2004,
only 10% came from rice production.
The biggest chunk was from soil that
emitted 40% of nitrous oxide (N2O),
which is more associated with agro-
chemical inputs namely, synthetic
fertilizers. GE crops require large
amounts of chemical pesticides and
fertilizers and the increased N2O
produced will offset any benefit gained
from the reduction of methane.
Besides this, GE crops, including
GE climate-tolerant ones, come with
a whole package of serious risks to
human health and the environment.
Moreover, GE seeds are usually
patented and represent the latest
strategy for agribusinesses to
continue to dominate the food chain
and imprison small farmers in a cycle
of dependency on commercial inputs.
The issue of private ownership over
seeds is an area fraught with ethical
conflict, with people’s movements
fiercely contesting patents on life
forms. Last but not least, climate-
tolerant crop varieties are already
available, for example, flood tolerant
rice, so why the need to genetically
engineer them if not to waste money
on an unnecessary and expensive
procedure, make profits for agribusi-
nesses, and establish ownership over
what should remain a common good?
4. What kind of action is being taken by grassroots communities in dealing with climate change? How sustainable or effective are these actions?
Throughout history, grassroots
communities have always adapted
to changes in the weather and
ecology to save their production
systems, economies and lives, owing
to their resilience, innovation and
strong survival instincts. On a higher
Table 8. Biggest carbon traders (2008)
Source: http://unfccc.int/national_reports
AustraliaAustriaBelarusBelgiumBulgariaCanadaCroatia
Czech RepublicDenmarkEstonia
European Community
LithuaniaLuxembourg
MonacoNetherlandsNew Zealand
NorwayPoland
PortugalRomaniaRussian
FederationSlovakia
FinlandFrance
GermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIreland
ItalyJapanLatvia
Liechtenstein
SloveniaSpain
SwedenSwitzerland
TurkeyUkraine
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
IrelandUnited States of
America
20
PANAP • RICE SHEETS
level, strong organized grassroots
communities have not only adapted
but also resisted the human-made
causes of climate change and
ecological devastation such as
pollution, corporate globalization,
military conflicts, and abuse of power
by the elites in society.
Resistance has taken many
forms. Grassroots organizations have
done mass education and organizing
to raise the people’s understanding
of climate change and make plans
to address it. More importantly and
because climate change is expected
to cause great upheavals in abrupt
and traumatic ways, grassroots or-
ganizations have taken direct actions.
One example is the practice of biodi-
versity-based ecological agriculture
(BEA), which aims to protect
traditional varieties and ecosystems,
maintain the fertility of the soil, and
make use of agricultural methods
that are ecologically sound and safe.
BEA counters the high-input-orient-
ed model of corporate agriculture
through the effective management
of soil, water and nutrients.64 BEA
farms are also sustainable because
they provide more than just one
type of food (as opposed to modern
farms)—they are self-sufficient units
for families and communities.
Meanwhile, the history of
community struggles and direct
action has also been the base of
the advocacy of respective social
movements both nationally and in-
ternationally. In particular, in March
2007, grassroots organizations
formed the People’s Movement on
Climate Change (PMCC) in Bangkok
as a global campaign with the
objectives of promoting a People’s
Protocol on Climate Change. The
said protocol provides a platform
for the people, communities, NGOs
and CSOs to participate in forming a
post-2012 climate change framework
that genuinely reflects the voices and
realities of the people in the global
South.
According to PMCC’s coordinat-
ing group, the People’s Protocol is
“a framework agreement independ-
ently agreed upon by grassroots/
people’s movements, organizations
and their supporters to address
the need for comprehensive and
effective measures to mitigate
climate change independently and
through government action, as well
as measures for effective adaptation
and defense of people’s rights
and interests in the face of climate
change challenges especially in the
developing countries”.65 The protocol
is both a lobbying tool pressuring
governments and international bodies
to put the people’s perspective on the
negotiating table and an education
tool for grassroots communities.
Education, organization, direct
actions, measures to build community
resilience, and lobbying are
sustainable and effective efforts by
the grassroots communities because
they are strategic people-centered
solutions and they address the root
causes of climate change.
5. What is really needed to address and stop climate change?
To genuinely address climate
change and stop its impacts, what is
really needed is substantial reduction
in GHG emissions. This entails a
dramatic departure from the current
unsustainable patterns of production
and consumption of the industrial-
ized, capitalist countries and requires
concerted action at the global level.
Scientists estimate that GHG
reductions of 30-55% below 1990
levels are needed over the 21st
century for the planet not to exceed
a 1.5°C increase from 1990 tempera-
tures. The IPCC adds that reductions
of up to 85% from 2000 levels until
2050 should be undertaken, which
should peak not later than 2015. All
these point to the fact that the targets
for reduction by capitalist countries
will have to be a lot heavier if such
goals are to have any chance of
succeeding.
In the Kyoto Protocol negotiations
of the UNFCCC countries, the under-
developed countries in particular
should demand that industrialized
countries commit to legally binding
targets of GHG emissions reduction.
These commitments, however, should
not be undertaken through market-
based solutions such as carbon
trading.
Industrialized countries (through
the IFIs and multilateral organi-
zations) should also immediately
provide funding grants for climate
change adaptation to under-devel-
oped countries. These should be
given without attached condition-
alities and considered as grants, not
loans. Climate funding should not
place any burden on the receiving
countries, their economies, or their
local communities.
On top of these global solutions
is the shift from the capitalist system
to a planned production system that
puts human needs and sustainable
consumption at the top of its agenda.
Nationally, the role of strong-willed
governments is crucial in rejecting
further commodification of a broad
range of products/resources including
natural resources, which has been
subjected to undue pressure. Central
to this is the promotion of sustainable
production systems that already exist
in various communities, which are bi-
odiversity-based, ecologically sound
and low carbon-intensive.
6. Why is climate change an issue of social justice? What is “climate justice”? What are the principles that concerned global citizens should adopt to put in place truly effective and lasting solutions?
Scientific findings have conclu-
ded that the burning of fossil fuels
such as coal and crude oil undertaken
21
PANAP • RICE SHEETS
by TNCs is the number one cause of
climate change. Next are deforesta-
tion, land clearance, and the spread
of industrial agriculture using huge
amounts of chemical pesticides and
synthetic fertilizers. All these are the
outcomes of the capitalist production
system where profits by only a
handful of TNCs have taken priority
over all else, including the welfare of
the planet and its inhabitants.
By country, the US is the
largest contributor to global GHG
emissions. High concentrations in the
atmosphere are also observed in un-
der-developed countries where TNCs
operate or in which the economies are
being transformed by TNCs to feed
the energy demand and production
and consumption needs of capitalist
countries.
The irony lies here. The under-
developed countries, particularly
those in Asia, small Pacific islands,
Africa and the Arctic, and not the
capitalist countries, are the more
vulnerable ones, especially the
sectors and communities that are
most dependent on natural resources
for their livelihood. It is the capitalist
countries which are responsible for
the bulk of historical GHG emissions.
In short, the ones bearing the brunt
of climate change are not those that
are primarily responsible for it. This
is why climate change is not simply
an issue of science but one of social
justice.
The deeper irony lies in the
fact that poor countries are under-
developed largely due to the global
capitalist system that the industrial-
ized countries have imposed on them,
originating from the time of coloniza-
tion and continuing now in the form of
globalization.
Such under-development now
limits these poor countries tre-
mendously from putting into place
the very policies, structures and
mechanisms they require to adapt
to the adverse impacts of climate
change. In people’s campaigns
on climate change, nationally
and internationally, civil society
organizations have raised the
issue of “climate justice”, a call
that is attached to the idea of
“climate debt.”
One framework to promote
climate justice is that of Greenhouse
Development Rights (GDRs),
proposed by the Christian Aid,
Heinrich Boell Foundation and
Stockholm Environment Institute
Project. This concept asserts that
while countries drive rapid global
emissions reduction, the people’s
collective right to development must
be recognized and protected. For
instance, while India and China are
recognized as growing economies
and are expected to reduce their GHG
emissions, it must also be recognized
that poverty in these countries is
huge.
In short, while people remain
poor, it is unacceptable and untenable
to expect them to focus their valuable
resources on the climate crisis. The
wealthier nations as well as the upper
consuming classes both within the
poor nations and especially in the
wealthier nations are the ones who
must pay the price to stem climate
change.
GDRs operationalize on the
UNFCCC principle that states must
commit themselves to protect the
climate system on the basis of
equity and in accordance with their
common but differentiated responsi-
bilities (CDR) and respective capa-
bilities (RC). It also takes into account
UNFCCC Article 3.4, which states that
“parties have a right to and should
promote sustainable development”.
In short, GDRs aim to safeguard the
people’s right to development. In
addition, GDRs lay out and quantify
an effort-sharing framework coming
from clear and defensible measures.
The first step is the setting
of a development threshold or a
“destitution line” that is set higher than
the global poverty line. The next step
is setting national obligations and a
corresponding responsibility capacity
index.
Within the concept of climate
justice, civil society organizations
are calling on capitalist countries to
substantially reduce their emissions
and finance and compensate for the
adverse effects of climate change
on all affected countries, groups and
people of under-developed countries.
According to the People’s Protocol
of the PMCC, the basic principles
behind a truly effective and lasting
solution to climate change are human
rights, social justice, respect for the
environment, people’s sovereignty,
and responsibility.66 Industrialized
countries have disproportionate re-
sponsibility for the root causes of the
climate crisis.
Their historical and excessive
emissions have denied under-devel-
oped countries their right to livelihood
and a healthy environment. Social
justice is served only if industrialized
countries pay their climate debt and
halt their unsustainable production
and consumption patterns, including
their globalization and free market
policies that only serve the capitalist
agenda.
Respect for the environment
is a principle that encompasses
a commitment to sustainable
development. It places the needs of
the people, both current and future
generations, and the entire planet at
the top of the development agenda
and over any motive for profit and
private gain. The people’s sovereignty
is the assertion of their rights over
natural resources and their power
to determine the direction of their
economy, lives and livelihood.
Finally, responsibility is the
principle of common but differenti-
22
PANAP • RICE SHEETS
ated responsibilities and respective
capabilities. Each society has its own
elite whose consumption levels are
grossly excessive and responsible for
the deprivation of the poor majority.
These elite segments should bear the
greatest responsibility for the climate
crisis. On the other hand, in each
society, there are large sectors that
are more dependent on access to
and use of natural resources for their
survival. These sectors, which include
farming communities, indigenous
peoples, coastal populations,
fisherfolk and other rural producers,
should be given special attention in
all adaptation efforts.67
7. What should be done to help the poor vulnerable countries and communities cope with climate change impacts?
Poor under-developed countries
and communities have disproportion-
ate vulnerability to climate change
impacts. Based on the principles
of social justice, poor vulnerable
countries and communities must be
compensated by the industrialized
countries which are responsible for
the bulk of historical GHG emissions.
A climate fund must be estab-lished
for this purpose and financing and
support given from this fund should
not be in the form of loans, but made
free of charge, without any condi-
tionalities attached. The climate fund
should finance adaptation efforts in
and the transfer of technology to poor
vulnerable countries to cope with the
adverse impacts of climate change.
Climate financing must not be
used to promote commercial and profit
interests. Instead, it must be used to
support real and drastic solutions and
guarantee a transition to low-carbon
development planning that places
people’s needs and sovereignty at
the center. Such support measures
should be legally-binding, obligatory,
adequate, focused on the vulnerable
sectors, gender-responsive, dem-
ocratically-owned, and must factor
in the community’s participation.68
Climate financing should be given in
addition to any other existing funding
and should not replace or detract
from any other funding allocations
due to the countries.
8. What are the current calls, stands and struggles of civil society organizations as op- posed to the proposals and current debates on climate change raised at the interna-tional level?
The first commitment period of
the Kyoto Protocol is 2008-2012, after
which a “post-2012” agreement will
follow. There are two basic aspects
of the post-2012 agreement – it must
set the reduction targets and rules for
Annex I countries and it must support
mitigation, technology, adaptation and
financing for non-Annex 1 countries.
After the Bali Conference in
December 2007 (COP13) where the
Bali Action Plan containing points
for negotiations and the post-2012
timeline were drawn up, a climate
change conference followed in
Poznan, Poland in December 2008
(COP14). The Poznan meeting
however showed very little progress
on the major issues within the Bali
Action Plan. The deadline for an
agreement on emissions reduction
and the operationalization of the Bali
Action Plan was set for December
2009 in Copenhagen (COP15).
According to the Friends of the
Earth (FOE), the Poznan meeting was
an “extraordinary waste of resources
and a terrifying lack of progress for
the billions who are already being
affected both by climate change
and the so-called solutions being
marketed in the international policy
arena”.69 Obviously, the rich capitalist
countries were stalling.
The upcoming COP15 in
Copenhagen thus is a near-term
point of engagement for many civil
society organizations. The advocacy
is focused on using the momentum
to put forward justice-based demands
such as shifting from fossil fuels to
renewables, rejecting carbon trading,
and stopping the World Bank from
promoting its market-based climate
funding.
Never trust a COP! Our Climate
is Not Your Business! 14 COPs is
Enough! People’s Solutions, Not
False Market-Based Solutions!
Globalize Resistance! People and the
Environment First, Not Profits! Don’t
Buy the Kyoto Lie! Address the Root
Causes of Climate Change! Climate
Justice Now! These are some of the
calls of different civil society organiza-
tions.70
Civil society organizations,
grassroots organizations and
consumer networks converge on
the issue of social justice. People’s
initiatives and struggles are taking
place at the local, national, regional
and international levels, thus the call
“Think Global, Act Local!”
In preparation for COP 15 in
Copenhagen, Danish NGOs organized
by Klima Forum 2009 and involving
mainstream environmental organiza-
tions such as the WWF, Oxfam, FOE
and others, will provide spaces for
activities and events outside COP15.
Major networks that are making prep-
arations for Copenhagen and even
beyond are Climate Justice Action,
Climate Justice Now and the PMCC.
The Global Climate Campaign is
the collective name given to the organ-
izations, groups and individuals round
the world that come together for the
Global Day of Action on Climate which
has occurred every year since 2005 at
the time of the annual UNFCCC-COP
process.
The Global Day of Action has
consisted of demonstrations and
events on the same day, or as near
as possible to that day as far as cir-
cumstances allow. Usually, it has
taken place on the Saturday midway
through the climate talks.
23
PANAP • RICE SHEETS
9. What is the worst thing that can happen if social and climate justice is not served?
Vulnerable countries and com-
munities have borne the brunt of a
long common history of colonization
and globalization by industrialized
countries, which has been aggravated
by the current global economic crisis
and the ecological crisis. The worst
scenario is already happening:
the planet and humanity are being
threatened by the imminence of an
ecological collapse while the capitalist
countries responsible for this—partic-
ularly their TNCs and elite segments—
still refuse to acknowledge and pay
for their accountability, and radically
change the capitalist system. As
already mentioned in the first part of
this paper, the time horizons for the
vulnerable countries, especially in
the Asia and Pacific region, are not
optimistic. It is time for vulnerable
communities to assert their rights to
social and climate justice. This should
be the center of their aspirations
and struggles. Social and climate
justice can only be served with the
active role of the people and not by
passively waiting for the TNCs and
domestic elites to have a ‘change
of heart’. The worst thing that can
happen if social and climate justice is
not fought for vigorously by the people
is the extinction of the human race:
what the science of climate change
is indicating is that even if the Earth
were to survive the worst catastrophe
(i.e., if no action is taken to stem or
stop global warming), humans may
not.
10. What steps can grass- roots communities, small farm- ers and consumers take to address climate change and its impacts on their lives and the planet?
Grassroots organizations
must undertake mass education
campaigns in their communities on
the root causes, consequences of,
and genuine solutions to climate
change. Such education campaigns
must not only focus on changing
individual behavior and lifestyle to
reduce carbon emissions but also on
promoting and asserting indigenous
and community-based low-carbon
production systems and the people’s
food sovereignty. The practice of bio-
diversity-based ecological agriculture;
sustainable forestry, fishery and
mining; and the development of
science and technology for and with
the people are the best tools for
opposing and resisting corporate,
commercial and profit-oriented
natural resources exploitation.
Meanwhile, consumers, espec-
ially in the North, are being made to
feel guilty for contributing to climate
change due to their ‘excessive’
consumption behavior. Thus some
consumer organizations around
the world, even in low-middle
income countries, are focusing
their campaigns on sustainable
consumption patterns. The point
to remember here is that such
‘excessive’ behavior is actually
rooted in the capitalist system where
production is anarchic (meaning
unplanned), profit-oriented and not
based on human need, i.e. carried out
without regard for the environment. It
is capitalism that produces the waste.
Having said this, consumers are not
absolved from their role in feeding
a culture of consumerism which is
wasteful, harmful and irresponsi-
ble. Changing one’s lifestyle and
consumption habits and demanding
accountability from one’s government
to exercise climate, social and envi-
ronmental justice is the responsibility
of every citizen. Everyone has to take
personal accountability in saving our
planet. On the other hand, in under-
developed countries, before people
can be consumers, they must usually
first be producers, but they have been
hampered in this as their natural
resources and economies have been
severely eroded by globalization and
now, by climate change. Grassroots
and consumer organizations must
get engaged in campaigns at all
levels to pressure governments, IFIs
and TNCs to decisively and substan-
tially reduce carbon emissions. Local
governments must be pressured to
shift public resources away from un-
productive spending on things such
as militarization, debt payments
and fossil fuel subsidies to social
services and climate adaptation
measures. They must be made to
come up with comprehensive plans
to transform economies away from
fossil fuel dependence to renewable
energy (which should not be agro
fuels). These campaigns must include
the rejection of false and market-
based solutions that only promote
the ‘business-as-usual’ agenda such
as profit-oriented production and
trade. The campaigns must focus
on demanding drastic legally binding
reductions in GHG emissions based
on the principles of CDR and RC
and demanding liability payments
and compensation from those
principally responsible for destroying
the environment and violating human
rights. The people should also demand
that corporate law be tightened
in terms of corporate governance
and environmental and social
liability.
Lastly, beyond these engage-
ments of demanding the elite to
be responsible for mitigation and
adaptation, grassroots communities
must build their own resilience as
part of their daily and long-term
mission. While the twin strategies of
mitigation and adaptation are focused
on making the capitalist countries
pay and exposing the inherent con-
tradictions of capitalism, resilience is
focused on building the inner strength,
self-reliance and food sovereignty
of grassroots communities as a
long-term alternative and resistance
to capitalist exploitation.
24
PANAP • RICE SHEETS
ENDNOTES1 Climate Change 101. Understanding and Responding to
Global Climate Change. 2009. PEW Center for Global Climate Change. The PEW Center on the States. http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Climate101-Complete-Jan09.pdf
2 IBON Facts and Figures Special Release. February 2008. Climate Change New Arena for Profit Generation by TNCs
3 Ibid.4 Climate Change Kids Site. United States Environmental
Protection Agency. http://www.kidsnewsroom.org/climatechange/glossary/index.html
5 Climate Change 101. Understanding and Responding to Global Climate Change. p2. http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Climate101-Complete-Jan09.pdf
6 University of Illinois Extension.Urban Programs Resource Network. Global Warming Questions and Answers. 2009. http://urbanext.illinois.edu/world/qanda.html
7 Preston, B. L., Suppiah, R., Macadam, I. and Bathols. J. 2006. “Climate Change in the Asia/Pacific Region”. A Consultancy Report Prepared for the Climate Change and Development Roundtable. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Marine and Atmospheric Research. Aspendale. Australia. http://www.csiro.au/files/files/p9xj.pdf
8 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Synthesis Report. Plenary XXVII. Valencia. Spain. pp 12-17. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf
9 Chughtai and Shannon. Fossil Fuels. http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/fossilfuels.htm
10 IBON Facts and Figures Special Release. p411 Greenhouse Gas Emissions. 2009. http://www.
greenhousegasemissions.com/12 U.S. offshores 15% of its carbon emissions, not 20% as
originally stated. 2009. http://www.scholarsandrouges.com.
13 IBON Facts and Figures Special Release, p514 Greenhouse Gas Emissions. 2009. http://www.
greenhousegasemissions.com/15 Rice and Climate Change What will happen, and what’s to
be done? 2007. Rice Today. International Rice Research Institute. 6: 14-15. http://www.irri.org/publications/today/pdfs/6-3/RT6-3_complete.pdf
16 Neue, H. 1993. Methane emission from rice fields: Wetland rice fields may make a major contribution to global warming. BioScience. 43 (7): 466-473. http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/docs/004-032/004-032.html
17 Pierzynski, G. M., Sims, J. T. and Vance, G. F. 2000. Soils and Environmental Quality (Second Edition). CRC Press Inc. Boca. Raton. FL. http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=UdvDXOPYGxQC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=true
18 Reducing Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Nitrogenous Fertilizer. CIESIN Thematic Guides. http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/TG/AG/nitfert.html
19 Brahic, C. March 2006. ‘Urgent need’ for rice that tolerates climate change. Science and Development Network. http://www.scidev.net/en/news/urgent-need-for-rice-that-tolerates-climate-chan.html
20 Ibid.21 IBON Facts and Figures Special Release, p422 Climate Change form the BBC Weather Center. Sea
Level Rises. http://www.bbc.co.uk/climate/impact/sea_level.shtml
23 Climate Change 101. Understanding and Responding to Global Climate Change. 2009. PEW Center for Global Climate Change. The PEW Center on the States. http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Climate101-Complete-
Jan09.pdf24 “A World Dying, but can we unite to save it?”. The
Independent. November 18, 2007. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/a-world-dying-but-can-we-unite-to-save-it-400847.html
25 Preston, B. L., Suppiah, R., Macadam, I. and Bathols. J. 2006. “Climate Change in the Asia/Pacific Region”. A Consultancy Report Prepared for the Climate Change and Development Roundtable. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Marine and Atmospheric Research. Aspendale. Australia. pp. 48. http://www.csiro.au/files/files/p9xj.pdf
26 Ibid.27 Up in Smoke? Threats from and responses to the
impact of global warming on human development. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2004. http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/up_in_smoke.pdf
28 Preston, B. L., Suppiah, R., Macadam, I. and Bathols. J. 2006. “Climate Change in the Asia/Pacific Region”. A Consultancy Report Prepared for the Climate Change and Development Roundtable. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Marine and Atmospheric Research. Aspendale. Australia. pp. 33. http://www.csiro.au/files/files/p9xj.pdf
29 Ibid.30 D’Silva, R. April 16 2007. The Effects and Consequences
of Global Warming. Buzzle.com Intelligent Life on the Web. http://www.buzzle.com/articles/effects-consequences-global-warming.html
31 The Effects of Global Warming. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming
32 Ibid33 Preston, B. L., Suppiah, R., Macadam, I. and Bathols.
J. 2006. “Climate Change in the Asia/Pacific Region”. A Consultancy Report Prepared for the Climate Change and Development Roundtable. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Marine and Atmospheric Research. Aspendale. Australia. pp. 40. http://www.csiro.au/files/files/p9xj.pdf
34 UP in Smoke? Threats from and responses to the impact of global warming on human development. p4
35 Preston, B. L., Suppiah, R., Macadam, I. and Bathols. J. 2006. “Climate Change in the Asia/Pacific Region”. A Consultancy Report Prepared for the Climate Change and Development Roundtable. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Marine and Atmospheric Research. Aspendale. Australia. http://www.csiro.au/files/files/p9xj.pdf
36 Alan L. Pineda, Ph.D. Pag-asa DOST. Climate Change presentation.
37 Climate Change: First World Accountability. Third World Vulnerability. A PowerPoint presentation. National Grassroots Conference on Climate Change. IBON Foundation. 20-21 April 2009
38 Yusuf, A. A. and Francisco, H. January 2009. “Climate Change Vulnerability Mapping for Southeast Asia”. Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia. http://www.idrc.ca/eepsea/ev-135332-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html
39 Ibid.40 Bonn: How to measure climate change. June 10 2009.
Prevention Web. http://www.preventionweb.net/english/professional/news/v.php?id=9876
41 Preston, B. L., Suppiah, R., Macadam, I. and Bathols. J. 2006. “Climate Change in the Asia/Pacific Region”. A Consultancy Report Prepared for the Climate Change and Development Roundtable. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Marine and Atmospheric Research. Aspendale. Australia. http://www.csiro.au/files/files/p9xj.pdf
42 Ibid.
43 Ibid.44 Flanery, T. Ten Predictions about climate change
that have come true. June 25 2007. Times Online. http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article1984755.ece
45 Preston, B. L., Suppiah, R., Macadam, I. and Bathols. J. 2006. “Climate Change in the Asia/Pacific Region”. A Consultancy Report Prepared for the Climate Change and Development Roundtable. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Marine and Atmospheric Research. Aspendale. Australia. http://www.csiro.au/files/files/p9xj.pdf
46 Ibid.47 Living Planet Report 2008. World Wildlife Fund. http://
assets.panda.org/downloads/living_planet_report_2008.pdf 48 “Two-thirds of world’s resources ‘used up’”. guardian.
co.uk. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/mar/30/environment.research
49 The Living Planet Report 2008. World Wildlife Fund, Zoological Society of London and the Global Footprint Network. http://assets.panda.org/downloads/living_planet_report_2008.pdf
50 Gateway to the UN System’s Work on Climate Change. http://huwu.org/climatechange/ipcc.shtml
51 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 28th Session, Budapest, 9-10 April 2008.
52 Ibid.53 Climate Change: New Arena for Profit Generation by
TNCs. IBON Special Release, 15-28 February 2008. IBON Foundation
54 Ibid.55 www.wikipedia.org56 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/emission/index_
en.htm57 IBON Special Release, op.cit.58 Ibid.59 Preston, B. L., Suppiah, R., Macadam, I. and Bathols.
J. 2006. “Climate Change in the Asia/Pacific Region”. A Consultancy Report Prepared for the Climate Change and Development Roundtable. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Marine and Atmospheric Research. Aspendale. Australia. http://www.csiro.au/files/files/p9xj.pdf
60 Biofuels Act of 2006: Behind the Hype. IBON Special Release, 31 July 2007.
61 Tokar, B. January 2007. Are biofuels the Answer? Z Mag Online.
62 The True Cost of Agrofuels: Impacts on Food, Forests, Peoples and the Climate. Global Forest Coalition and Global Justice Ecology Project. 2008.
63 Biofuelwatch. 2007. Agrofuels threaten to accelerate global warming. http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/biofuels_and_climate_change.pdf.
64 Press Release by Lok Sanj Foundation on the System of Rice Intensification Training in Pakistan for YORA. May 2009. http://www.panap.net
65 People’s Initiatives Building a Climate Movement, Asia Pacific Research Network, Bangkok, Thailand, March 2007 (A PowerPoint presentation).
66 People’s Protocol on Climate Change, People’s Movement on Climate Change, 2008.
67 Ibid.68 Climate Change Funding, IBON Foundation. Asia-Pacific
Conference on Climate Change, Bangkok, Thailand, March 23-24, 2009 (A PowerPoint presentation).
69 Lone, S. 2009. The UN Climate Negotiations, Road to Pro-South and Pro-Poor International Climate Agreement. Powerpoint presentation. Friends of the Earth International.
70 People’s Initiatives Building a Climate Movement, op.cit.
Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific (PAN AP) is one of five regional centres of PAN, a global network which aims to eliminate the harm caused by pesticides and promote biodiversity-based ecological agriculture. It is committed to the empowerment of people especially women, agricultural workers, peasants and indigenous farmers. PAN AP launched its Save Our Rice Campaign in 2003 in response to the powerful threats arising against rice, the staple food of half the world’s
population. The foundation of the Campaign is the “Five Pillars of Rice Wisdom”: (1) Rice Culture, (2) Community Wisdom, (3) Biodiversity-based Ecological Agriculture, (4) Safe Food and (5) Food Sovereignty. The Campaign is dedicated to saving traditional local rice, small rice farmers, rice lands and the rice heritage of Asia. PAN AP Rice Sheets provide relevant information on the threats to rice and are written from the people’s perspective. Enquiries may be sent to: panap@panap.net. Acknowledgement: PAN AP acknowledges the contribution of Kathryn R. Manga who did the research for this paper. Editor: G. C. Westwood
Copyright © 2009 Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific. All rights reserved. Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific (PAN AP) holds the rights to this publication. This publication may be reproduced in full or in part as long as PAN AP is properly acknowledged as the source and PAN AP is furnished with copies of the final work where the reproduction appears.Publisher: Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific (PAN AP). P.O. Box: 1170, 10850 Penang, Malaysia.Tel: (604) 657 0271 / 656 0381 Fax: (604) 658 3960 E-mail: panap@panap.net Homepage: http://www.panap.net
Recommended