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