A Letter for Sanity: Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Says "We Can Swim Or Sink Only Together" In Copenhagen

Nobel Laureate and hero from the Anti-Apartheid movement in South Africa, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, known as "The Voice of the Voiceless" is one of the strongest moral voices on climate change in recent years.

As disorder reigns and frustration builds at the Copenhagen Climate summit, his voice, joined with that of the bold leadership from African countries, is something we should all heed. This letter went out to all Heads of State and many Christian Leaders.

Your Excellency,

I write urgently to you after meeting last night with the Chairperson of the G77 at his request. This is after the walkout from the UN Climate Talks which have deadlocked.

Ambassador Di-Aping showed me papers quoting from the IPCC's 4th Assessment Report which declared that Africa is one of the most vulnerable continents to climate change and climate variability. In all four regions of Africa (West African, South African, East African, and Saharan), and in all seasons, the median temperature rise lies between 3 degrees C and 4 degrees C, roughly 1.5 times the global mean response.

Africa's major economic sectors are vulnerable to current climate sensitivity exacerbated by factors such as endemic poverty, complex governance challenges, limited access to capital, infrastructure and technology as well as ecosystem degradation and other disasters and conflict.

If temperatures are not kept down then Africa faces a range of devastating threats such as crop yield reductions, in places of as much as 50%, in some countries by 2020; Increased pressure on water supplies for 70 - 250 million people by 2020 and 350 - 600 million by 2050; The cost of adaptation to sea level rises of at least 5 - 10% of gross domestic product.

I think this is common cause. We are facing impending disaster on a monstrous scale. To keep temperature increase in Africa to below 1.5 degrees C requires a global goal of less than 1 degree C; keeping it below 2 degrees in Africa would require a global goal of less than 1.3 degrees C. that is the crux of the matter. A global goal of about 2 degrees C is to condemn Africa to incineration and no modern development. And then of course there is the matter of funding mitigation and adaptation.

The Africans do not want to be spoilers. They know that we are in this together. We have but one earth home. If we do not reach a legally binding deal that takes account of all that has been outlined above then we are all doomed. We can swim or sink only together. The African group wants a deal, a fair ambitious and legally enforceable deal. If the issues that I have delineated above are not dealt with fairly and generously, attributes that have characterized most of the developed world, then it were better to have no deal than to have a bad deal.

This is a moral issue, it is a matter of justice for especially the weak and most vulnerable and the developed world is noted for seeking to do what is right and good.

I pray that my appeal to you will not fall on deaf ears.

God bless you,

Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu.

Forward courtesy of Richard Graves – HuffingtonPost.com

Helping Poor Nations Switch to Clean Energy Could Bring a $100 Billion Renewable Boom

It's disconcerting to see the media continue to frame this investment as a 'giveaway'--it only serves to build opposition to the droves that feel we don't owe developing countries anything. And that's exactly how the Times frames it:

"The money would be used to help developing nations reduce emissions by switching to renewable energy sources like wind and solar and by compensating landowners for not cutting down or burning forests, a major source of carbon dioxide emissions.

It's like it's one giant philanthropic fund from the rich world to the poor--but that shouldn't be the case at all. “

Instead, as Susan Kraemer at Clean Technica points out, the media should be analyzing the potential benefits that such an investment could have on the world economy. She writes:

..this is an investment in solar and wind and flood wall businesses. The real beneficiaries are the countries whose renewable energy businesses will grow from this investment. A more appropriate headline might be: Climate Deal Likely to Bring Big Boom to Renewable Sector.

This so-called giveaway is not from the developed to the developing world, but from the developed world's governments to their own developing companies in the post carbon age. Their own renewable energy companies will benefit - and add jobs.

How much might they benefit? Two think tanks, San Francisco-based ClimateWorks and The EU's Project Catalyst; whose work has helped shape the negotiations in Copenhagen estimate that this investment globally will amount to about $100 billion by 2020. Just from this assistance fund.

These are the right things to be considering in determining how to allocate aid--not dragging our feet because we have to give poor nations money. Let's consider how the burgeoning renewables industry could benefit--and how American companies could profit by investing in such projects abroad. A thriving renewable sector could bolster developing nations' economies and present real opportunities--so let's stop complaining that it will be so expensive to bail out poor polluting nations, and start asking the right questions.

Courtesy of Brian Merchant - TreeHugger.com