The 11 nations, the Pacific Small Island Developing States, have written to members of the Security Council, which oversees threats to international peace and security, and have argued that the threat to them from a warmer world along with rising sea levels is similar to armed conflict and invasion.

“Climate change can devastate a country just as thoroughly as an invading army,” stated Nauru’s UN Ambassador Marlene Moses.

Moses wants the Security Council to intervene because the UN-led negotiations on mandatory cuts in greenhouse gases and help to the most vulnerable nations has stalled.

“If the international community fails to take immediate action, then it will be complicit in the extinction of entire nations,” Moses added.

The group claim that climate change is responsible for severe food and water shortages throughout the Pacific and already making refugees of people in Vanuatu, Micronesia, Papua New Guinea, Tuvalu and the Solomon Islands.

The group’s letter to the Security Council was critical of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change that sponsored the climate summit in Copenhagen, Denmark at the end of 2009.

If so, regardless of the financial prejudice involved, failure to cooperate and agree to compromise will mean a depressing future for our planet and its population. Wealthier nations, such as the US (who didn’t sign the Kyoto accord back in 1997 fearing their economy would suffer), have demonstrated reluctance to cut carbon emissions to avoid the financial contributions entailed.

Unfortunately, until the US decides to sign up to targets, the rest of the world will be unwilling to do so. An example needs to be set, and time is running short.

In effect, disadvantaged countries are more vulnerable to climate change than richer ones, and this should urge the latter to suggest their help in the face of this shared adversity.

A set of measures have been identified as necessary to counterattack the climate threat:

- set emission reduction targets for industrial countries
- secure commitments by developing countries to slow emissions growth
- establish hard figures of funding for poor countries
- create an institution to manage those funds

It is of common interest to aid the poor to implement energy saving methods, as lack of action now could result in bigger costs down the line.
Developing countries, that will be the biggest emitters in the future, want around £250 billion per annum to help them cut emissions by becoming energy efficient, switching from fossil fuels to clean energy like wind and solar. The money will also help vulnerable countries like small island states adapt to climate change. As unlikely as this funding is currently, developed countries sway towards committing to a substantial contribution to keep the subject on the table.

Climate risk reduction officer for aid agency CAFOD, Agnes Kithikii, presents the issue as critical: “People are dying right now due to climate change and more people will die because of the delay in reaching a legally binding agreement this December in Copenhagen,” she said. “The US, EU, Australia and Canada and other rich countries are denying the poorest and most vulnerable people the right to a future.”

Here is the YouTube blurb accompanying the video -

Bring your voice to the world leaders at COP15 – the most important conference on climate change in a decade.
As nations seek an agreement to protect the world we want your views from all across the world.

Watch the video below

Make energy saving and efficiency the number one priority.

Photo from San Franciso Airport

I read an article the other day about a growing trend for air travellers, purportedly allowing them to reset the balance of things environmentally, very conveniently and cheaply, assuaging troubled consciences and all through a modern form of a confessional, a kiosk!.

Apparently air travellers can voluntarily purchase “credit” from a kiosk at airports that will off-set the carbon contribution that the airplane they will travel on spews into the atmosphere. I can hardly believe this.

Can you truly soothe your conscience (that is if you feel guilty) by sending a sum of money to an organization who will then further perpetuate your guilt over carbon usage?

While at this kiosk, you input the trip details and it will calculate the amount of emissions you are producing from your trip.

Example: Travelling from Los Angeles, California to Boston, Massachusetts (USA), it would calculate a carbon (offset) fee of about $11.00 (USD).

What would you get for this $11.00?  A piece of paper that represents the fact that a colorless, odorless gas, which will be emitted on your behalf to shift you through the air to your destination, might be offset and  used in another part of the world therefore balancing the scales a bit.

You might get some indication that your funds went toward the preservation of some rain forest project or a local climate initiative.

It is my opinion that this is way too abstract and will not have any effect on carbon emissions whatsoever.

I do believe that money will continue to fuel the many myths that are being generated about climate change, diverting from any proper discourse on the subject. Save your money and use it yourself to become more environmentally effective.

For my $11.00, I would sooner purchase a piece of rope for drying my clothes, switch out my outdated light bulbs to compact fluorescent lamps (CFL’s) or ride a bicycle to the market.  This will offer a true sense of saving and if you are prone to carbon use guilt, these solutions should help remedy that as well.

That is at least some direct action, it also requires more input from myself than simply using my credit card for carbon credits!