Companies purchase vast areas in South America, Africa and Southeast Asia, where forests are planted and mainly growing areas for plants that will be used to produce bio-fuel, such as jatropha or oil palm, the purchase of the areas and the plantings enable the realization of trading in carbon dioxide, but along the way the local residents are expelled
Dr. Assaf Rosenthal
The Kyoto Convention was created to stop the emission of pollutants into the atmosphere and especially to stop the emission of carbon dioxide created as a result of burning fossil fuel, recognizing that the main causes of emissions are the "developed" countries, especially the industrialized western countries.
Most of the countries that have signed the convention have committed to reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The reduction is supposed to be done mainly by developing technological methods to filter the pollutants, switching to "clean" fuel and developing renewable energy sources. The central instrument in the convention is the "trade in carbon dioxide", where each country is allocated a permissible emission in conjunction with a commitment to reduce emissions.
A country that has not reached the permitted emission threshold may sell the balance to a country that exceeds the permitted threshold, meaning that whoever emits more must pay. Alternately, it is possible to act to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which is mainly done by planting forests or activities to preserve forests in "developing" countries.
A situation has arisen in which "developed" countries from the West pay money to "developing" countries, so that they will avoid deforestation. Every country that signs the convention enforces the emissions quota on the industry within its domain, thus creating a situation in which industrial companies that cause the emission of pollutants need to trade emissions, that is, to offset the emissions against areas and forests that absorb carbon dioxide.
For this purpose, companies purchase extensive areas in South America, Africa and Southeast Asia, where forests are planted and mainly growing areas for plants that will be used for the production of biofuel, such as jatropha or palm oil.
There are those who are convinced that this activity of "trading carbon dioxide" is a positive solution to reducing emissions, which is combined with help for local populations that need development means.
It turns out that the "environmental" activity is not free of harm to local populations to such an extent that some define this activity as "land robbery".
A team of researchers who reviewed the issue in Uganda published a report called "The dark side of green, plantations and carbon dioxide violence in Uganda'
According to the survey, the presented evidence becomes clear HERE Because planting forests as well as other initiatives in the carbon dioxide market harm the quality of life and the ecology of the locals. According to the researchers "Land robbery carried out by industrial companies harms the more sensitive populations living in the rural areas".
Except that such vulnerabilities are not calculated in "carbon dioxide trading" or alternatively are justified as side effects that the contractor has as part of preventing the climate disaster, as defined by the authors of the survey.
One of the companies operating on a large scale in Africa is "Green Resources" whose stated goal is "reduction of carbon dioxide emissions". The company's activities have a profound negative impact on a large number of people. The company has plantation and forestry projects from which it produces wood and charcoal in Mozambique, Tanzania and Uganda. For these projects it receives a "carbon dioxide yield".
In Uganda, where the research was focused, the company has a license for about 120 square kilometers of what is defined as a damaged forest reserve, where there were agricultural and grazing areas that supported about 8,000 locals.
By virtue of the license given to the company by the government, many of the residents are being evacuated from their homes and land. Many of the evacuees report violence and some have been banned on the charge of "trespassing". The inhabitants are tribesmen, most of whom are hunter-gatherers and as such depend on the forest for sustenance, are removed from areas that were essential to their existence and are forbidden to collect products from the forest, which were a traditional source of subsistence.
There is also information about areas of land and water sources that were contaminated by fertilizers used by the company, which caused damage to crops and farm animals.
The researchers define all of this as violence that is directly related to the company's carbon dioxide economy and the market activity of the company's carbon dioxide trade. In other words, the company's activity is "carbon dioxide violence".
In order to continue complying with the regulations that allow trading in carbon dioxide, the company continues with the planting projects that, according to the researchers, exacerbate the violence. Small farmers and poor populations bear the heavy cost as a result of the expansion of forestry for the global trade in carbon dioxide.
The company needs to justify the "violence of carbon dioxide" and therefore initiates development activities for the population. But the development is carried out in accessible and visible places while the victims remain hurt. From conversations with farmers in the affected areas, it turns out that the most difficult problem is access to areas and land that will enable food supply and production, a problem that the company is not solving.
The researchers say that for weak and vulnerable populations, "the loss of access to land that would allow food production should not be accepted", what's more, Uganda contributes a minimal amount to emissions.
The Oakland Institute in California published a report on the company, which was answered by a "defensive letter" from the company's management. In the letter there is an attempt to cast doubt on the researchers, but there is no reference to the issues and problems raised by the research and no reference or attempt to solve the problems.
It is the company's duty to take initiatives and steps that will prevent harm to populations as a result of its activities. The report refers to one company that operates in Africa. It is clear that there are other companies operating around the world that engage in land grabbing under the auspices and justification of the trade in carbon dioxide, which means that there are clearly other companies that engage in "carbon dioxide violence."
Following the study and other studies, there are calls for correction (reform) in the global forestry and planting initiatives related to the carbon dioxide market, which will allow for the expansion of forestry while preventing the vulnerability suffered by rural people. At the same time, there are calls to change and correct the activities of industrial companies so that local populations benefit from the activity.
The researchers propose to do this by reducing the difference between the "winners" and "losers" in the carbon dioxide market. It is necessary to recognize the right to public property and the freedom of access to sources of livelihood for the locals." This while "appreciating the natives who know the forest and are aware of environmental management."
Movements for climate justice in Africa and elsewhere are opposed to a market based on trade in technology instead of initiatives to reduce emissions by switching to renewable energy sources. The researchers conclude that "there is a need for a future vision in which the center of thought and initiative will be social and environmental justice and not money and markets."
It is worth noting that for the purpose of defining the emitting countries, Israel was not considered "developed" and therefore there was no commitment to reduction until the statement of our president in Copenhagen, a statement that was recently accompanied by a government decision that hopefully will be implemented.
6 תגובות
According to the scientists, the eruption itself did not destroy. The nuclear winter that followed produced several years of atmospheric blanketing, crop failure and mass extinction.
I agree that weather and geography affect culture. I read the book Collapse (Civilizations) by Jared Diamond. I haven't read the book you (Aryeh) mention yet, I bought it once and will read it. We also see a migration of the development of civilization from warm areas but with water first to colder areas later. In addition, according to scientists, today's man came out about 85000 years ago from Ethiopia after a mass extinction, perhaps due to a mega volcanic eruption in Asia that killed about 5000000 people and left about 5000 who started again from there. In other words, we left Africa but it remained backward. Regarding Africa: the cultural level that is expressed in the way countries are managed, conflicts, there seems low to me, even though any country can deteriorate there. In terms of minerals, things that can be done there with progress - it seems to me that a lot can be done there, that is, there is no hypothetical problem to have a prosperous country there. It's unfortunate that so many live there, their chances of success are limited by the very fact of being born there.
According to the teaching of Jared Diamond as it is expressed in his book "Bacterial Guns and Steel" the root of the difference between Africa and Europe is not racial and genetic of course, but also not cultural, but environmental geography which of course affects the culture.
There is nothing new under the sun, humans act like animals and the poor always pay more
A very good article that once again teaches us about the character of the human being
I meant the durability of African countries and not Europe.
What is described in the article is a robbery that will weaken the standing of European countries on their own. BCH: Between the 1960s and today, independence was granted to most/all European countries. The culture that exists there did not take advantage of the situation in the best way, as you can see, regardless of the Europeans. In the last fifty years, mainly because of the countries outside of Africa, I don't think there is a genetic or racial background to the failure, but a low level of cultural development in Africa This is how the continent was used by conquerors throughout history.