The global economy is in crisis, but that's not a good enough excuse to stall progress on international climate policy on the road to Copenhagen. We need immediate action.
This message echoed through the opening plenary speeches delivered (almost in carbon copy) by Poland's Prime Minister Donald Tusk, UN climate panel head Rajendra Pachauri, UN climate secretariat head Yvo De Boer, and Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen.
Encouraging words to launch such a critical conference in Poznan at such a critical time.
Rasmussen probably said it best when he remarked that long after the financial credit crisis has been dealt with, the international community will still be stuck with a looming environmental disaster to consider. Environmental damage is long-term.
I spent most of my time nodding in agreement to the messages in these speeches but was struck by one point Rasmussen made. He drew a parallel between aggressive action for global solidarity on climate policy and the need to encourage global economic development through free trade and globalization.
It was at this point that the inspiring message was lost.
There is a strong correlation between climate change and the rise in global emission levels driven by an increase and intensification of the movement of goods from one end of the globe to another. This is not a new argument, and was made quiet effectivley in an environmental impact assessment of the US-Australian free trade agreement by Oz Prospect. Free trade agreements, and other tentacles of globalization, have facilitated a system that makes little (if any) consideration for it's environmental and social impacts.
Additionally, the polarization of wealth between the global north and global south that has resulted from lop-sided and unfair trade arrangements is apparent. The wealth disparity, in itself, continues to exacerbate the climate crisis for the world's poorest.
How can we effectively deal with the global economic and environmental crisies without first examining their common causes?
To frame this convention by arguing for aggressive climate policy action on the path to a Copenhagen on the one hand, and in the same breath re-assert the principles of an economic system that has lead our world down a dangerous path, may be telling of what's to come over the next two weeks in Poznan. Which road to Copenhagen are we on exactly?
