Alliance for Democracy

Copenhagen failure and the Columbia River Crossing‏

Posted in Columbia River Crossing, Corporate Globalization, Liquefied Natural Gas by Alliance for Democracy Portland OR on December 20, 2009

The cause of the failure in Copenhagen results from the same failure in discussions about the Columbia River Crossing – the role of corporate globalization.

The Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change has just about concluded and my verdict is that it is a failure. The Gang of Five’s (the US, China, Brazil, India and South Africa) statement has no binding terms, no set of obligations, nothing which moves the world toward real objectives to be met. And it is not even certain that the rest of the world’s nations will accept it.
Obama and the United States proposed such low targets that they might as well have not gone to the conference.  While some have said that getting these five nations to agree that the world needs to not increase world temperature more than 2 degrees was an achievement, measured against what needs to be done, we should all be left with a high degree of dismay and fear for our future.
The failure in Copenhagen is mirrored by a similar failure here in Portland with our discussions of the $4 billion Columbia River Crossing.  We have failed to discuss the real reason we need this environmentally disaster of a bridge – corporate globalization.
While there are many stated reasons for building the 12 lane, or now 10 lanes CRC, the real reason is that a globalized economy demands cheap goods produced around the world (especially in China and Southeast Asia) be brought to market throughout the US.  That means bringing goods into west coast ports like Portland and transporting them across the US. The existing Interstate Bridges are the major chock point in the west coast distribution system and were recognized as such by the Bush administration.
Conversely, the corporate globalized economy also means exporting goods out of the United States. Oregon is a major manufacturing site for those goods.
Sure, the traffic across the existing bridges gets backed up but the real solution to that is to stop treating Vancouver as a bedroom community to Hillsboro and Portland, and begin the local development that would allow Vancouverites to stay and work in Washington.  The river is a natural barrier and boundary which should be recognized.  The Pacific Ocean should also be recognized as a barrier which should be bridged only when absolutely required.
Instead multinational corporations in their efforts to operate anyway and everywhere force all of us to engage in a destructive race to the bottom of all standards, be they environment, labor or democracy.  In their efforts to make the world safe for their operations, they attempt to bridge all the barriers, especially locally adopted laws and regulations as well as the barriers of nature.
The solution to the global climate crises involves going local.  The CRC is about continuing the destructive corporate model of the past.  This model has destroyed our economy (Oregon is on the verge of being bankrupt), disrupted our ability to make laws and to regulate in our own interest.  Now those same corporate interest have destroyed any opportunity for the world to alleviate the climate crises.  That corporate model tells us that we must from our limited funds build a super bridge across a barrier of nature so that cheap goods  produced in Asia from our outsourced jobs can move across the US to be consumed by fellow Americans across these US.
The answer to this is to build the local economy.  Building a 10 or 12 lane bridge builds the international economy at the expense of the local. It destroys the environment so that the corporate international economy can live.  When the international corporate economy lives, we will all die. 
I have copied below the thoughts of Walden Bello, who expresses these ideas much more clearly than I do.  Walden Bello writes from the Philippines; it is important to realize that the problem is not just somewhere else to be solved by other people.  This plays out here in Portland and the CRC is one major example.  Other examples here in our area are the Liquefied Natural Gas Terminal (LNG) proposals on the Columbia River and the Oregon coast and even the production of wind energy in eastern Oregon.  That wind energy will not, in many cases be used in Oregon but instead be transmitted to California.  Energy produced in Oregon should be used in Oregon.  And in keeping with the idea of localization, it should be produced in the area in which it will be used – on our roof tops. 

David e. Delk, Alliance for Democracy – Portland Chapter 503 232 5495

How Hyper-Capitalism May Hobble the Copenhagen Summit

By Walden Bello, Foreign Policy in Focus
Posted on December 8, 2009, Printed on December 20, 2009

Beginning in the second week of December, representatives to the United Nations Climate Conference in Copenhagen will wrestle with the challenge of climate change. This week, influential actors in the World Trade Organization Seventh Ministerial Conference taking place in Geneva are trying to push for a conclusion to the nine-year-old Doha Round of trade negotiations.
The two meetings are at cross-purposes and their juxtaposition highlights a profound reality: The world has to choose between free trade and effective climate management.

The Global Downturn: Relief for the Climate

The last 12 months have seen the unraveling of a particular type of international economy: export-oriented and marked by the accelerated integration of production and markets. This globalized economy has been transportation-intensive, greatly dependent on ever-increasing long-distance transportation of goods. For instance, a plate of food consumed in the United States travels an average of 1,500 miles from source to table. Transportation, in turn, is fossil-fuel intensive, accounting in 2006 for 13% of global greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) and 23% of global carbon dioxide emissions.
A downturn in the export-dependent global economy thus brings about a significant downturn in carbon emissions as well. It spells relief for the climate. In 2009, the drop in the level of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) has been the largest in the last 40 years. The thousands of ships marooned by lack of global demand in ports such as New York, Singapore, Rio de Janeiro, and Seoul means a significant reduction in the use of high-carbon Bunker C oil, which is used in 80% of ocean shipping. The cutback in air freight has meant a significant reduction in the use of aviation fuel, which has been the fastest growing source of GHG emissions in recent years.

Deglobalization as Opportunity

In response to the collapse of the export-oriented global economy, many governments have fallen back on their domestic markets, revving them up via stimulus programs that put spending money in the hands of consumers. This move has been accompanied by a retreat from globalized production structures or “deglobalization.”  “The integration of the world economy is in retreat on almost every front,” writes the Economist. While the magazine says that corporations continue to believe in the efficiency of global supply chains, “like any chain, these are only as strong as their weakest link. A danger point will come if firms decide that this way of organizing production has had its day.”
For many environmentalists and ecological economists in the South and the North, the unraveling of the export-oriented global economy spells opportunity. It opens up the transition to more climate-friendly and ecologically sensitive ways of organizing economic life. But the fossil fuel-intensiveness of global transport and freight is merely one dimension of the problem. Environmentalists insist there must be a change in the reigning economic model itself. The global economy must make a transition from being driven fundamentally by overproduction and overconsumption to being geared to real needs, marked by moderate or low consumption, and based on sustainable and decentralized production processes. 
Accordingly, the assumption of most policymakers in the North that consumption trends can continue — and that the only challenge is the transformation of the energy mix and the adoption of technofixes such as biofuels, “clean coal,” nuclear power, carbon sequestration and storage, and carbon trading — is not only based on illusions but positively dangerous. Indeed, the climate problem cannot be addressed strategically without addressing the inherently environmentally destabilizing dynamics of capitalism — its incessant drive, motivated by the search for profit, to transform living nature into dead commodities.
Instead of heralding this transition to a much less fossil-fuel-intensive and ecologically sustainable production, most technocrats and economists see only a temporary retreat from export-led growth until global demand makes the latter viable again. The policy debate in establishment circles focuses on who will replace the bankrupt American consumer as the engine of global demand. With Europe stagnant and Japan in almost permanent recession, the hope is that China’s growth will be the basis of global reflation. This is a mirage. China’s 8.9% annualized growth in the last quarter is due to their current stimulus, a $585 billion program that has been funneled mainly to the countryside. Domestic demand will likely cease to grow once the money is spent. A limited spurt of cash will not transform Chinese peasants into the saviors of the global economy. After all, because they bore the costs of the country’s export-oriented economy, these peasants have seen their incomes and welfare severely erode over the last quarter of a century.

The Doha Dead End

But however this debate over the global consumer of last resort is resolved, the World Trade Organization and its most influential members, both from the North and the South, hope that completing the Doha Round at the Seventh Ministerial Meeting in Geneva will bring about a resumption of the carbon-intensive march toward globally integrated production and markets.
The preoccupation of economists and policymakers with the export engine to revive the global economy, which often excludes concerns about the negative impact of export-led globalization on the climate, is a dangerous divide leading up to Copenhagen. Says John Cavanagh, director of the Institute for Policy Studies: “We have economic policymakers concerned with reversing recession and ecological economists concerned with strategic ways of reversing climate change talking past one another.”
The climate negotiations have their own share of problems, even without the WTO threat. In the lead-up to Copenhagen, the focus of the climate discussions has been on two issues: mitigation and adaptation. Both are stymied, largely owing to the positions of the industrialized (Annex 1) countries. On mitigation, pivotal developed countries have so far resisted offering legally binding cuts. And what voluntary cuts they have offered are slight. In the case of the United States, President Obama’s nonbinding commitment is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) by 17% from 2005 levels. This translates into an insignificant 4% reduction from 1990 levels, which serve as the benchmark for serious cuts. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has asserted that a 25-40% cut in GHG by 2020 is the minimum figure that would keep global mean temperature from rising above two degrees centigrade during this century. And, already, the latter is said to be an underestimate.
In the area of adaptation — assisting the poorer countries to prepare themselves for the consequences of climate change — the negotiations have been held up by the rich countries’ reluctance to come up with the minimum amounts of aid necessary, to transfer technology unconditionally, and to channel the sums to the developing world through institutions apart from the World Bank, which they control.
The challenges in these two areas are daunting enough. And yet, unless the question of which economic model or strategy the countries of the world should move toward is front and center in Copenhagen, even the most ambitious agreements arrived at on mitigation and adaptation will be simply a Band-Aid. Unless the negotiators in Copenhagen dethrone the Doha model, the fundamental driver of climate change — an export-oriented globalized capitalist economy based on perpetually rising consumption — will continue to reign.

Walden Bello is a member of the House of Representatives of the Republic of the Philippines, president of the Freedom from Debt Coalition, a senior analyst of Focus on the Global South, and a columnist for Foreign Policy In Focus.

© 2009 Foreign Policy in Focus All rights reserved.
View this story online at:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: