I had a January baby (she is now almost eight!).  So I remember the December before her birth as a month of profound anticipation.  Advent for me was not symbolic, but intensely real as preparations unfolded and my hope and trepidation grew.  I also remember an increased appreciation for the Mary of Luke’s birth narrative.  A road trip just before giving birth? By donkey, as in most Christmas imagery?  This seemed mind boggling in my ever increasing, ever more uncomfortable state.

A little fear mixed with the sense of promise is natural with a first baby.  There are so many unknowns.  What I remember is the comfort I felt from midwives, both the formal midwives who were on my “team,” and also the many wise women who brought their own accompaniment.  They answered my questions (and avoided some), shared my anticipation, and walked with me into this unknown time.  They were real comfort and presence, never taking away from my own wisdom.  They helped me enter the birthing moment with confidence and my own sense of power and purpose.

I think this vocation of the midwife is a very powerful idea for notions of solidarity.  In justice work, we walk with people who are labouring to birth a new creation, a new possibility.  Our task is accompaniment, and it is not passive, but rather deep action of listening and responding.  Our work is to support, to be led by those whose own wisdom holds the answers to the struggles and hopes of their communities.  And it has a degree of reciprocity:  in some situations we will “midwife,” and in other moments we will receive that accompaniment.  In KAIROS, we can testify to the solidarity we received from our global partners, who walked with us through the crisis of the loss of CIDA funding.  They helped us know our own wisdom, and hold on to our faithful mandate, our own power and purpose.

In the biblical story, the first act of civil disobedience came from midwives Shiph’rah and Pu’ah who refused to become complicit in Pharoah’s genocidal plan (Exodus 1).  In memory of them, and so many modern day midwives who support those who labour to birth a new creation, I offer this gift from my own church community.  The Midwife’s Carol is a hymn written by one of our church’s great hymn writers, Ian Sowton—a “midwife” himself, of sorts.  In the Jewish tradition of midrash, he places midwives at the birth of Jesus and invites a fresh view on this wonderful story of impossible hope made real in the Holy Child.  Thank you to Ian, and Merry Christmas!

The Midwife’s Carol

Music: Becca Whitla
Words: Ian Sowton
Church of the Holy Trinity November 1994

1.The birth itself was not too hard
good presentation, fine strong mum
but my dear it was a circus
I thought that half the town had come
Wash him clean, wipe him dry,
Hush you, shush you rock-a-bye, rock-a-bye.

2. There were these shepherds who burst in
my dear they said a talking light
told them to come and pay respects–
kneeling, they were, to that wee mite
Wash him clean, wipe him dry,
Hush you, shush you rock-a-bye, rock-a-bye.

3. He’s breathing well, the cord’s tied off,
her afterbirth’s come free, my dear
when three fine scholar blokes squeeze in
saying a star had brought them here
Wash him clean, wipe him dry,
Hush you, shush you rock-a-bye, rock-a-bye.

4. You selling tickets then? I said
buzz off you lot and let her rest
and they did, too, leaving presents
rich stuff my dear, the very best
Wash him clean, wipe him dry,
Hush you, shush you rock-a-bye, rock-a-bye.

5. All that public to and fro-ing
she watches as it comes and goes
with him tucked, dear, in a manger
pulled from under the donkey’s nose.
Wash him clean, wipe him dry,
Hush you, shush you rock-a-bye, rock-a-bye.

6. Winter solstice ‘twas my dear
shivery damp and animal stink
worship, palaver, gifts and all
what was going on do you think?
Wash him clean, wipe him dry,
Hush you, shush you rock-a-bye, rock-a-bye.

By John Dillon

Politicians are portraying the outcome of the Durban climate conference as a “success” because they have agreed to keep on talking in the hope of arriving at a legally binding pact by 2015 that would take effect in 2020.

Climate scientists warn that if we do not act sooner than 2020, climate change is likely to become catastrophic and irreversible. Current greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction pledges have put the world on track for temperature increases of 2-5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. If global average temperatures rise by 3.5 to 5 degrees, they would increase between 7 and 8 degres in Africa, causing immense human suffering and ecological destruction.

KAIROS partner Nnimmo Bassey, Chair of Friends of the Earth International, asserts that “delaying real action until 2020 is a crime of global proportions. An increase in global temperatures of 4 degrees Celsius, permitted under this plan, is a death sentence for Africa, Small Island States, and the poor and vulnerable worldwide.”

According to the official communiqué issued at the end of the Durban conference “Governments, including 38 industrialised countries, agreed a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol from January 1, 2013.” But these 38 countries do not include the United States, Russia, Japan or Canada. The Canadian government has declared that it has no intention of accepting new commitments under the KP and is expected to formally withdraw from it before the end of December.

Pablo Salon, former climate change negotiator for Bolivia, has exposed numerous loopholes in the Durban text. He says that without any new commitments for emission reductions by industrialized countries, “the Kyoto Protocol will be on life support until it is replaced by a new agreement that will be even weaker.” However, the part of the KP that will continue is its so-called Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) that allows developed countries to avoid making their own emission reductions through the purchase of “offsets” from developing countries.

At the Durban conference, the scope for developed countries to avoid emission reductions by purchasing offsets was expanded. Dubious carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects will henceforth be eligible under the CDM. Nele Marien, a former Bolivian negotiator, said the inclusion of costly CCS projects will generate an enormous amount of carbon credits, which will make the carbon prices sink even further, thus lowering incentives for domestic reductions in developed countries. But the worst is that CCS is a very insecure system given the risk that greenhouse gases stored under the ground will escape sooner or later.

Another serious problem is the failure of the Durban conference to address loopholes under the Land Use and Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) provisions of the Kyoto Protocol. According to Alex Lenferna, chairperson of the South East African Climate Consortium Student Forum, this could allow developed countries to increase their emissions by up to 6 gigatons (billions of tonnes) by 2020. This is a significant amount since 6 gigatons is also the amount that scientists say global emissions must fall by 2020 if we are to have just a 50% chance of keeping temperature increases below two degrees.

The availability of offsets under the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD) initiative was denounced at Durban by the Global Alliance of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities as a “privatization and commodification of forests, trees, and air through carbon markets and offsets … [that] threatens the survival of Indigenous Peoples and forest communities.”

The Durban conference failed to clarify the legal status of the promised US$100 billion Green Climate Fund (GCF), as many developing countries continue to resist putting the GCF under World Bank management. Moreover, the GCF still lacks significant commitments from governments of industrialized countries, despite some initial pledges by Germany and Norway. Canada’s Environment Minister, Peter Kent, said that Canada would not contribute “scarce dollars” to the GCF until all major emitters accept binding reduction targets. The GCF remains largely an empty shell as no decisions were taken on the use of innovative financing mechanisms such as a Financial Transactions Tax (FTT). However, there was a joint call at Durban by the governments of France, Norway and Bolivia for using an FTT as a source of long-term finance.

In the final days of the Durban conference religious leaders denounced the lack of commitment on the part of the richest countries whose historic emissions are most responsible for climate change. United Church of Canada Moderator Mardi Tindal asserted once again that “climate change is a moral, ethical and spiritual issue…. When lifestyles of the wealthy hurt the lives of the poor….and future generations, it is wrong,”

South African Bishop Geoff Davies insisted that “Historic polluters like the United States have to reduce their emissions dramatically,” calling their behaviour “shocking,” “reprehensible” and “sinful.” Bishop Davies, also called the current economic system “immoral” as it encourages “people to get as rich as they can and forget about anyone else.”

KAIROS partner Ivonne Yanez from Acción Ecologica in Ecuador voiced what many civil society increasingly believe when she summed up the Climate Justice Network’s call: “The only real solution to climate change is to leave the oil in the soil, coal in the hole and tarsands in the land.”

It’s the end of the second week of negotiations here in Durban.  A fair number of official and civil society delegates have already returned home, as this is where political leaders are left to make final compromises.  A total of some 14,570 people were accredited at the beginning of the COP.  This doesn’t count those at the People’s Space at the University of KwaZulu-Natal’s Howard College campus who were not accredited.   I wonder what the CO2 equivalent carbon footprint would be, comparatively, of all the participants’ travel and accommodation, the mountains of paper produced (even with recycling), the security and local support staff and volunteers, and utility bills.

There is pessimism about a second commitment period for Kyoto.  China, Brazil and South Africa have demonstrated flexibility in countenancing legally binding emissions reductions beginning in 2020 under a new post-Kyoto agreement, though India has not (yet).  The US (an observer), Japan and Russia are not yet willing to sign on to a second five or eight year second Kyoto commitment period.  And Canada? Well, Canada now says a new agreement should be negotiated by 2015 to include all major emitters including the US, China and India and that this COP can lead toward that.  Were that to happen, there would be a gap from 2013 on to whenever the next agreement would come into force.

Some here say the talks lack urgency and that the EU is consumed by its euro zone crisis summit in Brussels.  The US, China, India and Brazil, responsible for roughly have of the world’s emissions, are key but deadlocked. They don’t want to start negotiations on a new treaty until after the next IPCC assessment report in 2013-2014.  If negotiations don’t start until 2020, when emissions were to have peaked, as the US is pushing for, what hope would there be of keeping temperature rise to 2 degrees?  Who will stand up and say they killed Kyoto?

Canada’s profile has been very low and guarded here in Durban. Six Canadian youth who stood up during Minister Kent’s speech in plenary and turned their backs on him were thrown out of the conference.  When registering at the COP17 Civil Society’s People’s Space at the university, the from on the back of the badge asked for, in addition to net of kin phone number, chronic medical condition.  I was tempted to put down cynicism and satire.  I’m inspired by the transforming power of climate justice actions such as the creative, hopeful act of 2,000 children forming the image of a roaring lion in Durban’s beach to send a message to the negotiators. But I’m also  reminded of the conspicuous COP17 sign at the Durban airport that reads “Saving Tomorrow Today” and can’t help but reframe it as “Saving Today’s Decisions for Tomorrow.”

As the world’s biggest emitter in absolute terms, surpassing the US, China has nevertheless shown its willingness to cut emissions in a legally binding agreement beginning in 2020.  Canada’s approach seems to be that we’re not going to the right thing until everybody else does so first.  Mimicking the US, Canada’s preoccupation with China being legally required to cut its greenhouse gas emissions as a condition for Canada to consider being part of a new agreement fails to appreciate China’s status as a developing economy.  A column by Martin Khor (Third World Network, published in The Star, November 21^st) was left laying around at one of the booths in the COP exhibition hall.  Khor points out that by any yardstick, with 1.3 billion people, China is a developing country when looking at its per capita indicators.  GDP per capita in 2010 ranked a lowly 91^st of 184 countries at US$4,382, less than a tenth of the US.  China’s GDP in terms of gross purchasing power made it 95^th in the world, just below Ecuador.  China ranks 101^st out of 187 countries on the UNDP’s Human Development Index.  It ranked 84^th in the world in terms of emissions per person.  As a middle income developing country, if China is pressured to take on the binding emission reductions of an historically industrial country it will forego the status and benefits of a developing country, and there are many more developed per capita countries ahead of it that would be pressured to do the same. One of the Fossil of Day awards earned by Canada here at COP17 was Minister Kent’s comment about “guilt payments” being asked of Canada, demonstrating a lack of  understanding of the “common but differentiated responsibilities” embodied in the negotiations.

Following the interfaith service last Sunday, the Faith Secretariat held a coordination meeting.  During part of the meeting we broke into three groups to strategize: mitigation, adaptation, and campaigns/communications.  In the mitigation group as we were wrapping up to report back to plenary, Isaiah Toroitich (who had been in Canada in 2010 for KAIROS’ G20 Climate Justice Tour, formerly with Norwegian Church Aid, but now with ACT Alliance in Geneva) left hanging in the air something to the effect: “No deal may be better than a bad deal.”  A bad deal would be if the eventual US$100 billion annual Green Climate Fund management were to be managed by the World Bank which has shown itself to be consumed with the carbon markets that almost preclude real carbon emission reductions.  As for a second Kyoto Protocol commitment period at the end of 2012, as weak as it is – accounting for only a fraction of the carbon emissions that need to be cut – it is the best we have so far.  Indeed, Nicola Bullard of Focus on the Global South states in Bond’s Politics of Climate Justice, “It is crucial to retain rich counties’ legally binding commitment to any future agreement and any alternative that could emerge at this stage would be much worse.”

COP17 has given me an opportunity to interact with a wide variety of people and hear many things.  I me a nomadic Touareg from northern Niger based in Agadez with a group called Indigenous People of Africa.  We spoke about the issues in Libya and how NATO was quick to exercise the Responsibility to Protect when oil was involved, but not in places like Darfur in western Sudan. The oil of new regime will only too willingly comply with the dictates of the West.   I met a British educated Russian journalist in Murmansk (on the Barents Sea and largest city in world above the Arctic Circle) who said local residents there were largely happy with the effects of global warming.  Julia and I participated in a worship service last Sunday at Durban’s Central Methodist Mission.  The service was in Xhosa, South Africa’s second most popular language after Zulu spoken at home.  After about an hour and a half of hearty singing we had to leave to get to the Diakonia Centre for our lunch rendezvous.  While awaiting the start of the daily Climate Justice Now! debrief I could hear a presenter at a side event on the other side of a curtain saying  the negotiated text in a certain document had many  references to “whenever, wherever and whereas.”  Such is nature, one supposes, of COP negotiations.

While there is paralysis above in terms of needful negotiations on climate change, there is movement below.  The civil society resistance and alternative voice may not have been as forceful at COP17 as in Cancun, but there are signs that long-needed change will come.   There are hopeful possibilities that the climate justice movement’s ability to mobilize, resist and transform may coalesce with the “occupy” movement, bringing along the blue-green (perhaps red-green outside North America) alliances, coupled with localized resistance to fossil and nuclear in favor of locally controlled renewable energy.  The impetus of the Cochabamba conference of Indigenous people and civil society and renewed efforts of faith communities gives reason for hope that global citizens can take back the night of despair in what we’ve done to the Garden of Eden, our Mother Earth.

By John Dillon

Environment Minister Peter Kent wants out of the Kyoto Protocol (KP), which he describes as “ineffective and unfair because the major emerging economies [particularly China and India], still want to consider themselves … to be developing countries.” China insists that developed countries must commit themselves to a new round of emission reductions under the KP before developing countries will make their own legally binding commitments to emission reductions. As Chinese vice-Minister Xie Zhenhua said in Durban on Sunday “If [parties to the UN climate convention] fail to conscientiously implement what we have agreed … then how can we have political trust?”

Who holds the moral high ground in this standoff that threatens to scuttle the Durban climate negotiations?

Both India and China are recognized by the United Nations as developing countries. India is a low-income country whose average citizen is responsible for only 1.7 tonnes of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions each year. The average Canadian emits 22.6 tonnes. While it is true that China has become the largest single GHG emitter, many of its emissions are due to its role as host to manufacturing industries whose products are exported to developed countries. At 5.5 tonnes per capita, China’s GHG emission rate is still only one fourth that of Canada.

Contrary to the notion that developing countries are unwilling to do their part to restrain emissions, their post-Copenhagen voluntary commitments to GHG reductions amount to 5.5 gigatons (billions of tonnes) by 2020 versus just 3.8 gigatons for all developed countries, assuming that developed countries adhere to the higher of their proposed pledges.

China has already reduced the carbon intensity of its economic output by 20% over the years 2005 – 2010 and has plans to achieve a 40% intensity reduction by 2020. If China meets this target, its emissions over the next ten years will be approximately 2.8 gigatons less than they would have been without intensity reduction measures.

Canada also boasts of efforts to reduce the GHG intensity of its fastest growing source of emissions – the tar sands. Environment Canada reports that the overall emissions intensity of the tar sands declined by 39% between 1990 and 2008. However, much of this reduction is due to the fact that more unprocessed bitumen is being exported to the United States instead of being refined in Canada. Recently, efforts to reduce tar sands GHG intensity have stalled while their overall emissions have increased due to growing production volumes. The Alberta government aims to have tar sands emissions reduced to 14% below their 2005 levels by 2050. However, this plan allows emissions to increase for another decade and then stabilize in 2020.

Canadian tar sands operations emitted about 45 megatons (million tonnes or Mt) of GHGs in 2009. Emissions from the tar sands are projected to grow by 62 Mt by 2020. This growth would eliminate almost all the 65 Mt emission reductions that Environment Canada projects would be achieved through government measures by that date.

China is investing over US$35 billion a year in renewable energy, more than any other country. Half of the new renewable energy capacity installed worldwide each year is located in China. Moreover, China plans to increase its investment in research and development from 1.5% of GDP to between 2% and 2.5% by 2015 with the aim of lowering its carbon footprint by developing new sources of energy and low-impact vehicles.

By contrast, the 2010 federal budget terminated funding for the successful ecoENERGY for Renewable Power program after it elapsed in January of 2010. Only $146 million out of the $1 billion Clean Energy Fund was designated for investments in renewable energy, while $800 million was earmarked for dubious Carbon Capture and Storage projects. However, the 2011 federal budget did include a relatively small $97 million investment over two years for technology innovation in the areas of clean energy and energy efficiency and $400 million for housing retrofits. A modest $7 million was set aside for the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council to study climate change. This initiative was counteracted, to some degree, by a later decision to lay off Environment Canada scientists who were investigating the effects of climate change on agriculture, human health and water quality.

Canada’s stimulus spending plan in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis devoted a modest $3 billion to green projects while China devoted $221 billion to green infrastructure.

This is not to say that China is above reproach. British economist Nicholas Stern notes that if we are to have any hope of avoiding global warming of above two degrees Celsius, then China will have to reduce its overall emissions and not just the GHG intensity of its economy.

But is there any hope of persuading China, and other fast growing emerging countries, to go this extra mile if Canada actually pulls out of the Kyoto Protocol entirely on December 23^rd as several media sources have reported? The fact that Mr. Kent will neither confirm nor deny these reports adds credence to the notion that Canada will announce its departure from the KP after Parliament and most news media have shut down for Christmas. [Under the terms of the KP, a country wishing to withdraw must declare its intention one year in advance, making the Dec. 23, 2011 date just a year and a week prior to the Dec. 31st, 2012 end of the first commitment period.]

If declared in non-compliance with its first round obligations, Canada would have to make up its shortfall plus a 30% penalty in the second commitment period. It would also be suspended from use of the KP’s emission trading system, including the Clean Development mechanism where “offsets” can be purchased from developing counties. Canada’s emission reduction shortfall from the first 2008-2012 commitment period is variously estimated at between 719 Mt and 890 Mt. The additional requirement to make up a further 30% of that amount would require an emission reduction in the vicinity of one gigaton, something that would be virtually impossible if the tar sands continue to expand.

Whereas China has identified with African countries calls for a second round of commitments under the KP, Africa’s lead negotiator accuses Canada of obstructionism.  South Africa’s high commissioner to Canada, Mohau Pheko, accuses Canada of “bullying.” She says “We must also recall that many things are linked to aid packages and there’s arm-twisting” as other African nations have told South Africa that they are being lobbied by Canada to reject the KP.

What angers climate justice seekers is that Canada is resolutely moving backwards. By repudiating its responsibilities, Canada’s actions could scuttle or delay any progress at the Durban talks. As time is running out we risk being trapped by runaway climate change that threaten to end life on Earth as we know it. I urge anyone who would dismiss this assertion as irresponsible fear mongering to read about the latest scientific studies cited in our most recent Briefing Paper: Arctic melting Sounds the Alarm for Life on Earth.

On Sunday, December 4^th, several KAIROS partners and collaborators gathered to debrief and discuss their experiences of Durban COP17 (so far!) over lunch at the Diakonia Centre, home to the Faith Secretariat for this COP.

KAIROS partners discussing COP17 at the Diakonia Centre over lunch

Beyond Julia, Caroline, Ivonne, and Georgine, all of whom I’ve described in earlier blogs, there were Tolbert Jallah (General Secretary of the Fellowship of Christian Councils and Churches in West Africa, FECCIWA, and a coordinating member of the Pan African Climate Justice Alliance – PACJA – who visited the KAIROS Ecumenical Circle of Collaboration on Global Partnerships meeting in late September ), Vernie Yocogan-Diano (chair of Innabuyog, an alliance of indigenous women’s organizations in the Cordillera region of northern Philippines, and who was recently in Canada on KAIROS’ Living Courage Tour), Tetet Lauron (IBON Foundation in the Philippines, and part of the official Philippine negotiating team on financing, who was a co-panelist with Georgine for a climate financing side event, and was also recently in Canada for a Canadian Council of International Cooperation  climate justice conference), Joy Kennedy (member of KAIROS’ Ecumenical Circle of Collaboration on  Sustainability) and Kaitlin Bardswich (part of the same WCC-LWF youth program as Caroline) of the United Church of Canada. We asked ourselves the following seven questions:  What have you been doing at CO17 so far?  What have you learned?  What key messages will you take back with you?  What has surprised you the most?  What has disappointed you the most?  What has inspired you the most?  What will you being doing this next week?

Ivonne arrived a week before the COP (as did Ken), and along with groundwork South Africa and other Friends of the Earth International affiliates, deepened commitment to the “leave the oil in the soil” campaign.  In the last week she participated in REDD+, energy, and Rio+20 side events at the People’s Space at the University of KwaZulu-Natal (UKZN).  Georgine has participated in the Faith Secretariat’s orientation, rally, Global Day of Action march, and People’s Space side events on spirituality of the earth, and going beyond COP17 mitigation limits for the earth side events.  She has also interacted with young people from Angola and Mozambique in the hotel where she has been staying and reading up on climate change and finance in advance of her side event presentation.  Julia, who came late to the COP, had a surprise meeting with Georgine at the exhibition site next to the International Conference Centre (ICC).    She also attended a press conference and orientation of small islands states (SIDS) and a side event on climate and communications.   Meanwhile, Tolbert was helping host some 300 participants in a PACJA caravan that had just arrived, and joined with Patrick Bond in a side event where participant were exhorted as a last resort to get in the streets.  He also participated in a side event put on by the Action of Churches Together (ACT) Alliance on food security and examined conservation versus conventional agriculture.  Tetet participated in a side event in the ICC on food sovereignty and climate finance, and has been part of the Climate Justice Now! (CJN!) activities.  Vernie participated in a side event on Asia-Pacific Forum on Women and Development that dealt with gender and climate change, an IBON event on development effectiveness, and another on agriculture and climate change.  Caroline and Kaitlin have been engaged in the WCC-LWF youth program, where Joy has also spent time with youth.

In short, very full agendas!

In terms of what has been learned since being at COP17, Tetet said that, in effect, the more things change the more they stay the same on the inside of COP.  With the World Bank’s involvement, now civil society organizations may even include corporations.  Outside the COP, there is limited space for civil society action to be recognized by negotiators, which is a product, in many respects, of civil society’s resistance to the corporatist commodification of natural resources.   For Georgine, it is clear that some people have real control of the agenda and direction of the COP and wonders what will happen in the coming week.  She wonders if CSOs, especially the churches, are ready to fight for the right cause.

Tetet has low expectations of this COP.  Despite Durban’s “law of 14” whereby no group of 14 persons or more may congregate without official sanction, she is inspired that people can still protest.  She is disappointed that countries continue to protect their own interests.  Georgine is disappointed that leaders are holding on to their own positions too strongly – they must be ready from a different book as it relates to climate justice.

What has most inspired Tetet is that people are protesting in the streets.  There are good people springing up throughout the COP process.  Georgine has been inspired by the young people in the youth caravan and their creativity.  While Georgine is leaving COP17 shortly, Tetet be presenting a side event at the Diakonia Centre on ethical financing this coming week.

Tolbert said that people from the cities, towns and villages through which the youth caravan passed on its way to Durban wanted to come as well, but they know as much as they should about the processes and issues through fault of their national governments.

Ivonne pointed out that unity among civil society does not always guarantee the goals of better outcomes from the COPs.  In Cancun, for example, Via Campesina – the international peasant movement – wasn’t seeking unity with the rest of civil society.   Synergy is more important than unity.  There have been struggles and differences with the C17, the local civil society organizing committee for COP17, over various civil society approaches.  We must all be thinking about Rio+20.  Joy mentioned the interfaith struggles here in Durban in the lead up to COP17 where diversity has been maintain toward a common vision.  Ivonne said the issue of unity versus synergy (and perhaps lowered expectations of COPs since Copenhagan resulted in the smallest march this last Saturday in at least three years (Patrick Bond called it “biggish” – you can do the hermeneutics!).  Caroline thought that non-religious youth were more mobilized for the march than church youth.  For Julia, it was her first time at a COP and she was surprised the civil society delegates don’t have more space.  She hopes to come more prepared for future COPs.

Joy spoke of the value of reciprocity, referring to the South African church leaders’ ad in the Globe and Mail last week (which asked Canadians, who so valiantly took a stand against Apartheid in the 1980, to show leadership on lowering carbon emissions) and the National Post’s inflammatory response.  The values of the global South cannot so easily be dismissed.  Tolbert spoke of African governments needing more resources for climate adaptation and referred to a march last week to protest Canada’s position.  Climate change is killing Africans.  Joy said African governments need to continue to be empowered to stick to their KP track.

In terms of messaging, Ivonne said we must all learn better to sing and deepen our capacity to celebrate – as was evidenced in last Saturday’s Global Day of Action march.  She and Julia recalled how powerful and inspiring it was to hear a thousand rural women singing at once during a side event. Her commitment to “leaving the oil in the soil” is deepening.  The false vision or solution of a “green economy” (without substantial emission reductions) needs to be unpacked.  Joy noted that this will be important for Rio+20.  Jubilee South has critiqued this concept, as has Via Campesina.  This may forebode a separate track at Rio+20 than that which may be followed by high emitting major government, ENGOs, BINGOs and most corporations.

This coming week there will be a “Fossilizing Fossil Fuels” side event.  There have already been “King Coal” New Orleans style funerals at this COP.  Nnimmo Bassey launches Dystopia on Monday, December 5^th.

Vernie says COPs are not the answer as they are conferences of the polluters and climate criminals.  The activities outside the COP are more sensible.  No amount of reparations should silence protest.  Tolbert referred to Archbishop Tutu’s statement in the stadium last week that we’re all in the same boat (i.e., there is not planet B), some (i.e., the poor) will just get there (i.e., the afterlife) earlier than others (i.e., the relatively more rich) due to the effects of climate change.

by Jennifer Henry

“to provide for those who mourn in Zion--
to give them a garland instead of ashes,
the oil of gladness instead of mourning,
the mantle of praise instead of a faint spirit.”
Isaiah 64:1

61:1 The spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, because the LORD has anointed me; he has sent me to bring good news to the oppressed, to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and release to the prisoners;

61:2 to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all who mourn;

61:3 to provide for those who mourn in Zion-- to give them a garland instead of ashes, the oil of gladness instead of mourning, the mantle of praise instead of a faint spirit. They will be called oaks of righteousness, the planting of the LORD, to display his glory.

61:4 They shall build up the ancient ruins, they shall raise up the former devastations; they shall repair the ruined cities, the devastations of many generations.

61:8 For I the LORD love justice, I hate robbery and wrongdoing; I will faithfully give them their recompense, and I will make an everlasting covenant with them.

61:9 Their descendants shall be known among the nations, and their offspring among the peoples; all who see them shall acknowledge that they are a people whom the LORD has blessed.

61:10 I will greatly rejoice in the LORD, my whole being shall exult in my God; for he has clothed me with the garments of salvation, he has covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decks himself with a garland, and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels.

61:11 For as the earth brings forth its shoots, and as a garden causes what is sown in it to spring up, so the Lord GOD will cause righteousness and praise to spring up before all the nations.

Geneviève, Hélène, Nathalie, the two Barbaras, the two Anne-Maries, Maud, the two Maryses, Sonia, the two Annies and Michèle

These are names engraved on my heart.  I was 22 on December 6th, 1989 when 14 women were killed at l'École Polytechnique de Montréal.  I had no connection to any of the women who died that day, but as a woman, a feminist young woman studying at a Canadian university, it was impossible to be untouched.  This dramatic act of gender-based violence and what followed changed my understanding of the world and compelled me to join others in action to end violence against women. Now, in my busyness, I don’t always make it to a memorial on December 6th, but I never forget. 

Jaime, Donna Marie, Maxine, Pamela Jean, Janet, Victoria, Monique, Joanne, Ginger Lee, Cara, Jessica…

These are but a few of the at least 582 missing and murdered Indigenous women whose stories cry out for the attention of our country.  This is not a past but current crisis as 115 of these women remain missing. In only 53 per cent of the cases involving Inuit, Métis or First Nations women a person is charged in their homicide compared to an average of 84 per cent for Canada as a whole.  I am awed by the persistence of Families of Sisters of Spirit and Walk 4 Justice who raise their voices for their sisters, mothers, and daughters, demanding accountability and justice.  Write these names upon your heart and do not let our country forget.

I am similarly inspired by those the world over, who stand up for the women and girls killed in gender-based violence.  We hear of tremendous acts of courage, where women, seeing their friend killed in the work of defending women’s rights, steps into her shoes and continues her vocation.  In Colombia, Yolanda Bercerra and other women of the OFP (Popular Feminist Organization) do just that, continuing the work of their colleague and sister Esperanza Amaris Miranda after she was killed by paramilitary.  In the Democratic Republic of Congo, women victims of rape overcome their own fear to help and support other women victims in their pursuit of accountability and human rights.  They will not let anyone forget.   

Weaving through these stories is the common thread—we mourn and we organize.  These words are used explicitly to speak of the Canada’s Day of Remembrance and Action to End Violence Against Women (December 6th), but they also resonate with the global struggle, 16 Days of Activism to End Violence Against Women (November 25 to December 10). Remember and act, mourn and organize—it’s a wholistic call that is both personal and political.  It’s a reminder to honour each life, say each name, grieve each lost future and comfort those who mourn.  We are invited to do this with our whole heart, and then, to pick ourselves up, to pick each other up, and organize.  Act to expose the specific acts of violence, but also the values, beliefs, ideas, structures that allow violence against women to continue unabated.  Act so it does not happen again.  Persistent work to honour the women and girls who have died brings change, something new out of sorrow. 

The Hebrew scripture for the 3rd Sunday of Advent may very well be my favourite text in the Bible.  The imagery is beautiful-- “a garland instead of ashes”, “oaks of righteousness”, “earth [that] brings forth its shoots”-- but what is most significant for me is the wholistic vision of restoration.  It’s a promise that is both personal and political or perhaps better put, both pastoral and prophetic.  In the first lines the writer invokes the “year of God’s favour”, a societal restoration through the “turn the world upside down” practice of Jubilee. Liberation of the captives and good news to the oppressed, ancient ruins raised up and cities restored.  But there is also the promise of decidedly personal, spiritual restoration, binding up the broken hearted and comforting those who mourn.  God’s healing is individual and social, inclusive of body and spirit, city and nation—the whole of people and community. 
  
If we look closely at this text, we see that it is the mourners who become the healers, the restorers.  Those who mourn become “the oaks of righteousness.” It is they who “shall build up the ancient ruins, they shall raise up the former devastations; they shall repair the ruined cities” (61:3,4).  God transforms acts of mourning to acts of restoration for the whole community.  Planted in their very sorrow is new life, new possibility.  Through God’s promise, the wounded ones offer restoration to all.

When we pay attention to the deaths of women and girls, in our own country, or around the world, we feel like our hearts will break.  To say their names, in vigil and in prayer, mourns each unique life. Action together to end violence against women binds our broken hearts, brings comfort to our mourning, and opens the possibility for a world transformed in their memory.    

Loving God, may our remembering be a garland of honour and our comfort be an oil of healing. Embolden our faint spirits so that through Your promise hope and new life might take root in our sorrow. 

Sunday, December 4

By Caroline Foster

The climate justice rally was one of the highlights of my time in Durban so far.  Although mixed reports are coming in on the actual number of participants (anywhere from 3,000 to 20,000), thousands were marching in support of the adoption of a legally binding agreement coming out of COP17.  We were part of the faith groups’ participation in the rally.  The day began with us hitching a ride on one of the “We Have Faith” caravans that travelled from Kenya to Durban in the weeks leading up to the conference.  To learn more about this amazing journey of youth activists, please visit www.wehavefaithactnow.org. The caravan dropped us at the Diakonia Centre where we met up with other faith delegates.

Some of the most powerful songs, chants and dances of protest took place while we were waiting to join with the wider rally.  There was a large contingent of youth who have travelled on the caravans.  They were a vibrant group leading others in the chants and songs.  One in particular stood out to me.  One young person began by calling out “hello?” to which everyone else in the group would respond “hello!” and this was repeated several times before the leader would give a statement such as “we came from all across Africa and will not leave without being heard” after which everyone would cheer.  I found this particularly relevant as it is pertinent to the situation that our calls are answered.  It is one thing for us to call out, but who is listening and who will answer?  This chant demanded a group response that all were eager to give.  “This is our future,” they said “and not their future.”  They were very clear that they have heard enough talk. It’s time for action.

After this morning’s church service in a local township, I went to meet with KAIROS partners for a debrief on what has happened in the conversations and in the civil society meetings thus far.  Ivonne Yanez from Action Ecologica in Ecuador noted that sometimes unity is not the end goal for movements such as ecological justice.  It is apparent that many different voices and opinions are represented here.  For example there are very different goals represented by the small farmers’ movement then by the green energy activists.  Those same differences are exemplified in our small delegation of youth from around the world participating in Youth 4 Eco-Justice.  As we move in to the project planning phase of the program next week, it will be interesting to see how those perspectives shape groups and initiatives.

The multi-faith service this evening represented the diversity of voices from religions around the world.  I especially enjoyed the meditation component where we sent good vibes into the atmosphere for all of creation.  Finally, relax.  Take three deep, long breaths.  Sit comfortably.  I will leave you with some words from the service that I hope  you can use today to send out your own good vibes:

There is enough for everyone’s needs, but not for everyone’s greed – Gandhi

As a first timer to a COP, I’m blown away by the cynical emphasis on offsets and the carbon markets and the resistance to REAL emission cuts.  Will the hope of Kyoto Protocol die here?

At the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation Plus (REDD+) workshop in the People’s Space at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, Ivonne Yanez (of Oilwatch South American, a KAIROS-funded partner) said that the legal framework under which REDD+ is practiced in Ecuador does not explicitly forbid the government from accessing minerals and petroleum resources on Indigenous lands.    To the chagrin of one initially disbelieving workshop participant, Ivonne explain that is was ipso facto legal.  Arrgggh indeed.

On Sunday, December 3 the COP17 Faith Secretariat will host an inter-faith prayer service at the Steve Biko campus of the Durban University of Technology.  We would welcome your prayers, echoing the faith leaders in Durban, that negotiators, especially those representing Canada, would set aside climate-destroying policies and economies that impact the most vulnerable in the global South, and cause the deaths of over 300,000 annually.  Check out the KAIROS website for a climate justice prayer.

Beyond Nnimmo Bassey’s To Cook a Continent: Destructive Extraction and the Climate Crisis in Africa (Pambazuka Press, 2011) mentioned in an earlier blog, another hot seller here is Patrick Bond’s Politics of Climate Justice: Paralysis Above, Movement Below (University of KwaZulu-Natal Press, 2011).

I saw an op-ed page columnist in one of Canada’s national paper say the other day that it was a shame that the climate science debate was being thwarted because some take issue with the climate modeling and projections.  The columnist makes a disingenuous moral equivalency between the overwhelming preponderance of near-consensus climate science with some dissent by academics which turn out to funded by the petroleum industry.    Reactionary rhetoric – like calling “common but differentiated responsibility” under the Kyoto Protocol “guilt payments” – aside, the urgency of grappling with keeping temperatures below 2 degrees C should not be sidetracked  by dithering over the empirical  human and natural degradation already at play in Africa, low lying coastal areas, and small island states.

By John Dillon

Environment Minister Peter Kent maintains that Canada is refusing to commit to further greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions under the Kyoto Protocol (KP) because the KP only applies to developed countries. He says developing and emerging countries must also be included in a global pact.

In fact, 191 countries have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol. Only the United States remains outside of it. While developed countries like Canada assumed specific emission reduction commitments under the first phase of the protocol, developing countries also made general promises to reduce emissions. Since developed countries are responsible for 75% of all carbon emissions from the beginning of the industrial era, it is only fair that they make larger commitments under the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities enshrined in the UN climate convention.

The smaller, voluntary pledges that Canada and other developed countries made at Copenhagen to replace their legally-binding obligations under the Kyoto Protocol would lead to global temperature increases of  up to 5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. This extremely dangerous amount of warming is well above the official two-degree target, let alone the 1.5 degree target favoured by the least developed countries and small island states that have the most to lose if climate change continues. Moreover, China, India, Brazil and other developing countries have promised larger GHG emission reductions than those pledged at Copenhagen by all the industrialized nations. (See details on page 2 of our Briefing Paper Is Durban the world’s last, best hope to avoid climate disaster?)

Now, in the early days of the Durban conference, the Canadian delegation is implying that access to $400 million promised by Canada to fund climate mitigation and adaptation measures in developing counties is dependent on their agreeing to participate in a new post-Kyoto pact. Canada’s chief climate negotiator, Guy Saint-Jacques, told the Canadian Press that “Developing countries realize that they will not have access to aid money for climate change adaptation unless a path forward is found.”

When Minister Kent announced that Canada would contribute the $400 million to developing countries, he said “We haven’t identified the major focus of our funding.” But he did indicate that most of the money would be given on a bilateral basis to projects selected by Ottawa rather than through multilateral institutions.

When Canada announced a similar $400 million pledge prior to last year’s Cancún conference, 71% of it ($285.7 million ) was earmarked for the International Finance Corporation (IFC), a branch of the World Bank that makes loans to private companies. Instead of providing financial assistance directly to developing countries, 63% of all IFC investments in low-income countries over the years 2008-2010 was channelled through loans to transnational corporations based in Northern countries.

Observers present at the climate talks in Durban report that there is much talk of industrial countries threatening least developed countries with the loss of Official Development Assistance if they insist on a global target of 1.5 degrees or persist in demanding that any pact contain binding commitments for developed countries.

The threat of withholding development assistance from the poorest developing countries as a way of buying their acquiescence in climate talks is not unprecedented. Thanks to Wikileaks, we know that in 2010 the United States cut a deal with the Maldives involving US$50 million in project aid in return for compliance with the Copenhagen Accord. Moreover, another cable divulged by Wikileaks revealed that the US deputy climate envoy, Jonathan Pershing, met the EU climate action commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, who told him that the Alliance of Small Island States countries “could be our best allies,” given their need for financing.

Other cables tell about threats to withhold funds from Ethiopia when that country led the African Union’s climate change negotiations. After the US cut aid to Bolivia and Ecuador for their refusal to back the Copenhagen Accord, Ecuador turned the tables by publicly offering to grant the USA the same amount of money if it would ratify the Kyoto Protocol.

While the $400 million offered by Canada this year as its share of the US$10 billion in annual financing pledged at Copenhagen for each year from 2010 through 2012 is significant, there is a much larger financial package under negotiation at Durban. Last year at Cancún an agreement was reached to establish a US$100 billion Green Climate Fund (GCF). Where the money would come from was referred to a Transitional Committee whose report heavily favours channelling funds through the private sector.

Now Minister Kent is backing the United States’ position that it will not support the US$100 billion GCF unless major emerging countries also commit to GHG emission reductions.

So far at Durban the least developed countries and Small Island States have stuck to their demands that there must be a second round of emission reduction commitments under the Kyoto Protocol. If cracks appear in their united front and some of these countries begin acquiesce with calls for a weaker, voluntary agreement, I suggest we look for evidence for any change of heart by following the money.

Following  November 26^th’s orientation and dinner (a local favourite,  “bunny chow” – hollowed-out loaf of bread filled with curry and eaten with fingers) at the Diakonia Centre (Diakonia Council of Churches – Durban, a rather unique local council of churches that has a long history of activism and resistance to the government of the day under Apartheid), it was off to the Kings Park rugby stadium the next day for the climate justice (“We Have Faith) inter-faith) rally and concert.

Ken and I met up with the Friends of the Earth International (FOEI) group so we could go together to the rally.  The FOEI affiliate in Nigeria, Environmental Rights Action (ERA), hosts both the International and African secretariats of Oilwatch, and so we linked up with Ivonne Yanez of Oilwatch South America.  Also there was Nnimmo Bassey who is director of ERA, Chair of FOEI, and coordinator of Oilwatch International.  I had him sign my newly purchased copy of his book “To Cook a Continent:  Destructive Extraction and the Climate Crisis in Africa” (Pambazuka Press, 2012) where he thanked KAIROS (and its members and constituency) for supporting the Oilwatch movement.  Oilwatch has coined the phrases “keep the oil in the soil” and “keep the coal in the hole.”   Nnimmo is also a Pentecostal pastor, one of Time magazine’s 2009 Heroes of the Environment, and co-winner in 2010 of the Right Livelihood Award (the Alternative Nobel Prize).

I also linked up with Georgine and Caroline during the rally.   The near capacity crowd that the Faith Secretariat has envisioned never materialized, but many of the speakers and all of the music were incredible.  One of the headliners was of course Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu.  He has an endearing habit of stopping mid thought and letting out loud, high pitched cackles when the Spirit and his funny bone strike him.  As he was describing how we all live on one planet that both the poor and the rich must share, he stopped and laughed and continued: when catastrophic climate change strikes and takes the poor first, they – the poor — will be waiting  for the rich who will come a bit later. suffering a similar fate, having destroyed the same planet.

Those of us gathered were addressed by faith leaders, the Mayor of Durban,  the head of the UNFCCC, Christine Figueres, and COP17 president Maite Nkoana-Mashabane.  The Youth Caravan that had travelled through several East and Southern African countries accompanied an ark to the stage in the stadium with thousands of We Have Faith petition signatures.  Georgine had tried to have her youth and university students link up with the caravan when it passed through Tanzania; but because WSCF’s KAIROS-supported climate justice workshop was in Arusha, not Dar es Salaam on the caravan’s path, and because Tanzanian authorities wouldn’t allow a public demonstration due to security concerns connected to Al Shabab in Somalia, it didn’t happen.

Music included the Durban Gospel Choir, Yvonne Chaka-Chaka, and Ladysmith Black Mambazo.