Transport Workers In Bolivia Strike Due To Rise In Fuel Prices

Bus drivers and other transport workers in Bolivia began an indefinite strike Monday in protest against an increase of more than 70 percent in the price of fuel.

The drivers are striking due to a 73 percent increase in gasoline prices and an 83 percent increase in the cost of diesel fuel. The Bolivian government said it raised prices to encourage more fuel production in Bolivia and to cutdown on the smuggling of cheap, subsidized fuel across Bolivian borders to other countries.

“We cannot have low prices here and high prices outside [Bolivia], because then all our gasoline and diesel flow out like rivers. We have tried to protect ourselves from smuggling. We have mobilized the armed forces. We have done everything, but it’s impossible,” said Bolivian Vice President Álvaro García Linera, according to The Financial Times. “Our model of development needs to be protected. We will continue to grow and invest, but we cannot continue bleeding.”

Gas prices have been frozen for six years and the government says it can no longer afford to subsidize them.

The strike paralyzed transportation into Bolivia’s major urban areas and military transport vehicles were used to shuttle people to work.

“This won’t just affect the transport sector, this will affect everyone because all prices will rise,” said Franklin Durán, a spokesman for Bolivia’s bus drivers’ confederation, according to The BBC.

Vice President García Linera is in charge of the government while President Evo Morales is on a visit to Venezuela.

Republished from Latin America News Dispatch

Bolivia defends sharp fuel increase after strikes

AFP, LA PAZ — Bolivian President Evo Morales defended an 83-percent hike on gasoline prices, saying previous subsidies were a "drain on the economy" after bus drivers announced an open-ended strike.

Vice President Alvaro Garcia decreed the price increases -- which also involve a 73-percent hike in diesel prices -- on Sunday by removing subsidies that cost about 380 million dollars per year to keep fuel prices artificially low for more than a decade.

It was the sharpest price increase since 1991, when prices went up 35 percent, and follows six years of stable prices.

The government says the price increase was necessary in part because subsidized fuel was being smuggled across Bolivia's borders to neighboring countries.

"That money should stay here and the resources we will obtain from this move will be spent on productive local irrigation projects," Morales said at a ceremony at the presidential palace.

But Franklin Duran, the head of the Confederation of Drivers, which represents some 175,000 workers urged the government to "go back on this measure."

"We reject the measure taken by the government, and so we declare an indefinite strike" across Bolivia starting Monday, he added.

Faced with the growing criticism, Morales vowed the step would "not hurt anyone."

"The government and the president will never ignore the workers, but we cannot allow the money to continue trickling out through smuggling and corruption," the socialist president told mayors of towns near La Paz.

Private companies operate the buses and mini-buses that provide public transportation in Bolivia under Morales.

Up to now, only the drivers and a union representing city teachers have voiced opposition to the sudden price hikes.

While some taxis and city buses operated early Monday with unregulated higher prices, army trucks were drafted into service to shuttle between the working class neighborhood of El Alto and downtown La Paz.

Exempted from the price increase was natural gas for household use and for vehicles. Prices for basic services, water, electricity and telephone service were also frozen.

The government is encouraging city buses to modify their vehicles to run on natural gas. But at the moment, fewer than three percent of public transportation vehicles have converted.

Residents rushed to fuel stations before the price increase went into effect at midday Sunday.

Finance Minister Luis Arce said prices should stabilize by mid-January.

But economist Gonzalo Chavez of Catholic University said gasoline prices were the benchmark for the entire transportation sector, itself a reference for dozens of other products.

"We already were finishing the year with inflation rising to six percent and this is going to drive up inflation even further for the next three to four months," he argued.

Economist Alberto Bonadona, another Catholic University professor, said the measure was hitting ordinary Bolivians the hardest.

"Not just transport but food prices are going to be going up. Then there will be pressure for wage hikes," he said.

United Nations Approves Two More Resolutions by Bolivia: Harmony With Nature and Indigenous Issues

Plurinational State of Bolivia
Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores
Comunicado de Prensa
23 de diciembre 2010

Earlier this week, the General Assembly of the United Nations approved by consensus two resolutions presented by Bolivia. The first, entitled “Harmony with Nature,” asks to convene an interactive dialogue on International Mother Earth Day on April 22nd, 2011. Topics will include methods for promoting a holistic approach to harmony with nature, and an exchange of national experiences regarding criteria and indicators to measure sustainable development in harmony with nature.

This resolution recognizes that “human beings are an inseparable part of nature, and that they cannot damage it without severely damaging themselves.” It also seeks to contribute to the preparatory process for the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in 2012.

The second resolution convenes in 2014 a World Conference on Indigenous Peoples with the objective of contributing to the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Both resolutions make reference to the World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth, which took place this year in Cochabamba, Bolivia.

In the last two years, the UN General Assembly has approved five resolutions initiated by the Plurinational State of Bolivia. Four were approved by consensus, and one in a vote with no country opposed (the resolution on the Human Right to Water and Sanitation). Never before in the history of Bolivian diplomacy has has the country had such an impact in the UN.

Links to documents in PDF format: Indigenous issues (link 2) / Harmony with nature (available in all official UN languages)

Bolivian land reform: a country strives to sustain an 'agrarian revolution'

Land reform programs have failed elsewhere in South America, but Bolivia forges ahead in hopes of helping the poor farm their way out of poverty.

Sara Shahriari, Puerto Morales Ayma, Bolivia

The small town deep in the jungle here is much like any other community in Bolivia's tropical northwest. Situated along the border with Brazil, it has wooden houses, a school, and a store that sells basics. But Puerto Morales Ayma, in the state of Pando, was founded just a year ago by Bolivians from the western highlands as part of President Evo Morales's plan to grant government-controlled land to people with little or no holdings of their own.

About 900 settlers arrived here in August and September of 2009. Their goal was to build homes, clear jungle, plant crops, and form a community – thereby gaining title to the land.

The socialist Morales government reasons that with enough land, struggling Bolivians can feed themselves through farming and profit from sales in local markets. It says it plans to see this revolution through to a conclusion that lifts South America's poorest nation – and the one with the largest indigenous population, at more than 60 percent – out of poverty.

"It's an indigenous revolution," says Miguel Urioste, researcher and former director with the La Paz-based nonpartisan land rights group Fundacion TIERRA. "That's what makes the agrarian revolution in Bolivia different."

Many South American nations have grappled with land reform with mixed success, but only Bolivia, Brazil, and Venezuela remain embroiled in the process.

Reform began in 1953, when the highland indigenous population won release from forced labor on large estates and were granted the land they had formerly worked. But without enough land in the highlands to support the growing population, settlements soon became an issue. A colonization program of the lowlands was relatively successful in the 1960s and '70s, and Mr. Urioste says many who relocated to these settlements have a better quality of life than those who stayed behind.

Now, the government vows to complete land reform by determining who has legal right to every acre of land in Bolivia and making sure the poor and landless gain ownership of unowned or unused land.

The majority of Bolivians who would benefit from the effort come from the crowded highlands, where small-scale indigenous farmers are clustered and form part of Mr. Morales's base. Most of the government-controlled land available for redistribution, however, is in the eastern lowlands, where political opposition to Morales is strongest and where the landholdings of powerful non-in­di­genous Bolivians are concentrated. Some of these large properties drive production of crops for export, while others sit unused.

Puerto Morales Ayma and its neighbors were formed just months before the 2009 presidential elections. The opposition criticized Morales for trying to populate lowland states with supporters who could tip the region toward Morales's party, Movement Toward Socialism (MAS). The government maintains the settlements are not politically motivated.

Martin Jesus Silvestre, a teacher at Puerto Morales Ayma's elementary school, says resistance from locals was fierce. "They didn't want us settling here. They said we were invading," he says. "People from the right came here to threaten us, to tell us that we had to leave, that ... there could be a massacre."

Indeed, clashes between the opposition and government supporters in Pando left about a dozen people dead in 2008. Mr. Silvestre says the risk was worth it. "Before I didn't have even a piece of land, so I came here to look for a life, a way to survive, and to have my own home," he says.

Silvestre says relations are good now, but that animosity could flare up when more settlers arrive. The government plans to distribute more than 400,000 acres for new communities in 2011, a big increase over the past year.

Esteban Sanjines directs programs in the highlands for Fundacion TIERRA. He supports reform, but says the current model is not systematic enough. "A better process would be to enter a community in the highlands, identify the people who don't have enough land, and offer to take them to a new area," he says. "But it's not like that. They just ask who wants to go."

Today in Puerto Morales Ayma, most work focuses on clearing jungle to plant crops. Each family may clear about 7-1/2 acres of their 185-acre plot, brutally hard work done with axes, machetes, and fire. Seeds are being planted, and hopes are high that within months, watermelons, rice, corn, and tomatoes will grow.

Only about half the initial settlers made it through the first year. But those who toughed it out and plan to live in Puerto Morales Ayma say they are happy.

Jacoba Cahuana's family had survived as laborers in other people's fields, and news of land distributed free of charge gave them hope.

"When we first got here we were unhappy because we didn't know where we had arrived or how we were going to live, but we always trusted in the government," Ms. Cahuana says.

"At the beginning we suffered, but now we have everything – our land and our crops."

Morales: Bolivia was not alone in Cancun, it stood with the people in defense of life

By Adalid Cabrera Lemuz

La Paz, Dec 20 (ABI) – President Evo Morales denied Monday that Bolivia stood alone at the climate change conference in Cancun, saying instead that it preferred “to be on the side of the peoples of the world that defend life in the face of aggression toward the environment and the planet.”

Morales said Bolivia refused to sign the Cancun Accord “based on the principle of responsibility and the need to defend Mother Earth, which is under attack from the irrational politics of industrialization of the developed nations.”

“It is unfortunate that the industrialized countries fail to assume their responsibility and expect developing countries like Bolivia to carry on their shoulders the crisis generated by capitalism,” he said.

The Ambassador of Bolivia to the United Nations, Pablo Solón, lamented that developed countries “attempt to pay their climate debt with credits that force poor countries to assume the problems affecting the planet due to environmental contamination.”

The diplomat denounced the fact that industrialized countries want to create “fictitious markets to purchase vouchers for greenhouse gas reductions.”

Solón said “Bolivia believes this stance is not aimed at defending nature, since they prefer to spend 10 dollars to buy a reduction certificate for one ton of carbon dioxide, instead of 50 dollars to comply with that obligation within their own countries.”

Based on reports, President Morales said that the decisions approved in Cancun “are worse than those of the conference in Copenhagen last December.”

“Copenhagen established a limit to global temperature increase of 2 degrees Celsius and a 23 to 40 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, while in Cancun, that obligation was reduced to just 13 to 17 percent,” said Morales.

Morales also said that if reducing greenhouse gases by 40 percent would cause a temperature increase of 2 degrees Celsius, the decisions made in Cancun would in turn put the world on the verge of a rise in temperature of 3 to 4 degrees.

“Global warming has already had consequences for the world, putting life on the planet in jeopardy due to increased droughts, floods, and ever more frequent natural disasters,” he said.

Morales said that drought prevents the production the food humanity needs to survive.

He lamented the indolence of governments that do not listen to the voice of the people and instead prefer to maintain policies that commercialize the Earth without taking into account the fact that, by choosing this path, they are causing the gradual destruction of the world.

Morales said Bolivia will stand firm in its struggle to defend the environment and Mother Earth and demand that industrialized countries change policies that kill the planet and humanity.

Last April, Bolivia organized a World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth, which took place in Tiquipaya and produced various recommendations for preserving nature.

Some 35,000 people representing 147 countries participated in that event, including government figures, international organizations, and social movements from around the world.

Among its recommendations was the creation of a Climate Justice Tribunal to sanction countries, corporations, and individuals that threaten the environment.

The conference also demanded that industrialized countries pay back the climate debt they have accrued based on their over-exploitation of natural resources and failure to benefit the development of the peoples.

Why Bolivia stood alone in opposing the Cancún climate agreement

We were accused of being obstructionist, obstinate and unrealistic. But we feel an enormous obligation to set aside diplomacy and tell the truth

Pablo Solon

Diplomacy is traditionally a game of alliance and compromise. Yet in the early hours of Saturday 11 December, Bolivia found itself alone against the world: the only nation to oppose the outcome of the United Nations climate change summit in Cancún. We were accused of being obstructionist, obstinate and unrealistic. Yet in truth we did not feel alone, nor are we offended by the attacks. Instead, we feel an enormous obligation to set aside diplomacy and tell the truth.

The "Cancún accord" was presented late Friday afternoon, and we were given two hours to read it. Despite pressure to sign something – anything – immediately, Bolivia requested further deliberations. This text, we said, would be a sad conclusion to the negotiations. After we were denied any opportunity to discuss the text, despite a lack of consensus, the president banged her gavel to approve the document.

Many commentators have called the Cancún accord a "step in the right direction." We disagree: it is a giant step backward. The text replaces binding mechanisms for reducing greenhouse gas emissions with voluntary pledges that are wholly insufficient. These pledges contradict the stated goal of capping the rise in temperature at 2C, instead guiding us to 4C or more. The text is full of loopholes for polluters, opportunities for expanding carbon markets and similar mechanisms – like the forestry scheme Redd – that reduce the obligation of developed countries to act.

Bolivia may have been the only country to speak out against these failures, but several negotiators told us privately that they support us. Anyone who has seen the science on climate change knows that the Cancún agreement was irresponsible.

In addition to having science on our side, another reason we did not feel alone in opposing an unbalanced text at Cancún is that we received thousands of messages of support from the women, men, and young people of the social movements that have stood by us and have helped inform our position. It is out of respect for them, and humanity as a whole, that we feel a deep responsibility not to sign off on any paper that threatens millions of lives.

Some claim the best thing is to be realistic and recognise that at the very least the agreement saved the UN process from collapse.

Unfortunately, a convenient realism has become all that powerful nations are willing to offer, while they ignore scientists' exhortations to act radically now. The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has found that in order to have a 50% chance of keeping the rise in temperature below 1.5C, emissions must peak by 2015. The attempt in Cancún to delay critical decisions until next year could have catastrophic consequences.

Bolivia is a small country. This means we are among the nations most vulnerable to climate change, but with the least responsibility for causing the problem. Studies indicate that our capital city of La Paz could become a desert within 30 years. What we do have is the privilege of being able to stand by our ideals, of not letting partisan agendas obscure our principal aim: defending life and Earth. We are not desperate for money. Last year, after we rejected the Copenhagen accord, the US cut our climate funding. We are not beholden to the World Bank, as so many of us in the south once were. We can act freely and do what is right.

Bolivia may have acted unusually by upsetting the established way of dealing with things. But we face an unprecedented crisis, and false victories won't save the planet. False agreements will not guarantee a future for our children. We all must stand up and demand a climate agreement strong enough to match the crisis we confront.

• Pablo Solon is the ambassador of the Plurinational State of Bolivia to the United Nations. Republished from the Guardian

Bolivian president says he'll recognize Palestine

Dec 18, LA PAZ, Bolivia (AP) -- Bolivian President Evo Morales says he plans to recognize an independent and sovereign state of Palestine.

Morales says he will send a letter to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas announcing his decision and that in coming days "we also will send official statements to various international organizations."

Bolivia joins Argentina, Brazil, Cuba and Venezuela in its recognition of an independent, sovereign Palestinian state with borders recognized prior to the 1967 Mideast war. Uruguay has indicated that it is poised to do the same.

Bolivia severed relations with Israel in January 2009 after its invasion of the Gaza Strip in December 2008.

Morales announced his decision Friday.

Cancun climate agreement stripped bare by Bolivia's dissent

By Nick Buxton

December 16, 2010 -- Transnational Institute -- In the famous Hans Christian Anderson fable, "The Emperor's New Clothes", a weaver famously plays on an emperor's arrogance and persuades him to wear a non-existent suit with the argument that it is only invisible to the "hopelessly stupid".The moment of truth comes, as we can all remember, when a child in an otherwise silent crowd yells out, “But he is not wearing any clothes!” What we don't always recall is that the naked Emperor suspects the child may be telling the truth, but carries on marching proudly and unclothed regardless.

The story is a rather apt parallel for the Cancun climate agreements that were signed last week. Only one dissenting country, Bolivia, dared to voice its dissent with the agreement. Yet its voice was silenced by the gavel of the chair and by the standing ovations of 191 countries. They, like the naked emperor, must know that the deal is naked and without substance, yet they march on proudly regardless.

Cancun sets us on dangerous path to runaway climate change

Bolivia's indefatigable negotiator, Pablo Solon, put it most cogently in the concluding plenary, when he said that the only way to assess whether the agreement had any "clothes" was to see if it included firm commitments to reduce emissions and whether it was enough to prevent catastrophic climate change.

The troubling reality, as he pointed out, is that the agreement merely confirms the completely inadequate voluntary pledges of reductions of 13-16% by 2020 made since Copenhagen's climate talks in 2009. Analysts at Climate Action Tracker have revealed that these paltry offers are nowhere near enough to keep temperature increases even within the contested goal of 2 degrees Celcius. Instead they would lead to increases in temperature of between 3 and 4 degrees C, a level considered by scientists as highly dangerous for the vast majority of the planet. Solon said, “I cannot in all in consciousness sign such as a document as millions of people will die as a result.”

To a stony silence from fellow country negotiators, Solon also pointed out a whole range of critical flaws in the agreement from its complete lack of specifics on key issues of finance to its systematic exclusion of voices from developing countries.

Why the Cancun text is a backward step

• Document effectively kills of the only binding agreement, Kyoto Protocol, in favour of a completely inadequate bottom-up voluntary approach.

• Increases loopholes and flexibilities that allow developed countries to avoid action, via an expansion of offsets and continued existence of "surplus allowances" of carbon after 2012 by countries like Ukraine and Russia which effectively cancel out any other reductions.

• Finance commitments weakened: commitment to “provide new and additional financial resources” to developing countries have been diluted to talking more vaguely about “mobilising [resources] jointly”, with expectation that this will mainly be provided by carbon markets.

• The World Bank is made trustee of the new Green Climate Fund, which has been strongly opposed by many civil society groups due to the undemocratic makeup of the World Bank and its poor environmental record.

• No discussion of intellectual property rights, repeatedly raised by many countries, as current rules obstruct transfer of key climate-related technologies to developing countries.

• Constant assumption in favour of market mechanisms to resolve climate change even though this perspective is not shared by a number of countries, particularly in Latin America.

• Green light given for the controversial REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) program, which often ends up perversely rewarding those responsible for deforestation, while dispossessing indigenous and forest dwellers of their land.

• Systematic exclusion of proposals that came from the historic World Peoples' Conference on Climate Change including proposals for a Climate Justice Tribunal, full recognition of Indigenous rights, and rights for nature.

As a press statement from Bolivia put it: “Proposals by powerful countries like the US were sacrosanct, while ours were disposable. Compromise was always at the expense of the victims, rather than the culprits of climate change.”

Solon concluded that in substance the Cancun text was little more than a rehashed version of the Copenhagen Accord, that had been widely condemned the year before. Patricia Espinosa, chair of the talks, refused to open up any points of her draft text for negotiation and cheered on by other delegates made the legally dubious ruling that Bolivia's opposition did not block consensus. The Cancun agreements were "approved" to great celebration from the international community.

Cancun mood-music sways opinion

It became clear soon after the plenary ended that what seemed like roars of support for the Cancun text were more cries of relief or desperation. After the debacle in Copenhagen and following a probably deliberate policy by major powers who spoke constantly of "low expectations", the mere existence of an agreement seemed enough. As Chris Huhne, Britain's climate secretary put it, “This is way better than what we were expecting only a few weeks ago.”

The mood seemed to infect the larger non-governmental organisations who were gathered in Cancun. Greenpeace, whicht had labelled the almost identical Copenhagen Accord last year a “crime scene”, said that Cancun had put “hope over fear and put the building blocks back in place for a global deal to combat climate change”. Oxfam echoed, saying that “negotiators have resuscitated the UN talks and put them on a road to recovery.”

In the aftermath of Cancun, the main defence of the text has been based on appeals to realism. As Tom Athanasiou of Eco Equity puts it in his analysis on the accord: “The reason that so many people are celebrating the Agreements is because they believe that, setting aside the details, they capture the only agreement that was possible.”

Many environmentalists argue that at least with this accord and a reinvigorated belief in the UN, we live to fight another day. Meanwhile they warn that a collapse of negotiations in Cancun would perhaps have forever destroyed the UN process and even the possibility of any future binding agreement on climate change. Nearly all use one of the favourite mantras of the negotiations, saying that critics should “not let the perfect be the enemy of the good”.

Realism of science, or realism of the powerful?

However this argument supposes two things: first, that progress, even if small, was made at Cancun and second, that it is better to have some kind of agreement than none at all. This reasoning along with both the financial offers, cajoling and bullying of the major powers – which was revealed most dramatically in Wikileaks cables – is no doubt what drove most government negotiators to sign the Cancun texts. Yet both suppositions are highly questionable.

First, in terms of analysing progress, aside from the many other critiques of the texts, there is strong evidence that the Cancun agreements take us backwards rather than forwards. One of the key characteristics of the otherwise wholly insufficient Kyoto Protocol is that it had legally binding targets based in theory on the science. As we come up to the first deadline of 2012, 17 countries will almost certainly breach their commitments to reduce emissions by 2020 by 5% compared to 1990. Some countries like Canada, Australia, Turkey and Spain have instead vastly increased emissions. However the fact that they signed legally binding targets does open up the possibilities of legal challenges and a more effective incentive in future for countries to abide by their commitments.

By contrast, the Cancun agreement effectively kills off the Kyoto Protocol and replaces it with a pledge system of voluntary commitments. Not only does this lead to countries only offering what they plan to do anyway, ignoring what science demands; there is absolutely no possibility of legal penalties if a country fails to fulfil its commitments. It is an ineffective and highly dangerous way of tackling one of the biggest crises humanity has faced.

Will good be the enemy of the necessary?

The second questionable supposition is that any agreement is better than no agreement. This may be true for some international discussions on less critical issues, but is it for discussing a climate crisis where urgent and radical action is the only way to avert runaway climate change? As even supporters of the Cancun agreement note, the text has mainly punted off most difficult decisions to the next meeting of the UNFCC in Durban, South Africa, in December 2011. It already seems likely that we will see a repeat of the hype built up around Copenhagen and the equal likelihood of either a fudge or a failure – particularly if delegates can seem so easily sated by a few symbolic gestures such as the ones in Cancun.

Meanwhile the window of opportunity to act is closing. One report by the London School of Economics suggested that greenhouse gas emissions will have to peak by 2015 to have even a 50% probability of keeping temperature increases below 1.5 degrees C – the demand made by over 100 developing nations. The Inter Governmental Panel on Climate Change similarly identified 2015 as a time when emissions will have to peak to stabilise atmospheric CO2 at levels of 350 to 400 parts per million.

Yet in the face of this, the best the world community can come up with is an agreement to continue negotiating? And we are happy to call that a success? [As a side note, it can only be seen as deeply cynical that industrialised countries in Cancun agreed on 2015 as the date to review whether the global target should be 1.5 degrees C rather than 2 degrees C given that any action after that will almost certainly be too late.]

The truth is that Cancun revealed a shocking failure by the world's nations – and particularly those most responsible for causing climate change – to find a collective and effective response to a crisis that will affect the most vulnerable. A report by the Climate Vulnerable Forum, in December 2010 noted that already 350,000 people die from natural disasters related to climate change and that this figure is likely to rise to 1 million people every year if we don't radically change course.

Bolivia was not an obstacle to progress, it was rather the only country daring enough to tell the truth. Rather than less Bolivias, we need more willing to stand up and say that the agreement was "naked" and unacceptable. Perhaps if more countries – especially major emerging economies like India and Brazil – had said they would not accept an illusory deal, it could have shocked the world into moving beyond cautious approaches and acting radically for humanity and the planet.

Only mass mobilisation can shift power balance

The needed shift in thinking and action, though, will only happen if we mobilise and on a scale that has never been done before. Bolivia's bravery came to a large degree from the mandate it received at the World Peoples' Conference on Climate Change, and the support it felt from people on the streets just a few blocks from the Cancun negotiating halls. Thousands of Indigenous people, smallholder farmers and grassroots activists marched on the streets were unequivocal in condemning the Cancun agreements and in supporting Bolivia.

They already see the costs of climate change and were not prepared to be bought off with a deal that did nothing to safeguard their future. They were backed by climate justice networks worldwide. Yet the isolation of Bolivia in the conference plenary shows that this movement faces a huge challenge in the coming year to scale up. As Bill McKibben, founder of the global campaign 350.org, argues we need to “build a movement strong enough to take on the most profitable and powerful enterprise that the human civilization has ever seen—the fossil fuel industry” and we need to do it urgently before it is too late.

[Nick Buxton is a communications consultant, working on media, publications and online communications for the Transnational Institute. He has been based in California since September 2008 and prior to that lived in Bolivia for four years, working as writer/web editor at Fundación Solón, a Bolivian organisation working on issues of trade, water, culture and historical memory. He is a long-term activist on global justice and peace issues. In the late 1990s he was communications manager at Jubilee 2000, part of the global movement that put unjust international debt on the global political agenda. His publications include: "Networking for debt cancellation”, in Advocacy, activism and the Internet (Lyceum books, 2001); “Civil society and debt cancellation”, in Civil society and human rights (Routledge, 2004) and “Politics of debt”, in Dignity and Defiance: Bolivia’s challenge to globalisation (University of California Press/Merlin Press UK, January 2009). This article first appeared at the Transnational Institute website and is posted at Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal under a Creative Commons licence.]

Evo Morales’ speech at COP-16

December 14, 2010 by Ricardo Sequeiros Coelho

For me Copenhagen was not a failure. It may have been for the powers of the world, but not for the peoples of the world who became conscious …. Hope for the peoples of the world is cooling the world, lowering the temperature.

Everyone one of us, governments, delegates, must put us in the position of people who are victims of climate change. And what is it like to be a victim of climate change? Let us think of a family who doesn’t have services like heating, who lacks water, because of climate change, global warming, without work, and in extreme poverty. A family like this dies daily in the world. Don’t know how to survive, because no water in their community, region, feels powerless to do anything. Think of this family, or those on islands, small states that will disappear. What will they do?

Yet at these levels, we have policies like US or EU that want to expel climate refugees, even though these refugees are often caused by climate change

Here to represent victims of climate change, natural disasters. So call on leaders to take responsibility, and make history, representing peoples and not winning at expense of peoples. We also must look at the cause of global warming which is capitalism. We took about effects and not causes of the multiple crises we face: climate crisis, food crisis, energy crisis. Climate crisis is one of the themes here, nature, environment, this is one of the crises of capitalism. If we discuss and address these crises, we are are being responsible to our sons, grandsons, talking about future generations.

For that reason, we have a responsibility not just for now but for future generations. If we are responsible, we must change policies. Must change causes of global warming. Of course deal with effects. It is an obligation of large powers to pay the ecological debt. But more important is to change the causes of global warming.

We have discussed considerably internationally, regionally, meetings of social movements, it is an obligation how can we guarantee, develop, meeting second period of KP. Temperature now is 0.8 but must lower it to guarantee good temperature.

Have to think of family, can’t refresh themselves, because of rains don’t have shade of trees. We are talking about profound issues. If we from here, send to the Kyoto Protocol to the rubbish bin we are responsible for ecocide, genocide because sending humanity to death. If we are responsible as the elected governments of peoples, we must express their demands. We must adopt the decisions of peoples of the world. So can’t behind closed doors look at developing documents that don’t express thinking of peoples, that don’t comes from suffering of peoples. We have obligation to listen to peoples who tell us how to cool the earth.

We know there is a big debate in the US how to end extreme poverty. The best way to reduce poverty is cooling the earth. For this reason, take this opportunity of this world conference about global warming. Concrete proposal to reduce to 1 degree centigrade is the most important. According to the proposals from some powers, talk about 2 degrees and think even of arriving at 4 degrees. Imagine what our planet would look like with an increase in temperature of 2 degrees or 4 degrees given at 0.8 degrees we have serious problems in the world. One study released here by scientists estimates that 300,000 already die each year for climate change, could arrive at 1 million per year because of climate change.

Second proposal that nature is our home, land is our life. I am convinced that human being can’t live without planet, but yes planet can exist without human beings. We are not in the epoch of struggle of classes any more; we are debating how to live in harmony with the Mother Earth. Mother Earth has its rights. In past decades, UN approved human rights, then civil rights, economic, political rights, finally a few years ago indigenous rights. This new century is time to debate and discuss rights of Mother Earth. These include the rights to regenerate biocapacity, to have life clean without contamination, right to equilibrium and if governments don’t guarantee this, we are all responsible for ecocide. We know that some measures and laws are very important to obey. Laws must be complied with, which is why with much wisdom, peoples have proposed creating International Climate Justice Tribunal. We all know how important it is to create one to ensure compliance with KP. If governments don’t defend mother earth rights, we can make sure they do. (Applause)

We came to Cancun to save nature, forests, planet earth, not here to convert nature into commodity, not come here to revitalise capitalism with carbon markets. Forests are sacred for indigenous peoples, cant have new policies which merely survival of capitalism. If don’t tackle cause of climate crisis which is capitalism there will be lots of meetings but never will tackle the problem.

If governments don’t do it, will be people who force governments to do it. The social forces are matrix force that changes policies, ends empires, brings down large powers. If social forces advance, then progressive governments allied with social movements can guarantee life of future generations.

Presidents, I came to share some thinking of peoples and my same suffering. I am convinced that if Presidents take on their responsibility, not to certain powers, TNCS, companies, but instead to peoples, social movements we can advance. In this millennium we have an enormous responsibility to defend life. Thanks for my participation and hope for full participation of all the peoples of the world. Thank you.

Republished from Cool the Earth

Bolivia's new law against racism

Bolivia threatens court action to halt Cancun deal

La Paz, Dec 13 (DPA) Bolivia threatened Sunday to take court action to block the compromise deal reached in Mexico to confront the growing threat of climate change.

'We will file a complaint with the International Court of Justice in The Hague against the text approved in Cancun,' Boliva's UN Ambassador Pablo Solon told the government daily El Cambio.

The deal was approved Saturday by all but one of the 194 nations who attended the international climate conference in the Mexican resort. Bolivia objected on the grounds it did not go far enough.

Despite a lack of unanimity, conference chairman Patricia Espinosa approved the comprise, which includes efforts to reduce greenhouse emissions, billions in aid to island nations faced with inundation and a 2-degree goal limit for global warming.

Solon had argued that the draft proposals were too lax to stop global warming, and he stood his ground until Espinosa banged the gavel at 3.31 a.m. after saying: 'The objections and complaints will be noted duly.' Espinosa's very broad interpretation of UN rules that all agreements must be reached in harmony saved the conference. Harmony, she said, did not necessarily mean unanimity.

Solon claimed the way Bolivia's position was overruled represented jettisoned the principle of consensus and was an 'abuse of the framework agreement on climate protection'.

Bolivia's Morales vows to keep up fight for the environment

La Paz - Bolivian President Evo Morales complained Saturday about the climate deal that was reached at the UN summit in Cancun, to which Bolivia objected, and vowed to keep up his fight for the environment.

Left-wing populist Morales, Bolivia's first-ever president of indigenous descent, said the Cancun deal does nothing to preserve nature or humanity.

'A human being's temperature is 37 degrees. If it goes up to 40 degrees there is fever, and if it goes up further there are seizures. It is the same with the Earth. If temperature goes up too far it causes damage to the life of the planet and of humanity,' he said, according to Bolivian state news agency ABI.

The compromise reached at Cancun includes a package of new measures to help poor countries combat warming. In order to reach a deal, Mexican Foreign Minister Patricia Espinoza ignored fierce objections by Bolivia, which said the compromise was too weak to confront global warming.

Morales said Saturday that his country did not sign the deal because it will lead to the extinction of humanity.

'Although in Cancun, like in Copenhagen, they marginalize us and do not take into account our proposals to defend life, we will remain in the fight alone, together with the Bolivian people,' he said.

Morales noted that social movements around the world backed Bolivia's position, and that the small Andean country will work with them.

'The world cannot insist on irrational industrialization programmes which only provoke the extinction of the planet and of humanity,' he said.

He stressed that human beings cannot live without Mother Earth although the planet can live on without humans.

'That is why the Earth's rights are more important than human rights,' he said.

Evo Morales Promulgates Law That Lowers Retirement Age

TeleSur

Bolivian President Evo Morales, this Friday, promulgated the Law of Pensions whose content was, for the first time in the history of Bolivia, concretized by workers and representatives of social movements. The Bolivian leader declared that the promulgation of this new law is evidence of the deepening of democracy in the nation.

"What is most important to highlight is the fact that, when we bring together workers with their experience and our ministers and our experts, it is possible together to formulate, propose, and develop a law for the benefit of the Bolivian people," Morales said this Friday in a speech at the Bolivian Workers' Center (COB).

The text of the law, passed a week ago by the Plurinational Legislative Assembly, ensures that long-term social security be provided by a Comprehensive System of Pensions and that lowers the retirement age for both men and women from 60 to 58 and that of miners to 56.

The Bolivian leader emphasized that the passage of the new pension law "is proof that Bolivia is in a new era of deepening democracy in which citizens are protagonists who make decisions" that are taken.

Morales said that the ceremony to celebrate the new pension law is of historic significance "not only for the presence of leaders, of ministers, of the Military High Command" at the COB headquarters, but also because "unlike other governments the Bolivians are developing our own rules for the benefit of the people."

"In the past, millions and millions of dollars were wasted on some regulatory reforms. Consultants were hired, IMF experts and hired experts came, invited by the World Bank to impose rules against the interest of the Bolivian people," said Morales.

The Bolivian head of state stressed that his country "no longer needs millions of dollars and IMF and World Bank experts to draft and pass new laws."

"Much still remains to be done in Bolivia and the world, but we are now a major international benchmark," said Morales.

In his speech, Morales told a story of his trade union life and said that Bolivian workers "are a big family" who have historically fought for democracy and social change in this Andean country.

Morales saluted the Bolivian trade unions, saying that they came into the "government to begin to change Bolivia, to represent Bolivia, to establish sovereignty."

COB Executive Secretary Pedro Montes affirmed that the pension law "is not a gift, but a recognition of the struggle of workers."

The COB leader remembered that in the past the laws came from "the offices of bureaucracy and the bourgeoisie," whereas today "consensus with citizen representatives is sought and found."

The new Law of Pensions marks a new stage of inclusion ensuring that all citizens have the rights established by the 2009 Political Constitution of Bolivia.

This year, the pension issue roiled France after the French government promulgated a controversial law that raised retirement age from 60 to 62. That provoked fierce protests all over France.

Bolivia Decries Adoption of Copenhagen Accord II Without Consensus

December 11, 2010 (Cancun, Mexico) - The Plurinational State of Bolivia believes that the Cancun text is a hollow and false victory that was imposed without consensus, and its cost will be measured in human lives. History will judge harshly.

There is only one way to measure the success of a climate agreement, and that is based on whether or not it will effectively reduce emissions to prevent runaway climate change. This text clearly fails, as it could allow global temperatures to increase by more than 4 degrees, a level disastrous for humanity. Recent scientific reports show that 300,000 people already die each year from climate change-related disasters. This text threatens to increase the number of deaths annually to one million. This is something we can never accept.

Last year, everyone recognized that Copenhagen was a failure both in process and substance. Yet this year, a deliberate campaign to lower expectations and desperation for any agreement has led to one that in substance is little more than Copenhagen II.

A so-called victory for multilateralism is really a victory for the rich nations who bullied and cajoled other nations into accepting a deal on their terms. The richest nations offered us nothing new in terms of emission reductions or financing, and instead sought at every stage to backtrack on existing commitments, and include every loophole possible to reduce their obligation to act.

While developing nations - those that face the worst consequences of climate change - pleaded for ambition, we were instead offered the “realism” of empty gestures. Proposals by powerful countries like the US were sacrosanct, while ours were disposable. Compromise was always at the expense of the victims, rather than the culprits of climate change. When Bolivia said we did not agree with the text in the final hours of talks, we were overruled. An accord where only the powerful win is not a negotiation, it is an imposition.

Bolivia came to Cancun with concrete proposals that we believed would bring hope for the future. These proposals were agreed by 35,000 people in an historic World People’s Conference Cochabamba in April 2010. They seek just solutions to the climate crisis and address its root causes. In the year since Copenhagen, they were integrated into the negotiating text of the parties, and yet the Cancun text systematically excludes these voices. Bolivia cannot be convinced to abandon its principles or those of the peoples we represent. We will continue to struggle alongside affected communities worldwide until climate justice is achieved.

Bolivia has participated in these negotiations in good faith and the hope that we could achieve an effective climate deal. We were prepared to compromise on many things, except the lives of our people. Sadly, that is what the world’s richest nations expect us to do. Countries may try to isolate us for our position, but we come here in representation of the peoples and social movements who want real and effective action to protect the future of humanity and Mother Earth. We feel their support as our guide. History will be the judge of what has happened in Cancun.

President of Bolivia, Evo Morales speaking at COP16 in Cancun

Some select quotes from President Evo Morales’ speech and press conference at the UN climate talks in Cancun today. You can watch the press conference at http://webcast.cc2010.mx/webmedia_en.html?id=248 and the speech (in Spanish) at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVv3s4uST-k

On what the goal of the summit should be:

“Our aim here is to look at how to cool down planet Earth. Our planet has a high temperature, it is wounded, and we are witnessing the convulsions of planet Earth. We have an enormous responsibility toward life and humanity. … I call on leaders to take responsibility, and make history by responding to the demands of the people.”

On the experience of Bolivians of climate change:

“It causes me a lot of a pain as President to listen to my brothers and sisters talking about permanent droughts… Without water, there is no production, and without production we lack food. It may be easy for us here in an air-conditioned room to continue with the policies of destruction of Mother Earth. We need instead to put ourselves in the shoes of families in Bolivia and worldwide that lack water and food and suffer misery and hunger. I feel that many delegates here have no idea what it is like to be a victim of climate change.”

On the need to tackle the causes of climate change:

“We talk about the effects and not the causes of the multiple crises we face: the climate crisis, the food crisis, the energy crisis. The climate crisis is one of the crises of capitalism. If we discuss and address these crises, we are are being responsible to our children, grandchildren and future generations.”

On the Kyoto Protocol:

“If, from here, we send the Kyoto Protocol to the rubbish bin we are responsible for ecocide and genocide because we will be sending many people to their deaths.”

On the consequences of an approach based on the Copenhagen Accord:

“According to the proposals from some powers, they are happy to put forward measures that would lead to an increase of 2 degrees Celsius and some think even of increases to 4 degrees. Imagine what our planet would look like with an increase in temperature of 2 degrees or 4 degrees, given that at 0.8 degrees we already have serious problems in the world.”

On the need to discuss the rights of nature:

“In past decades, the United Nations approved human rights, then civil rights, economic and political rights, and finally a few years ago indigenous rights. In this new century, it is time to debate and discuss rights of Mother Earth. These include the right to regenerate biocapacity, the right to life without contamination.”

On the need for new enforcement mechanisms to hold those responsible for climate change accountable:

“Laws must be complied with, which is why with much wisdom, the people have proposed creating an International Climate Justice Tribunal. We all know how important it is to create one to ensure compliance with the Kyoto Protocol.”

Against the use of carbon markets to prevent deforestation:

“We came to Cancun to save nature, forests, planet Earth. We are not here to convert nature into a commodity. We have not come here to revitalize capitalism with carbon markets.”

On the need for governments to respond to peoples’ demands:

“I am convinced that if presidents take on their responsibility, not to certain powers such as multinational companies, but instead to peoples and social movements, we can advance. Why don’t states here go to the Peoples’ Summit in Cancun, and listen to the concrete proposals of social movements who come here in representation of the victims of global warming? Why don’t we agree to a global referendum; take the historic decision of practicing global democracy, submitting ourselves to the demands of the people struggling against climate change and for life? If governments don’t act, it will be the people who will force their governments to act.

On Bolivia’s ‘radical’ position:

We are familiar with the slogan “Country or Death,” but it is better now to talk about “Planet or Death.” To try and look for an intermediary solution is to trick people. It is the major powers here that need to abandon their arrogance in the face of the peoples of the world. My experience as a social movement leader has been one of frequent attempts to isolate me by the major powers – something I am proud to do – but I will never isolate myself from the peoples.”

December 9, 2010
Cancun, Mexico

Republished from PWCCC

Interview with Bolivian Lead Climate Negotiator Pablo Solón

Cancun, Mexico - On the antepenultimate (scheduled) day of the COP 16, I sat down with Bolivia's climate negotiator Pablo Solón to discuss how the COP 16 negotiations were proceeding, what Bolivia's demands were at the conference and how they were being received.

What are Bolivia's demands at the COP 16?

We are seeking the inclusion of key points of the People's Agreement that came out of the World People's Conference on Climate Change, convened in Bolivia in April by President Evo Morales.

The People's Agreement included the following items, which have been put forward for inclusion in the UNFCCC draft negotiating text:

1. a declaration on the rights of nature;
2. an inclusion of mention of a respect for human rights;
3. an inclusion of mention of a respect for the rights of indigenous peoples;
4. a definition of forests that does not include plantations or genetically modified trees;
5. a rejection of market mechanisms;
6. a rejection of the UN program to Reduce Emissions through Deforestation and Forest Degradation or REDD;
7. a mention of the impact of war on greenhouse gas emissions;
8. and the creation of a climate justice tribunal.

How are these demands being received?

We were deeply disappointed with the initial draft text that was circulated last weekend.

It was imbalanced and excludes the proposals of Bolivia and many other developing nations. It left out many things that Bolivia called for, coming out the World People's Conference on Climate Change.

There have been accusations that Bolivia is stalling the negotiations. We have come to seek an accord for humanity and for nature in its totality. The most current research indicates that 300,000 people die each year due to natural disasters and climate change. We are playing with human lives, if we do not produce an accord. So we are not blocking the process. Our proposals are motivated simply by a desire: to prevent the kind of disastrous rise in temperatures that would condemn humanity to death.

There are also rumors that Bolivia will walk out of the negotiations. Let me say that we will never close ourselves off from any kind of negotiation among parties.

How are the negotiations proceeding?

Well, yesterday at 2:30 pm, we received an invitation to attend an informal meeting where about 40-50 people would be meeting and we very respectfully said, we have a problem. An informal meeting cannot replace the official negotiating structure of the COP [Conference of the Parties, the supreme body of the UNFCCC, which meets annually]. That is why we have expressed our apologies to the chair but we left that meeting stating our signal is a clear sign of our decision to officially re-establish the meeting where we have all 192 nations present, where there is no one who is left outside. Our people did not come here on vacation. They came here to negotiate.

We have announced three projects: 1. on services; 2. on forests; and 3. on different approaches, which has to do with mitigation, where we wanted to discuss mainly the market option.

We hope that this signal will contribute to an official, formal, actual negotiating process. These consultations or extra meetings are all welcome but are supplementary and will never replace this formal negotiating process. We presented these three projects in a press conference and wanted to inform people of because we have always acted in the most transparent way.

In the UNFCCC there is a process and you have to respect that process. We are not sure what the structure of the process is currently. But it is necessary to have a formal and inconclusive process of negotiations through which mechanisms are submitted.

We do not want to go into any process of finger pointing. We want to find a positive solution. There are negotiating meetings affiliated with the two tracks and the two working groups. The discussions and the texts come from within the working groups. It cannot be that the negotiating groups negotiate and that we are then presented with a different text.

We do not want to repeat the situation we had in Copenhagen where we were working with the G77 and then we learned an agreement had been reached. There has to be a roadmap for official negotiations and there has to be a text we all know about.

Tina Gerhardt is an independent journalist and academic, who has covered international climate change negotiations, most recently in Copenhagen and Bonn. Her work has appeared in Alternet, Grist, In These Times and The Nation. Republished from Huffington Post

WikiLeaks reveals extent of 'US spying:' Bolivia

CANCUN: Leftist Bolivian President Evo Morales said Thursday that WikiLeaks had revealed the extent of "US spying" on the Andean nation and he did not regret expelling the US ambassador two years ago.

"We realize what US spying has been, before US President Barack Obama, after Obama... it confirms what we had strongly denounced," Morales told a news conference at a UN climate summit in Cancun, Mexico.

"I don't regret having expelled the ambassador of the United States. From that moment, there have been no coup attempts."

Morales kicked out US Ambassador Philip Goldberg in September 2008, accusing him of conspiring against his government.

Shortly afterward, the Bolivian leader also expelled the US Drug Enforcement Administration.

Morales also said that regional relations were unharmed despite secret US diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks showing the United States had sought cooperation from Bolivia's neighbors, such as Brazil and Argentina.

"It won't bring any confrontation between (regional) presidents," Morales said.

Washington has been critical of Bolivia's foreign policy alignment with Cuba and Venezuela, and its overtures to Iran, as well as its coca leaf cultivation for traditional and medicinal uses.

Bolivia last week denied it had agreed to allow Iran to exploit its uranium deposits, as shown by some of leaked memos.

Bolivia hosts WikiLeaks 'mirror'

LA PAZ, Bolivia (AP) — Vice President Alvaro Garcia Linera has posted all U.S. diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks that pertain to Bolivia on his official website.

He told reporters Wednesday he wants people to know the "barbarities and insults" of what he called Washington's "interventionist infiltration."

As Wikileaks' own sites come under attack, sympathizers have created "mirror" sites that duplicate them partially or in full.

Bolivia's leftist leaders expelled the U.S. ambassador in 2008, accusing him of conspiring against it.

Garcia's site includes two quotes:

"The truth will set you free," from the New Testament.

And from WikiLeaks' founder Julian Assange: "Every organization rests on a mountain of secrets."

NOTE: the website is available at http://wikileaks.vicepresidencia.gob.bo/

Bolivia: New Text by LCA Chair is Imbalanced, All Voices Must Be Heard

In a press conference this morning at the COP16 climate negotiations in Cancun, Ambassador Pablo Solon of the Plurinational State of Bolivia said that a new text released yesterday by the Chair of the working group on Long-Term Cooperative Action is imbalanced, and excludes the proposals of Bolivia and many other developing nations. The main differences, Solon indicated, must be ironed out in negotiations among countries rather than unilaterally decided by a Chair.“Debates should continue on the negotiating text that includes the proposals of all parties,” Solon said.

Ambassador Solon enumerated some of the proposals by Bolivia that have been left out: a consideration of the impact of war on greenhouse gas emissions, respect for human rights and the rights of indigenous peoples in climate policy, the creation of a declaration on the rights of Mother Earth, a definition of forests that does not include plantations, rejection of new market mechanisms that treat nature as merchandise, and the creation of a climate justice tribunal.

Solon did note that one essential proposal by his delegation remains: a 50% reduction of domestic emissions by developed countries by 2017. He pointed out that this position is very much in line with that of most developing nations in the G77 and China, where the minimum demand is for a 40% reduction.

In response to accusations that Bolivia is blocking progress in Cancun, Solon said that his proposals are motivated simply by the desire to prevent the kind of disastrous rise in global temperatures that would condemn humanity to death.

“We have come to seek an accord for humanity and nature in its totality… The most current research indicates that 300,000 people die each year due to natural disasters. You’re playing with human lives,” Solon said.

Solon indicated that the recent revelation on Wikileaks that countries were pressured by the US government to associate themselves with the Copenhagen Accord was no surprise to the Bolivian delegates. Along with Ecuador, Bolivia had $3 million dollars of climate finanace withdrawn by the US in April 2010 as a result of refusing to sign the Copenhagen Accord.

“It confirms what we’ve been saying all along… That is not a climate negotiation, it’s an imposition. We will not be bought,” Solon said.

The Bolivian negotiator also indicated his intention to remain at the table during the entire course of the talks this week. “We will never close ourselves off from any kind of negotiation among parties,” said Solon.

December 6, 2010, Cancun, Mexico.

Bolivia Ambassador to UN Pablo Solón Responds to Secret U.S. Manipulation of Climate Talks Revealed in WikiLeaks Cable

Secret diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks have revealed new details about how the United States manipulated last year’s climate talks in Copenhagen. The cables show how the United States sought dirt on nations opposed to its approach to tackling global warming, how financial and other aid was used to gain political backing, and how the United States mounted a secret global diplomatic offensive to overwhelm opposition to the "Copenhagen Accord." We speak to Bolivia’s ambassador to the United Nations, Pablo Solón. Several of the cables addressed Bolivia’s opposition to the U.S.-backed accord.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re broadcasting from Cancún, Mexico, from the U.N. climate change global summit. Secret diplomatic cables released by the whistleblowing website WikiLeaks have revealed new details about how the U.S. manipulated last year’s climate talks in Copenhagen. The Guardian newspaper reports the cables show how the U.S. sought dirt on nations opposed to its approach to tackling global warming, how financial and other aid was used by countries to gain political backing, and how the U.S. mounted a secret global diplomatic offensive to overwhelm opposition to the controversial "Copenhagen Accord."

Several of the memos addressed Bolivia’s opposition to the U.S.-backed accord. One cable from the U.S. embassy in Brussels describes a meeting this January between European Climate Action Commissioner Connie Hedegaard and White House adviser Michael Froman. The memo states, quote, "Hedegaard responded that we will need to work around unhelpful countries such as Venezuela or Bolivia. Froman agreed that we will need to neutralize, co-opt or marginalize these and others such as Nicaragua, Cuba, Ecuador." Soon after that meeting, the U.S. cut off millions of dollars in environmental aid money to Bolivia and Ecuador.

Bolivia’s president Evo Morales is also criticized in the leaked cables for organizing the World Peoples Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth in April. John Creamer, the chargé d’affaires at the U.S. embassy in Bolivia, writes, quote, "Bolivia is already suffering real damage from the effects of global warming, but Morales seems to prefer to score rhetorical points rather than contribute to a solution. This radical position won him plaudits from anti-globalization groups, but has alienated many developed nations and most of Bolivia’s neighbors," he wrote.

Well, to talk more about the WikiLeaks cables on the international climate negotiations and Bolivia, as well as the talks here in Cancún, we’re joined by Pablo Solón, Bolivia’s ambassador to the United Nations. He’s holding a news conference today in Cancún.

How are these talks going?

PABLO SOLÓN: Well, I would say that the final result, until now, is not good, because we don’t have a commitment from developed countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in a way that will stabilize the increase of the temperature well below one degree Celsius. Not even two degrees Celsius. The current pledges on the table will raise up the temperature in four degrees Celsius. That is catastrophic for human life and for Mother Earth.

AMY GOODMAN: Before we go on talking about these talks, I wanted to ask you about these WikiLeaks cables. These are not cables by WikiLeaks, of course; they’re WikiLeaks whistleblowing website released hundreds of—a quarter of a million of U.S. diplomatic cables that they have. You’ve just heard some of the quotes from the cables about Bolivia.

PABLO SOLÓN: Yes. I hope that we are not going to have to wait one year until we know really what happened here in Cancún, because what happened in Copenhagen is also happening here in Cancún, because there is a lot of pressure put into countries in order to force them to accept, I would say, a new version of the Copenhagen Accord. And we are afraid that we are going to have Copenhagen Accord part two in Cancún. So, for us, it is key to keep a very transparent and open negotiation, where all parties really put their positions on the table and where we negotiate. We have made a very strong critics on Friday—on Saturday, because the papers that are put on the table don’t reflect the positions of the different parties, of the different states. They reflect the positions of the chair, of the facilitators. But we are not still in a negotiation between parties.

AMY GOODMAN: You had some of the U.S. documents, for example, talking about the Maldives. At Copenhagen, they were fierce about the possibility of their island being submerged and that they would never cave around the issue of global warming. Then we see these documents, where they turned around, signed on to the Copenhagen Accord. No one quite knew why they turned so quickly. But the documents suggest that the U.S. paid them tens of millions of dollars.

PABLO SOLÓN: I can only speak for facts, because one thing that I must say in relation to the WikiLeaks is that they don’t bring the facts. So, I do not want to judge any nation. But one thing that I can say for sure is they cut aid to Bolivia and to Ecuador. That is a fact. And they said it very clearly: "We’re going to cut it, because you don’t support the Copenhagen Accord." And that is blackmail.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to read for you a part of the text of another leaked cable from John Creamer, the chargé d’affaires of the US embassy in Bolivia, your country. Creamer writes, quote, "Many Bolivians are quick to observe that Morales’s climate change campaign is about enhancing his global stature, not about the environment. Former Morales Production Minister and MAS replacement Senator Javier Hurtado said there is a huge gap between Morales’ strident, pro-environmental rhetoric in international fora and his domestic emphasis on industrialization as the key to development. The foundation of this effort is large-scale natural gas, iron, and lithium production projects, enterprises that have historically proven extremely damaging to the environment." Your response, Ambassador Solón?

PABLO SOLÓN: Well, I think this WikiLeaks reflects the strategy of the United States against Bolivia. They want to show that Bolivia is not seriously committed to fight climate change. They want to present Bolivia as having a double standard. Of course, that is their strategy. They cannot buy us. They cannot put pressure on us. So they try to sell an image that we say one thing and we do another thing. That is absolutely not true.

Bolivia, of course—and I have always said it—is a country that needs to have industrialization, but a very sustainable industrialization. Why? Because we import in Bolivia almost everything. And they know it. We import nails, paper, everything. So we have to develop some industries. But we cannot follow the same path of development of industrialized countries, because that is unsustainable. The planet cannot accept if we all live like Americans or like Europeans. And we know it, and we want to develop a new model, that we call to live good. So, that is our point of view. But the WikiLeaks show exactly the campaign that the U.S. has developed in order to undermine the Bolivian position in these talks.

AMY GOODMAN: So, what about right now here in Cancún, Ambassador Solón? You have the possibility that Kyoto is dead, Japan saying they will not extend, which is very significant since the Kyoto Protocol was hammered out in Kyoto, Japan. The same goes also for Australia, for Canada.

PABLO SOLÓN: The problem with the Kyoto Protocol is that Japan, Canada, Australia, Russia can think that there is no need for a second commitment period, but they have signed it. They are part of the Kyoto Protocol. And the Kyoto Protocol established in its Article 3.9 that there should be a second commitment period. So, while they are part of the Kyoto Protocol—and they are still part of the Kyoto Protocol—there has to be a second commitment period. We have come here to negotiate the number of the reduction of emissions, of greenhouse gas emissions. But we haven’t come here to negotiate if there is going to be a second commitment period or not of the Kyoto Protocol. I mean, if you are a nation, a serious nation, that have signed an international binding agreement, you have to comply with it. You can ask for an amendment, you can withdraw, but while you’re part of that agreement, you have to comply. Otherwise, you’re going to be in a very difficult position, because you’re going to go against the ruling of international law.

AMY GOODMAN: The U.S. has been talk [inaudible] balanced package here. What do they mean?

PABLO SOLÓN: Well, for the U.S., a balanced package is a balanced package where developed countries do whatever they want. They are not committed to a target for emission reductions. That guarantees destabilization and increase in the temperature. And a balanced package for the United States is that also developing countries begin to do commitment. So, for them, it’s less responsibility for developed countries and more obligations for developing countries. That’s what they understand for a balanced package.

AMY GOODMAN: How, in a word, would you say these talks are going?

PABLO SOLÓN: Well, from the point of Bolivia, we are going to fight until the last minute to have really a good outcome out of Cancún. The situation is very complicated now. Very difficult. We don’t see a clear movement in relation to emission reductions, strong emission reductions from developed countries. That is why it’s so difficult at this time. And just one thing. Each year, 300,000 persons die because of natural disasters that are caused by climate change. So, what we are going here to decide or to do will affect 300,000 persons that die per year because of climate change.

AMY GOODMAN: Would you pull out of these talks if Kyoto is ended?

PABLO SOLÓN: No. We will never pull out out of any talk at a multilateral level. We will always be there fighting and defending what is legal, what are our positions, and what are the positions of all humankind.

AMY GOODMAN: How does global warming affect Bolivia?

PABLO SOLÓN: Well, we have lost one-third of our glaciers in our mountains. We’ll lose, in the next decade, the other one-third. And this has terrible consequences for water, for agriculture, for biodiversity. In other areas of Bolivia, there is already almost no water. In the rivers, we begin to see that the temperatures have went very down, and we see fishes that have freeze in regions where that nearly never happen. So we’re already suffering the consequences of climate change. Look at Venezuela. Look at Colombia now. And to say, "OK, we’re going to postpone again the negotiation for one more year or maybe two more years," that’s to be irresponsible. That’s not acceptable for us.

AMY GOODMAN: At this global warming summit, you have the carbon market, all of the various companies that are very interested in what the carbon markets will look like. What does that mean? And what do you think has to be done?

PABLO SOLÓN: As we said it before, they don’t want to save humanity, but they want to save their business, their carbon market business. They want to apply to us to accept to launch new market mechanism. Bolivia has said we are not going to accept to launch new market mechanism, and we are not going to accept to have a mechanism that commodifies forests. We want to have a mechanism to save forests, to preserve forests, but not to develop a market around forests at the worldwide level.

AMY GOODMAN: How does war fit into the picture of global warming?

PABLO SOLÓN: Well, that’s another key issue. Bolivia presented a paragraph saying that we should take into account also the greenhouse gas emissions that come from warfare. They have erased it. Second thing, we have said the finance for climate change should be the same finance that now developed countries give to security, defense, and even war. How much do they give? About $1.60 trillion per year. How much do they say they are going to mobilize for climate change? Only $100 billion. So, it is really unfair to see that defense, security, war has more than 15 times than what they want to do for climate change.

AMY GOODMAN: There are few leaders that are coming here. There were over 120 in Copenhagen. Maybe there will be 20 here. President Morales is coming?

PABLO SOLÓN: President Morales is going to be here on Thursday, 9 of December.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, we’ll certainly cover that. We hope to be interviewing him right here. Ambassador Solón, we thank you for being with us. Ambassador Pablo Solón is the Bolivian ambassador to the United Nations, speaking with us here in Cancún.

Republished from Democracy Now Click link to watch/listen to interview

Speech by Ambassador Pablo Solon of the Plurinational State of Bolivia in COP16 Plenary 12/4/10

December 4, 2010 – Cancun, Mexico

Thank you very much, President.

We would like, first of all, to emphasize the great effort put forth on the part of Margaret in presenting us this text, which we will study very carefully. We would like to express in a preliminary manner that, nonetheless, we lament the fact that the imbalances in the earlier text have not been overcome in this second version.

Very quickly, some examples of what we mean: in this text, two degrees Celsius is still considered as an option, when clearly, various parties have proposed 1.5 and 1 degrees Celsius. We do not understand why this option continues to be chosen without first moving to a process of negotiation.

A crucial topic for the Bolivian delegation was contained in a paragraph establishing that any action related to climate change must preserve, respect, and guarantee human rights, a paragraph that continues to be eliminated despite the fact that it is in the negotiating text. We think that this is unacceptable.

Similarly, in the part regarding shared vision, in relation to the declaration of the rights of indigenous peoples, there continues to be a great omission. The proposal that we should also consider the impacts of war and the industry of war on climate change has also been eliminated from the text once again.

In the chapter on “various approaches” known as 1b5, the assertion that we are all in favor of the creation of new carbon market mechanisms is presented without brackets as though it were an agreed-upon option, when clearly, the delegation of Bolivia has expressed that it is against this.

An while we are forced to discuss carbon markets, the proposal of Bolivia that in these different approaches we should also consider the creation of a declaration on the rights of Mother Earth has been eliminated once again.

In relation to the topic of intellectual property in the chapter on technology transfer, we do not find any reference, and in the process of discussion this week we have made various alternatives to find a point of compromise, but none of that is present. It would seem that we are going to create a center for technology transfer that will in no way consider the issue of intellectual property, which obviously has an impact the topic.

The most serious thing, in mitigation, as the delegation of Brazil has expressed is the position of a great number of developing countries, is that we do not find reflected why here it is put forth that if we accept commitments under the Kyoto Protocol, we must accept at the same time a process of discussion on another binding agreement on the topic. This would never reflect the position of Bolivia and a group of other delegations.

We are going to put forth more observations, but this is simply to demonstrate that, for Bolivia, this is not a balanced text. It is the opinion of the president of the working group on Long-term Cooperative Action.

But clearly, it is not the text of negotiation of the parties, because the parties are not reflected here. And even if we are small countries, we all have the same rights.

Therefore, we ask that we return once again to a process of negotiation among parties on the basis of the text of negotiation /14, which is the text that contains all the positions of the parties, because in this text, the proposal of Bolivia is not reflected.

We believe, President, with all due respect, that we have to negotiate among states, and that we cannot continue to negotiate through the facilitators, or through the president of Long-term Cooperative Action.

This is a negotiation among states, and the time is now, a week after the negotiation has begun, for us to negotiate among states.

The facilitators, the president of the working group, have the right to present options to aid an approach between parties. But it is the parties that must discuss and negotiate their proposals.

Lastly, to finish up, we also have to analyze this document in light of what is happening in KP. Because for us, it is fundamental, and we have said it before, that in order for balance to exist, there has to be a second period of commitments in the working group on the Kyoto Protocol.

Thank you very much.