Climate change: Polar bears versus people

from Reuters Alert Net

Written by: Megan Rowling

Not so long ago, climate change was regarded as an issue more likely to affect polar bears than people. Back then, campaigning on global warming was the territory of environmental groups like Greenpeace and their supporters. Other charities worried more about poverty, developing-country debt and unfair trade policies.

But now, as this Reuters feature points out, the public and policymakers have grasped the importance of climate change to people's lives and the potentially catastrophic consequences of turning a blind eye. And, as everyone gets in on the act, the impact of green groups may be in decline.

"The mainstream has moved towards us," Gerd Leipold, Greenpeace International's executive director, told Reuters in an interview. "But consciousness doesn't necessarily mean change. We have the awareness, but it doesn't mean we behave more as green, sustainable societies."

Environmentalists like Leipold believe they still have important work to do in terms of getting people to change their carbon-profligate behaviour. But the growing involvement of relief and development agencies in raising awareness about climate change is another factor that has shifted the goal posts.

"Please don't leave this issue to the environmental organisations. They have a development blind spot, particularly with relation to climate change," Christian Aid climate adviser Andrew Pendleton told aid workers at a discussion evening organised by Medecins Sans Frontieres late last year. "Climate change is a human issue; it doesn't just affect ice caps and polar bears. It impacts on the poorest people."

Over the past couple of years, aid agencies have woken up to the threat climate change poses to their projects and the vulnerable communities they work with. They're starting to take climate risks seriously in their activities, and many are campaigning for greater international assistance to help poor people cope with the consequences of climate change.

Without the impetus provided by environmental groups, this would probably never have happened. But it's well known in climate change circles that the relationship between the two types of organisation has been more than a little rocky.

For some time, environmental charities were unwilling to talk about the need to deal with the human impact of climate change. Essentially they saw this as admitting defeat. Their priority has been - and remains - motivating governments and people to cut greenhouse gas emissions sharply with the aim of stopping global warming.

But, as researchers at the International Institute for Environment and Development explained to me recently, coalitions like Up in Smoke - which brings both sides together to produce joint reports on the impact of climate change in developing countries - have gone some way towards nurturing tolerance of each other's viewpoints.

Aid agencies have a better grip on the science and technology, while green groups have started to understand the linkages between climate change and development. Environmental campaigners are now more willing to treat global warming as an issue of justice and equity, acknowledging that the solution is more complex than simply stamping out the use of fossil fuels.

A Greenpeace booklet called "How to Save the Climate" argues, for example, "...it is up to rich countries to take action - by using their technological lead and financial resources to curb their own emissions and help the poorer ones to achieve economic growth without destroying the climate. The objective is called 'climate equity'."

Nonetheless, while strictly humanitarian agencies seem fairly happy to let environmental groups argue the toss on emissions reductions, those that campaign on development issues are eager to ensure that people get as much prominence as polar bears in international climate negotiations.

"This is why we need to be involved in arguing about adaptation (to climate change)," Pendleton said at the MSF debate, urging more aid agencies to speak out on climate change. "If we leave it to the greenies, they may not cut a deal that's in the interests of the poorest."