The Fight for Mother Ocean

 

The ocean, she breathes life into the earth, into you, into me. The ocean, this ultimate vessel for the ‘Elixir of Life’ unto which we are all ultimately connected, needs us so that she may continue to sustain us. You see, this vast blue and us, we are inextricably interconnected.

The ocean covers the majority of the planet – 97 percent, in fact. The world’s four major oceans are interconnected making the vast blue at one with the earth. This vast amount of liquid water is what makes our planet unique and the primary contributor to life on Earth. Yet, we have lost respect for her and her significance, polluting 88 percent of her surface with our debris, with the vast majority of it sinking to the bottom of our precious marine ecosystems.

The ocean began her life three billion years ago and we may never fully understand the mysteries that have evolved since then. She is wise this old girl. While the earth may not look the same, her duty to birth and sustain life has remained constant.

Never one to keep still, she is always in movement. In a tangled cycle of heat and vapour, the ocean gives herself to the atmosphere and disguises herself as bright clouds that give us shade from the scorching sun, and rain that waters our crops and provides us with water to drink. The ebbs and flows of the ocean current allow life everywhere across the globe to perpetuate, to flourish and to reproduce. The sea floor is locked in a perpetual cycle of birth and destruction that shapes our earth and even influences our DNA.

The Enlightenment assumption that natural resources were simply property to be exploited is naïvely nonsensical – if we deplete and destroy nature, we ultimately damage ourselves.  Our estuaries, salt marshes, mangrove forests, coral reefs, open and deep seas all depend on an ocean thriving and in good health.

For the world’s indigenous peoples, the ocean, like all forces of nature, is a living being, and must be respected, revered, and cared for. Beliefs anchor in facts: nature sustains us, guides us, gives us life and health. The ocean provides us with food, medicine, minerals, oxygen, and freshwater.

However, today we exercise our dominion over the sea and all of her creatures and organisms, and we are paying the price.

First civilizations had a transactional relationship with the ocean, riding the seas through ancient trade routes importing and exporting knowledge, tools, spices, minerals, and other riches, and expanding empires. The seas supported our livelihoods, helping society to become what it is today. Humanity has used the ocean against itself – the very reliance civilizations had on her for expansion and progress became the driving forces that are destroying her by impacting the earth’s climate.

In modern life, the threats of climate change and human destruction have forever changed the way our ocean and her ecosystems exist and evolve. Evolution is a slow process, usually, but with our consumerist and extractive mindsets we have taken so much of the earth’s riches and given it back in waste that it has caused mass extinctions in all life forms, not least in the ocean. If we continue the way we are, in the time to come all marine life from the deepest depths to the sandy shores could suffer one of the biggest mass extinctions in the history of our planet from warming seas and changing currents.

Our polar regions are warming faster than anywhere else on Earth. The Arctic Ocean once glistened with snow and ice under a pale sun, atop with glaciers so large that humans had little knowledge of what went on in life underneath. Now plankton, scores of fish, walruses, whales and seals all are fighting to adapt to warming seas. Polar bears that completely depend on the ocean to survive are drowning, and starving with nowhere to go. It is a case of fight or perish. Through our actions though, the ocean has little say in how she changes. The ice that once gleamed in varying hues of pale blue and white protecting her from above is giving way to deep blues. As the darkest depths of the ocean reveal themselves to our polar regions, so does our future become obscure.

We humans are so intelligent that we have long studied and understood geological processes of the past, yet we are so far inept at changing the forces that will stop it from happening again. We write the history books, what is stopping us from editing them to allow for a legacy sequel?  

The ocean is the most powerful force on earth – she is a mother, a killer, a healer, and a peacemaker – lest she have the power to rest in good health. As humans we have inherited the universal right to clean water because of its importance to sustaining life. Though, some interpret that as the right to exploit at all costs, that the ocean and its supported water forms are a commodity to fulfill our needs and desires first. As a living being, she deserves agency to pursue redress if it is damaged or destroyed.

The Rights of Nature is a movement that catalyzes the connection between us and the earth. The idea of giving rights to the ocean and all water sources is to protect them against destructive and exploitative human activity – that we may live in harmony with nature and not against it. It acknowledges the inherent intimate connection we have with her, how she has helped form this planet we call home, and that she may continue to endure and sustain us with her most important work flowing through life every day. It may reorient the way we live towards our responsibilities to nature. The ocean deserves her right to be recognised and respected.

If we retrieve reverence for our ocean, we can recover respect for ourselves and our future. Honouring the reciprocal relationship we have with Mother Ocean is key to hope for times to come.  While climate change is obscuring the outlook for the future state of our planet, one thing is certain: our ocean is worth fighting for.

 

 

 

 

What Now for Climate and the Planet?

COP26 is over. It’s all over. After 2 weeks of negotiations, speeches, commitments, scandal (like extractive company Santos being given centre stage at the Australian booth), protests, cries for change from some countries, and a certain level of denial of the role of fossil fuels by other countires countries, COP26 has ended with a weak Glasgow Climate Pact that has led the COP President to solemly apologise. At the end of the summit Alok Sharma said in an emotional speech,

 “May I just say to all delegates I apologise for the way this process has unfolded. I also understand the deep disappointment but I think, as you have noted, it’s also vital that we protect this package.”

At the beginning of the of the summit, UN Secretary General along with many leaders called for the need to strengthen the Paris Agreement and limit warming to 1.5 degrees celcius, which some argue is already out of reach. There was also a goal to look at phasing out coal and fossil fuels. So, by these expectations alone, the outcomes of COP26 have been deemed a failure.

Earlier in the week the draft statement was released calling for Parties to “accelerate the phasing-out of coal and subsidies for fossil fuels”. This text was monumental in the history of mulitlateral environmental pledges. Despite being in draft form, and a loose symbolic statement, it was somewhat of a win for envirnomental activists everywhere because it was the first time the need to phase out fossil fuels had made it into COP.

That win was short-lived when several countries which have been unnamed but we know included Australia were working to water down key proposals around the phasing out of fossil fuels. The final text agreed upon interrupted by a last minute intervention by India says that Parties should “phase down” the use of unabated coal and fossil fuel subsidies. It also left a numer of loopholes for the continued extraction of fossil fuels.

From an international legal perspective, the problem is that statments like the one made at COP are not legally binding. What matters in that respect is if and how countries pass the commitments made into their own legislation. Once there is proof of widespread state practice and opinio juris (a sense of obligation), then they become customary international law, which in theory makes them binding, but in practice it is a lot more complicated, especially in the absence of an international court for the environment.

The next problem is in the wording, which has been the bane of some of the progressive countries, as well as activists in the days before the signing of the declaration. The subtle change in wording from “phasing out” to “phasing down” is not insignificant because language matters in international law. A key component of international law and whether or not states are held to account is ‘interpretation’ of legal documents. As Odile Aman says, “[I] nterpretation is not a mere technical device, but a political matter of the utmost importance:  it may eventually depend on which interpretative method is applied whether a state (or any other actor, for that matter) can be accused of an internationally wrongful act, or whether it will be regarded as having stayed faithful to its commitments.”

COP27 has been scheduled for November 2022 in Egypt. The time in between now and then is a critical moment for states to demonstrate the commitments pledged in this pact by strengthening and introducing genuine and radical policies and legislation domestically.

It will also be a critical time for activists and environmentally concerned citizens to ramp up the pressure and work at change at the grassroots level. People power is essential! For Australians with the Federal election coming up, your vote can be an important driver for change. Changing behaviours, mindsets and attitudes is as important as changing legislation and policy. One reinforces the other.

There are now many complimentary frameworks and guidelines that can help us accelerate the change towards a more sustainable planet – at both the local governmental level, and at the level of people and communities. These frameworks can work together to guide transformative change.

If you are interested in how the framework for Buen Vivir can work in either your community or your local government, check out my book and other writings on Buen Vivir and please get in touch for ways this might be implemented in your local context.

Path to and beyond COP26 : why it’s important and what needs to happen Pt III

Photo by Riya Kumari on Pexels.com

Time to change the economic system


We are in a critical climate moment. As discussed in parts I and II of this post we know that we need transformative change. We know we need all actors to play a pivotal role. We know that we need to prioritize knowledge and voices of Indigenous peoples and traditional groups, who have a deep and inherent connection to the earth. We also know that we need political buy-in and multilateral commitments for a crisis that knows no geographical boundaries. Most of all, we know that we need wholesale systemic change – social, political, and economic. Let’s discuss that last point.


As Naomi Klein puts it in her book ‘On Fire’, “debates about climate action remain trapped in a paradigm that equates quality of life with personal prosperity and wealth accumulation.” We know, however, (and by we, I am referring to not just you and I, but politicians from all ideological perspectives, as well as economists and academics) that this perverse view of economics is no longer attainable, sustainable nor desirable. As the number of rich shrink, while simultaneously growing their wealth by billions, the vast mass of people living in poverty snowballs. The current global economic system exploits the planet and its resources for the benefit of very few, while those most disadvantaged will be the worst impacted by climate change.


Klein argues that in this respect “there is much to learn from Indigenous-led movements” like Buen Vivir, which she describes as a “focus on the right to a good life as opposed to the more-and-more life of ever-escalating consumption and planned obsolescence.”


Phasing out coal, moving away from extractive policies including fossil fuels and biofuels, moving towards a needs-based approach to resource consumption, towards renewables with an emphasis on community-based and small-scale renewable energy transitions will need to be part of the solution. Moving away from fossil fuels is the bare minimum, but it is not the magic bullet to save the planet from destruction. We need to do more. It is not good enough to replace one form of large-scale extraction (fossil fuels) with another just because it is the easier option the lesser of two evils. Non-fossil fuel extraction and exploitation also has negative, irreversible impacts on the planet’s carrying capacity, if not in the short term, in generations to come. Deforestation one major extractive activity but there are others. So effective solutions start with transforming the global economic model.


Major key adjustments need to be made to the global economic system, and national economies and development policies can begin to immediately reflect a wholescale commitment to striving for rapid and radical emissions reductions, and aiming for Net Zero by 2030. The UN says that countries will have to commit to at least 45 percent emissions reductions by 2030 if we are to have any chance of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees. Climate Council of Australia argues that this will need to be more like a 75 percent reduction by 2030, with Net Zero by 2035 based on current risk assessments. However, a new assessment conducted by Breakthrough, the National Centre for Climate Restoration argues that there is no carbon budget for 2030 as we are already overdrawn and that based on past emissions we are already on track to reach 1.5 degrees by 2030. Net Zero by 2050 is too late, yet loose ‘targets’ made by countries like Australia are locking us into climate catastrophe.


Released in a briefing paper earlier this year, Breakthrough argues that we will need to reach Net Zero by 2030 to keep warming below 2 degrees, a fact that has been argued by many climate scientists and advocates including Greta Thunberg. It states, “The world needs to be at zero emissions by 2030 for the 2°C target, based on three assumptions: 1. Mitigation expenditure no more than 3% of GDP; 2. No geoengineering; 3. Climate sensitivity is not low (Lamontagne et al, 2019. Nature Climate Change, 9:290–294).”

Whatever the commitment, to reach Net Zero we need a complete transformation of the global economic system. The CSIRO says, “Reaching Net Zero will require a fundamental reimagining of everything we do. It will require a new energy system, new modes of transport, new fuels, new materials, new modes of financing investments, new ways for industry sectors to interact and new ways of living on a scale – and at a pace we have never come close to achieving before.” But it’s not enough to assume that we can technologically innovate our way out of this. We also need a reimagining of society to transform the way, scale and speed at which we consume. To quote journalist Sarah O’Connor,


“To this new world, let’s not go back to a past that wasn’t working anyway !”


The global capitalist system that rewards competition and the exploitation of nature for the accumulation of individual wealth can no longer be logically and ethically argued as best system for an economy bounded by social injustices and planetary restraints.


In the near future, greater, more radical changes to the global economic system will need to be made. There are many proposals that policymakers and economists can consider, for example: degrowth, the social and solidarity economy, regenerative economy, and a circular society (which not only incorporates a circular economy, but also social and environmental factors including knowledge that impinge just outcomes).

It may be that no one single alternative model will be appropriate to transition markets to Net Zero, instead, key elements of the various significant models can be incorporated into one cohesive response that can be tailored to different contexts, so as not to reinforce the economic growth approach, but to level global equity, respond to fundamental needs and eliminate extreme poverty. With the last factor, it is instrumental to evaluate multidimensional poverty (environmental, wellbeing, social cohesion, health, education, sanitation, etc), not just economic poverty.

The path to Net Zero is not a linear one. It involves all actors – civil, governmental, business and organisations -and it requires rapid, radical systemic change to transform society, industry and politics in a just manner.

COVID-19 is the chance for a social and ecological reset….but, how? Part II

Support independent research

Become a monthly subscriber to get access to this and other content.

Subscribe to get access

Read more of this content when you subscribe today.