Roster of experts available for interviews with journalists
I am still in shock. Have we witnessed the change of UN rules here in Cancun?
How is consensus not unanimity? Imagine the reaction if the US
objected to consensus. It was the developed countries that first introduced the consensus mode because they were concerned that with numbers, developing countries could overrule them in a vote. And now
consensus is re-defined.
Plurinational State of Bolivia
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
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.
PLURINATIONAL GOVERNMENT OF BOLIVIA IN CANCUN
Add a Comment