Eucaristía en la catedral

El viernes 11 Caritas Internacional y CIDSE , que es la coordinadora de grandes ongs católicas, organizaron una Eucaristía en la Catedral de San Oscar, aquí en Copenhague. Los católicos en Dinamarca son el 0,6%, muy pocos, era una forma de que los católicos daneses sintiesen la cercanía de la Iglesia, especialmente de organizaciones como Caritas que ha estado más implicada en el seguimiento de las cuestiones del Cambio Climático. Además era la gran oportunidad para encontrarnos los católicos que estamos participando en la Conferencia: miembros de ongs, de congregaciones religiosas pero también funcionarios. Fue una ceremonia muy bonita, animada por un coro estupendo de chavales y chavalas daneses.

Con motivo de la Conferencia Caritas ha invitado a un grupo de obispos de todo el mundo para hacerse presentes, por eso presidió la Eucaristía el obispo de Kampala, Uganda, Cyprian Kizito Lwanga (ver homilía). Estaban también el obispo de Copenhague, Czeslaw Kozon, el obispo de Nuevo Laredo, Méjico, Gustavo Vega; el obispo de Padang, Indonesia, Martinus Situmorang; el obispo auxiliar de Dhaka, Bangladesh, Theotonius Gomes; y, el obispo de Chimoio, Mozambique, Francisco Joao Silota. Fue realmente una imagen muy universal de la Iglesia.

El evangelio del día me pareció muy oportuno para lo que está pasando aquí en Copenhague: (San Mateo 11,16-19). ¿Con quién puedo comparar a esta generación? Se parece a esos muchachos que, sentados en la plaza, gritan a los otros: ‘¡Les tocamos la flauta, y ustedes no bailaron! ¡Entonamos cantos fúnebres, y no lloraron!’. Porque llegó Juan, que no come ni bebe, y ustedes dicen: ‘¡Ha perdido la cabeza!’. Llegó el Hijo del hombre, que come y bebe, y dicen: ‘Es un glotón y un borracho, amigo de publicanos y pecadores’. Pero la Sabiduría ha quedado justificada por sus obras”. Nos han avisado, nos lo han dicho: los científicos, los habitantes de las islas del pacífico que ven como el agua va ganando terreno, los habitantes de zonas tropicales que padecen tifones cada vez más frecuentes y graves, los indígenas que ven sus bosques desaparecer, y con ellos su modo de vivir; los habitantes de alta montaña que asisten impotentes a la desaparición de glaciares y reservas de agua; los campesinos africanos que sufren sequías cada vez más prolongadas y recurrentes… nos han avisado, han entonado cantos fúnebres y no hemos llorado. Desde luego somos una generación difícil.

El problema del cambio climático es una señal, tal vez la más grave y urgente, de todo un sistema que falla. Un mundo social y económico instalado sobre supuestos de satisfacción de necesidades a corto plazo sin responder a criterios de solidaridad, presente y futura. Y siempre encontraremos escusas: Juan era demasiado austero, Jesús vivía demasiado bien. Siempre hay una buena excusa para no renunciar a lo nuestro y atrevernos a vivir desde el don y la gratuidad.

Back to Basics 1

While we ourselves are learning a lot here, we also want to offer some of this material learned to readers of this blog. So, at times, we will go back to “basics”.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is an alliance of 192 countries set up in 1994. Its point of departure is the conviction that human activity affects climate, mainly through CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions. The member governments to the Convention committed themselves to gather and share information about greenhouse gas emission, to launch strategies aiming at reducing the impact of such emissions, and to promote adaptation measures with regard to the new conditions brought about by climate change. They also commit to support developing countries through financial means and technology transfer. To monitor and keep this Convention a body was created in the United Nations: the UNFCCC.

To accomplish the objective of “gathering information,” the UNFCCC called into existence the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: it started working in 1988. The Panel is composed of hundreds of scientists all over the world. Its latest report is built on the work of 500 scientists who wrote articles, and on another 2.500 scientists who reviewed these articles. Further review is also done at governmental level. The Panel is not directly involved in research, but uses already published peer reviewed scientific work. As a consequence, we are facing, in the work of the Panel, the best available science (BAS) today. Obviously, science evolves and grows by testing hypotheses and models: the Panel will produce a new assessment, AR5, around 2013. The results offered by the Panel leave us in little doubt: human induced global warming and climate change are a fact, that has to be taken into account in global policy making. If we accept science to diagnose our diseases, we have no reason not to accept the same science when it describes the situation of our planet.

The Panel divides its work into three main areas or working groups. Group I deals with the results of the physical sciences; Group II looks at impacts, adaptation and vulnerability; Group III investigates ways to mitigate Climate Change. The latest assessment report, AR4, was published in 2007 is very clear in distinguishing evidence, confidence and medium confidence. It also points out the issues on which there is no full agreement.

As a result of such scientific assessment, the Convention promoted in 1997 the so-called Kyoto Protocol that became legally binding in 2005. It sets concrete ad legally binding emission targets for those countries that subscribe. In Kyoto, the countries with the biggest  greenhouse gas emissions (the most developed countries) committed themselves to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 5% under 1990 levels, and this in the period between 2008 and 2012. Greenhouse gas emission cuts would be achieved by national plans and through the “carbon market,” a mechanism of emissions trade. One of the most important debates at stake here in Copenhagen is precisely the continuity of that Kyoto commitment of the most industrialized countries.

 Since the Kyoto agreement, a lot has happened on the global scale: the targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions have not been held (with some exceptions) and overall worldwide emissions have grown; new countries have emerged as very important greenhouse gase producers, countries that had not committed to the targets of the Protocol; we have become more conscious about the necessity for action in the long term actions on both counts of mitigation and adaptation … To sum up: there are many more actors in the game and the complexity and magnitude of the issues at stake have grown. This provides a new background that determines the negotiations in Copenhagen.

Cuestiones Basicas sobre Copenhague I

Algunos de nuestros posts quieren ser una introducción para no iniciados. En muchos temas nosotros mismos estamos aprendiendo aquí.

La Convención Marco de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Cambio Climático. Es una asociación de 192 países nacida en 1994. Se basa en la convicción de que la acción humana influye en el clima, especialmente por la emisión de CO2 y otros gases de efecto invernadero. Los gobiernos miembros de la Convención se comprometen a recabar información sobre la emisión de gases y a diseñar acciones para reducir su impacto o para adaptarse a los efectos del cambio climático. Se comprometen a apoyar a los países en vías de desarrollo con medios financieros y transferencia de tecnología. Para mantener este Convenio se crea un organismo en Naciones Unidas que es el UNFCCC.

Para cumplir ese objetivo de “recoger información” el UNFCCC acudió al Panel de Expertos en Cambio Climático que se había creado en 1988. El Panel está compuesto por cientos de científicos, por ejemplo, en sus últimos trabajos unos 500 científico escribieron artículos y unos 2.500 revisaron estos artículos, esto puede dar una idea de la cantidad de personas involucradas. El Panel no investiga directamente, ellos elaboran sus documentos a partir de las investigaciones ya publicadas, y por lo tanto aceptadas por la comunidad científica. Creo que a estas alturas no podemos considerar a la ciencia como algo neutral y siempre correcto. Los científicos proponen hipótesis según sus conocimientos actuales, elaboran modelos que tratan de predecir comportamientos futuros, también de la naturaleza y su evidencia puede verse corregida con el tiempo, de hecho los pronósticos del mismo Panel se han ido haciendo cada vez más pesimistas. Pero si, en general, nos fiamos de la ciencia para diagnosticar nuestras enfermedades ¿por qué vamos a ser más escépticos cuando tratan de describir el estado del planeta?

El Panel de Expertos trabaja organizado en tres grandes grupos: el grupo I trata de explicar las bases Físicas del Cambio Climático, el grupo II estudia los Impactos, la Adaptación y la Vulnerabilidad; y el Grupo III propone medidas para mitigar los efectos del cambio climático. Mitigación y Adaptación son dos palabras claves a las que tendremos que seguir el rastro. El último informe del Panel es el nº 4 y distingue muy bien lo que consideran como evidencia, lo muy probable y lo probable. También indica los temas en los que todavía no existe acuerdo.

Fruto del asesoramiento científico la Convención propuso, y un buen grupo de países firmó, el Protocolo de Kioto ¿qué hace especial al Protocolo? Que contiene objetivos concretos y que es legalmente obligatorio para los países que lo firmaran. En Kioto los países que más gases emiten (los más desarrollados, los países del Anejo I de la Convención) se comprometieron a reducir sus emisiones de gases en un 5% sobre el nivel que se tenía en 1990, y esto se haría en el periodo 2008-2012. La reducción de gases se llevaría a cabo mediante planes nacionales y mediante un mercado de venta de “derechos de emisión de carbono”. Una parte importante de la Conferencia de Copenhague trata de la revisión de esa parte del acuerdo de Kioto que termina en el 2012, es decir, lo que se está revisando es el fin del período del compromiso de reducción de los países más contaminantes.

Pero mientras tanto se han producido nuevos acontecimientos: los objetivos de emisión de gases no se han cumplido (salvo excepciones), al contrario, en conjunto la emisión de gases ha crecido enormemente; hay países que se han incorporado al grupo de grandes contaminantes que no se habían comprometido en su día a una reducción; ha aparecido la preocupación por acciones a más largo plazo ya sea para mitigar los efectos y/o para adaptarse a las nuevas circunstancias… en conjunto hay más actores y más problemas que resolver.

COP15 … Dec 7, 2009

Today we discovered the incredible spaces at the Bella Centre – many different organisations that have exhibits, the area of the various representations and the hall for plenary sessions. The computer facilities are amazing: WiFi everywhere and lots and lots of computers available for the participants. It is like a small city, with many languages spoken. We paid a visit to the Holland Climate House, which organizes presentations every day – I would wish that Belgium (my own home country) and some church coalition would have a similar intiative. I must admit that I really do miss a clear presence of the religions and their assets in the issue of global warming.

In the early afternoon we participated in a side event organized by the Third World Network (TWN) on What Copenhagen talks must deliver from a climate justice perspective. Their point of view on the need to save the Kyoto Protocol, mainly to keep its legal framework with regard to the Annex 1 countries (developed countries that have agreed and committed to substantial emission cuts) in place. Negotiations at this point run the risk of allowing these rich countries to move out of their commitments and to shift a greater part of the burden of global emission cuts towards the poorer countries. The speakers at the event (Bernarditas Muller, Kamel Djemouai, Mithika Mwenda and Martin Khor) all stressed the fact that there is discrimination in climate change and that the developed world should heed its responsibilities today in enabling developing countries to face the adaptation that is necessary in view of climate change, as well as commit to legally binding commitments. Not all of the speakers were confident that such agreements and developments will be reached at COP15 in Copenhagen. Personally, I was happy to start the conference with this perspective from the global south: it reminds me of the needs of the developping countries as experienced by these countries (and not by the richer countries).

This evening, at the Franciscan Friary (Roskilde) that receives us so well, we had the occasion to meet Seán McDonagh, a Columban missionary, who worked for over twenty years in the Philippines where he was deeply committed to ecological issues (the plundering of the tropical rain forests and the consequences for the native T’boli people) and who now heads a programme for ecology and religion. He presented us with the new pastoral reflection on climate change from the Irish Catholic Bishops’ Conference, The Cry of the Earth.

COP15 and Religion?

I felt somewhat surprising when scanning the programm for the Side Events and Exhibits at COP15. Religion does not really appear on the menu, apart from some religiously inspired organisations such as Oxfam International and Christian Aid. Of course, there is the official Vatican delegation at the COP15 and I also know that many religiously connected NGOs, such as Caritas Internationalis, have sent delegations to Copenhagen, but at the Bela Site itself the latter are not, as such, visible. It’s a pity. I think religion has a lot to offer, precisely on Climate Change, both concerning mitigation (e.g. suggestions on how to change lifestyles) and adaptation. The Roman Catholic Church, for example, is a worldwide organisation with great resources on the levels of presence in the field, of capacities to advocate and to reach out to the media and political worlds, of stimulating research and activities in its universities and connected NGOs. It is a sin of omission when this is not put at good use, at least it seems to me. The voice of religious leaders should be very loud at this moment, not only outside of the COP15 conference hall, but also inside. Words like those of Archbishop Rowan Williams on Dec 5 at the Ecumenical Service at Westminster Central Hall should be heard at Bela Centre.

Primeros pasos

Nuestra intención es la de ir alternando comentarios más sobre el contenido de la Conferencia con otros más personales que puedan ayudarnos a todos (a los que escribimos esto y a los que os animéis a leerlo) a comprender mejor el alcance y las posibilidades de una Conferencia de este tipo.

La Conferencia comienza mañana día 7.

Hoy nos hemos registrado, ha sido un proceso razonablemente rápido (unas dos horas) teniendo en cuenta la cantidad de gente que participa. La capacidad está estimada para 15.000 personas y la página web de la Conferencia informa que ha suspendido la concesión de nuevas solicitudes porque se ha superado esa cifra. Así que me siento afortunado ahora mismo de estar acreditado, aunque hayamos pasado una hora al aire libre de Copenhague. Y el aire aquí está helado.

Un dato de la cantidad de gente que participa lo puede dar la conversación que he tenido mientras caminaba al Centro de Conferencias con una vecina de origen chileno. Mientras ella paseaba a su perro me ha comentado que esa noche se iba a vivir a casa de su hijo a otra parte de la ciudad porque había alquilado su apartamento a unos participantes en su Conferencia. El Gobierno danés pidió a los ciudadanos que pudieran que colaboraran alquilando sus casas durante esos días, para una ciudad de medio millón de habitantes como Copenhague esto es una invasión. Se ha hecho una “bolsa” con esas casas que se han puesto en alquiler. Sin duda un ingreso extra para estas personas, pero también una incomodidad tener que dejar tu casa por unos días.

El registro ha sido tumultuoso pero muy bien organizado. Todo el personal parece entrenado para hacer las cosas fáciles. Nadie te pide ningún papel extra, ni nada que no está ya indicado: carta de inscripción y tu pasaporte. Mucha gente joven, mucha: estudiantes, boy-scouts (si, Pady también aquí!), periodistas, miembros de ongs y también científicos. Un poco detrás de mí estaba el profesor Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, belga, es uno de los tres vicepresidentes del IPCC (Panel Itergubernamental para el Cambio Climático, el cuerpo formado por miles de científicos que está asesorando las conferencias de Naciones Unidas). Hace unos días estuvo dando una conferencia organizada por nosotros en la Chapelle de la Resurrección. Que una persona así esté haciendo fila como uno más me parece que es una buena imagen de que todo este proceso es muy colaborativo. Es como decir que la solución depende de una voluntad compartida por millones de personas y no sólo de la fuerza de los argumentos científicos, que no es poco por supuesto.

Registering for COP15 in Copenhagen

José Ignacio Garcia, a fellow Jesuit at OCIPE in Brussels, and myself registered this afternoon at COP15 as part of Franciscans International, an NGO that attempts to embody the global commitment of the Franciscan family and that was willing to accept us as part of their delegation. It was a remarkable experience: many, many, many people queing up to be registered, some confusions, but also, amidst what could become an aggressive chaos, a lot of efficiency, patience, common sense and humor. The organizers have done a very good job. There is a great capacity here to deal with stress. What struck me most, while waiting for registration and photo, is the enormous diversity of the participants – people from all over the globe and of all ages and generations are present. I felt very much encouraged by the presence of young people, from international organisations and from NGOs and IGOs: that is impressive. One really feels that there future is at stake here in Stockholm and that they want to be present at these discussions.

Once registered, one gains access to the main conference space. Organisations were constructing their exhibits and the rooms for the side events were being arranged. I visited several of these organisations: the IPCC, UNEP, WWF, GTF (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit) and the Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie. I will see more tomorrow, but I was already expressed to see the concrete faces of organisations I know about through the internet.

Because I had long times to travel and to wait today, I had the opportunity to read in Pierre Teilhard de Chardin’s Le milieu divin. It strikes me how TdC attempts to explain how the Christian faith does not turn one away from the world and from the earth, but effects rather the opposite: it commits one to the world discovering the deep creative energies of love that inhabit it and ourselves. I hope that we will be able to touch these energies in the coming days, so that we do not face the challenges in despair, but rather with proactive hope. At least, COP15 touches the constructive energies of many people. And that remains true, even if one may wonder whether the main discussion here – touching on economic approaches to the crisis, particularly with regard to CO2 measures – touches the deep core of the challenges.

Religious initiatives around Copenhagen

The Alliance of Religions and Conservation (ARC) has gathered in Windsor Castle (United Kingdom) from Nov 2 to 4, 2009. Representatives from the major religions (Baha’I, Buddhism, Christianity, Daoism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Shintoism, Sikhism) presented concrete action plans that will engage local belief-communities towards improving the use of and conserving natural resources. The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, the Catholic Coalition on Climate Change, the Franciscan family and the Society of Jesus have been present at this major event.

The coalition between Caritas Internationalis (CI) and CIDSE has developed a long term process including lobby work with decision makers regarding the negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). They have produced reports, analyses and concrete proposals towards an effective and socially just post-2012 climate agreement. CIDSE and CI launched their joint climate justice campaign on Dec 7, 2008 in Poznan (Poland). Since then, more than 54.000 people have signed up the online petition.

The initiatives from CI and CIDSE will continue during the celebration of the Copenhagen Conference. An exhibition will be held at the Bela Centre, the venue for the Conference, to show their international campaign for Climate Justice; a demonstration under the slogan “Planet First – People First” is scheduled in the streets of Copenhagen on Saturday, Dec 12; a Mass at St. Ansgar Cathedral. The International Bell ringing on Sunday, Dec 13, promoted by the World Council of Churches, asks participants around the globe to sound their bells 350 times at 3 pm local time to mark the safe level of CO2 measured in ppm, required to keep the rise in average temperature under 2°C.

A good example of the local commitment in the campaign promoted by CIDSE and CI is the coalition of more than twenty church base organizations in Austria. The French commission for Justice and Peace has promoted its own appeal for the Copenhagen Conference: it has been subscribedto by more than fifteen catholic French organizations and its open to be signed up by the public through Internet.

As a last example, the Operation Noah is a group of British Christians, founded in 2001, focused exclusively on Climate Change. They have promoted awareness, ecumenical encounters and publications during the past eight years . Recently, they also promoted a statement signed by Dr Rowan Williams, the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury , Chief Rabbi Sir Jonathon Sacks and Roman Catholic Archbishop Nichols, urging political leaders to take action at Copenhagen. They are among the organizers of “The Wave”, an immense rally in London on Dec 5, on the eve of the UN Copenhagen summit. Two to three thousand of Christians will participate in a prayer service and will then merge with the thousands of others in the march.

James Lovelock, The Vanishing Face of Gaia

I have started reading James Lovelock‘s The Vanishing Face of Gaia. At this point, three main ideas have struck me, that I want to share.

(1) The seriousness of the global environmental and climate crisis we are facing. The analyses and models of the IPCC, considered to be the best possible science available today, are below the facts that we can measure and observe. The crisis is evolving much faster than those models lead us to expect and the “smooth” evolution that they seem to predict may well be overtaken by unexpected, sudden, chaotic and dramatic changes. Lovelock is very critical of the work of the IPCC, claiming that they have allowed their science to be smoothed by political interests. Although it is difficult for me to gauge to what extent political pressure weighs on the IPCC scientists, Lovelock’s observation is critical as the relationship between scientists and politicians is determining global environmental decision making. I concur with Lovelock when he claims that climate change is moving at a much more rapid pace than modeled by our so-called best available science. A recent and reliable report called the Copenhagen Diagnosis confirms this.

(2) Our “best available science” has not yet really made its way to the Gaia approach, i.e. it is not yet capable of articulating a vision on the earth as one whole, one body, one organism. This seems to me as if a medical doctor would not be able to look at the human being as a whole, taking into account laws and parameters that concern this whole as a whole and “integrate” towards the whole the complex interactions of laws and interactions at a lower level. Objects under study in sciences are always “wholes” of other, “smaller” objects that can be studied at their own level, but something is added when these “smaller” object combine into the “higher” object (the whole is more than the mere sum of its components). We have not yet managed to integrate our science towards the higher level of Gaia and this may lead to misunderstandings, e.g. that we don’t understand well that at this moment the earth, as Gaia, is working out a new balance or equilibrium for its existence.

(3) I also appreciate very much how Lovelock articulates the place of human beings on earth. He considers them clearly a part of the whole, as this whole also contains other component parts. But, at the same time, human beings are a valuable part of this whole, produced by Gaia over the space of millions of years so as to give it the capacity to think and to reflect. In that sense, it would be damage to Gaia if human beings were to disappear from it. This kind of anthropology balances well, in my opinion, the tension between a dangerous anthropocentrism on the one side and the denial of the importance of the human being on the other side. Human beings are an important part of Gaia, crucially enriching it, but they are not more than a part of Gaia and, therefore, cannot be disconnected from it.

These three ideas seem very stimulating to me; they should also, in my opinion, be in the backpack of all those who will participate in the Copenhagen negotiations. Moreover, they are a healthy reminder to theologians, particularly Christian theologians, to enter into critical transdisciplinary conversations with scientists, to remind themselves that the notion of “creature” is a flexible and dynamic one, and to challenge them to develop an anthropology that reflects genuine admiration for human beings, those very special creatures that cannot, however, be disconnected from their embeddedness in the whole of a creation that they can enrich, but that has also taken a serious risk in generating them and allowing them to emerge.

Thank you for these challenges, James Lovelock.

Jacques Haers SJ, also available on http://jacqueshaers.wordpress.com.