In Chile, 'fountain of life' is heart of energy debate

The IPS recently covered the debate in northern Chile about a geyser, described by indigenous communities as the 'fountain of life', to be the subject of intense debate. (Original article: http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=47767) Should they build a new geothermal project which would bring much-needed energy to the surrounding area or not? Many locals say no, as the project would eventually (they claim) damage the geysers.

Their dilemma is hardly a new one. Energy projects have threatened variations of local culture and enviornment since (at least) the first coal mines. Sometimes one has to wonder if sustainable development that protects indigenous communities and permits some degree of economic growth is possible. Of course, there is the other question - if a community decides they don't want a particular version of economic growth, they have the right to say no - that right, more than the economic growth, is the heart of development.

The Climate beyond Climate Change

Every now and then I read a book that's so good I consider shifting my career and becoming a promotion officer for it. I felt that way about 'Making a Living while Making a Difference', Van Jones' 'Green Collar Economy', and, most recently, with 'Why we disagree about climate change' by David Hulme. Himself a climate scientist who has been engaged with climate change for decades, including recent forays into sociology and history, he describes not only the political, economic and scientific dimensions of climate, but the social, cultural, and religious meanings that people bring to it. He eloquently argues that there is no 'solution' - he describes it as a 'super wicked problem', where 'solutions' don't exist. It demands us to change ourselves in a way never done before, and that entails looking not only for economic and technical solutions such as cap and trade and solar panels, but fundamentally reconsidering how we relate to one another. For a broader perspective on one of the most important shifts in our times, read his book - and see if you agree that the most important lesson from climate change is not about the climate - but about ourselves. It puts a whole new dimension on good work around climate.

'Good' Conditionalities for Climate Funds?

Conditionality on funds between the North and South has a bad rap. Northern countries, especially via the IMF and the World Bank, have a long history of making what many consider to be unfair changes in macroeconomic policy, such as the much-detested Structural Adjustment Programs.

With Climate Negotiations in Copenhagen around the corner, conditionality has once again risen to the fore. Generally, climate funds from the North to the South are considered compensation - especially adaptation. But what about mitigation - should there be conditionalities on those funds?

Climate Strategies has done some interesting work observing that while conditionality IMF-style is not necessarily the best approach, conditionality has been successful within the EU. The difference? Namely, the degree to which countries agree to the conditions. It's the difference between being told you have to show up to work on time even if you have to get up before dawn or if you and your co-workers choose to be at work on time even though you will all have to get up before done. OK, maybe not the best example, but I hope you get my point: it's a question of all parties owning the conditions without one party forcing the other to agree to them, if the later really doesn't want to. And there's a greater mutuality and trust. There is a recognition that everyone is giving up something (I haven't heard people talk about the sacrifice that the World Bank makes on behalf of its 'clientelle').

This opens a new door for conditionality. Is it possible to have fair conditionality? Yes. But there are tremendous power imbalances between the north and the south - not to mention a history of broken promises. The verdict is still out on whether 'fair' conditions can be found.