Progressio defends campaigning on climate change

Progressio and other development charities have joined forces to refute claims in the Financial Times that NGOs played “an exceptionally destructive role” during the Copenhagen climate summit in December.

In a letter published in the Financial Times on 2 February 2010, Progressio, Oxfam, Friends of the Earth, ActionAid and Tearfund defended the role of charities that demanded a fair deal on climate change at Copenhagen. And they dismissed the suggestion by the FT’s environment correspondent, Fiona Harvey, that a climate deal would have been more easily achieved without the charities’ involvement.

The charities’ letter says that campaigners were right to call for a fair, ambitious and binding deal from world leaders at Copenhagen “because that is what the poorest people and the planet need to survive”.

The letter goes on to say that campaigning organisations are not telling developing countries what to think – they are reflecting what people in developing countries do think, and bringing pressure on world leaders to respond to it.

The text of the letter in full:

“Fiona Harvey is right (January 29) that every year without a climate treaty makes the goal of halting climate change harder to achieve. However, she is wrong to say that this will be achieved more easily without the participation of non-governmental organisations.

“At Copenhagen and before, campaigners have been leading calls for a fair, ambitious and binding deal because that is what the poorest people and the planet need to survive. As Gordon Brown noted in his Copenhagen address, world leaders have an obligation to do what is necessary, not just to do their best.

“Ms Harvey’s article suggests it was the environmental NGOs causing discord, but fails to mention the industrial lobby that was behind many of the rich countries’ refusal to move to high-end emissions cuts. The refusal from the European Union to move from a 20 per cent pledge for emissions cuts by 2020 to a 30 per cent target was largely due to pressure from countries with a huge lobby from heavy industry. Also unacknowledged is the role of the large fossil fuel companies in the US.

“Finally, it is condescending towards developing countries to suggest they reject the consensus that warming should be limited to 2° because of NGO pressure. Many developing countries are calling for a limit of 1.5° simply because anything higher would spell their end. What should be negotiated through 2010 is not a compromise deal, but a fair and ambitious agreement, which will ensure global stability into the future. We will continue to hold leaders to this in 2010.”