On Friday November 4, Oxfam Sister on the Planet Ambassador and US Representative Barbara Lee (D-CA), introduced a new Congressional Resolution, which recognizes the disproportionate impact of climate change on women and the efforts of women around the world to address this issue.

In her press release, Rep. Lee urged Congress to ensure women are at the center of climate change decision making, saying, “While women are bearing the brunt of climate change’s effects, they are often underrepresented in the development of climate change adaptation policy. This is unacceptable.”

House Resolution 84 is a must-read for anyone who cares about climate change. Women produce much of the food in many poor countries, despite typically having restricted access to markets, land, and credit and less decision-making power at the household and community levels. As a result, they lack access to resources that can help them adapt when drought or floods threaten their harvest. As the agriculture sector gets hit by climate change, it “may lead to migration, refugee crises, and conflicts over scarce natural resources including land and water.” This could in turn affect America’s national security.

Women around the world are leading their countries and communities to innovative climate change solutions. Photo by Ilene Perlman/Oxfam America.

But, the news is not all bad. HR 84 emphasizes “the unique capacity and knowledge (of women) to promote and provide for adaptation to climate change” and urges Congress to leverage this in climate change policy-making and programming. Oxfam has long supported women worldwide combating climate change. Watch this Sisters on the Planet video for stories of women leading their communities and countries to innovative climate change and food security solutions.

Excited about this resolution? So are we! If you have a moment, we encourage you to call Rep. Lee’s office in Washington DC (202-225-2661) and thank her for introducing House Resolution 84 and for her incredible commitment to women and climate change. And leave a comment on this blog to let us know that you took action. After all, it’s not every day that we have a reason to call a Member of Congress and tell them what they’re doing right.

Nine Members of Congress have signed on as original co-sponsors: Oxfam Sisters on the Planet Ambassadors Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) and Rep Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), Rep. Russ Carnahan (D-MO), Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Rep. Michael Honda (D-CA), Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY), Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Rep Donald Payne (D-NJ), and Rep Jackie Speier (D-CA). If you are in their district, thank them for their commitment to HR 84: call the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at (202)224-3121 and ask for your Representative’s office. Don’t see your Representative? Call them via the Switchboard and tell them to join as a co-sponsor.

Flex your political muscles so that women worldwide have the opportunities to flex theirs. As Rep. Lee remarked, “Women must be included in creating and implementing climate change policies and practices if we hope to help communities adapt to climate impacts and embark on a path towards clean and sustainable development.”

As world leaders gather this week for the G20 Summit in Cannes, France, activists around the world are calling for a Robin Hood Tax to make Wall Street pay for their role in the economic meltdown. The tax would raise much needed support to create jobs, protect public services, and fight poverty and climate change.

On Sat Oct 29, the “Occupy” movement took to the streets to support the tax, and tomorrow unions like National Nurses United, the AFL-CIO, and the United Steelworkers are taking to the streets with a related message. Their call will be focused on the position of the Obama administration, particularly Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who has repeatedly objected to European efforts to put such a tax in place, even amongst a “coalition of willing” European countries.

This obstructionist position could backfire. A negligible levy on the financial sector has shown great potential to address growing inequities in the financial system and could help prevent financial crises in the future. It could even encourage some countries to move forward with the tax in spite of the administration’s position

Today, more than 34 environmental, development, and other NGOs sent a letter to the President calling on his administration to “take a bold stand against Wall Street greed and negligence and stand for accountability and economic justice by supporting European leaders’ action on a financial transaction tax.” Unions and activists in support of financial reform have been flooding the President with petitions and emails in the lead up to the G20. The chorus is rising.

If you’re in the DC area tomorrow, head out to Lafayette Square (outside the Treasury Department) at 11:30am to lend your support and join the nurses and others in their rally to Make Wall Street pay.

What do coffee-maven Starbucks and the energy utility Entergy have in common? Or with jeans-maker Levi’s for that matter?

All of them are facing the increasing consequences of a changing climate on their bottom lines–and recognize the same is true in vulnerable communities around the world.

In the case of Starbucks, climate impacts are harming coffee supply chains and coffee-growing communities in developing countries. In Entergy’s case, the company faces the effects of severe weather events and rising temperatures on energy infrastructure and their customers in the US Gulf Coast region. Levi’s is feeling impacts of water stress on cotton production in vulnerable growing regions around the world.

Now these companies and others are turning deep concern into action. Today, Entergy and Starbucks, together with Levi Strauss & Company, Calvert Investments, Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, and Swiss Re, announced a new partnership to tackle these growing climate challenges.

This partnership—PREP, or the Partnership for Resilience and Environmental Preparedness—was formed because of a growing recognition among companies that they face shared risks with communities on the front lines of climate change. The PREP partnership will promote responsible business practices and strong policies and programs that help businesses and vulnerable communities prepare for and respond to climate change.

Many of the companies engaged in PREP have already begun to invest in climate resilience solutions in partnership with communities. Such efforts represent an investment in economic stability for some and access to emerging markets for others. For example:

• Green Mountain Coffee Roasters has invested in the Coffee Under Pressure program (CUP) in El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, and Nicaragua. CUP supports adaptation to climate change in coffee growing communities in Mesoamerica and generates detailed information on the likely impacts of climate change on the productivity and quality of coffee and other crops in the mid-to-long-term.

• Swiss Re, in partnership with Oxfam America and other organizations, has pioneered an innovative risk management approach with small-scale farmers in Ethiopia. The product enables farmers participating in a government social safety net scheme to pay for weather risk insurance premiums by contributing their own labor to community projects that reduce risk, including irrigation, soil improvement, and composting. In the event of a seasonal drought, insurance payouts triggered automatically by low rainfall enable farmers to afford the seeds and inputs necessary to plant in the following season, without having to sell off productive assets to survive.

Some of the companies in PREP (and a few outside of PREP), including Calvert Investments, Entergy, Green Mountain coffee Roasters, Levi Strauss & Co., Nike, Royal Engineers, Seventh Generation, and Starbucks, are also calling on policymakers to support long-term funding for critical programs that build resilience to extreme weather events and climate shocks in the US and internationally. As they note in a letter delivered to the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (aka, “Super Committee”): It would be a disinvestment in US business to cut funding for programs that build resilience in vulnerable communities in the US and abroad to cope with extreme disasters…programs that build climate resilience domestically and internationally are important to business sustainability, as well as to the US economy and jobs.

This blog post was jointly authored by David Waskow and Heather Coleman.

It would be one thing if the United States were on the forefront of taking action on global climate change. But when we’re lagging badly, it’s beyond confounding that we would try to stop other countries from doing something.

But that’s exactly what the House of Representatives is trying to do. With—and here’s the big shocker—the help of the Obama administration.

On Monday, the House of Representatives voted to prohibit US airlines from complying with an EU law to curb carbon pollution from airlines. The vote, which was bipartisan despite opposition from some Democratic stalwarts on climate issues like Congressman Henry Waxman and Congressman Ed Markey, is a slap in the face—further evidence of the strong influence that major corporations wield on both parties.

And the administration signed a declaration with other countries last month opposing the EU rules.

Basically, this vote is intended to have US companies break other countries’ law, in this case laws put in place in order to protect our climate. And it’s a shameful vote at a time when thousands are marching in the streets calling for justice and equity in our financial and political systems.

As people and communities around the world, including the people in Sri Lanka pictured here, are dealing with the reality of climate change, the US has resisted international and unilateral efforts to limit emissions from airlines. Photo by Atul Loke/Panos for Oxfam America.

The EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) applies a uniform rule to all flights landing in or departing from EU airports regardless of origin or destination and regardless of the airline’s home country. The program requires a 3% emissions reduction by 2013 and a 5% reduction by 2020 (all compared to a 2004-2006 baseline). It is flexible in design, giving airlines multiple options to meet these emissions control obligations, and flights arriving from countries with programs equivalent to the EU’s are exempted altogether.

The House bill would bar US airlines from taking part in the program and orders the US government to ensure that US airlines are not forced to comply. Jake Schmidt of the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) posted a brilliant blog outlining a list of compelling arguments against the bill and highlighting the outrage Americans should feel over this vote. In calling on the US government and industry to break another countries’ law, he argues, the law could instigate a trade war with Europe.

But what’s particularly galling is that—even as the US government keeps decrying unilateral action by the EU—the US has resisted efforts at the international level to limit emissions from airlines. The US position seems to have become no steps forward anywhere.

The EU’s effort to move forward highlights what’s ultimately needed—serious international solutions in international transport sectors. Oxfam has been pushing for mechanisms in the international shipping and aviation sectors that would both reduce carbon emissions and raise revenues to support adaptation and mitigation actions in developing countries. A dozen years of international negotiations attempting to address aviation pollution have yet to yield standards to control these emissions, but there is reason for hope in the international shipping sector where the industry lobby is less powerful than in aviation.

Meanwhile, while we’re working to put those solutions in place, we have to make sure that the US is not actively obstructing countries that do want to act. The Senate must reject this terrible House bill, and the administration should do everything in their power to prevent it becoming law.

Representatives from the World Bank and IMF presented their findings from a draft report on sources of climate finance to G20 finance and development ministers on Friday. The report responds to the request of G20 Finance Ministers in exploring scaled up finance for climate change adaptation and mitigation actions in developing countries. Its recommendations significantly move the debate forward on innovative sources of climate finance and come weeks before Bill Gates is expected to deliver similar findings to the G20 leaders on sources of development finance.

The WB/IMF recommendations support the key findings of a report released by Oxfam and WWF earlier this month calling for a global carbon price in the international shipping sector. A global carbon price for shipping would raise billions of dollars for tackling climate change in developing countries. The sector transports 90 percent of world trade and contributes about three percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions.

A global carbon price for shipping would raise billions of dollars for tackling climate change in developing countries. Photo by Luis Galdámez/Oxfam America.

Here are a few key points made in Oxfam/WWF’s report that are generally supported in the WB/IMF recommendations to G20 leaders:

• There is a double-dividend from carbon pricing international transport – reducing emissions and raising finance. A $25/ton price on carbon will raise approximately $25 billion from shipping, reducing emissions 5-10% from the sector.

• The overall impact of a carbon price for shipping will be small. A moderate carbon price for shipping means that import costs are likely to rise by approximately 0.2-0.3%. A surcharge at that level would add 0.2% to shipping costs, or $2 on every $1,000 traded.

• Developing countries should be compensated from the revenues generated by the carbon price and revenues should support adaptation and mitigation actions. Because shipping emissions cannot practically be attributed to individual countries, a carbon price for ships must be universal. But to ensure that a scheme does not unfairly penalize developing countries, it must guarantee that there are no net costs for developing countries. Of the $25bn raised from the scheme, Oxfam/WWF recommends that approximately 40% of the revenue is used to compensate developing countries for their losses; remaining funds should finance adaptation and mitigation actions through the Green Climate Fund.

A global price on shipping emissions is technically and economically feasible and is gaining political momentum. G20 finance ministers should reach a political agreement that substantial climate finance be raised through a carbon price for international shipping, with no net costs for developing countries. This should happen in advance of the G20 summit in Cannes, France at the beginning of November and COP17 in Durban, South Africa in November/December 2011.

During the waning days of summer, news items that don’t achieve Category 1 hurricane status tend to fall through the cracks. This one is worth a second look as it provides a glimmer of hope to those of us who fear climate change has become an entirely partisan issue.

Last week, Senators Stabenow (D-MI) and Roberts (R-KS), Chairwoman and Ranking Member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, toured south-central Kansas, a region heavily dependent on agriculture that’s been devastated by this year’s historic drought. They were in the area to conduct one of two agriculture hearings (the first one was held in Michigan in May) to discuss the reauthorization of the Farm Bill. It was also the last opportunity for the Senators to formally engage constituents prior to making recommendations to the “super-committee” for budget cuts to agricultural programs, something that Committees in both Houses must do in compliance with the debt-ceiling deal.

A journalist who covers agricultural issues for DTN/Progressive Farmer blogged about the hearing, which covered topics like the incessant drought in the southwest, food security issues, river flooding, and was compelled to ask the Senators what the Committee is doing in regards to climate change and the ability for the region to produce food in the future. Here’s just part of Sen. Roberts’ response:

“As I’ve indicated, you have 11 different agencies working on the drought, obviously we’re going through a period where we are experiencing global warming,” Roberts said. “I went to Antarctica some years ago. I looked at the ice rings. It was obvious to me that we had global warming. I came back and I tried to let agriculture know let’s not get into the debate is there global warming or is there not global warming. Let’s be part of the answer.”

Corn in Reno county that has been abandoned due to the Kansas drought. Photo by Jim French.

Senator Roberts isn’t the only Republican acknowledging the science of climate change. In a tweet a few weeks ago, Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman made the claim that he “trust[s] scientists on global warming.” And he even went a step further, telling ABC’s Jake Tapper that his opponents’ opposition to the idea of climate change is extremist. Paul Krugman’s recent piece in the Times highlights Huntsman for willing to stand out on this issue.

As we head into what will likely be a tumultuous fall in Washington, with negotiations over the debt deal coming to a head, unemployment rates hovering at record levels, and the 2013 Presidential election season gaining speed, it’s important to remember that climate change is not just a myth to even-handed Republicans. If we continue to identify solutions that save money in the long run, we may still make progress on one of the defining issues of our generation.

This blog post was authored jointly by Heather Coleman and David Waskow, climate change program manager.

With the United States in full support, the UN Security Council voted last week to tackle the impacts of a changing climate on global security (think Somalia, for example, if you haven’t already).  But just a day later, Republicans ignored security and voted to bar any funding for the Global Climate Change Initiative, which helps build the resilience of communities in unstable countries facing climate change impacts.

Fortunately, that vote has no real effect — but today’s vote by the Foreign Operations Appropriations subcommittee in the House will. That vote would eliminate funds in the FY 2012 budget for the Climate Investment Funds, a multilateral fund that includes a program to help developing countries adapt to climate change.

Families arrive in Dadaab camp everyday in Somalia. Photo by Oxfam East Africa.

Apparently, House Republicans don’t see what security experts do — our national security demands are going to shift just as surely as the climate. It’s not just the UN Security Council that sees it that way. Last month, Oxfam joined with the security think tank CNA to release a report showing that investing in climate resilience and reducing vulnerability abroad – “an ounce of prevention” – will pay off in the long-run in terms of economic and political security. And not taking action will result in ever greater stress on our humanitarian and military capacity.

Read the rest of this entry »

Businesses that adapt to climate change with community needs in mind can gain a competitive edge.

This is one of the key findings of a report that Oxfam released today in partnership with the UN Global Compact, UN Environment Programme (UNEP), and the World Resources Institute. The report makes a strong business case for investments in climate change adaptation while finding that most companies have yet to develop strategies to deal with the long-term impacts of climate change.

Drawing on the results of a survey among companies engaged in Caring for Climate, the joint climate action platform of the UN Global Compact and UNEP, the report calls on the private sector to invest in climate change adaptation in ways that build the resilience of vulnerable communities in developing countries – many of which are already affected by more frequent and intense storms, water scarcity, declining agricultural productivity, and poor health.

The bottom line is that community risks are business risks. In fact, 83 percent of companies surveyed responded that climate change impacts pose a risk to their products and services. Local and global companies rely on community members as employees, suppliers, and customers, and they depend on services and infrastructure to be able to operate. If farmers are unable to meet production targets, a local port is destroyed by a storm, or a community is ravaged by malaria, then businesses suffer as well.

The good news is that there is growing recognition among companies that while climate change poses significant risks to operations and value chains, it also brings new opportunities to improve business practices, and to create business value while helping people adapt. Among the companies surveyed, 86 percent of them saw responding to climate risks or investing in adaptation as a business opportunity, and 56 percent of them recognized the important opportunity of accessing new markets for climate adaptation-related products and services. Swiss Re, for example, is highlighted in the report because of an innovative weather-index insurance product offered to poor farmers in Ethiopia has helped to protect their staple crop, teff, in the event of drought. Because of its success, Swiss Re is working with Oxfam and the World Food Programme to scale up this new product to achieve critical mass necessary for commercial viability.

But beyond planning for the most obvious or immediate threats, such as increasingly unreliable access to key inputs like water, for example, or damage to assets from flooding, most companies are not yet taking concrete steps to address climate change risks and to respond to new opportunities in a comprehensive, integrated way. This is at least in part due to a lack of widespread understanding of climate-related risks, what climate adaptation is, and what it means for companies or for the markets they serve.

Strategic private sector adaptation to climate change must be a purposeful process: it will not happen by chance. Companies must prioritize adaptation and take action to address risks and pursue opportunities in partnership with communities. Governments can assist companies to overcome barriers to investment and harness the resources and innovation of the private sector to contribute to the public good.

Addressing the adaptation needs of vulnerable communities at the scale that is necessary will require unprecedented levels of cooperation, collaboration and resource mobilization among governments, businesses, civil society groups, and communities themselves. The private sector has much to contribute to and benefit from the development and implementation of climate change adaptation solutions, including sector-specific expertise, technology, significant levels of financing, efficiency and an entrepreneurial spirit. The key is to find the nexus of shared interest where business incentives align with communities’ adaptation needs.

Last week, I wrote about the flurry of deadly extreme weather events happening in the US lately and the serious impact such events are having on socially vulnerable communities, especially in the southeastern states. It just so happens that in addition to all of these storms, floods, and droughts, hurricane season officially kicked-off on Wednesday (June 1) with predictions that this will be an above average year for hurricane activity. No rest for the weary, as they say.

But while families across the country are coping with such devastation, the Republican leadership in the House just delivered a one-two punch, by tying the hands of federal officials in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) working to prepare for increasingly extreme weather.

On Thursday, the House approved the fiscal 2012 DHS spending bill that included an amendment, introduced by Rep. John Carter (R-TX), prohibiting DHS from engaging in some of the very activities that will help to protect families from future disasters. The provision will prevent DHS from participating in a coordination process with other federal agencies working to prepare our country for the increase in extreme weather disasters that a changing climate is already bringing. DHS wouldn’t be allowed to participate in the Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force that I wrote about several months ago when Senator Barrasso inaccurately characterized its mission.

Do we really want to tie the hands of the federal agency tasked with keeping our nation safe from disasters? What is more important to voters, the politics of climate change or the safety of our families? Basic preparation for disasters is the best and most cost effective way to keep Americans safe from harm and prevent the most costly impacts on our communities and our federal budget.

Thankfully, the Senate can stop this posturing that endangers American lives. It should reject any similar amendments, and when the House and Senate convene in a conference committee to reconcile their DHS appropriations bills, the Senate should stand firm and refuse to accept this language.

The canvas for the new global Green Climate Fund has a few outlines on it – now comes the time to start really filling it in. The first meeting of the Transitional Committee to design the policies and operating guidelines for the Fund is being held this week (April 28-29) in Mexico City.

Since my last blog post on the Committee, its 40 members have finally been agreed: a process that lasted nearly three months longer than the UNFCCC deadline and that forced postponement of the first Committee meeting. It remains to be seen how this delay will impact the Committee’s timeline and workplan in the coming months before it is due to report back to COP 17 in December 2011. Oxfam believes it is still feasible – and urgent – for the Committee to reach agreement on key operating guidelines for the Fund so that it can be made fully operational by the end of the fast-start finance period in 2012.

Here are some themes that we are particularly focused on heading into this first Committee meeting:

Civil Society Participation in the Transitional Committee process: This is a central issue to address as the rules of engagement for civil society have not yet been agreed. Active civil society participation in the design process is essential to the effectiveness and legitimacy of the Fund. Civil society should be enabled to participate as active observers in the Committee – including the right for a certain number of representatives to regularly take the floor in meetings, propose agenda items, and participate in all drafting groups and full sessions.

Timing and organization of work: It is essential that the Committee agree and communicate a clear timeline for its work, including substantive political decisions on the Fund to be made at COP 17 in Durban. The workplan must specify that the Fund be designed and operationalized in time for first disbursements of finance to start no later than January 1, 2013 (when the current climate finance period, referred to as “fast start finance”, ends). This will ensure that poor, vulnerable communities have no gap in the support they need to respond to and prepare for climate change impacts.

Level of Ambition: By COP 17, the Committee must begin to address some of the key design principles of the Fund. The workplan agreed at this first meeting should seek to reach agreement by Durban on a vision for how the Fund will manage and disburse large sums of climate finance in a representative, equitable, accessible, accountable, transparent, and efficient manner. The new Fund should become a central locus for global management of funding for climate adaptation and mitigation and should allocate at least 50% of public finance towards adaptation in developing countries. Country ownership by developing countries should be central to this – putting developing countries in the driver’s seat and ensuring participation and accountability for civil society and communities in those countries.

Overall, this first meeting provides an opportunity for the Committee to lay out an efficient, yet ambitious, workplan that aims to design a new global Green Climate Fund that will fund adaptation and mitigation effectively and at scale, so protecting and improving the lives of millions of poor people.