Just wanted to put out a quick blog post to say that I’m actually not allowed to keep a blog this summer, a couple of people have been asking me to update, I really wish I could! If you want to know what’s going on in my life, send me an email at LisaCurtis777@gmail.com and I’ll tell you all about D.C. 
Obama is not the only political figure who can use “Yes We Can.” I’m currently sitting in the UN General Assembly at the Children and Youth Chair, listening to the Chair of the Commission on Sustainable Development Gerda Verburg from the Netherlands, speak about how the international community CAN overcome the combined crises of food insecurity, climate change, water scarcity and the financial recession. Despite the overwhelming nature of these challenges, Verburg seems confident that agriculture is the solution.
She points out that almost all of the billion people that live on less than $1 a day depend on agriculture for their livelihoods. Increasing investments in agriculture, improving market access, more equitable trade policies and micro-credit could create a new sustainable Green Revolution that would ensure that this food crisis is the last one.
In terms of climate change, she points out that soils can store carbon and sustainable biofuels such as palm and soil can help with mitigation while new crop varieties can help with adaptation. After attending numerous roundtables on biofuels, I have to agree that corn-based ethanol in the U.S. and palm oil plantations in Indonesia-which have led to the destruction of the peat bogs and made Indonesia the world’s 3rd largest ghg emitter- have really given biofuels a bad name. I think that the Standard on Sustainable Biofuels that Germany is pushing could really help with this.
Since agriculture consumes roughly 90% of the world’s water, water scarcity cannot be addressed without more efficient water management in agriculture. An especially controversial issue at CSD-17 has been GMOs. At our meeting yesterday with John Matuszak, the head of the U.S. State Department Delegation, he was asked about the U.S. support for GMOs. He replied that the U.S. views GMOs as a tool and one that is especially useful for combating water scarcity and desertification. Although I know there are numerous problems with GMOs, I’m inclined to agree that we shouldn’t entirely write them off.
Solving all of these crises will require a lot of money from industrialized countries. As the Minister of the Environment from Argentina just said ”Climate change is an environmental debt that industrialized countries must pay for.” The Chair made very clear that the current financial crisis is not an excuse for industrialized countries to pull back from the promises they have made. As I see it, solving the food/climate/water crisis is the only way that the world is ever going to get out the financial crisis. Let’s just hope some of the high-level ministers here feel the same way and that, unlike last year, CSD-17 is able to produce a final document on sustainable development that the world can agree on.
This was written by Imran Battla and I during the UN Commission on Sustainable Development in New York for the SustainUS Blog
We just finished meeting with the head of the CSD-17 State Department Delegation John Matuszak as part of the U.S. Government Listening Session. One of the questions we asked him pertained to the role of U.S. youth in the State Department Delegation. We know that there had previously been a youth on the delegation but due to controversy that position had been eliminated. John told us they would “review that recommendation.”
While the response was slightly disappointing, it provoked a sense of reflection on what we feel our role to be. We’ve been thinking about the difference between a participant and an observer during these negotiations. To some extent we are participants; as one of the major groups and part of the Youth Caucus, we’ve been working with youth around the world to draft our principles and suggestions to the negotiating text. And yet, sometimes it seems as though we are participating in a process that is not directly translatable to the issues that we care about.
Sit in the room of one of the major group sessions and you’ll understand what we mean. The time and labor that goes into such nuances as the difference between “recognizing that this calls for” and “calling for” seem to have little to do with the roughly 2 billion people that still live on less than a dollar a day. Can the well fed members of the Roundtable on the Food Crisis truly comprehend the mass starvation occurring as they sit in the nicely sunlight UN café?
Diplomats are limited by the interests of their countries and their own bureaucratese. Youth are limited by our understanding of the process and ability to influence it. Many of the youth in CSD-17 are action-oriented but we are not policy wonks. These factors create a myopic vision that fails to see the interconnectedness of issues.
What happens in the world affects all of us on many different levels. Perhaps when we combine these different perspectives of bureaucratic expertise and passion for action we are able to get things done. In our meeting with the Chair of CSD-17, she told us to never underestimate our collective youth power.
Diplomats, civil society and lobbying groups (such as youth) spend so much time engaging in a process that does little to address the needs and concerns of those who are most vulnerable in our society. CSD-17 produces what is referred to as “soft law” meaning that governments don’t have to implement any of the things they write unless people like us hold them accountable for it. Let’s make sure this process is not in vain.
These policies aren’t useful unless we find a way to implement them. Read the text of CSD-17. If there is something you care about, write a letter. Remind your representatives what they agreed to do.
May 7th
Seattle Airport
This morning I woke up at 5:30 am to get on a plane to New York. I sat next to one of those inquisitive elderly types that love to ask young people questions about their life. Somehow I found myself relating my entire life story. At the end of the flight the man told me “I’d tell you good luck but it sounds like you don’t need it, you already have it all figured out.”
Last summer, before I left for Kenya, I remember trying to come up with a catchy tagline for my newly started blog. Andrew suggested “making the world and greener and hyphier place.” I kind of liked that one but spent so much time attempting to explain to my mom what “hyphy” meant that I decided to change it. So I decided on “trying to figure it all out.”
Initially, I think I was trying to figure out if all the myths about Africa were true. I’d just taken a Politics in Africa class and heard so much about the negative stereotypes of absolute poverty, violence and corruption that simply failed to capture the joy and vast differences between the 54 countries of the African continent. I also wanted to know if there was anything I could do to help or if more Western intrusion was simply making things worse. Three months and a successful biodigester project later, I found that I could be helpful. At the same time, I began to question the success of the international system in carbon credits under the Clean Development Mechanism in helping to fund renewable energy projects in developing countries when the amount of bureaucracy to even get our project considered was prohibitive.
After leaving Kenya I went to Washington D.C. There I studied International Environment & Development, interned at the United Nations Environment Programme and worked at a restaurant called Nando’s. I’ve never had a class I loved so much, I felt like everything we were learning about was exactly the type of information I wanted to know. My internship at the UN introduced me to the most amazing people, both in D.C. and in Chicago where the youth network I helped launch held our first conference. As one of the only white girls at Nando’s and definitely one of the only ones that wasn’t struggling to pay the bills, I saw a whole new side of our capitol I never would have experienced. I started to question the values of a country where the people distributing government money (politicians) are able to ignore the astonishing high poverty rates in their own backyard.
When I first arrived back at Whitman, my first reaction was “whoa, I have so much free time.” That’s when I realized that my study “abroad” experience where I often had myself booked from 9am until 11pm when I got of work at Nando’s was a little insane. Despite recognizing that insanity, I quickly went about making sure my life at Whitman was just as busy. I’d already signed myself up for five-hour commitments to Northwest SEED, UNEP’s Kick the Carbon Habit Education Campaign and the World Bank’s Youth, Peace and Development network. These positions also meant that I went to a fair number of conferences, attending the Clinton Global Initiative in Austin, Texas and Powershift in Washington D.C. While this was fun, it sort of made me question if all of those conference calls and conferences were actually helping anything besides my own resume.
I got back involved in club life at Whitman. I helped plan a curriculum on climate change called “Cool the Schools” that sent 30 Whitman students into classrooms for three weeks. On Earth Day, I led 20 students from all three colleges in Walla Walla on a project to distribute energy efficient light bulbs in lower income neighborhoods. Although I loved both of those projects, I wanted to find a way to make them into something sustainable.
I’d worked in those neighborhoods previously doing community-based research for the State of the State for Washington Latinos class. I’m currently in the continuation of that class which is public communication about my research. This class has sent me all over Eastern Washington and to Olympia to speak with people about the importance of neighborhood organizing for engaging Latinos. Last night was our final presentation in Yakima. For the first time, I presented without my notes. It was thrilling to be in front of people without any safety net. And yet sometimes I wonder if my research is really going to change anything.
I spent an inordinate amount of time this semester filling out applications. I applied for the Truman Scholarship, made it to the final interview round in San Francisco and didn’t get it but made some new friends. I got the Udall Scholarship for environmental leaders and am excited to attend the Scholarship Orientation later this summer. I also got accepted to be part of the SustainUS youth delegation to the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development, hence the reason I am on my way to New York. I can’t wait to see what an international meeting actually looks like. On most of the applications I’ve written that I want to be a diplomat when I “grow up.” I have no idea what that actually means, perhaps this conference will help me figure that out.
Perhaps most exciting was when I got a call from the White House saying that I’d been accepted into their summer internship program. I’m guessing that interning at the Office of Political Affairs is going to give me an entirely new perspective on the way politics actually works.
After sitting the airport for a couple of hours thinking about everything I’ve done since I first started this blog, I realized that I really haven’t figured anything out and probably never will. Everything I’ve done has just given me more questions that I can’t answer. If I ever see that gentleman again I’ll correct him, telling him “No, I haven’t figured it all out, but actually, I sort of like it that way.”
Last Tuesday, Whitman’s Campus Climate Challenge met with Walla Walla’s very Republican Congresswoman Cathy McMorris to discuss climate change. We had met with her before in Washington D.C. where she had made it clear that she knows very little about the issue. She subtly avoided admitting that climate change is happening and when I asked her if she had read any of the reports by the IPCC (the top 2,500 scientists from around the world who all agree that climate change exists), she asked me who the IPCC is. In our meeting last week she asked us what the Markey-Waxman bill (the main piece of legislation on climate change) was. Fortunately, this time we had come prepared and we presented her with both the full text of the bill and the IPCC executive summaries.
It astounded me how little an elected representative knew about one of the greatest issues facing our world and one of the top priorities of this administration. Her concerns about climate change seemed to be three-fold.
1. It doesn’t matter what the U.S. does because India and China are going to keep emitting C02
I tried to explain to her that industrialized countries are responsible for 3/4 of human-caused emissions and 2/3 of current emissions. Although India and China are catching up, they are not the real problem. Both India and China have said that they want to have more renewable energy but their first priority has to be on helping moving people out of poverty. America needs to take a lead on this issue before we can expect other countries to follow.
2. Cap and Trade will allow the government to declare winners and losers
While cap and trade will put a price on carbon that may hurt some heavily polluting industries, many businesses will benefit. In fact, many have already been calling for a cap and trade system. A voluntary system has gotten us slight improvements in energy efficiency but has yet to get us any major reduction.
I am hoping to refine the above points and write Congresswoman McMorris a letter answering some of the questions she raised during our meetings.
But what worries even me more that Walla Walla’s Congresswoman lack of knowledge on this issue is that her views seem to be widespread in Congress. Obama’s Science Chief John Holdren just announced that the administration might agree to auction only a portion of the emissions allowances granted at first under a cap-and-trade system to limit greenhouse gas pollution. This is essentially giving away permits and setting a bad precedent for the future of the cap and trade system.
Walking into the house, we were struck by the immediate sense of peace the cabin conveys. The ocean seemed close enough to touch; from the living room my sister and I could watch the waves roll against the beach below in a never-ending rhythm.
Our grandmother Mimi had arrived a day earlier, ensuring that the smell of roasting chicken tickled our nostrils and the sound of classical music floated up to greet us.
Flowers adorned every vacant space, seeming almost to grow out of the carefully hewn wood paneling.
Mimi gestured for us to put our luggage down, sweeping us both up in a lavender-scented hug. Our goofy golden doodle dog, Bozzie, jumped around the three of us, his body writhing with excitement.
Grabbing Bozzie’s leash, we headed down along the ocean. Bright yellow daffodils, small purple violets and vibrant orange succulents lined the pathway. We walked quickly as we told Mimi of our college adventures, the words spilling out as she smiled.
Stopping in front of a Harbor Seal sanctuary, we counted the new mothers and their seal pups. We each picked a favorite, watching as the seals basked on the black rocks. Sea anemones and rainbow-colored kelp compelled us to pause in the tide pools, restraining Bozzie as he tried to move towards the seals.
We came back from our walk exhausted, sinking into the couches as we watched the sun slowly retreat from the windows. Mimi started a fire and we sat around reading our books, Mimi and I enjoying glasses of white wine.
Eager to learn recipes that didn’t involve ramen, we helped Mimi make dinner, pouring a bit of wine into our asparagus ricotta pasta. After dinner we read a bit more until the words started to blur and we headed to our beds.
That night I dreamt my to do list, my mind running through all of the things I needed to do once I was back to my computer and phone. In the morning I woke up thoroughly disgusted with myself. As a twenty-one year old on spring break, I should not be dreaming of homework and conference calls.
After a day of biking, long walks, cooking and beaches I slept the second night without any dreams. We lingered as long as we could without risking traffic and then persuaded Bozzie to climb back in the car. As we pulled out of the driveway I realized that I had relaxed more in those two days than in my entire two-week vacation.
Although coming back to school today has resembled a slap in the face—homework, meetings and errands leaves long red marks across my unaccustomed mind—I am learning to relax.
As part of a scholarship I am applying for, I recently wrote a letter to Congressman David Obey, Chairman of the House Committee on Appropriations urging him to put limitations on the World Bank’s proposed Clean Technology Fund (CTF) that would eliminate funding for clean coal. The purpose of the fund is to help developing countries cut pollution, save energy and fight global warming. I argued that using this funding for clean coal would be a waste since the United States has already spent billions investing in our own country and we have yet to produce a single clean coal plant. Wind and solar create three to four times as many jobs as coal power and are far better for the environment than coal, which are the largest polluter of toxic mercury, the largest contributer of hazardous air toxics and releases over 40% of U.S. total carbon dioxide emissions (while supplying 48.4% of our electricity, 23% total energy). Strip mining provides over 60% of the coal in the U.S. and has killed more than 104,000 miners in the mines since 1900 and twice as many from black lung disease.
Essentially coal is bad and clean coal in unproven so we shouldn’t devote the scant resources we have (estimates say we’d need an additional $30b) towards promoting clean energy in developing countries. BUT what happens to this logic when you account for China?
China is now building two new coal plants per week and yet the average Chinese is still only consuming one-quarter of the average American. Imagine if they catch up to us…
And yet, positive things are happening. Last October China’s top climate change envoy warned that the global pact to tackle global warming was bound to fail, saying that rich countries are failing to deliver on promises, especially promises to transfer patented clean technology. But last week the U.S. and China held a clean energy forum where they discussed co-funding a joint research and development center with shared intellectual property, creating tax-free “special energy zones” within cities to demonstrate new projects, and training a corps of energy-conservation auditors. While nothing concrete was decided, the forum had support from the likes of Hilary Clinton and Senator Maria Cantwell.
It is clear that China is trying. They know that their arid lands are vulnerable to climate change which could reduce China’s agricultural output by 5 to 10 percent by 2030, a disaster in a country that has 20 percent of the world’s population and 7 percent of its arable land.
China is investing strongly in hydro, although this is very controversial (think Three Gorges Dam) and experts Say China’s Wind Energy Could Grow 1667% by 2020.As was noted in a New York Times article today, the hard work will come if the United States presses China to accept mandatory caps on its emissions.
This investment and the push towards collaboration is very exciting. However, if we really want to see China and other developing countries move away from cheap fossil-fuels, the West is going to have to make more of an investment. While industrialized nations have pledged nearly $18b, developing countries have received less than 10% of that. This includes money pledged to the World Bank’s Clean Technology Fund, none of which has been deposited and now the money is expected to be available in the form of loans, not grants.
Given the economic crisis, this is understandable. But given the climate crisis, it is unacceptable.
This weekend I went to Austin, Texas to attend the Clinton Global Initiative, a youth conference put on by Bill Clinton’s foundation. I went with three other members of the UN youth network I’m a part of. Like the rest of the participants, we made a “Commitment to Action,” a project that we pledged to work on to benefit the community. Our pledge followed the goal of our network, to promote environmental education about resource conservation in every state in the U.S. and every province in Canada.
What really impressed me about the conference weren’t the big name celebrities (think Matthew Maconoagy, Drew Barrymore etc) but the conference participants themselves. I spoke with countless young people who didn’t just have an idealistic vision, they had a plan to turn that vision into a reality.
On the plane ride back from Austin, I sat next to a professor at UC Davis. We started talking about climate change and all of the effects that we are already seeing such as the melting Arctic, the wildfires in Australia and the death of millions of bees. After a while, he put a hand to his forehead and turned to me, asking me how I still have hope.
I told him that I see climate change as an opportunity to make the world a better place. As Obama, Van Jones and Achim Steiner have emphasized, weathering buildings, installing solar panels and manufacturing wind turbines will create millions of new jobs.
But just as climate change doesn’t just effect one country, I think the benefits of combating climate change can be global. As I witnessed first-hand in Kenya, the lack of an efficient source of energy is an enormous impediment to economic prosperity. Since 44% of the demand for energy is going to come from developing countries by 2030, it is apparent that tackling climate change will have to include promoting clean energy technology in developing countries. There is so much potential for projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions to also reduce poverty, both at home and around the world.
I soon realized that I had been talking for a good ten minutes in response to his question. He didn’t seem to mind and we kept chatting until the plane landed.
Getting off the plane, it struck me that perhaps part of the reason I’ve been feeling so frustrated lately is that my current activism doesn’t line up with my vision for the future. Sitting in the airport, I started brainstorming ways that I could bring activities that I am already involved in to be more in line with my ideals.
What if I was able to somehow combine my positions on the UN environmental education campaign, the World Bank’s Youth Development and Peace network, my green campus internship with NW SEED and my failed trip to Haiti?
I’m thinking working with Trees for the Future’s Tree Pals program LINK to educate children on climate change and other countries while raising money to plant trees in Haiti and possibly even visiting Haiti over the summer to work with a youth delegation I met from Haiti and the Dominican Republic. Hopefully I could get money/guidance/publicity from the different networks that I’m on.
There’s a good chance this won’t all work out as I envision it. But if I learned anything from the conference, it was the power of positive thinking to change the world.
Yesterday Professor Mark Denbeaux from Senton Hall Law School visited my International Politics class to talk to us about Guantanamo. One of the first things he told us is that the debate over what constitutes torture has been obscuring the true issues at GITMO. As he said
Torture is irrelevant
What he was really concerned about is that none of the prisoners have had hearings, although this is changing after the Supreme Court’s decision in June that foreign detainees held for years at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba have the right to appeal to U.S. civilian courts to challenge their indefinite imprisonment without charges.
Professor Denbeaux was also extremely concerned with the governments reasons as to why those detainees were there in the first place. Together with his law students, he did a study that used government evidence to find that, essentially,
the prisoners in Guantanamo are not the “worst of the worst,” in fact they are mostly just delinquents
His study found that 55 % of the people in GITMO are not accused of “committing a hostile act” and of the other 45 % that are accused of being “enemy combatants,” the overwhelming majority of those are accused for being enemy combatants by association. As he quickly found out, association often means that they were the assistant cook for the Taliban, who was the government from 1996 until 2001. As he put it
That’s the U.S. equivalent of calling someone a terrorist for talking to the post man
He added that since only 4% of the detainees were actually picked up by U.S. forces, most of them were sold to us for bounties, making finding evidence on them extremely difficult.
One of the questions asked at the end was
Well all of that really sucks but isn’t Obama going to fix it?
He said he believed in Obama but that its extremely difficult to get everyone out of GITMO as many of them can’t go back to their home countries for fear of being killed.
A NY Times article said that
The Obama administration failed — miserably — the first test of its commitment to ditching the extravagant legal claims used by the Bush administration to try to impose blanket secrecy on anti-terrorism policies and avoid accountability for serial abuses of the law.
While I would argue that this case wasn’t Obama’s fault, the federal lawyer probably used the “state-secrets” argument without clearance from the top, it still scares me to think that there could be any continuation of the horrible policies that led to Guantanamo.
