Cash for Thunder: Bolivia Demands “Climate Reparations”

Bolivian president Evo Morales has a message for carbon-spewing countries like the United States: Show me the money.

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


AFTER WEEKS of torrential rain, the Mamoré River spilled its banks in February 2007, swamping the city of Trinidad, Bolivia. Like most residents of his impoverished barrio, 16-year-old Randy Tuve-Semo fled for higher ground with his family. When the water stopped rising, his mother asked him to go see if their home had been looted. Wading into the half-submerged shack, he found their possessions intact but a gaping hole where a wall had been. Suddenly, an anaconda encircled Randy’s leg. Breaking free, he was pulled to safety by a neighbor in a canoe. “I didn’t want to come back to the house after that,” Randy said.

Tuve-Semo’s family eventually returned home, only to flee again in January 2008 when catastrophic floods hit Bolivia’s Amazonian lowlands for a second straight year, rendering much of Trinidad, a city of around 95,000, essentially uninhabitable. The past few years of unprecedented flooding and severe rainstorms have displaced nearly 50,000 people in Bolivia, one of South America’s poorest countries.

Rather than chalking up the destruction to the vagaries of Mother Nature, Bolivian president Evo Morales placed the blame squarely on climate change—and carbon-spewing countries like the United States. Morales has demanded that industrialized countries fork over what some have called “climate reparations”: mandatory compensation to developing nations for the increasingly devastating effects of CO2 emissions. “If there are countries that are doing a lot of damage to the environment, those countries should make some acknowledgment, some reparation for the damages that they are causing,” Morales told me at a forum in New York last November. Shortly after, he released a sweeping 20-point plan, including a demand that developed countries contribute a minimum of 1 percent of their annual GDP to a United Nations fund for poor countries. Venezuela and Nicaragua recently endorsed the proposal; South Africa plans to lobby for a similiar measure in Copenhagen.

The Bolivian populist has tapped into a growing sense of indignation within developing countries. According to the UN, the number of victims of weather disasters in those countries more than tripled between 1980 and 2004, to 257 million a year. During the same time, the incidence of floods and cyclones—which disproportionately affect poor nations—quadrupled. A recent study by the National Academy of Sciences projects that rich countries’ greenhouse emissions will cost poor ones more than $2.3 trillion in damages over the course of the next century—half a trillion dollars more than their current external debt. According to Oxfam International, compensation by leading historical emitters would oblige rich countries to spend an estimated $50 billion per year.

Morales’ call for reparations followed a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that found there was an 80 percent likelihood that global warming had worsened flooding in Bolivia. While scientists are sure that the world’s climate is changing, they are loath to link individual weather events to climate change, much less a particular source of carbon emissions. Yet as the science of climate modeling and causation improves, says Myles Allen, the head of the Climate Dynamics group at Oxford University and an IPCC contributor, “it will be possible to document in a quantitative way when a weather event happens how much human influence and how much other factors, like El Niño, may have contributed.” That, Allen predicts, will fuel more debate over who bears responsibility for future impacts.

A system that provides “adaptation funds” to poor countries is already in place under the Kyoto Protocol. Washington has yet to contribute to it, though it plans to give $50 million to the Least Developed Countries and Special Climate Change funds, both UN efforts.

Meanwhile, the Bolivian government continues to make its case. Seated in his office in La Paz, a silver tray of coca leaves at hand, Foreign Minister David Choquehuanca blasts the American government for failing to do more for the victims of “so-called natural disasters.” “Why can’t the United States spend what they spend in one day in Iraq, to save lives here?” he demands. He even jabs former Vice President Al Gore. “I don’t know why they gave the Nobel Prize to one of the guilty ones.”

The Obama administration’s position on adaptation financing is unclear. Yet it’s unlikely that it will distance itself from the Bush administration’s stance that America’s aid to the victims of weather disasters is based on largesse, not liability. At the height of Bolivia’s floods last year, then-ambassador Philip Goldberg flew to Trinidad to announce a donation of emergency supplies. “The United States has a humanitarian responsibility to provide help wherever we can,” he replied when I approached him in a camp for displaced families. I asked him if America bore any responsibility for the conditions in Trinidad, which had left thousands like Randy Tuve-Semo homeless. “I think the whole world has a responsibility for the whole world,” the ambassador replied coldly, before marching off through the mud.

UPDATE: On the first day of the Copenhagen climate talks, Bolivia called for world leaders to set a carbon emissions goal of less than 350 parts per million.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate