At Least 100 Dead Sea Lions Found in Chile

A pup lies with older sea lions at the Coast Guard Pier in Monterey, California. | Photo: Reuters

A pup lies with older sea lions at the Coast Guard Pier in Monterey, California. | Photo: Reuters

Source: teleSUR Published 29 February 2016 

Although the cause of deaths has not been yet determined, experts suggest they can be linked to climate change related to a “super” El Niño.

At least 100 sea lions, most of them newborns, were found dead on Chile’s northern coast over the weekend by Chilean authorities.
Researchers said this phenomenon has been happening in this region and that there are reports that is also happening in neighbouring Peru.
They’ve warned that there could be hundreds of deaths. Although the cause of deaths has not been yet determined, experts suggest they can be linked to climate change related to the “super” El Niño phenomenon that disrupts normal weather patterns.

IN DEPTH: Latin America’s Fight for a Just Climate Solution

South American sea lions have been particularly affected because the warm water does not have the same nutrients of phytoplankton that colder water has.
Phytoplankton is important because it feeds sardines and anchovies that sea lions thrive on. Scientists have said that the warming trend between 2011 and 2015 is the hottest period ever, and that it is caused due to greenhouse gases that humans have put into the atmosphere.

IN DEPTH: Climate-Induced Human Change

During the last COP21 climate talks held in Paris last year, representatives from the 196 United Nations members reached an agreement to set a goal of limiting global warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius.

VIDEO available in the original article (see source)



The Polluters the Paris Treaty Ignores


By Julian Spector, CityLab – 10 January 16


International shipping and aviation emit as much as entire wealthy nations, but they’re not bound by the COP21 deal.


With the Paris climate talks coming to a close, participating nations are hashing out the details of how to hold each other to their carbon reduction goals and finance the whole transition to a cleaner world. Non-state actors are present, too; 400 cities signed a Compact of Mayors to set and track climate goals. And financial institutions have made big commitments to shift investment away from fossil fuels and better disclose climate-related business risks.

But there are two particular industries that must factor into any plan to cut carbon and yet aren’t directly represented in the current COP21 talks: international shipping and aviation.

They’re both big. International shipping produces 2.4 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, equivalent to all of Germany. Meanwhile total aviation yields about 2 percent of global GHGs, and international flights account for 65 percent of that figure. These emissions won’t be covered by reductions being discussed at COP21, because they don’t happen within the boundaries of any specific countries. They’re also projected to rise dramatically by 2050.

Two major obstacles stand in the way of resolving emissions from international shipping and aviation. The first is procedural: those industries are not bound by the Paris climate deal. The second is practical: the world currently lacks a promising technology to replace carbon-based propulsion systems, as well as a promising alternative to carbon-based fuel.

The limits of COP21

The acronym-laden gathering of 196 nations in Paris is administered by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. That’s the organization created in 1994 to rein in greenhouse gases before they caused dangerous climate interference. The UN agencies charged with overseeing the environmental impacts of international transport are the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the International Maritime Organization (IMO).

The ICAO has said that next year at its assembly the group will decide on a global market-based measure to reduce carbon emissions. (Meantime airlines have acted on their own; in 2009, the International Air Transport Association industry group pledged to improve fuel efficiency 1.5 percent each year until 2020, when emissions will peak, and to halve 2005-level emissions by 2050.) And the IMO has set an energy efficiency requirement for ships built in 2025, but not an overall carbon emissions target.

The parties at COP21 could include language to direct those organizations to cut emissions from international shipping. But, as Politico reports, that requires a delicate balancing act: many of the maritime nations most threatened by rising sea levels also rely on shipping and air travel for their economic health. As of Thursday evening, the draft text for the Paris treaty did not contain the words “shipping” or “aviation.”

Technological challenges

Even if world leaders could determine carbon cuts for these industries, significant advances in technology and deployment would need to happen to make them possible.

Electric cars are growing cheaper and more accessible by the day, but electric propulsion doesn’t seem likely for international transit. When you’re out at sea or up in the air, you can’t stop to plug in and recharge your batteries. Additionally, air travel is extremely sensitive to the weight of an aircraft, and the batteries needed to power a long flight will weigh too much for the foreseeable future.

The industries can cut some emissions by looking at fuel efficiency, but not a lot. Airlines already did the more attainable upgrades in that regard during the fuel price spike of 2008, says environmental consultant Suzanne Hunt, president of Hunt Green LLC. Fuel prices impose the largest cost airlines face (up to two-fifths of total costs), so they have a strong incentive to trim their demand wherever possible.

The shipping industry doesn’t face the same pressures, because in most cases the company hiring a ship to transport cargo pays for the fuel required, says Galen Hon, who manages the shipping efficiency operation at the Carbon War Room, a D.C.-based nonprofit that advocates market-based ways to reduce carbon emissions. That means the ship owner doesn’t feel financial pressure to improve efficiency, unless customers start factoring in environmental qualities when they select a transporter (Carbon War Room developed a tool to do just that).

In both shipping and aviation, then, the most significant carbon reductions will come from adopting different fuels or propulsion technologies.

The green future of aviation

In his ambitious roadmap for decarbonizing society by 2050, Stanford engineering professor Mark Jacobson calls for all new aircraft to fly on liquid hydrogen by 2040. That’s what rockets burn, and if you want a rundown of the fantastically difficult requirements of a volatile fuel that must be kept at -423°F, head to NASA. The Soviet Union successfully flew an experimental hydrogen-propelled airliner called the Tu 155, so it can be done; it just can’t be done economically.

Part of the expense and time involved in creating a new generation of jet fuel is the safety requirements, Hunt says. That’s why she thinks the most likely non-fossil fuel for planes will be biofuels, which can be grown sustainably and poured into existing aircraft fuel tanks.

“There’s absolutely no margin for error, so the safety precautions for flying are really rigorous—it can take them many, many years to bring new technology into the airspace in terms of the aircraft,” she says. “One of the reasons people are so excited about aviation biofuel is that you don’t need to change the airplane or the engine.”

These biofuels typically derive from oils or fats (from plants or animals), or sugars. These are processed into hydrocarbons that function much like oil, but with the potential for much less carbon emission than conventional fuel (the accounting for this is very complicated, and some biofuels are more greenhouse gassy than others). More importantly, three types of biofuel have already been approved for blending with jet fuel for aviation and have entered into commercial use.

But just because they’re allowed doesn’t mean there will be enough of them. The biofuel industry, still quite young, needs to scale up to compete with traditional fuels, and so far the investment just isn’t there. Once it is, biofuel manufacturing will consume more raw ingredients, which calls for more farmland to grow them. If that takes away land from food production it creates tricky justice questions; if manufacturers use leftover materials from other industries, it might be hard to meet the global demand. The key is doing it at scale and at a price that airlines can actually pay.

“It’s really, really hard to make large quantities of sustainable biofuels for aviation,” Hunt says. “The industry is very much in its infancy and very capital intensive and it’s competing against the most powerful industry on the planet, oil.”

All hands on deck to clean up shipping

Electric propulsion has been gaining steam for smaller ships, but not for large cargo haulers. That’s because currently, electric generation on large ships tends to be a few percentage points less efficient than conventional propulsion, and those few points add up to a lot of money on a long voyage, says Hon of the Carbon War Room.

In the short term, then, carbon savings will come from efficiency upgrades to the hulls and rotors of ships. Some companies are turning back to wind power: the German company SkySails, for instance, produces large kite-like sails that attach to ships and give them a boost. A spokesperson for the company says they have installed the sails on five ships and that, in good wind conditions, they can save 30 tons of CO2 emissions per day. (Since winds don’t always blow steadily, the average comes down to two or three tons per day.) These can work well for bulk carriers—ships with large tanks for transporting grains or ore—but not on container ships, which carry almost all non-bulk cargo.

Again, the big carbon cuts will come from switching fuel sources. Ships burn what’s called bunker fuel, which is the heaviest, sludgiest oil left over when refineries distill gasoline, butane, and other useful hydrocarbons. Since it’s less refined, it’s also cheaper. And since ships burn it out at sea, the effects are less visible to the landlubbers who might be writing environmental policy.

The New York Times recently profiled the first container ships to run on liquefied natural gas, which burns cleaner than bunker fuel, especially in terms of particulate matter and acid rain-producing sulfur dioxide. But this approach doesn’t look like it will provide much of a net gain in greenhouse gas reductions, due to the technical requirements of running the ship and the possibility of methane leaks. It’s also expensive, because like liquid hydrogen, the liquefied natural gas must be kept at extremely low temperatures.

Then there’s nuclear. The U.S. Navy has successfully run naval vessels on nuclear power for decades, so that technology is totally feasible and does not burn fossil fuels. A handful of commercial ships ran on nuclear, but it never caught on widely. With civil shipping, the security risks are higher: What if Somali pirates didn’t just capture hostages but a nuclear reactor? There are also environmental concerns about what to do with the waste and what happens if a nuclear vessel sinks. And there are more expenses up front, with savings on fuel costs coming over time.

The most likely clean fuel for shipping might be biofuels or fuel cells, Hon says. Biofuels offer the same benefits and drawbacks as they do for airplanes—they don’t require technological changes to the craft, but they’re hard to source at scale. Fuel cells connected to electric engines would be a clean way of producing energy—they use chemical processes, not combustion, to provide the needed electrons.

“None of these technologies are viable right now,” he says. “Efficiency is totally possible with net-negative costs, that’s what we’re trying to figure out how to make happen sooner.”

The first hurdles

Since international transportation is, well, international, any policies to clean it up need to be global in scope. If the European Union passes a strong law for lowering emissions from international flights, airlines could just divert air travel to other places with more lenient approaches to carbon. And a patchwork of different policies in different nations will make global travel exceedingly complicated.

A worldwide carbon tax could go a long way to driving cleaner performance from ships and aircraft and increasing market pressure for alternative fuels. Michael Gill, director for aviation environment at the International Air Transport Association, says the aviation industry supports the ICAO developing a global, market-based regulation to cut carbon from flying, but they’re wary of a carbon tax: that might constrict the growth of the industry. Instead, he’d like to see a carbon offset scheme that includes incentives for switching to cleaner fuels.

If nations do want to act on their own, they could do a lot worse than ending subsidies for fossil fuels. A working paper by researchers at the International Monetary Fund estimated global post-tax subsidies for energy—mostly coal, natural gas, and oil, with a tiny sliver going to electricity—at an astounding $5.3 trillion for 2015, or 6.5 percent of global GDP. Stopping direct budgetary support for fossil fuels would be a logical place to start.

“Getting rid of subsidies for mature industries would be something you’d think would be palatable for liberals and conservatives alike,” Hunt notes.

It’s still possible, if unlikely, that some language about international transportation will make it into the final Paris treaty. Even if it doesn’t, there can still be progress. A successful deal at COP21 will generate political momentum for the ICAO’s next meeting in September 2016, says Gill. And the IMO will work on reducing emissions at a meeting in April, says Hon.

Environmentalists may well say that timeline isn’t fast enough. But that sounds like more of a testament to just how quickly the COP process has accelerated in the last few years. As recently as 2009 the question was: “Will the world ever forge a meaningful climate treaty?” Now we’ve advanced to asking: “Once we get the deal, how soon can international transit follow suit?”

COP21: The Most Possible Agreement Text


tour Eiffel 1,5degrees

The Eiffel tower is lit up with a reference to the tougher global warming target of 1.5C that is expected to appear in the final draft Paris climate text. Photograph: Chesnot/Getty Images

Conference of the Parties
Twenty-first session Paris, 30 November to 11December 2015
Agenda item 4(b)
Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (decision 1/CP.17)
Adoption of a protocol, another legal instrument, or an agreed outcome with legal force under the Convention applicable to all Parties
Proposal by the President
Draft decision-/CP.21

READ: Adoption Of The Paris Agreement (COP21)


Environmental Terrorists Meet In Paris


Activists of global anti-poverty charity Oxfam, wearing masks depicting some of the world leaders, stage a protest ahead of the 2015 Paris Climate Conference, known as the COP21 summit, in Paris, France, November 28, 2015. (photo: Benoit Tessier/Reuters)

Activists of global anti-poverty charity Oxfam, wearing masks depicting some of the world leaders, stage a protest ahead of the 2015 Paris Climate Conference, known as the COP21 summit, in Paris, France, November 28, 2015. (photo: Benoit Tessier/Reuters)

By William Boardman, Reader Supported News – 03 December 15


World “leaders” hold world hostage, no release seen soon


Maybe that sub-head is too bleak, maybe it’s unjustified, maybe there is an invisible political will to survive more than the next fiscal quarter or election. If COP21, the UN climate conference that began November 30, actually manages to provide some reason to believe the world will not continue to stumble deliberately toward self-incineration, that would beat present expectations. But even that unlikely result would be far short of the profound changes needed to prevent the world from heating more than the 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) already considered inevitable – and calamitous.

COP21 stands for the 21st session of the Conference of Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), an international treaty established in 1992 (at the Rio Earth Summit) “to consider what they could do to limit global temperature increases and the resulting climate change, and to cope with its impacts.” Like the UN, UNFCCC is dominated by the richest and most powerful countries, whose perceived interests give little weight to the needs of the poorest or most vulnerable countries. 

That underlying structural problem of power imbalance is amplified at COP21 by sheer numbers. COP 21 has at least 36,276 registered individual participants. Of these, 23,161 people represent 198 countries (two of which are only observers). There are another 1,236 observer organizations, including 36 units of the UN, 71 intergovernmental organizations, and 1,109 non-governmental organizations, altogether represented by 9,411 people. And there are 1,366 media organizations with 3,704 registered participants. All of them (and all of us) will have to slog through jargon and Orwellian language which have the effect of obscuring meaning, not exposing it. 

The official goal of this gathering of world leaders is: “COP21, also known as the 2015 Paris Climate Conference, will, for the first time in over 20 years of UN negotiations, aim to achieve a legally binding and universal agreement on climate, with the aim of keeping global warming below 2°C.”

COP21 is theatre of the absurd, diverting the frogs as the water boils

What passes for global “leadership” has already pissed away more than three decades since climate change was identified as a clear and present danger to life on earth. Even now the world’s leaders appear content to lounge in their comfortable bubbles of denial of reality and conflicts of interest that reinforce that useful denial. We live in a time when shameful leaders almost everywhere appear to lack the capacity for shame, much less the capacity to change their shameful behavior.

They aim to achieve a legally binding agreement on climate? If they wanted a legally binding agreement, or even an agreement that worked, they would have had one long since. 

They aim to achieve a universal agreement on climate? They don’t need a universal agreement on climate, they need only to agree among the powerful few and the agreement would then be universal.  

Those making a globe-saving agreement unlikely, if not impossible, are the ones who brought the globe to the climate brink in the first place. These are the governments that have for decades subsidized their oil and coal companies, whose social conscience is exemplified by Exxon. Almost 40 years ago, in 1977, Exxon learned that carbon dioxide produced by burning oil and gas was warming the planet and could threaten humanity. Exxon immediately blew the whistle – on sharing that information. Continuing to accept government subsidies, Exxon poured millions of dollars into a decades-long disinformation campaign debunking the climate change it knew to be real. In effect, even after the government knew through other sources about global warming, government continued to subsidize Exxon’s possibly criminal lies to the government and the public. Forbes magazine defends Exxon, arguing that Exxon was right because global warming has increased more slowly than predicted by some.

Corporate polluters embedded in UNFCCC (go ahead, pronounce it)

Exxon and its ilk have long had a heavy hand in UN activities to address climate change and they are well-represented at COP21. It is not in their interest to have the conference reach an enforceable and universal agreement, because most of their corporate assets are oil and coal in the ground and they can’t cash in on the value of those assets without burning them, no matter what they do to the planet. 

When a society, in this case a global society, sets out to confront criminal behavior, if they’re serious, they don’t convene a conference of criminals. Assuming that planetary destruction is at least a crime against humanity (this is controversial in some circles) what earthly sense does it make to have the world’s global plunderers, governmental and corporate, choose themselves to figure out how to reduce their plunder without reducing their profits and power?

Having absolute authority to take ameliorative steps on their own initiative, the plunderers swamp the credulous media with claims that an unwieldy conference with a track record of 23 years of failure is the only possible way to find a solution to the dangers of climate change. To emphasize that opinion, the plunderers exclude the most articulate voices against plunder from their conference. Those are the lucky ones. The less lucky are deposed by military coup and jailed, while the US is quick to recognize the coup government of the Maldives as it promptly issues offshore oil leases, showing their willingness to see their own people drown sooner or later. Like the Marshall Islands (under US “protection”), the Maldives are a looming test case of whether the world prefers long term humanity over short term profit. 

The Marshall Islands were the subject of a long, lavishly illustrated page one piece in the December 2 New York Times fatalistically headlined “Pacific Island Nation Struggles Against Relentless Rising Sea (and worse online: “The Marshall Islands Are Disappearing”). The story is strangely disconnected from COP21, as if assuming there’s nothing that can be done to save the Marshall Islands. The Times even characterizes foreign minister Tony A. deBrum as somewhat unconcerned with saving his country:  

Mr. deBrum’s focus is squarely on the West’s wallets – recouping “loss and damage,” in negotiators’ parlance, for the destruction wrought by the rich nations’ industrial might on the global environment. Many other low-lying nations are just as threatened by rising seas.… But the Marshall Islands holds an important card: Under a 1986 compact, the roughly 70,000 residents of the Marshalls, because of their long military ties to Washington, are free to emigrate to the United States, a pass that will become more enticing as the water rises on the islands’ shores.

Speaking, as it typically does, in the voice of the plundering class, the Times frames the destruction of a sovereign nation in terms of issues that matter to the plunderers: they want our money, and they want to come here – the horror. But the full moral squalor of the Times as plunderer mouthpiece comes later. The Times describes neighborhoods in the Marshall Islands that already suffer periodic flooding with salt water and raw sewage, followed by sickness and disease, fever and dysentery, in a cycle that will only repeat more quickly as warming continues. Such health conditions would be forbidden in the US. The Times, sounding like Marie Antoinette with the monstrous detachment of the rich and unaffected, worries only that Marshall Islanders “could see their homes unfit for human habitation within the coming decades.”

“If you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu”

The plunderers also ban peaceful protest against plundering, using the “terrorism” threat as an excuse to prevent protest against the eco-terrorism of the plunderers. When the plunderers’ gag on free speech is met with non-violent protest, the plunderers’ police respond with a violent put down and 200 arrests. This is Paris now. The local police state also used the “terrorism” smear to raid the homes of climate change activists, putting them in house arrest without charges. French President François Hollande, a head of a leading plunderer state, lied about the police actions this way:

This is why these protests are not authorized. We knew there would be troublemakers, who by the way have nothing to do with climate activists, or those who want the conference to succeed, and who are there only to create problems. That’s why they were put under house arrest. And it’s doubly unfortunate, I’d even say scandalous, Place de la Republique, where there are all these flowers and also candles placed in memory of those who were killed by the bullets of terrorists.

While Hollande’s first remarks are commonly dishonest, unprovable smears of unnamed and uncharged citizens, his last remark is a callous, demagogic lie. Video of the police attack shows that the memorial at the Place de la Republique was protected by the protesters and trashed by the police.

As with past UN climate meetings, peaceful protesters have been kept away from the eyes and ears of registered participants. What does it say about the participants’ arguments about climate change to see that they need police to protect them from counter-arguments? As one protester said, commenting on their exclusion from any meaningful part in the process: “If you’re not at the table, you are on the menu. So, we want to be at the table.”

Do the people at the table care what happens after they’re dead?

If the people at the table actually thought and felt in global terms, if they actually thought and felt in generational terms, they could not possibly act as they do, fecklessly, ineffectively, self-servingly and soullessly. Their terrorism is magnitudes larger than the “terrorism” they pretend to “protect” us against with their creeping totalitarian controls. If it were otherwise, there would not be so many casualties among climate change action advocates. Another such excluded expert is Pablo Solon, a former chief negotiator for Bolivia, now denied a seat at the table. He went to Paris to protest against the scripted charade of COP21, where there is no negotiation of unenforceable national promises to reduce emissions. Perhaps the conference would be better named COP-OUT21, if Solon is right:  

There is an official document from the UNFCCC that says,… we are going to be increasing the temperature between 2.7 to 3.9 degrees Celsius…. And now to be speaking about [global warming of] four degrees or five degrees Celsius is, to put it in other terms, to burn the planet. So the Paris agreement is an agreement that will see the planet burn.

For that prediction to be wrong, our global “leaders” need to change their behavior in radical ways that they have so far shown every intention of resisting. More likely Paris is another sham. It’s as if a ship captain with a vessel taking on water demands that the crew bail faster, and viciously punishes anyone trying to plug the hole. Faced with the need to reverse course to avoid calamity, the captains of our ships of state have gathered to discuss only the possibility of slowing down, while maintaining the same course.

    • 50% of the world’s population, the poorer half, cause only 10% of greenhouse gas emissions.


  • 10% of the world’s population, the richest 10%, cause almost 50% of greenhouse gas emissions.   

The plunderers show little interest in sacrificing their wealth to save the poor, or the planet. Among US presidential candidates so far, only Bernie Sanders has acknowledged that climate change is the most serious national security issue this (or any other) country faces. His campaign is predicated on the possibility of a political revolution from below, which might allow the possibility of US actions consistent with protecting the planet. It’s not that the ways to protect the planet are unknown or unachievable. But the best ways to protect the planet – especially keeping fossil fuels in the ground – are fundamentally unacceptable to those whose present interests are in conflict with efforts to keep the planet from burning. And the plunderers still control the game at the top.

Mobilisations Of The Many and Of Each One


Both followers and ordinary readers of this blog, can read (About) that it has been created out of my interest for the global problem of Climate Change.
Although frequency of postings are far from regular, I keep trying to … feed and update the contents and to post material from other sources.
The climate issue remains on top of my interests and it is understood that the upcoming major summit for the climate in Paris (COP21) would draw my attention.
During the last weeks I have tried to find any -kind of- relevant job within the context of the summit.
Unfortunately “amateur” journalists/bloggers are not entitled to apply.

After a couple of rejections for other supporting positions, almost ready to give up, I thought that a great and probably equally (if not more) useful way of promoting the cause of Climate Change are civil mobilisations.

Alongside the Paris Climate Summit, great actions and a big march are organised by environment movements and organisations. is one of them and the organiser of the Global Climate March on 28-29 November (the same day the conference begins). Their message is:

«On the eve of the big U.N summit in Paris, the climate movement is taking to the streets. With climate change in the global spotlight, this is our chance to make the talks work for our movement. This is our chance to set the agenda for ambition.

Our message: keep fossil fuels in the ground and finance a just transition to 100% renewable energy by 2050.»
See more here

“Alex, Iain, Alice, Risalat, Ana Sofia and the whole Avaaz team”, also fight against funding of fossil fuels and they have organized a petition which you can find here.

From my part, no matter how sad I felt having failed to participate from the inside, I also feel that pressure from the outside by supporting groups and organizations advocating and promoting the cause of protecting the Earth and People’s lives on the planet,  is within my power.
COP21 takes place in Europe -again, after Warsaw Poland COP19, two years ago, for which I had the chance to write for in a couple of journals, in Greek. 
Actions and mobilizations could probably be an once in a life-time chance, even for a European resident (like the writer).

At this point, I am counting my savings and my spending ability, in order to book flights and residence.
If that becomes possible, it will also be an opportunity to share my experiences here.
Anyone who might be interested can find useful and practical information or join the events here and discover actions all around the world here.  
Read also messages from containing useful links:


«The French government is working hard to prevent mass mobilisation in Paris on December 12 — from denying visas, to backtracking on pledges to accommodate civil society on the ground.

They’re fighting back because they know that people power works, and they’re afraid that if enough people make it to Paris, we might disrupt the fossil fuel industry’s business as usual.

We won’t be intimidated, and we won’t be stopped. Thousands of people are  making plans to come to Paris.

People from impacted communities in France, like in Seine St Denis outside Paris, who paid a heavy death toll during the 2003 heat wave. People from Pacific Island nations on the other side of the world, for whom climate action is a matter of survival. People from the communities surrounded by the world’s worst coal mines, frack sites and oil wells are all coming too.

Now is not the time for business as usual, and it is not the time to let politicians lead. On December 12th, we will send a signal that the age of fossil fuels is coming to an end.
Be part of this historic moment in Paris

As the climate summit wraps up, we will be converge to the conference center at Le Bourget, just north of Paris to surround it. With our bodies, we will draw the red lines: the minimal necessities for a liveable and fair planet. Our number and determination will ensure the political leaders inside are hearing our voices loud and clear.

It will all start December 12 at dawn — so that as the sun rises the last day of talks, it will also be rising on the face of a powerful global movement that is ready to change the course of history.

Be there with us as we demonstrate the power of the people — no matter what the people in power say.

Thank you for being part of the movement, and see you on December 12th!»


«December 12th is shaping up to be the biggest civil disobedience action on climate justice ever.

While negotiators, politicians, and polluters will be wrapping up at the Paris Climate Summit and getting ready to head home, we will be out in the streets. Why? Because a liveable planet is not something we can compromise on, and we intend to have the last word.

At dawn on December 12th, we will meet up and start walking towards Le Bourget in 5 groups of up to 800 people. We will then surround the conference center and make our voices heard loud and clear. With our bodies, we will lay down red lines that stand for the minimal necessities for a just and liveable planet — lines that should never be crossed.

This message will be most powerful if there are thousands of us, from all walks of life, coming together to defend people and the planet.

We want you to be part of this historic moment. Can you join us?

The French authorities are doing everything they can to shut out the voices of the climate movement. They are refusing to provide visas for people coming to the Climate Summit from the most impacted communities around the world. This COP is shaping up to be another meeting between multinationals and heads of the most polluting countries, with the people pushed to the side.

But we won’t let our voices be silenced. Because people power is the only thing keeping us from crossing those red lines, the vital necessities for the survival of the planet.

Last week we handed 6,000 signatures to the Mayor of Paris, which helped us get a meeting to negotiate with the authorities. But what the city offered is a far cry from what we need. We thus have to keep on pressuring the French government to get things moving.
Please take one minute to sign our petition calling on them to open Paris to the people this December.

We can take inspiration from yesterday’s fantastic news that President Obama has rejected the Keystone pipeline — a major victory for the movement of ranchers, tribal nations and everyday people who have been fighting it in North America. It’s living proof that when people get together to draw a line in the sand, we can win against fossil fuels. 

So whatever the hurdles in our path, on December 12th we will gather in Paris to draw our red lines. Please be there with us.

Many of us have never taken part in civil disobedience before. But we all know, regardless of where we’re coming from, that this Climate Summit is an important moment to take action around the world with one message: The time for people-powered climate justice is now.

Click here to be a part of this moment.

Thank you for being part of the movement, and see you on December 12th!»


«Plans are coming together for an epic action on December 12th in the streets of Paris.

A diverse and powerful coalition of organisations from across Europe have reached consensus on a plan for action on December 12th. Our goal is to have the last word after world leaders conclude their talks, and the message we will carry is that we are the ones we’ve been waiting for: together our movement has the power to keep the world from crossing the planet’s red lines from which there’s no return.

We will both converge in the centre of Paris, and march to surround the main hall where heads of state are meeting so that our message and meaning cannot be missed.

This is a message we can only send if we fill the streets. Can you be there with us on December 12th?
Click here to RSVP and get more details.

That said, it looks like French authorities are actively obstructing the climate movement mobilisation plans around the Paris talks this December, despite months of negotiations by the French coalition organisers. So far they have refused to approve a march route through central Paris, or to help provide accommodation and visas for people travelling to Paris from all over the world, including countries most impacted by the climate crisis.

Please take 1 min to send a quick message to the Mayor of Paris, telling her open up Paris for the COP21 !

Why are we mobilising after the climate talks end? Because some of the most important work comes after heads of state sign on the line.

The deal being discussed in Paris will probably fall short of our goals for justice and science. But the fossil fuel industry will do everything they can to undermine it and stop its implementation.

If a global climate deal is to become a reality, it will take a global grassroots movement working relentlessly to confront coal, oil and gas companies and their friends standing in the way. It’s up to us to stand up and draw the red lines that we cannot compromise on.

That’s why we’re focusing on what happens the day after the talks end – December 12. That’s when we can show heads of state and the fossil fuel industry that we’re serious about action.

The plans are coming together, and they’ll be much stronger with your participation.
Click here to be a part of this moment

Thank you for being part of the movement, and see you on December 12th.»


Even more information here.

Anyone interested and/or participating, please, let inform this site’s climate supporter.

“Finances permitting” we might meet!!


paris climat 2015