Equity seems a simple word. But in Bonn on Wednesday (16 May) we learnt it has many meanings.

Which one you choose has long-term implications – economically, financially and perhaps climatically.

So many avenues leads to the potential for huge confusion – which is largely how the UNFCCC Workshop on equitable access to sustainable development ended.

UNFCCC boss Christiana Figueres opens the Equity workshop at the 2012 Bonn talks

The aim of the session was to establish what equity meant in terms of climate policy and sustainable development. All agreed that in its purest form equity means fairness. Few thought what was being proposed by many of the speakers sounded fair.

In truth, this was less a workshop and more a series of polemic speeches. Few contained proposals – all had an agenda.

By the close at 16:30 there appeared to be a familiar line in the sand. On one side the USA and a European Union protesting it was all about inclusion.

On the other India, China and the BASIC bloc, firmly rebutting the US contention that all must move towards the low carbon economy as one.

India’s Dr Prodipto Ghosh built the idea of equity as being the gateway to ambition – calling for it to be infused into the talks – leading to more financial and technological support for developing states.

“Persons who have exceeded their share of the global emission reserves should help out,” he said.

He was backed by Bangladesh’s Quamrul Chowdhury, representing the Least Developed Countries, who bemoaned the lack of implementation of financial pledges – expanding on his argument in an interview with RTCC.

But it was China’s delegate – speaking for the world’s second largest economy and largest source of emissions – who went for the jugular.

“Developed countries had completed their industrialisation in the 1970s”, he said, but had continued to exploit this over the past four decades. They had “taken over and occupied atmospheric space”, and were now trying to force inequality on others less fortunate.

“Imposing on developing countries the need to peak [emissions] prematurely is surely not plausible or feasible – and will affect sustainable development,” he said.

It was, in effect, a re-run of the final hours of COP17 in Durban, where Indian negotiator Jayanthi Natarajan let her anger at a perceived lack of equity explode at the plenary.

She would have exploded again at US negotiator Jonathan Pershing’s lively, entertaining and power-point-less argument that directly took on India and China’s positions.

There is no ‘finite carbon space’, formulas based on historic emissions would lead up a ‘blind alley’, there is no ‘single answer but multiple solutions’. Applause was muted.

The EU’s urbane lead climate negotiator Artur Runge-Metzger focused less on ‘equity’ than China and India, pointing out the ‘cost of inaction’, the lack of a ‘magic formula’ and potential of renewable technologies and energy efficiency measures.

He also suggested some UNFCCC core principles – which note historic emissions and the need for developed states to take up the burden – ‘had to be reflected in a changing world’.

And so the lines are drawn again. Pershing apparently walked out when an Indonesian delegate criticised the US, although he may have had enough of what were well-hashed arguments.

RTCC VIDEO: Meenakshi Rama from Third World Network explains why equity is such a hot issue and offers her analysis of Wednesday’s workshop:

Once again the EU finds itself in the centre of the maelstrom – struggling to juggle its roles as climate policy leader and protector of the 27 state interests it represents.

Runge-Metzger says he is still confident a deal over Kyoto 2 can be reached, although the EU’s preference is an 8-year extension – which many of the LDCs oppose as they believe it will allow industrialised states to delay emission cuts.

That particular battle is currently playing out behind closed doors – with developments likely next week.

In retrospect UN climate chief Christiana Figueres was wise to leave soon after she opened this morning’s session.

“Equity is difficult to define in a way that would be acceptable to all,” she said, adding that it was at “the heart and soul of the current agreements’.

Everyone could agree on that. But not much else.

What do you think?

Leave your comments in the box below, tweet us @RTCCnewswire or email ek@rtcc.org with your thoughts on what could be achieved in Bonn.

A new report has found that one in four business leaders have either implemented alternative transport fuel policies or are actively pursuing them.

Companies are increasingly turning to alternative fuel vehicles despite sluggish consumer demand. (Source: Deutsche Post DHL)

The study by consultancy firm Grant Thornton revealed that high oil prices and other associated costs as well as environmental benefits were boosting the uptake of natural gas, electric, hybrid and biofuel powered vehicles.

Transportation is responsible for around a quarter of global CO2 emissions.

“With the United States and the EU pressing ahead with sanctions against Iran, the world’s fourth largest oil producer, it seems unlikely that prices at the pumps will ease significantly in the near future,” said Daniel Taylor, partner & head of automotive at Grant Thornton UK.

“Many dynamic businesses are therefore looking to determine whether switching their fleets to alternative fuels could offer cost savings, allowing them to free up resources that could be better employed in efforts to expand their operations,” said Taylor.

“And of course, switching to ‘greener’ fuels also boosts their environmental credentials.”

While alternative fuel vehicles are struggling to gain traction among the public, the report suggests demand from the private sector could be much stronger.

In March 2011, Deutsche Post DHL rolled out a fleet of 30 electric and 50 hybrid delivery trucks to serve Manhattan, New York.

“The results suggest a bright future for the alternative fuel vehicle industry provided it can produce vehicles which compete with existing ranges in terms of quality, driving experience and critically price, whilst offering cost savings in terms of refuelling.”

Here’s one idea, in a recent Oxfam Discussion Paper, that could provide a compass for the journey toward sustainable development in Rio.

A safe and just space for humanity

(Source: Oxfam)

What’s going on here? Let me explain.

In 2009 the Stockholm Resilience Centre brought together a group of leading Earth-system scientists to come up with the concept of planetary boundaries. They identified a set of nine Earth-system processes – like the freshwater cycle, climate regulation, and the nitrogen cycle – which are critical for keeping the planet in the stable state that has been so beneficial to humanity over the past 10,000 years.

Under too much pressure from human activity, any one of these processes could be pushed into abrupt and even irreversible change. So the scientists drew up a set of boundaries below their danger zones – and they called the area in the middle of the circle ‘a safe operating space for humanity’.

Environmentally safe, yes, but that space could also be deeply socially unjust, leaving millions of people living in poverty.

So how about adding the idea of social boundaries to the picture? Just as there is an environmental ceiling of resource use, above which lies unacceptable environmental degradation, so too there is a social foundation of resource use, below which lie unacceptable human deprivations.

In their submissions to Rio+20 the world’s governments highlighted 11 social deprivations, so these constitute the social foundation in the image above.

Between the social foundation and the environmental ceiling lies a space – shaped like a doughnut – which is the safe and just space for humanity. Inclusive and sustainable economic development would bring us into this space.

The Earth-system scientists estimate that we have already crossed three planetary boundaries, for climate change, nitrogen use, and biodiversity loss. Meanwhile, much of humanity still lives far below the social foundation: 13% of people are undernourished, for example, shown here by the blue gap beneath the social foundation for food (see image below).

Falling far below the social foundation

(Source: Oxfam)

So humanity is still falling below social boundaries, while already exceeding planetary boundaries: it’s a sign of just how deeply unequal and unsustainable our current path of development is.

Indeed, around 50% of global carbon emissions are produced by just 11% of people, and the richest 10% of people hold 57% of global income. Extreme inequality is what’s putting this planet under pressure.

So what would it take to get inside the doughnut and live between planetary and social boundaries? Far greater global equity of resource consumption, and far greater efficiency in using resources to meet human needs.

How that’s achieved is of course the source of intense international debate. But if this doughnut could help bring the ship’s crew together at least to agree on a shared destination, that would be a strong start for the voyage ahead.

Kate Raworth is a Senior Researcher with Oxfam GB.

Check out a short video introducing the idea, and the full discussion paper.

RTCC Countdown to Rio articles:

VIDEO Big-hitters bemoan lack of action

How has the world changed in 20 years?

Did you sign the pledge wall at Rio 1992?

Children are not only most vulnerable to climate change and disasters but a big part of the solutions (© EDV Media Director/Creative Commons)

Half of the urban population are children – below the age of 18 – and therefore will be some of the most vulnerable people to climate change and disasters.

It is expected that as many as 175 million children could soon be impacted by disasters every year.

But with the right engagement of children, who make up 50% of city-based populations, Antony Spalton from UNICEF believes they could also be a huge part of the solution.

Speaking to RTCC at the ICLEI Resilient Cities conference 2012 he said: “I think the key issue is that half of the population in urban centres are children and I think typically people tend to think of children as vulnerable victims who live with high levels of disaster risk, but in actual fact children have intrinsic values on risk and have a lot to offer reducing risk in cities.”

With the world expecting to see huge moves of populations towards urban areas – with around 50-60% more people living in cities by 2050 – NGOs and aid agencies working with children will have to find new ways to engage.

“The experience coming out of the last 30 years in aid and development and humanitarian work has been in the rural areas and I do believe we are not as well equipped as we should be in dealing with what are going to be huge huge disasters in urban areas,” he explained.

“We need to revisit some of the methodologies and tools we use on how we reach out to children in urban areas.”

One of the most vital tools for groups such as UNICEF is school safety and information programmes – not only ensuring the schools themselves are safe from disasters but that the classroom is used a place to engage children in risk reduction.

“Hazards such as earthquakes interrupt education. Not only does that have an impact in terms of mortality, for example if a school collapses – and we know that many schools do collapse – but it also means that children drop out of school and out off their educations.

“Education itself can also engage children in taking steps to reduce their risks and to better understand the environment they are working in and come up with simple measures that will make all the difference if there is a flood, when there is early warning or knowing what to do if there is an earthquake, where to crouch in the building so it doesn’t collapse on you.

“Those messages are not only retained by children but they are communicated back to their homes.”

While admitting that there is still some way to go before the perspective of children is considered widely and acted upon, there are some areas where Spalton believe important work has been done.

For example, in Brazil, UNICEF works with the government in Rio to encourage children to work with local government’s to map the risks in communities – for example the risks from flash floods.

And the Children’s Charter on disaster risk reduction that was developed by UNICEF in partnership with PLAN, Save the Children and World Vision, was put together by children for children in a consultation across 21 countries from across the world.

With 600 decision makers, including mayors and UN offices, having signed up to the Charter there are many places – for example in cities in Mozambique, towns in the Philippines and in Brazil – where at local level real action is taking place to listen to what children do have to say.