EcoRadio

Category: Climate chaos

The atmosphere is to the earth as a layer of varnish is to a desktop globe. It is thin, fragile and essential for preserving the items on the surface.150 years of burning fossil fuel have overloaded the atmosphere to the point where the earth is ill. It now has a fever. Read the detailed article, Soothing Gaia’s Fever for an evocative account of that analogy. The items listed here detail progress on coordinating 6.5 billion people in the most critical project undertaken by humanity. 

  • Break-in targets climate scientist

     

    Fears of further attacks by climate-change deniers have also put Copenhagen delegates under increased pressure to reach a comprehensive deal to limit carbon emissions, with Britain’s chief negotiator, energy and climate change secretary Ed Miliband, warning last week that there was no certainty that a deal would be reached. “We need to have our foot on the gas all the time,” he said on Thursday. “We should not be complacent about getting a deal.” It was crucial that Britain, and Europe, showed ambition in setting an agenda for a tough, binding agreement and not let the efforts of climate sceptics derail negotiations, he added. “Our children will hold us in contempt if we fail now.”

    Analysts say the key to success at Copenhagen would be the establishment of a treaty in which developed countries agree to make major carbon emission cuts while developing nations make lesser, but nevertheless significant reductions of their own. Ultimately, the aim is to ensure that the world’s output of CO2 begins to decline by 2020. If this is not achieved, temperatures will rise by more than 2C and take the world into uncontrollable global warming.

    In addition, the Copenhagen summit will also have to establish a mechanism by which the west will pledge to pay billions of pounds in aid to the developing world to introduce renewable technologies and other climate-control measures. So far, there is little sign of rapprochement, particularly over the issue of cash aid from developed countries.

    “Rich nations tell us they are going to Copenhagen to seal a deal, but we say not an unfair deal. We will never give way,” said Abdalmahmood Abdalhaleem Mohamed, Sudan’s ambassador to the UN. Bangladesh’s senior delegate was equally robust, describing the $10bn so far offered by the west as “peanuts”.

    However, there was more encouraging news last week when India’s prime minister, Manmohan Singh, announced he would attend the summit, joining Gordon Brown and President Barack Obama on the final day of the meeting. India is the world’s fourth biggest emitter of greenhouse gases and has just pledged to cut its carbon emissions by 20-25% by 2020. India had previously been reluctant to commit itself to carbon cuts. Singh’s new stance suggests his country is now prepared to be more co-operative.

  • Climate guru to boycott Copenhagen

     

    Dr Hansen, 68, was one of the first voices to raise the alarm about rising global temperatures in the early 1980s, forecasting correctly that the planet would warm in the coming decades.

    Related Coverage

    Next week he publishes his first book, Storms of my Grandchildren, warning that “our planet, with its remarkable array of life, is in imminent danger of crashing” and declaring, “It is our last chance.” He decries the cap-and-trade system envisaged by governments as ineffective in stemming carbon emissions. Under such systems, governments set limits on overall emissions and polluters trade quotas among themselves.

    “The fundamental problem is that fossil fuels are the cheapest form of energy. As long as they are, they are going to be used,” he said. “It’s remarkable. They refuse to recognise and address the fundamental problem and the obvious solution.”

    He dismisses government announcements of national targets for greenhouse gas emissions as promises that will not be kept.

    It would be better for the Copenhagen summit to fail rather than reach the type of cap-and-trade-based system envisaged, he said. “If they sign on to anything like they are talking about then it’s definitely counter-productive. Any time you start down that path, it’s time wasted. We would do better taking a year time-out and figuring out a better path.”

    Dr Hansen, adjunct professor at Columbia University’s Earth Institute in New York, says the only way to control global warming is through a carbon tax. “We are going to have to move beyond fossil fuels at some point. Why continue to stretch it out?” he said.

    “The only way we can do that is by putting a price on carbon emissions. The business community and the public need to understand that there will be a gradually increasing price on carbon emissions.” He proposes that carbon tax revenues be returned directly to the public in the form of a dividend.

    He also believes that the world must be prepared to abandon coal unless its emissions are captured.

  • Copenhagen climate change talks must fail, says top scientist

     

    “The whole approach is so fundamentally wrong that it is better to reassess the situation. If it is going to be the Kyoto-type thing then [people] will spend years trying to determine exactly what that means.” He was speaking as progress towards a deal in Copenhagen received a boost today, with India revealing a target to curb its carbon emissions. All four of the major emitters – the US, China, EU and India – have now tabled offers on emissions, although the equally vexed issue of funding for developing nations to deal with global warming remains deadlocked.

    Hansen, in repeated appearances before Congress beginning in 1989, has done more than any other scientist to educate politicians about the causes of global warming and to prod them into action to avoid its most catastrophic consequences. But he is vehemently opposed to the carbon market schemes – in which permits to pollute are bought and sold – which are seen by the EU and other governments as the most efficient way to cut emissions and move to a new clean energy economy.

    Hansen is also fiercely critical of Barack Obama – and even Al Gore, who won a Nobel peace prize for his efforts to get the world to act on climate change – saying politicians have failed to meet what he regards as the moral challenge of our age.

    In Hansen’s view, dealing with climate change allows no room for the compromises that rule the world of elected politics. “This is analagous to the issue of slavery faced by Abraham Lincoln or the issue of Nazism faced by Winston Churchill,” he said. “On those kind of issues you cannot compromise. You can’t say let’s reduce slavery, let’s find a compromise and reduce it 50% or reduce it 40%.”

    He added: “We don’t have a leader who is able to grasp it and say what is really needed. Instead we are trying to continue business as usual.”

    The understated Iowan’s journey from climate scientist to activist accelerated in the last years of the Bush administration. Hansen, a reluctant public speaker, says he was forced into the public realm by the increasingly clear looming spectre of droughts, floods, famines and drowned cities indicated by the science.

    That enormous body of scientific evidence has been put under a microscope by climate sceptics after last month’s release online of hacked emails sent by respected researchers at the climate research unit of the University of East Anglia. Hansen admitted the controversy could shake public’s trust, and called for an investigation. “All that stuff they are arguing about the data doesn’t really change the analysis at all, but it does leave a very bad impression,” he said.

    The row reached Congress today, with Republicans accusing the researchers of engaging in “scientific fascism” and pressing the Obama administration’s top science adviser, John Holdren, to condemn the email. Holdren, a climate scientist who wrote one of the emails in the UEA trove, said he was prepared to denounce any misuse of data by the scientists – if one is proved.

    Hansen has emerged as a leading campaigner against the coal industry, which produces more greenhouse gas emissions than any other fuel source.

    He has become a fixture at campus demonstrations and last summer was arrested at a protest against mountaintop mining in West Virginia, where he called the Obama government’s policies “half-assed”.

    He has irked some environmentalists by espousing a direct carbon tax on fuel use. Some see that as a distraction from rallying support in Congress for cap-and-trade legislation that is on the table.

    He is scathing of that approach. “This is analagous to the indulgences that the Catholic church sold in the middle ages. The bishops collected lots of money and the sinners got redemption. Both parties liked that arrangement despite its absurdity. That is exactly what’s happening,” he said. “We’ve got the developed countries who want to continue more or less business as usual and then these developing countries who want money and that is what they can get through offsets [sold through the carbon markets].”

    For all Hansen’s pessimism, he insists there is still hope. “It may be that we have already committed to a future sea level rise of a metre or even more but that doesn’t mean that you give up.

    “Because if you give up you could be talking about tens of metres. So I find it screwy that people say you passed a tipping point so it’s too late. In that case what are you thinking: that we are going to abandon the planet? You want to minimise the damage.”

    • James Hansen’s book Storms of My Grandchildren is published by Bloomsbury, £18.99

  • Antony Green “Possible Election Scenarios”

     

    • Continue reading “Possible Election Scenarios” »

    Posted by Antony Green on December 01, 2009 at 01:17 PM in Double Dissolutions, Federal Politics and Governments | | Comments (39)

    November 28, 2009

    Double Dissolutions and the Meaning of ‘Fails to Pass’.

    The media is again full of speculation on whether there will be a double dissolution. That is possible, but it all depends on what happens next week in the Senate.

    Let me go back to the beginning by quoting the first paragraph of Section 57 of the Constitution under which a dissolution of both the House and the Senate is permitted. I have highlighted the relevant passages.

    S57: If the House of Representatives passes any proposed law, and the Senate rejects, or fails to pass , or passes it with amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree, and if after an interval of three months the House of Representatives, in the same or the next session, again passes the proposed law with or without any amendments which have been made, suggested, or agreed to by the Senate, and the Senate rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree, the Governor-General may dissolve the Senate and the House of Representatives simultaneously. But such dissolution shall not take place within six months before the date of the expiry of the House of Representatives by effluxion of time.

    What can we say about the current state of the CPRS legislation? The three month test has clearly been passed. If the legislation is defeated, then a trigger has been created. If the legislation is amended, and the government in control of the House of Representatives rejects the amendments, then a trigger for a double dissolution has been created.

    But what is meant by fails to pass?

     

    Continue reading “Double Dissolutions and the Meaning of ‘Fails to Pass’.” »

    Posted by Antony Green on November 28, 2009 at 09:46 AM in Double Dissolutions, Federal Politics and Governments | |

  • EU could easily make 40 per cent cuts by 2020

    EU could easily make 40 per cent cuts by 2020

    Ecologist

    1st December, 2009

    Phasing out fossil fuels, encouraging faster take-up of renewables and making radical improvements in energy efficiency would double Europe’s emission cuts, says study

    The EU could double its target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 without resorting to building new nuclear power stations or unproven technologies like Carbon Capture and storage (CCS), according to research released by the Stockholm Environment Institute.

    Current commitments will see the EU cut its emissions by 20 per cent by 2020. But the new study says Europe could cut domestic emissions by 40 per cent by 2020 and 90 per cent by 2050 on 1990 levels.

    It could do this through ‘radical improvements’ in energy efficiency and a faster switch from fossil fuels to renewables. Wind power, says the study, could be generating 55 per cent of electricity for the continent by 2050.

    ‘Our analysis shows that deep cuts in emissions can be achieved in Europe at reasonable cost between now and 2050, even with rather conservative assumptions about technological improvement,’ said report author Dr Charles Heaps of Stockholm Environment Institute.

    The study also envisages a shift towards public transport and a move away from air travel.

    Car journeys could drop from 75 per cent to 43 per cent of all journeys by 2050 and 80 per cent of intra-European flights under 1,000km could switch to rail by the same date.

    The study estimates the cost of such a 40 per cut emissions is likely to be between 1 and 3 per cent of EU GDP.

    ‘While this is not a trival sum by any means, it also is not a prohibitive cost. In fact, it can even be considered a small cost when viewed in the context of the dire crisis we are facing,’ says the study.

    In the UK, the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) said the EU had committed to a 20 per cent cut by 2020 but was willing to increase that to 30 per cent if other countries showed similar ambition at the Copenhagen climate negotiations.

    However, the UK’s climate watchdog, the Climate Change Committee (CCC), recommended in September that the UK should make a 42 per cent cut by 2020.

    Useful links
    Stockholm Environment Institute study

  • Feed-in tariffs in danger of being watered down

    Feed-in tariffs in danger of being watered down

    Ecologist

    30th November, 2009

    Campaigners say the Government is underestimating the potential of small-scale renewable electricity generation in the UK

    The UK could generate 6 per cent of its electricity from feed-in tariffs with minimal additional cost to household energy bills, say campaigners.

    According to the Government’s own figures, doubling the annual return on offer for small-scale renewable energy producers would add just £2.37 a year to household bills.

    The returns are part of proposals to incentivise renewable energy production. So called feed-in-tariffs, due to be introduced by April 2010, will pay households and businesses an above-market rate for every unit of electricity they generate and feed back to the national grid.

    Germany’s success

    Germany in particular has had significant success with feed-in-tariffs with more than 130,000 homes being fitted with solar panels every year.

    Friends of the Earth has criticised the current proposals on offer from the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) for only aiming to generate 2 per cent of UK electricity from small-scale renewable technologies by 2020.

    DECC research

    The group says DECC is ignoring the results of its own research that showed setting the feed-in-tariffs to deliver a 10 per cent annual return on investment instead of the 5-8 per cent currently proposed would triple the Government’s current 2 per cent target.

    It would also add an average of £2.37 per year to household electricity bills over the next four years – just £1.20 a year more than the addition currently proposed.

    Kick-start

    A coalition of groups, including the TUC, British Retail Consortium and Federation of Small Businesses have written to MPs urging them to support calls for DECC to improve the incentives for renewable electricity generation.

    ‘A tiny addition to UK electricity bills would kick-start a world class scheme that would allow homes, businesses and communities to play their part in tackling climate change, increasing energy security and creating thousands of new green jobs,’ said Friends of the Earth’s energy campaigner Dave Timms.

    ‘The UK’s renewable energy potential is enormous. As the world prepares for crucial climate talks in Copenhagen, the Government must show that it is taking this issue seriously and improve its plans to pay people for generating their own clean, green power.’

    DECC said it will make a decision on feed-in tariffs early next year, ahead of its own deadline for introducing them of April 2010.

    Useful links
    DECC position on Feed-in-tariffs