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. 

  • Impact of religions will have ‘deeper roots ‘ than Copenhagen

    Impact of religions will have ‘deeper roots’ than Copenhagen

    Ecologist

    31st October, 2009

    Archbishop speaks of the lasting impact of a religious movement to tackle climate change ahead of major summit of religious leaders

    The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has spoken out about the crucial role of the world’s religions in tackling climate change ahead of a major summit of faith leaders.

    Speaking at Lambeth Palace this week, the Archbishop said religions held the ‘moral vision’ and that ultimately their impact would have ‘deeper roots’ than anything achievable at the Copenhagen summit.

    His comments come as leaders from nine of the world’s major faiths – Baha’ism, Christianity, Daoism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Dhintoism and Sikhism – gather at a major summit in Windsor next week to announce commitments to tackling climate change.

    Faith commitments

    Among the practical measures being announced is a commitment by  The Northern Diocese of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Tanzania to plant 8.5 million trees, and by Sikhs to source sustainable fuel for India’s Sikh gurdwaras, or temples, which cater for 30 million people every day.

    Leaders will also announce a new Islamic eco label for goods and services, eco-tourism packages for pilgrimages (still the world’s biggest tourism events) and the turning of Shabbat into an environmental celebration of avoiding consumption.

    Biggest civil movement

    The event, being organised by the Alliance of Religions and Conservation (ARC), has been described as ‘the biggest civil society movement on climate change in history,’ by the UN.

    Faith communities own between 7-8 per cent of the habitable land surface of the planet, run (or are involved in) half the world’s schools and control more than 7 per cent of international financial investments.

    UN Assistant Secretary-General Ola Kjorven said with more than 85 per cent of the world’s population adhering to a religion the commitments made at the Windsor summit had the potential to be, ‘the biggest mobilisation of people and communities that we have ever seen on this issue.’

  • East-west tussle erupts over bill for combating climate change

     

    Poland and other more recent and poorer EU members threatened to block agreement on a financial package for funding global warming action in the developing world, a central plank of the international pact needed if the Copenhagen talks are to succeed. At the end of yesterday’s talks, no deal had been agreed on funding for tackling climate change in developing countries. Talks are to continue today.

    Chairing last night’s Brussels summit, Fredrik Reinfeldt, the prime minister of Sweden, said Europe’s claim to lead the world on global warming was at stake. But the Poles, Hungarians, and Lithuanians fiercely criticised the outline deal tabled by the Swedes.

    The Swedes and the European commission, as well as Britain, called for the EU to agree a package of up to €15bn (£13.4bn) of public money for transfers to developing countries by 2020. They want the bill to be split on the basis of the greenhouse gas emissions and economic prowess of each of the 27 member states.

    The Poles and other east Europeans maintain that they cannot afford to pay a fair share of the bill, particularly since some of the east European countries have been hit particularly hard by the financial crisis.

    The €15bn is supposed to be the European share of the developed world’s bill of up to €50bn of public-sector spending by 2020. The EU also hoped to agree on transitional funding of up to €7bn a year, starting from next year, for the developing world.

    The Germans last night objected to pinning down the short-term fund now. But the bigger problem came from east European opposition over how the bill should be split.

    “In its current form, the burden sharing is not acceptable,” said Gordon Bajnai, the Hungarian prime minister.

    Senior officials said the Poles were also refusing to agree to the terms.

    The Swedes have offered a compromise which would include “readjustment” mechanisms for the poorer EU member states in the form of rebates, or via other refunds.

    “The poorer countries in eastern Europe have been more reluctant. Some of the richer ones have been less forward than us,” said a senior UK official.

    The poorest EU member states, such as Romania and Bulgaria, are complaining that the European subsidies will go to some developing countries, such as Brazil, which are wealthier than they are.

    While Sweden, Denmark, Britain, and the European commission said that the EU had to agree a package now in order to send a strong signal to Copenhagen, put pressure on the US and other countries to agree similar funding, and retain the pioneering role it claims on climate change, Germany was reluctant to commit to figures publicly, arguing that the Europeans should not reveal their hand until the “card game” got under way properly in Copenhagen.

    “You cannot simply wait right until the very end of Copenhagen to do this,” said the British official. “We need to explain the terms in which we want countries to put their commitments on the table, and now is the time to do it.”

  • Emissions trading hits the poor

     

    The reason why increasing electricity bills has caused such a scandal in the past, and should be taken incredibly seriously now, is that the poor and elderly spend far more as a portion of their income on electricity. The 10% of the population on the lowest incomes spend more than three times as much, as a share of their income, as the richest 10%. Over-75s spend nearly twice as much as under-30s. We need to resist increases in VAT because it hits the poor hardest, but at least VAT is exempted or at least reduced for some items like food and children’s clothing. The ETS does precisely the opposite, pushing up prices on the spending priorities of low-income families.

    The fact that a large share of the proceeds goes to energy companies as windfall profits rubs salt in that wound. Those profits are going to continue for some years to come as the scheme slowly moves towards auctioning allowances rather than allocating them for free. Even once full auctioning is in place, the ETS will still be a highly regressive tax.

    Of course, the reason why we are supposed to accept such a regressive tax is that it will help to cut emissions. Unfortunately, the efficacy of the scheme is undermined by its inability to produce a stable carbon price. The price has collapsed a number of times since the scheme was introduced. As Oliver Tickell wrote for this website, “wild fluctuations create a risk that deters some investors altogether and makes others demand a significant risk premium, putting up the price of capital.” EDF Energy has called for a floor on the carbon price to “encourage investment in low-carbon energy like nuclear power”. This calls into question the whole point of the scheme.

    That volatility isn’t going to end any time soon. The basic problem is that the supply of allowances is fixed (the “cap” in “cap and trade”) so shifts in demand are entirely reflected in prices. As firms and households find it easier or harder to improve their carbon efficiency, and as the economy grows more or less quickly, the number of allowances allocated by the participating countries will never be quite right and the price will continue to crash up and down.

    That volatility doesn’t just undermine the efficacy of the ETS. It also makes the burden it imposes on households and businesses that bit harder to bear.

    For those reasons alone, the Emissions Trading Scheme should be abolished. Instead, we should focus on making sure that developed and developing countries are prosperous and free enough to cope with whatever climate change throws at them. We should also directly support the development of technologies that can provide us with new options, ideally with the kind of rigorous prizes that have delivered dramatic results in the development of everything from agricultural machinery and private suborbital spaceflight. That will be far more effective and affordable than the current approach.

    The ETS has been an expensive failure. Having been implemented through the EU without a real debate here, it lacks democratic legitimacy and it is imposing a significant burden on the poorest families while achieving very little. It should be abolished.

  • Canada sets aside its boreal forest as giant carbon vault

     

     

    The sheer scale of the forest conservation drive is somewhat of an anomaly for Canada, whose government has been accused of sabotaging the global climate change talks by its development of the Alberta tar sands and its refusal to make deep cuts in its greenhouse gas emissions.

     

    Last week, a former adviser to Barack Obama urged Canada to do more to keep up with America’s moves towards a cleaner energy economy.

     

    In the latest addition to the carbon storehouse, the provincial premier of Manitoba, Gary Doer, this month announced a $10m (£5.6m) Canadian fund to protect a 10.8m acre expanse of boreal or evergreen forest. It was one of Doer’s last acts as premier; he took over as Canada’s ambassador to Washington this month.

     

    The $10m will go towards efforts by indigenous leaders to designate boreal forest lands in eastern Manitoba as a Unesco world heritage site. The Pimachiowin Aki world heritage project, which straddles the Manitoba-Ontario border, extends efforts by Canadian provincial leaders to protect the wide swaths of pristine forests in the north. It also ensures the survival of one of the best natural defences against global warming after the world’s oceans, environmentalists say.

     

    A report by the International Boreal Conservation Campaign said the forests, with their rich mix of trees, wetlands, peat and tundra, were a far bigger carbon store than scientists had realised, soaking up 22% of the total carbon stored on the earth’s land surface.

     

    “If you look across Canada one of [the boreal forest’s] great values to us globally is its carbon storage value,” said Steve Kallick, director of the Pew Environment Group’s International Boreal Conservation Campaign. “There is so much carbon sequestered in it already that if it escaped it would pose a whole new, very grave threat.”

     

    Canada’s cold temperatures slow decomposition, allowing the build-up of organic soil and peat. The forest floors beneath its evergreens hold twice as much carbon per acre as tropical forests, such as the Amazon.

     

    It is unclear how long Canada’s forests can continue to serve as carbon vaults. “As the climate warms, the place is going to dry up. There will be a problem with insect infestation. There is going to be increased natural carbon release due to fire or wetlands drying up,” said Sue Libenson, a spokeswoman for the International Boreal Conservation Campaign.

     

    But she added: “The general premise is that there is still a hell of a lot of carbon in there.” Its release would be a climate catastrophe.

     

    Canada’s 1.3bn acres of boreal forest store the equivalent of 27 years’ worth of current global greenhouse gas emissions, a Greenpeace study found. The destruction of those forests, scientists warn, would be like setting off a massive “carbon bomb” because of the sudden release of emissions.

     

    That threat appears to have concentrated the official mindset in Canada, which otherwise has a poor record on action on climate change. On a per capita basis, the country is one of the worst polluters on the planet, producing about 2% of the world’s emissions even though it has just 33m people. It holds one of the worst track records among industrialised states for living up to its commitment under the Kyoto accords. By 2007, greenhouse gas emissions were 34% above the target Canada agreed at Kyoto.

     

    Canada’s prime minister, Stephen Harper, is resisting doing much more, committing to just a 6% cut over 1990 levels of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. “I see Harper’s policy as a continuation of the Bush agenda,” said David Martin, climate director for Greenpeace Canada.

     

    A key advisor to Obama made a similar point last week, comparing Canada’s current climate change policy to the inaction in America under George Bush. “The Canadians would be well served by keeping up with what’s going on in the United States with respect to this push towards clean technology,” John Podesta, who oversaw Obama’s transition team, told a conference in Ottawa.

     

    Environmentalists also fear that Harper intends to exclude the Alberta tar sands – the heavy crude deposits that have fuelled the rise in emissions – from any future greenhouse gas emissions regime.

     

    But the Harper government did relent on forest protection, working with the Sahtu and Deh Cho First Nations to set aside 40m acres in the Northwest Territories.

     

    Canadian provincial leaders have moved even more aggressively in recent years, with Ontario committed to protecting 55m acres, or about half of its forest, and Quebec committed to protecting 150m acres. “Canada is torn between wanting to promote the tar sands and make money off it now, and wanting to live up to its promises under the Kyoto accord. But as far as protecting carbon rich ecosystems, particularly the boreal forest, Canada is a world leader,” said Kallick.

  • Liberals lose faith in action on carbon

     

    POLL: Do you understand how an ETS would help cut greenhouse gases?

    They are now urging the Opposition Leader to take a harder line in negotiations and to reject Labor’s legislation unless the government accepts the Coalition’s proposed amendments in full.

    And they believe their best chance in next year’s election is to attack Labor’s proposals as leading to higher costs for consumers.

    The shift has been on for the past few weeks and has gained pace since Liberal MPs were briefed on Tuesday on party research indicating voters overwhelmingly want action on climate change but do not understand the detail of the ETS proposals.

    Several sources said party director Brian Loughnane told the meeting that when interviewers explained the implications of an ETS to survey respondents, they were negative about the proposed scheme.

    News of the shift emerged yesterday before today’s launch by Liberal ETS opponent Cory Bernardi of a highly critical assessment of the European Union’s emissions trading scheme which estimates it has cost consumers up to E116billion ($190bn) since 2005, with little environmental benefit.

    The study, prepared by Britain’s Taxpayers’ Alliance, says climate change policies there form 14 per cent of household electricity prices and that electricity generators have made windfall profits at the expense of low-income earners and the elderly.

    The Coalition has been negotiating with the government for more than a week on proposed amendments to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

    Kevin Rudd told parliament this week the bill would be introduced in the Senate on November 23, before the UN’s global climate change conference in Copenhagen in December.

    If it is rejected the Prime Minister can use the Senate vote as the basis to call a double-dissolution election for both houses of parliament next year.

    Mr Turnbull, a strong supporter of the need for a properly designed ETS, wants the government to amend its scheme to provide greater support for industries affected by a shift to carbon trading to adjust to the change.

    Yesterday, the government rejected a Coalition bid to force an early vote on the scheme in the House of Representatives.

    While Mr Loughnane refused to comment on party research yesterday, accounts of his briefing to MPs were broadly similar from sources on all sides of the ETS debate, with their differences relating to conclusions about the meaning of the findings.

    Some said the research made clear that the party should not back Labor’s legislation unless the government embraced all of its amendments — an unlikely prospect.

    “There is a move afoot in our party, depending on what happens, to say we should actually dump an ETS as a policy and go with something better and more effective,” one source said.

    But another shadow cabinet source said the research demonstrated that the party could not afford to accept the Nationals’ approach of an outright rejection of carbon trading, and therefore must press hard for its amendments.

    “The message he was sending was that this is a dangerous zone but that because of the public acceptance that something must be done on climate change, doing nothing is simply not an option,” the MP said.

    Whatever the interpretation, Liberal frontbenchers who previously supported the idea of passing an amended ETS and then holding the government accountable for the outcome have shifted their view, insisting that only a “wholesale capitulation” from the government to Coalition demands would stand any chance of winning Coalition backbench endorsement.

    Senior Liberals are now saying the party polling, and public polls, show increasing concern about the costs of an ETS. They believe the best political option is to run a campaign against the government based on increased costs to households and industry.

    Another MP said voters were starting to doubt the seriousness of climate change.

    It is also understood backbench pressure is growing from marginal seat holders who fear they will lose their seats.

    The Taxpayers’ Alliance says the EU’s ETS “has failed to perform and is imposing serious costs on ordinary families”.

    According to the EU’s own figures there were only minor reductions in most European countries in greenhouse gas emissions between 2005 and 2008.

    Senator Bernardi, who is leading the Liberal revolt in the Senate and running a direct opposition campaign, said yesterday the British report showed an ETS was “a massive economic impost that has no real environmental benefits”.

    “An ETS in any form is bad for business, bad for families and bad for our economy,” he said.

    “With clear evidence of how ineffective and expensive it has been in the European Union, there is no way an ETS should be introduced in Australia.”

    Last night the author of the report, Matthew Sinclair, said from London that the European ETS had failed to “produce a stable carbon price, leaving consumers with an unpredictable addition to their bills”.

    Nationals Senate leader Barnaby Joyce said he was not surprised by the Liberals’ research, which reflected his long-standing position.

  • Senate Democrats push for climate bill ahead of Copenhagen

     

    They were met with strong opposition from a powerful Democrat as well as Republicans on the environment and public works committee.

    With the clock running down to Copenhagen, the administration wheeled out four top officials to make the case that failure to act now on climate change would relegate America to lower tier status in the global economy. “When the starting gun sounded on the clean energy race, the United States stumbled,” Steven Chu, the energy secretary, told the environment and public works committee. “If we don’t choose to begin the development of this new technology, China and other countries will.”

    American legislation on climate change is seen as essential to reaching a meaningful deal at Copenhagen. But the White House held up action in the Senate on a climate change bill to focus on healthcare reform. The proposed law, which now stretches for more than 900 pages, would cut America’s greenhouse gas emissions by 20% over 2005 levels by 2020 and encourage the development of renewable energy sources like wind and solar power. Democratic leaders in the Senate are now struggling to advance a bill – which does not have solid support even among their own party – before the meeting in Copenhagen.

    In an ominous sign for those prospects, Max Baucus, who ranks second on the environment committee and chairs the finance committee which will also review the bill, said the proposed 20% reduction target was too steep. “I have some concerns about the overall direction of the bill,” he said. “We cannot afford the unmitigated impacts of climate change but we also cannot afford the unmitigated effects of legislation.”

    For weeks, the White House, Democrats, and environmental organisations have lobbied hard to frame the bill as an economic opportunity.

    Obama picked up the theme again in a visit to a solar plant in Florida where he announced $3.48bn in government grants to projects modernising America’s electrical grid. In introducing the bill today, Barbara Boxer leaned heavily on an analysis by the Environmental Protection Agency that showed the shift away from oil and coal would cost just 22 to 30 cents a day.

    Global warming isn’t waiting for who is a Democrat or who is a Republican. Either we are going to deal with this problem or we are not,” she said.

    John Kerry, who co-wrote the bill with Boxer, said it would usher in a technological revolution akin to the rapid growth of the internet in the 1990s. “We are going to create the equivalent of five or 10 Googles and that is going to drive the economy of our country,” said John Kerry, the former presidential candidate who is the other co-author of the bill.

    But their arguments appeared to make little headway with Republicans
    on the committee. James Inhofe, the Okalahoma Republican who notoriously declared global warming a hoax, called the bill a “temple of doom” which would cost Americans up to $400bn a year.

    Some Republicans pressed for investment to build 100 new nuclear plants over the next decade, or to expand offshore oil drilling to meet America’s future energy needs. Others argued that America would be damaging its own interests if it embarked on costly energy reforms – while emerging powers like India and China did not.