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. 

  • Australian government sucks

    I need to sleep now, but here’s a couple of thoughts to get people in more media-friendly time zones going:

    • These targets suck. They just do. An ‘unconditional’ cut of 5 percent off 2000 levels is actually the most pissweak measly bogus ridiculous promise I’ve ever seen. None of the necessary incentives for a cleaner economy are present in these targets, nor is any recognition of the fact that Australia is set to be the hardest hit of all developed nations when it comes to climate change. From a climate, moral, responsibility perspective, this is a failed policy.
    • The forestry section of the government’s policy is still ridiculous. There remains a serious risk that carbon-dense, biodiverse, ancient native forests will be logged while less resilient (and less impressive, let’s be honest) plantations remain in the ground as a result of a perverse market created by the government. From a climate, water, environment, spiritual perspective, this is a failed policy.
    • The funds raised through the scheme will be badly directed. Of course low-income households should be compensated for the harshest costs of action, but actively subsidising businesses because they pollute? Not spending any of it on energy efficiency retrofitting, renewable energy investment, adaptation in developing nations? From pretty much every perspective, this is a failed policy.

    I’m furious. I’m surprised how bad this is. It’s come at a good time – over the last few days I’ve been pretty tired from the fortnight at the Climate Conference here in Poznan. I knew I was going to spend 2009 getting ready for the key Copenhagen Conference, pressuring the government to take stronger action and to actually set science-based policy, etc, etc, but I felt like I’d lost a little energy and drive.

    No more. I’m ready for a fight! It’s not like it’s much of a commitment on my part, 12 months from a life, but if I can help in any way to push the slightest bit to create a more sensible (and safe world), then I’m in.

    The government actually can’t be bothered mounting the argument that clever climate action now can save our future and ensure the survival of the most vulnerable peoples around the world.

    I’m going to be bothered. I know some awesome people from around the world and from back in Oz that are going to be bothered.

    Are you?

  • Australia takes lights off program to the world

    “Earth Hour is a reflection of widespread global concern over climate change, but it is also an excellent example of how Australian green innovation can succeed internationally.

    “This year, more than 50 million people in 370 cities in 35 countries turned off their lights to encourage governments, individuals and businesses to reduce their carbon emissions.

    “The fact that in 2009, WWF are aiming to inspire one billion people with an idea that originated in Sydney only two years ago, also promotes Australia’s standing as a forward-thinking nation capable of the creativity and innovation needed to make a difference to global carbon emissions reduction. 

    “The high level of support for Earth Hour shows a strong commitment to tackling climate change in the global community, which in turn demonstrates the potential for Australian green innovation to expand trade and create jobs.

    “The global market for renewable energy is set to be worth US$750 billion a year by 2016. A recent United Nations Environment Program report also predicted investment of US$630 billion in sustainable energy implementation would create 20 million jobs globally by 2030.

    “The future international competitiveness of the Australian economy is reliant on our ability to position ourselves to go beyond resources, and by supporting innovation and the development of new industry capabilities.

    “From solar research and development and new geothermal technologies to green building design, Australia has the opportunity to become a world leader in a range of low emissions related technologies, products and services. 

    “The Rudd Government’s climate change policies require at least 20% of Australia’s electricity to be generated from renewable sources by 2020, and that Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions fall by 60% by 2050. From 2010 the Government will introduce a carbon price into the Australian economy for the first time through the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme,” Mr Harcourt said.

    Austrade is assisting Australian clean energy and environment companies to capitalise on new commercial opportunities arising from the transition to a lower carbon economy.

  • Europe squabbles over burying carbon

    But it emerged on Wednesday that the French, who will chair the two-day summit, are proposing that only 150m permits – worth roughly 2bn euros – be allocated. A majority of the EU’s 27 countries is willing to support only a maximum of 200m permits, senior diplomats said.

    Chris Davies, Liberal Democrat MEP and chief European parliamentary negotiator on CCS, said MEPs would insist on obtaining their “final offer” of 350m permits. “The endgame on this critical issue takes place over the next 24 hours,” Davies said. “The UK government has to be as belligerent as other governments on other issues in getting its way on this.” The European parliament will meet on Saturday to assess the outcome – and could vote down the entire climate change package.

    CCS takes CO2 from power stations and heavy industrial plants and stores it in underground rock formations. It is viewed as a key but controversial element of global efforts to combat global warming, as it would allow the continued heavy use of coal for power. The incoming Obama administration in the US, which backs it, is looking to the EU for a lead. On the eve of the summit, energy companies and green groups joined to urge the EU to commit the required funding, arguing that it is vital if Europe is to meet its emissions reduction targets and could create many tens of thousands of new jobs.

    But Britain, as of Wednesday, can count on the support of only Poland, the Netherlands and, perhaps, the Czech Republic for its stand. Davies, however, suggested that Germany and Italy could be brought on board – if they win key concessions on other issues in the typical horse-trading at EU summits. “The government should treat this as a deal-breaker,” he said. “There’s no way 150m permits can pay for the full range of demonstration projects.”

    Some countries, such as Germany, are insisting that funding be taken from the existing EU budget, with each state paying its share according to GDP. Others, aware that none of the projects will be handed to them, are said to be digging in their heels over such subsidies. Poland, heavily dependent on coal, wants two of the projects for itself.

    The International Energy Agency (IEA) predicts the world’s use of power will increase by 50% by 2030, with 77% of that coming from fossil fuels. CCS technologies promise to trap up to 90% of the associated CO2 emissions. As such, it could be a vital tool for countries such as China, where the government’s economic growth and poverty reduction targets depend on building huge numbers of coal-fired power stations.

    “It is absolutely imperative that the heads of government commit to supporting the funding necessary to ensure that the demonstration projects can be operational by 2015,” said Joan MacNaughton, formerly an adviser to the UK government on energy and now senior vice president of power and environmental policies at French engineering company Alstom.

    Though each element of the CCS process is already proven and in use, until now no one has demonstrated a full-scale system – largely because developing it is likely to be very expensive. Many leading power companies have been reluctant to fund CCS individually, arguing that governments should shoulder some of the financial risks.

    Whatever the EU decides, said Stuart Haszeldine, a geologist at the University of Edinburgh and an expert on CCS, projects will go ahead regardless in Norway, Australia, Canada and US, leaving the rest of Europe behind. “It would be very embarrassing for Europe not to do anything. It’s not the end, but it means the ability to deliver the 2°C climate target, which Europe has always says is its top-level policy, the ability to deliver that becomes vanishingly small the longer this drags on.”

    In their letter, the environment and energy groups’ coalition cited a study by the IEA, which pointed out that the the window of opportunity for CCS to make a material impact on climate change was closing. “Now is the time to act. Every day that full-scale demonstration of CCS is delayed, we lock in new CO2 emissions and make the challenge of meeting our CO2 targets harder.”

  • Widely differing agendas at Poznan

    by Wei Jianhua & Zhang Zhan, Xinhua – China View

        POZNAN, Poland, Dec. 5 (Xinhua) — Delegates from some 190 countries continued to focus on a shared vision on fighting climate change and adaptation to its adverse effects on Friday, but differences remained largely unresolved between developed and developing nations.

        Countries were still wrangling over a variety of issues related to the global fight against climate change, trying to seek ways to seal a deal in Copenhagen, Denmark, next December to succeed the first period of the Kyoto Protocol, which is to expire in 2012.

    LINGERING DIFFERENCES

        The developed countries are seeking to set up a shared vision on long-term goal for emission cuts, saying that such a goal will set the direction for future actions.

        Some industrialized countries believe that a 50-percent cut of emissions against the 1990 level by 2050 is necessary for the goal of preventing rising temperatures.

        The developing nations, however, rejected such a global goal at this stage, arguing that such a vision is not feasible since there are no concrete plans for providing finance and technology required by the developing countries.

        Brazil said a shared vision should be guided by the provisions and principles of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, such as the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities.

        Su Wei, deputy head of the Chinese delegation to the Poznan talks, said a shared vision on long-term cooperative action shouldnot be a single-dimension objective only for mitigation, but a multi-dimension objective including mitigation, adaptation, technology, financing, and sustainable development.

        A mid-term reduction target for developed countries is key to any long term goal, Su said, noting that cutting greenhouse gas emissions by at least 25-40 percent by 2020 compared to 1990 levels should be a goal observed by developed countries.

        India, another major developing country, said U.S. president-elect Barack Obama’s target of cutting U.S. emissions back to 1990 levels by 2020 is inadequate to avoid global warming.

        U.S. emissions are still running about 14 percent above 1990 levels. While acknowledging Obama’s target as a progress, Indian Foreign Ministry official Dinesh Patnaik said the U.S. target “is not ambitious enough.”

        On the adaptation fund, the developing countries believe that there is a need to scale up finance and technology transfer for poorer countries, while the developed ones only stressed the importance of technology needs assessment.

        Calling on delegates to advance funding for climate change projects, U.N. climate chief Yvo de Boer told a press conference on Thursday that “the developing countries are especially vulnerable and will be the hardest hit” as they have limited capacity to cope with climate change and need financial and other assistance to implement adaptation actions.

    LITTLE PROGRESS

        From the very beginning, many people have low expectations on the Poznan talks, saying no major outcome will be achieved due to this year’s financial crisis and pending U.S. positions.

        Cheng Qian, advisor on Climate Change from the research organization German Watch, told Xinhua late Thursday that the Poznan talks are still crucial to the whole process despite the fact that no major outcome might be achieved.

        “It is reasonable we don’t have any substantial outcome from Poznan because Poznan is only serving as a half way mark from Balito Copenhagen.. all the achievements are left for next year in Copenhagen,” Cheng said.

        Despite this, Cheng, who has been following the conference from the very beginning, still saw some progress on the issue.

        “I see progress, but I believe the progress is not taking place in Poznan, but it is taking place in the process before underway to Poznan, ” she said.

        “We have a lot of documents here in Poznan. From those documents, I have read a lot of innovations, new ideas, ambitious target as well,” she said, stressing that this process is very crucial as “we are now solving a lot of barriers, political hurdles in order to channel understanding.

        “Some experts, however, still doubt that the Poznan talks will lead nowhere to Copenhagen, largely due to the U.S. power transition and the financial crisis, which will limit governments’ room for concessions.

        It is believed that the U.S. under the Obama administration cannot complete a domestic legislation to bring commitments to the table in Copenhagen as the Congress would not have enough time to ratify anything by December 2009.

     

  • Poznan goes nowhere slowly

    Climate talks in Poland this week have been characterised by a widely different agendas and a failure to reach agreement on the hard targets necessary to halt emissions and reverse global warming. This debate is taking place in the Polish city of Poznan against protests by thousands of young people from across Europe. Promoters of renewable energy, such as the designer of the Solar Taxi that toured the world earlier this year have used the opportunity to promote potential solutions to reducing carbon consumption. Developed countries have argued for a global target to halve emissions (from 1990 levels) by 2050, developing countries have argued that developed countries have to set aggressive targets for the next decade. The US, for example, has agreed to reduce emissions to 100 percent of 1990 levels by 2020, Australia has refused to announce a target, but flagged that 95 percent is realistic. Developing countries have emphasised the need to provide financial and technical support to implement post-carbon solutions.

    Other sources

  • 4degree rise means extinction

    Tickell’s Guardian article appears below. Read it at the Guardian

    There’s no ‘adaptation’ to such steep warming. We must stop pandering to special interests, and try a new, post-Kyoto strategy

    We need to get prepared for four degrees of global warming, Bob Watson told the Guardian last week. At first sight this looks like wise counsel from the climate science adviser to Defra. But the idea that we could adapt to a 4C rise is absurd and dangerous. Global warming on this scale would be a catastrophe that would mean, in the immortal words that Chief Seattle probably never spoke, “the end of living and the beginning of survival” for humankind. Or perhaps the beginning of our extinction.

    The collapse of the polar ice caps would become inevitable, bringing long-term sea level rises of 70-80 metres. All the world’s coastal plains would be lost, complete with ports, cities, transport and industrial infrastructure, and much of the world’s most productive farmland. The world’s geography would be transformed much as it was at the end of the last ice age, when sea levels rose by about 120 metres to create the Channel, the North Sea and Cardigan Bay out of dry land. Weather would become extreme and unpredictable, with more frequent and severe droughts, floods and hurricanes. The Earth’s carrying capacity would be hugely reduced. Billions would undoubtedly die.

    Watson’s call was supported by the government’s former chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, who warned that “if we get to a four-degree rise it is quite possible that we would begin to see a runaway increase”. This is a remarkable understatement. The climate system is already experiencing significant feedbacks, notably the summer melting of the Arctic sea ice. The more the ice melts, the more sunshine is absorbed by the sea, and the more the Arctic warms. And as the Arctic warms, the release of billions of tonnes of methane – a greenhouse gas 70 times stronger than carbon dioxide over 20 years – captured under melting permafrost is already under way.

    To see how far this process could go, look 55.5m years to the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, when a global temperature increase of 6C coincided with the release of about 5,000 gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere, both as CO2 and as methane from bogs and seabed sediments. Lush subtropical forests grew in polar regions, and sea levels rose to 100m higher than today. It appears that an initial warming pulse triggered other warming processes. Many scientists warn that this historical event may be analogous to the present: the warming caused by human emissions could propel us towards a similar hothouse Earth.

    But what are we to do? All our policies to date to tackle global warming have been miserable failures. The Kyoto protocol has created a vast carbon market but done little to reduce emissions. The main effect of the EU’s emissions trading scheme has been to transfer about €30bn or more from consumers to Europe’s biggest polluters, the power companies. The EU and US foray into biofuels has, at huge cost, increased greenhouse gas emissions and created a world food crisis, causing starvation in many poor countries.

    So are all our efforts doomed to failure? Yes, so long as our governments remain craven to special interests, whether carbon traders or fossil fuel companies. The carbon market is a valuable tool, but must be subordinate to climatic imperatives. The truth is that to prevent runaway greenhouse warming, we will have to leave most of the world’s fossil fuels in the ground, especially carbon-heavy coal, oil shales and tar sands. The fossil fuel and power companies must be faced down.

    Global problems need global solutions, and we also need an effective replacement for the failed Kyoto protocol. The entire Kyoto system of national allocations is obsolete because of the huge volumes of energy embodied in products traded across national boundaries. It also presents a major obstacle to any new agreement – as demonstrated by the 2008 G8 meeting in Japan that degenerated into a squabble over national emission rights.

    The answer? Scrap national allocations and place a single global cap on greenhouse gas emissions, applied “upstream” – for instance, at the oil refinery, coal-washing station and cement factory. Sell permits up to that cap in a global auction, and use the proceeds to finance solutions to climate change – accelerating the use of renewable energy, raising energy efficiency, protecting forests, promoting climate-friendly farming, and researching geoengineering technologies. And commit hundreds of billions of dollars per year to finance adaptation to climate change, especially in poor countries.

    Such a package of measures would allow us to achieve zero net greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, and long-term stabilisation at 350 parts per million of CO2 equivalent. This avoids the economic pain that a cap-and-trade system alone would cause, and targets assistance at the poor, who are least to blame and most need help. The permit auction would raise about $1 trillion per year, enough to finance a spread of solutions. At a quarter of the world’s annual oil spending, it is a price well worth paying.

    · Oliver Tickell’s book Kyoto2 has just been published kyoto2.org