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. 

  • Talks Stall as poorer Nations Threaten to walk out.

     

    African delegates released a statement declaring they were “outraged with the lack of transparency and democracy in the process.”

    Jairam Ramesh, the chief negotiator for India, said that the Group of 77 developing countries had staged the temporary walkout because their representatives had grown frustrated with how conference leaders had been conducting negotiations. Mr. Ramesh said those countries were worried that Connie Hedegaard, the Dane who is serving as president of the conference, was pushing to abandon negotiations using the Kyoto Protocol, under which developing countries do not face limits on their emissions, to promote another form of treaty that could introduce restrictions.

    The question of whether to continue with the Kyoto Protocol, or abandon it, is one of the main fault lines dividing negotiators at the conference in Copenhagen. The group of developing countries “wanted assurances that the negotiations were continuing under two tracks, including along the Kyoto track,” Mr. Ramesh said. The matter had been resolved by early Monday afternoon, he said.

    “This is all part of the negotiating dynamic, especially as you get close to the end game,” said Jake Schmidt, director of international climate programs at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

    The note of turmoil came as the United States energy secretary, Steven Chu, announced that industrialized countries would spend $350 million over five years — including $85 million from the United States — to spread renewable and nonpolluting energy technology in developing countries.

    The plan was called the Renewables and Efficiency Deployment Initiative, formulated by an international energy partnership created under the Obama administration’s Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate Change. The forum brought together the handful of countries that are responsible for more than 85 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions in a series of meetings this year.

    Officials said four main components to the plan included health and economic benefits by cutting the use of guttering kerosene lamps; a program to enhance labeling and standards for high-efficiency appliances; a Web-based exchange to coordinate the deployment of clean energy technologies by major economies; and support for the World Bank’s Strategic Climate Fund to boost and held finance national renewable energy projects.

    Given the strong demands from less developed nations at the Copenhagen meeting for hundreds of billions of dollars in long-term energy and climate aid, these programs may not have much impact on the negotiations.

    But given the glaring energy gap in poor regions — the 700 million sub-Saharan Africans outside of South Africa have access to the same amount of electricity as the 38 million citizens of Poland — every bit helps.

    Since the lion’s share of greenhouse gases have been emitted by industrialized nations, moreover, developing countries have argued that rich countries have a duty to help poor lands deal with the consequences of global warming, including drought, floods and tropical storms.

    The program will mainly operate through existing initiatives by governments and nongovernmental organizations, including the International Finance Corporation’s Lighting Africa initiative, the Lighting a Billion Lives program of India’s Energy and Resources Institute and the U.S. Department of Energy’s Lumina Project.

    The program for extremely efficient appliances will involve the International Partnership for Energy Efficiency Cooperation, the Collaborative Labeling and Standards Program, the Environmental Protection Agency’s Energy Star program and the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate.

    The announcement was scheduled as the conference prepared to move into higher gear with world leaders, including President Obama, due in the Danish capital before the talks wind up on Friday. Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain planned to steal a march on other leaders by arriving ahead of others on Tuesday in a display of his green credentials. Mr. Brown is facing elections next year.

    Ed Miliband, Britain’s energy and environment secretary, said Mr. Brown’s early arrival was designed to press countries to boost commitments on emissions curbs and climate aid.

    “This is not just about getting any old deal,” Mr. Miliband said at a news conference. “We want an ambitious outcome that respects and understands the science.”

    The depth of feeling about climate issues was clear Saturday when the police and organizers estimated that 60,000 to 100,000 participants joined a long march from Christiansborg Slotsplads, or Castle Square, southward to the Bella Center.

    The main demonstration — which brought together a broad coalition of hundreds of environmental groups, human rights campaigners, climate activists, anticapitalists and freelance protesters from dozens of countries — was mostly peaceful. But in other parts of the city, spontaneous demonstrations by bands of radical protesters resulted in at least 950 arrests, the police said.

    Per Larsen, coordinator for the Danish police, said that officers arrested about 230 people by midday Sunday, most in an illegal protest in the northern part of the city. The Bella Center, where representatives of nearly 200 countries have been meeting to craft a global strategy to combat climate change, was closed for the day.

    Andrew C. Revkin reported from Copenhagen, and Matthew L. Wald from Washington. Tom Zeller Jr. and Lars Kroldrup contributed reporting.

  • Scientists turn to Inuit for climate clues

     

    “The Arctic is at the epicentre of climate change. Inuit traditions and subsistence practices have already been assaulted,” stated the Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC) in a call for action at the 15th Conference of Parties (CoP15) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, underway in the Danish capital.

    “Government leaders at CoP15 must take the strongest possible measures to protect our Arctic homeland,” read the call for action from the ICC, which represents approximately 160,000 Inuit living in Greenland, Russia, Canada and the United States.

    Not only are political leaders around the world not doing enough to limit global warming, but also the best of mainstream science still cannot properly predict the impact of climate change in the Arctic.

    This is one reason why researchers are turning to the experience of the Inuit themselves to read the signs of global warming. ICC researchers and veteran polar explorers like Will Steger, among others, have started interviewing Inuit hunters, fishermen and farmers in an attempt to mix mainstream science with traditional knowledge to better understand nature.

    The Inuit, who know the weather and relief patterns and see the alterations brought about by global warming with their own eyes, are also being included in mapping exercises to precisely gain local effects of climate change.

    The involvement of the Inuit is crucial also because alterations brought on by climate change increase the chances of intervention in their lifestyle – impossible a decade ago.

    Kasper Brandt, an Inuit hunter from Greenland, told researchers from ICC that a barometer used for generations in his family “does not have faith in the weather anymore.”

    “The Inuit no longer have the same mobility that they used to, as a consequence of modernisation in their lifestyle, so they are not as flexible to adapt to the changes in weather patterns,” explained Lene Holm, ICC Greenland’s director for environment, here on Saturday.

    Temperatures in the extreme north are rising faster than elsewhere around the world, causing ice to melt at an accelerated pace. In turn, this has led to a shortening of the hunting season, with negative impacts on livelihood provision. The air has become more humid in spring, making it more difficult to keep up with the traditional practice of drying fish

    Changes in the Arctic region will affect not just the Inuit. Alarm bells are sounding about the melting of the Siberian permafrost, leading to the release of massive quantities of greenhouse gases (GhG) into the atmosphere, further accelerating anthropogenic global warming.

    And the melting of the ice sheet in Greenland could raise sea levels by seven meters, explained environmental biologist Stephen Schneider from Stanford University, in Copenhagen on Saturday.

    Schneider, also a leading climate change scientist, said current research is insufficient to clearly understand the correlation between global temperature increase and sea level rise, and said he doubted that drastic changes could be prevented.

    Using a metaphor, Schneider said that reaching the tipping point at which a seven meter rise in sea level can occur is like going towards the top of a hill after which the bus will uncontrollably go down. “The problem is that while we assume that the bus is driven by a professional driver, it’s actually being driven by some quarrelling teenagers,” Schneider commented.

  • US left behind in technological race to fight climate change

     

    Yesterday afternoon in Copenhagen – where the UN climate talks are entering their second week – Professor Chu unveiled what would have been a series of inspiring innovations, had he made this speech 15 years ago. Barely suppressing his excitement, he told us the US has discovered there is great potential for making fridges more efficient, and that the same principle could even be extended to lighting, heating and whole buildings. The Department of Energy is so thrilled by this discovery that it has launched a programme to retrofit homes in the US, on which it will spend $400m a year.

    To put this in perspective, four years ago the German government announced it would spend the equivalent of $1.6bn a year on the same job: as a result every house in Germany should be airtight and well insulated by 2025. The US has about 110m households; Germany has roughly 37m, and German homes were more energy-efficient in the first place. This $400m is a drop in the ocean.

    Professor Chu went on to explain two amazing new discoveries: a camera which can see how much heat is leaking from your home and a meter which allows you to audit your own energy use. Perhaps thermal imaging cameras and energy monitors seem new and exciting in the US, but on this side of the Atlantic, though their full potential is still a long way from being realised, they’ve been familiar for more than a decade.

    He thrilled us with another US innovation, a technology called pumped storage: water can be pumped up a hill when electricity is cheap and released when it’s expensive. The UK started building its first pumped storage plant, Dinorwig, in 1974. Then he told us about a radical system for heating buildings by extracting heat from water: this must have been the one that the Royal Festival Hall used in 1951.

    I’m sure these technologies have in fact been deployed for years in parts of the US. My point is that Chu appeared to believe that they represent the cutting edge of both technology and public policy.

    The energy secretary explained that the US is now making “a very big investment” in developing and testing new components for wind turbines. The “very big investment” is $70m, which is what the US spends on subsidies and forgoes in tax breaks for fossil fuels every two days.

    As if to hammer home the point that the Department of Energy seems to be stuck in a time-warp, and as if to highlight the sad decline of technological innovation in the US, Chu finished his talk with a disquisition on the beauty of the earth as seen by the Apollo astronauts.

    What has happened to the great pioneering nation, the economic superpower which once drove innovation everywhere? How did it end up so far behind much smaller economies in boring old Europe? How come, when the rest of the developed world has moved on, it suddenly looks like a relic of the Soviet Union, with filthy, inefficient industries, vast opencast coal mines and cars and appliances which belong in the 1950s?

    It can’t all be blamed on George Bush: this technological backwardness pre-dates him. The real problem is the terror of all modern US governments of being seen to interfere in the free market. It’s ironic that the lack of effective regulation in the US has not ensured – as the free market fundamentalists prophesied – that the US came out in front, but that it has been left far behind. Just ask the car manufacturers. The truth, too uncomfortable to be discussed by US officials, is that government regulations are among the main drivers of technological innovation.

     

    monbiot.com

  • Australia accused of cooking carbon books

     

    The dramatic increase has mainly been caused by rising emissions from Australia’s rural lands, caused by bushfires and drought.

    But it is those very same agricultural, grazing and grasslands that both major political parties in Australia hope will help offset the country’s rising industrial emissions.

    Australia has led the charge on proposed land use rule changes to the new global climate deal. The changes will open the door to the bonanza of green carbon that can be stored away in the world’s rural lands.

     

    ‘Get out of jail free’

     

    But the move is deeply dividing the Copenhagen conference. Australia – and other big players – have been accused of a trying to pull off a rort.

    Christine Milne, who is in Copenhagen as the climate change spokesperson for the Australian Greens, says Australia has been trying to “cook the books”.

    “The United States has always wanted to use Land Use Land Use Change and Forestry as a mechanism for not having to do as much in its fossil fuel sector, and Australia has always been the fall guy for the US,” she said.

    “So I think what you are seeing is the umbrella group, chaired by Australia, including the US, including Canada, trying to really cook the books in some dodgy deals on land use.”

    That is not an error. It is actually called Land Use Land Use Change and Forestry. Everything in these negotiations has an acronym – this one is LULU_CF.

    But developing nations fear that with some changes to the existing rules, LULU_CF may be the way that countries like Australia will wriggle out of the reductions currently being negotiated for 2020 greenhouse targets.

    A climate scientist for International Rivers network, Dr Payal Parekh, says such loopholes will water down the carbon targets.

    “It essentially means that developed countries, including Australia, could actually increase their emissions in the next few years,” he said.

    “What it means is that it is a total scam. It appears as if something is done, but it is not.

    “The best way to sum it up is that it is a ‘get out of jail free card’.”

     

    Emissions blow-out

     

    Earlier this year, Australia quietly supplied the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change with its latest official greenhouse data.

    With a blow-out in emissions in the land use sector of 657 per cent, it is no surprise the Government was not keen to publicise the figures.

    Australia has chosen not to account for these land use emissions as part of its reporting under the Kyoto Protocol.

    This is because with events such as bushfires and drought, there are huge and unpredictable spikes – for example, the 2002-03 Victorian bushfires caused a massive blow-out in Australia’s emissions.

    But because the Government is desperate to unlock Australia’s rural lands for so-called carbon farming, it is proposing LULU_CF rule changes that would mean nations did not have to account for emissions caused by so-called extraordinary events or circumstances.

    Then the door could be opened to carbon farming in paddocks and grasslands from Wubin to Wangaratta, from Burke to Barcaldine.

    But an expert on LULU_CF for Greenpeace International, Paul Winn, is not impressed.

    “These are basically accounting frauds; they’re just shuffling the cards,” he said.

    “The atmosphere sees the same amounts of emissions, but the accounts are shuffled.”

     

    ‘Green carbon’ controversy

     

    Australia is not the only country playing this game. The Americans – who already trade carbon for about $US5 a tonne on the Chicago Climate Exchange – have made it clear they will be making extensive use of land use off-sets.

    No-one is arguing that carbon farming is a bad thing. At its simplest, it will involve farmers adopting landcare principles they have been encouraged to follow for decades.

    In fact, carbon farming has become almost the holy grail of sustainable land management, giving farmers another income stream to “do the right thing” – with outcomes that will boost biodiversity and agricultural productivity.

    But the argument is whether this ‘green carbon’ will become a substitute for dealing with the brown carbon – the emissions that come out of our smokestacks and tailpipes.

    And that is why it has become such a controversial issue during negotiations at Copenhagen for a new global climate deal.

    Developing nations are increasingly recognising the potential for countries such as Canada, the US and Australia to offset rising industrial pollution against carbon sequestration in rural landscapes.

    “What’s going on here is that there is a suggestion that you can use Land Use Land Use Change and Forestry and the creative accounting around that without the robust figures in place,” Christine Milne said.

    “And you can use that to offset your emissions reduction targets, especially in your fossil fuel sector.

    “It is very clear that you need to reduce your emissions from fossil fuels and you need to sequester carbon in the landscape and you need to protect your forests as carbon stores, but that isn’t happening,” she continued.

    “What we are seeing is attempts to be offset and quite dishonest systems so that we are going to end up with something that doesn’t actually save the climate.”

    Greenpeace’s Paul Winn is worried that carbon farming will undermine the integrity of the 2020 targets, assuming they are agreed to this week.

    “This has the potential to be the green-washing of Copenhagen; there are a number of factors that will affect Australia and at a stroke of the pen will change emissions into removals,” he said.

     

    Doubts about effectiveness

     

    The Government, for its part, does not see what the fuss is all about. It is not proposing any caps on land use offsets.

    Climate Change Minister Penny Wong is keen to find and save a tonne of carbon wherever she can – at the smokestack or out in the back-blocks.

    The Government says emission reductions from Australia’s forest and agriculture sector are just as real as reductions in other sectors of the economy.

    But a source who knows the arcane world of greenhouse gas accounting well is not so sure.

    This source told Radio National Breakfast that there were huge problems trying to account for carbon in rural landscapes.

    And given the uncertainty, the only “real” emissions – the ones that really needed to be cut – came from the energy, transport and industrial sectors.

    “This is all about paper shuffling. It’s not about reducing emissions,” the source told Breakfast.

    “I would be suspicious any [accounting] method in that land use sector is tactical to reduce pressure on other emissions.

    “This Government is not any more committed to doing anything about cutting greenhouse gas emissions than the previous government – and we’re not the only country doing it.”

     

  • Australia may foot huge climate change bill for China

     

    But new Opposition finance spokesman Barnaby Joyce immediately attacked the proposal.

    “Essentially this Copenhagen plan means we borrow money from places like China to pay them to help them develop. I don’t think they need our help. They’re doing a very good job on their own.”

    Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has previously backed a separate $US10 billion climate fund in talks with US President Barack Obama and Mr Brown.

    Reports from Copenhagen say industrialised countries favour a target of 50 per cent reduction of global carbon emissions by 2020 (compared with 1990 levels), but major emerging economies led by China have baulked at any such target unless it is made clear that rich countries will assume most of the burden.

  • Pressure on PM to triple emission cuts as nations force his hand

     

    Opening the conference, Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen declared a successful deal was “within reach” and the executive secretary of the UN climate change convention, Yvo de Boer, said negotiations were in “excellent shape”.

    And international negotiators argued that the conditions placed by the Rudd government on making the deeper cuts had already been met. “It is pretty clear Australia will have to move well beyond 5 per cent,” one developed-nation negotiator said.

    The conference began last night with an announcement by the World Meteorological Organisation that this decade has likely been the warmest on record, and this year the fifth-warmest.

    An almost carnival-like atmosphere marked the opening of the two-week summit, as tens of thousands of non-government participants descended for hundreds of side events, in the conference centre and across Copenhagen.

    Behind the scenes, negotiators conceded a deal was by no means assured, with divisions remaining on national targets, but consensus emerging around a $10 billion-a-year “first step” fund to help developing countries cope with climate change that was already unavoidable.

    “Other countries in these negotiations are assuming Australia will cut by at least 15 per cent, that the 5 per cent unilateral target is not really on the table any more,” said Bill Hare, director of Climate Analytics and 20-year veteran of international climate negotiations.

    “That’s the basis on which they are making calculations about what they might be prepared to do,” he said.

    “The thresholds Australia set for action by other developed countries have certainly been met. The developing-country positions are more difficult . . . but the domestic policies announced by China and India would certainly more than meet Australia’s conditions.”

    But an international deal that includes a 15 per cent domestic target will cause problems for Tony Abbott, who has offered bipartisan support for Australia’s target range but has also conceded that his direct-action climate change policy will struggle to achieve cuts above the unilateral 5 per cent cut that Australia has promised even if the Copenhagen summit fails to reach agreement.

    A 15 per cent target would mean Australia would need to find an extra 50 million tonnes of CO2 abatement or more a year by 2020. The government and the Coalition have committed to a 15 per cent target under specific conditions, including aggregate emissions-reduction targets by developed countries of between

    15 and 25 per cent and strong measurable actions by developing countries.

    The offers on the table from developed countries add up to between 14 and 22 per cent cuts and developing countries have collectively pledged to cutting their emissions from business-as-usual levels by between 5 and 20 per cent. But whether these cuts will be internationally verified and

    accounted remains one of the most contentious issues at the negotiation.

    Negotiators have been trying to ratchet up one another’s emission reduction commitments in the final deal to be struck by the 110 global leaders, who will arrive in the Danish capital next week, so that it comes at least close to what scientists say is needed to limit global warming to 2C.

    “Old” Europe leaders are pushing hard for the EU to commit to its upper-end target of 30 per cent cuts by 2020 based on 1990 levels, a reduction that would still equate to more than 20 per cent when measured against Australia’s 2000 baseline, although this is being resisted by some Eastern European nations.

    “I want to create a situation in which the European Union is persuaded to go to 30 per cent,” British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said.

    Andreas Carlgren, Sweden’s Environment Minister and the EU’s chief negotiator under the rotating presidency, said the EU would hold out on announcing a higher target until the “end game” negotiation by leaders, and expected China and the US to increase their offers..

    But he said the targets proposed by the US (17 per cent cuts by 2020 based on 2005 levels, equivalent to 14 per cent measured against Australia’s baseline) and China (cuts in its emissions intensity of up to 45 per cent) — which between them represent half the world’s emissions — were too low.

    “I would rather expect the US President will deliver something further,” he said. And he warned that based on China’s growth rates, its offer would still result in large emission increases.

    US negotiators insist Mr Obama has no room to move beyond the 17 per cent cut, which is in line with the Waxman Markey legislation that has passed the House of Representatives but is slightly less than the Kerry Boxer bill before the Senate.

    But negotiators believe the US could offer a higher target based on actions taken in addition to what is achieved under the cap-and-trade scheme.

    And the decision by the US Environmental Protection Agency to declare it would start regulating six greenhouse gases as “dangerous pollutants” gives Mr Obama powerful leverage in the talks as it opens a way for him to meet emissions-reduction pledges, even if congress does not ultimately pass his scheme in its current form.