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. 

  • 968 arrests at Copenhagen rally

     

    Police made 968 arrests, including about 400 members of militant groups from across Europe known as Black Blocs. About 150 were released after questioning.

    Related Coverage

    Demonstrations were also held in Australia, Indonesia and the Philippines demanding tough measures by the 194 nations gathered at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) conference.

    The summit is due to end on Friday with a gathering of more than 110 heads of state and government to seal a deal committing major economies to curb emissions of heat-trapping fossil-fuel gases and generate hundreds of billions in dollars for poor countries badly exposed to climate change.

    Connie Hedegaard, a former Danish climate minister chairing the summit said world leaders must not resist the global clamour.

    “It has taken years to build up pressure that we see around the world, and that we have also seen unfolding today in many capitals,” Hedegaard said.

    But many delegates complained that progress so far had been negligible and the mood soured by finger-pointing.

    A seven-page draft blueprint, presented on Friday, ran into problems almost immediately among developing countries, emerging giant economies, the United States and the European Union.

    Poor countries said it failed to spell out financial commitments while the United States complained it failed to bind China and other high-population, fast-growing economies to tough pledges on emissions.

    The European Union said the draft did not go far enough to limit warming to two degrees Celsius, a goal endorsed by many countries.

    “We are in a situation where we can see that so far we haven’t achieved enough,” Andreas Carlgren, environment minister of Sweden, which currently chairs the 27-nation European Union.

    The European Union has unilaterally decided to cut greenhouse-gas emissions by 20 per cent over 1990 levels, and has offered to deepen this to 30 per cent if it finds other major players willing to make a comparable effort.

    But Mr Carlgren ruled this out, blaming foot-dragging by the world’s top two carbon emitters.

    “So far we haven’t sufficient bids on the table,” he said. “So far the bids from the United States and China are not sufficient whereby we can deliver this 30 per cent.”

    Environment ministers from 48 countries were to meet through the weekend to discuss measures.

    “We still have a daunting task in front of us over the next few days,” she said.

    This weekend’s meetings mark the start of a gruelling game of climate poker before the arrival of heads of state and government on Wednesday and Thursday, many of whom will speak in the conference’s plenary session.

    Those expected to attend include US President Barack Obama, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama of Japan, and the heads of the European Union.

    Failure this coming Friday would deal a heavy blow to the nation-state system, Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the United Nations’ Nobel-winning panel of climate scientists, warned.

    “I think if we are able to get a good agreement, this would clearly create an enormous amount of confidence in the ability of human society to be able to act on a multilateral basis,” said Mr Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

    “If we fail, I don’t think everything is lost, but certainly it will be a major setback.”

  • World’s largest ice sheet melting faster than expected

     

    The measurements suggest the polar continent could soon contribute more to global sea level rises than Greenland, which is shedding more than 250bn tonnes of ice a year, adding 0.7mm to annual sea level rises.

    Satellite data from the whole of Antarctica show the region is now losing around 190bn tonnes of ice a year. Uncertainties in the measurements mean the true ice loss could be between 113bn and 267bn tonnes.

    “If the current trend continues or gets worse, Antarctica could become the largest contributor to sea level rises in the world. It could start to lose more ice than Greenland within a few years,” said Jianli Chen, of the University of Texas at Austin.

    Chen’s team used data from the Nasa mission to see how Earth’s gravitational pull varied month to month between April 2002 and January 2009. Measurements taken over the south pole reflect changes in the mass of the Antarctic ice sheets.

    The survey confirmed the West Antarctic ice sheet is melting rapidly with the loss of around 132bn tonnes of ice a year, but revealed unexpected melting in the larger East Antarctic ice sheet.

    The scientists used a computer model to take account of ongoing movements in the Earth’s surface caused by the retreat of glaciers at the end of the last ice age. Uncertainties in the model gave the scientists only a broad estimate of ice loss in the East Antarctic ice sheet of between 5bn and 109bn tonnes a year.

    Chen said that warmer ocean waters may have triggered the melting by seeping under the ice sheet and making it slide more easily over the rock it rests on.

    Writing in the journal Nature Geoscience, Chen’s team reports that Wilkes Land on the East Antarctic ice sheet was stable until 2006, but has since begun to lose ice. Another region on the ice sheet, Enderby Land, was thickening until 2006, but has since started to melt. “We’re seeing these kinds of climate change effects all around the world now,” Chen said.

  • China rejects draft climate deal

     

    Under the draft agreement, rapidly industrialising countries such as China, India and Brazil would still be considered developing nations but would have to commit to abatement measures and would not receive the same compensation as poor nations.

    “China believes priority should be given to making clear and specific arrangements for reduction, adaptation, technology transfer and financial support,” Mr Zhang told The Weekend Australian in an exclusive interview yesterday as Chinese delegates in Denmark cited the outrage of developing nations against the secret arrangement.

    “To be frank, now the negotiations at the meeting are moving slowly and we believe the main reason for that is the developed nations and that they have retreated on their position regarding key issues such as mitigation, funding and technological transfer,” Mr Zhang said.

    The Chinese position is providing no room to raise its carbon emissions target and to accept any binding agreement. It is demanding new technology regardless of patents, and rejects the view that it should be labelled a developed nation. The draft proposal, which involved the Danish leader and Mr Rudd as a “friend of the chair of the conference”, “was not the overwhelming view of developed countries and was also a personal view not representing the view of his country”, Mr Zhang said. “The so-called draft has been widely criticised by the developing camp through the group of 77, which truly demonstrates this draft was made by a very small number of countries in isolation, and there are a lot of problems to be addressed,” he said.

    Mr Zhang, speaking at the embassy in Canberra, said the European Union nations had promised to cut emissions by 30 per cent but were now saying this relied on what the developing nations committed to. He said a number of European nations had failed to meet their obligations under Kyoto, some by up to 30 per cent.

    “In the meantime they have tried hard to impose unreasonable requirements on developing countries. But developed countries should take the lead in undertaking reduction targets and honouring their commitments to provide funding and technology support to developing countries.

    “While they fail to deliver on all of these they are trying to put more pressure on the developing nations and shift the focus of the priority of the Copenhagen conference,” he said.

    Mr Zhang said China was taking its own action to cut greenhouse gas emissions and was taking Copenhagen seriously, with more than 200 Chinese delegates at the summit.

    He said China had committed to reduce carbon emissions “to cut per unit GDP energy consumption by 40 to 45 per cent and these targets represent the maximum targets China can achieve”, despite calls from developed nations for the target to be lifted.

    The Chinese government also rejected any proposals to change China’s designation as a developing nation when it came to financial aid for climate change, either now or even by 2050.

    Mr Zhang said while many people saw the cities of Shanghai, Beijing or Shenzhen, they were not representative of the rest of China, which, according to the UN, still had 150 million people living below the poverty line who had to face harsh winters.

    “I can tell you that the per capita GDP in China now is barely over $US2000 ($2183),” he said.

    “For China to achieve development there should be a reasonable level of rising energy consumption and a reasonable level of emissions for China and we believe climate change should be tackled in a way that does not hamper development.”

    But the ambassador said the proposed $US10bn a year for developing countries to fight climate change should not be seen as “financial aid” but as “emissions redress or redemption” for the “luxury emissions” the West had enjoyed.

    “We have a right to development,” he said.

  • As climate talks drag on, low-lying atolls are already beimg flooded

     

    I am scared, and so too are the people from these atolls about what this means for our culture, our communities and our identity.

    Because of climate change, I am uncertain about what is to come. How can I feel that my future is safe? How can I be sure that my home village won’t disappear in 10 years’ time? How can I be sure that my community won’t have to find a new home? How can I be sure that I will be able to raise my children in the same place that my mother and father raised me? I am not sure. I am scared and worried.

    At the global negotiations, many nations, including Australia, have focused on avoiding 2 degrees of global warming. While this may not sound like much, it will threaten the survival of many small island nations.

    Sea-level rise and unprecedented storm surges caused by climate change are already affecting communities across the Pacific and are expected to get significantly worse if climate change is not immediately and adequately tackled.

    Consequently, small island governments, like my own, are asking the global community to prevent global warming above 1.5 degrees. This means a global emission stabilisation target of below 350 parts per million of carbon dioxide equivalent in the atmosphere.

    Throughout my life, flags have been raised at the United Nations as the global community has recognised new nations. The global community cannot allow flags to be taken down as nations and cultures vanish beneath the ocean.

    I came to the climate change conference because, as a young person, I believe that there must be urgent action to protect my future. I am here with Project Survival Pacific, an initiative of the Australian Youth Climate Coalition, and working with a team of young Australians and 10 other youth from diverse Pacific island countries to raise the concerns of people from vulnerable island nations.

    I am also working with my Government to support it in negotiations for a strong agreement for my people.

    Since arriving in Copenhagen, I have been working with young people from all over the world and this has given me hope that together we can build a better future.

    Developed countries at this conference must commit to a legally binding agreement that will ensure the world’s most vulnerable nations are protected from climate change.

    Solomon Islands, as a small island nation, is one of the smallest emitters of greenhouse gas in the world, and yet we are being hit the hardest and the fastest by climate change. I ask Australia, as our closest developed neighbour, to please help us: assist us financially in adapting to climate change and commit to strong mitigation targets to ensure the lowest temperature rise.

    This conference has the power to transform the way the world responds to climate change, but only if all countries realise the true urgency of the problem and commit to an ambitious, fair and legally binding agreement now.

    For my entire life, world leaders have been negotiating a climate agreement. They cannot tell me they need more time. There is no more time. I hope world leaders realise this week that my generation’s future is in the palm of their hands.

    Christina Ora is a youth delegate at the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference.

  • Vulnerable nations at Copenhagen summit reject 2C target

     

     

    Holding temperatures to an increase of 1.5C compared to preindustrial levels would mean stabilising carbon concentrations in the atmosphere at roughly 350 parts per million (ppm), down from a present 387ppm. No technology currently exists to feasibly remove CO2 from the atmosphere on a large scale.

     

    The temperature issue was starkly highlighted yesterday when Tuvalu, one of the world’s most climate-threatened countries, formally proposed that countries sign up to a new, strengthened and legally binding agreement that would set more ambitious targets than what is presently being proposed. This divided G77 countries, some of whom led by China and India argued against it, fearing that it would replace the Kyoto protocol.

     

    But they were supported by many of the vulnerable countries, from sub-Saharan Africa as well as the small island states, with passionate and powerful statements about the catastrophic impact of climate change on their people.

     

    “Tuvalu has taken a strong stand to put the focus back on their bottom line. Nothing but a legally binding deal will deliver the strong commitments to urgent action that are needed to avoid catastrophe, especially to the most vulnerable countries and people,” said the Oxfam spokesman Barry Coates.

     

    Today the Alliance of Small Island States (Aosis), a grouping of 43 of the smallest and most vulnerable countries, including Tuvalu, said any rise of more than 1.5C was not negotiable at Copenhagen. They are backed by 48 of the least developed nations.

     

    But the UN conference chief, Yvo de Boer, implied this morning that the proposal had little chance of being adopted. “It is theoretically possible that the conference will agree to hold temperatures to 1.5C but most industrialised countries have pinned their hopes on 2C,” he said.

     

    The 2C figure, which was included in the leaked draft negotiating text prepared by the summits host Denmark has emerged as the figure favoured by large economies and the likeliest to be adopted. But the poorest countries say that latest science implies that a 2C warming would lead to disastrous consequences – for example from sea level rise.

     

    “We have two research stations, one in the Pacific and one in the Caribbean. They both suggest a rise of 2C is completely untenable for us,” said Dessima Williams, a Grenadian diplomat speaking for Aosis.

     

    “Our islands are disappearing, our coral reefs are bleaching, we are losing our fish supplies. We bring empirical evidence to Copenhagen of what climate change is doing now to our states,” she said.

     

  • Copenhagen is a world and a decade away from Kyoto

     

     

    But the deficiencies of the protocol are also well known. To name only three: the reductions required are small when compared to what climate science is now telling us; the most rapidly developing economies are not required to achieve any measurable emissions reductions, and it provides no real guidance to business needing to plan for the long term.

     

    It isn’t as if the world has been blind to these deficiencies. Since the United Nations climate conference in Bali in 2007, over the past two years climate negotiators from more than 190 countries have been meeting to overcome these constraints and establish a more effective global climate treaty. And this task is meant to conclude in less than 10 days at the UN climate conference in Copenhagen.

     

    Already the Scandinavian city made famous by Hans Christian Andersen is becoming shorthand for the success or failure of our collective efforts to combat climate change. If Copenhagen ends in “success” then we will have succeeded in avoiding the danger of global warming and climate destabilisation; if it is a “failure” then we too will have failed to address this most wicked of problems.

     

    If only it were so simple. If only tools such as text and agreement actually achieved the measureable, reportable and verifiable emissions reductions that all economies must achieve over the coming years. For Copenhagen can only be a beginning: the start to investment in modern low emissions technology and infrastructure and the imposition of costs on the old, polluting industries of the past.

     

    The stakes at Copenhagen are high. The peer reviewed science has only firmed since Kyoto. There is now a consensus that the level of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that the atmosphere can bear before warming triggers unpredictable and potentially catastrophic changes to the global climate system is considerably lower. Climate scientists who only a decade ago would have argued that the amount of greenhouse gas should be 550 parts per million, now argue that even 450pmm may be too much.

     

     

    Our understanding of the climate problem and our experience of developing effective climate policy have progressed enormously over the past twelve years. The world is now a lot clearer about the policies and incentives that can reduce emissions, maintain economic growth and get our carbon cycle into greater balance. Prior to 1997 no one could refer to the learning from an emissions trading system in Europe, or the rapid move to renewable energy in Germany.

     

    And perhaps more important than all of this is how public sentiment, and with it our politics, has shifted. Kyoto was before An Inconvenient Truth , the Stern review, hurricane Katrina, the 2003 European heatwave and Australia’s worst drought on record. In many countries climate change is now an issue which bridges the standard political divide. Some of the most progressive leaders on the issue come from the right of politics: Angela Merkel, Nicolas Sarkozy and even an actor turned politician not known for his warm hearted roles: Arnold Schwarzenegger. Climate change is now a fixed agenda item for any meeting between heads of state: how to maintain economic growth, energy security and reduce emissions. And no longer is the President of the United States sceptical of the problem: in Barack Obama the White House is occupied by a man who has made tackling climate change a core part of his political narrative.

     

    In accounting for Kyoto’s ineffectiveness, in 1997 one could easily cite the lack of public understanding; a lack of clarity in the science; a lack of effective politics or an immaturity in our experience of effective climate policy. None of these excuses now apply.

     

     

     

    Whether the final chapter in a story that started in Bali two years ago is one of resolution and joy, or confusion and despair, remains unknown. An unambiguous political agreement establishing how the new binding international rules can be agreed may still mean that Copenhagen becomes shorthand for describing when a new and powerful approach to tackling this most wicked of global problems was begun. That would be cause for celebration by this and all future generations.

     

    • Erik Rasmussen is the founder of the Copenhagen Climate Council.

    Professor Tim Flannery is chairman of the Copenhagen Climate Council and author of The Weather Makers