Category: General news

Managing director of Ebono Institute and major sponsor of The Generator, Geoff Ebbs, is running against Kevin Rudd in the seat of Griffith at the next Federal election. By the expression on their faces in this candid shot it looks like a pretty dull campaign. Read on

  • Season of dread returns as Haiti awaits devastating hurricane season

     

    Season of dread returns as Haiti awaits devastating hurricane season


    Decades of deforestation left the Carribbean island defenceless against last year’s catastrophic hurricanes. But Haiti hopes attempts to save it from the storms will save lives this year







    As Haiti enters the hurricane season Suzanne Goldenberg travels to Port-au-Prince and finds that many Haitians are still struggling to cope with last year’s storm damage Link to this video

    The flood waters were washing cows out to sea and spitting up boulders as if they were corks. Garvins Novembre realised he and his infant daughter could easily die in their hut on the beach, so as the water poured down from the hills, the fisherman entrusted his life to a boat made from a hollowed-out tree trunk. He set off paddling along what had been – before the storm hit – the main road of the provincial Haitian town of Petite Rivière des Nippes.


    He passed submerged shanties, tin roofs invisible beneath the water line, waterborne cars and trucks. Behind him a freshly built church, seemingly sturdy, was left a disembowelled shell, pews and rear wall sucked out by the sea. “It was terrifying. I thought we would die,” Novembre said.





    Suzanne Goldenberg reports on how Haiti is unprepared Link to this audio

    That was 26 August last year when hurricane Gustav made landfall on Haiti. Barely a week later, Haiti was hit again, by hurricane Hanna, and then hurricane Ike a week after that. Watching the mainstream news during last year’s Atlantic hurricane season, it would be easy to form the impression that Gustav posed most danger to the Louisiana coastline. Certainly memories of hurricane Katrina are still fresh in Louisiana but Caribbean states like Haiti have far less capacity to deal with the storms when they come. By the time the tropical storm season had ended, Haiti – already one of the poorest nations on Earth – was a billion dollars poorer. More than 1,100 people were dead or missing. Thousands had lost their homes, and there were scattered reports of hunger.

    Now the season of dread has returned and already tropical depression Ana looks set to make a direct hit on the island tomorrow morning. Novembre is convinced, as are Haiti’s business and government leaders and the international organisations who have helped the country survive, that this season could be the most devastating in living memory.

    “Unfortunately I do think that we are going to have a lot of deaths. That is my reading of the situation,” said Ronald Joseph Toussaint, the environment ministry official who drafted the Haitian government’s policy on climate change and natural disaster. A direct hit on the capital Port-au-Prince, where overcrowded slums cling to the slopes above the town, would be pure catastrophe.

    He said: “All the conditions are met to have a worst case scenario in Port au Prince in case we have been hit by a hurricane.”

    Swazilliya Pierre Louis tells Suzanne Goldenberg how she escaped her flooded house Link to this video

    A constellation of factors – crushing poverty and environmental degradation, political instability and bad governance, ill-conceived international aid efforts and sheer geographical bad luck – have crippled Haiti’s ability to withstand and recover from tropical storms. “Haiti is a mosaic of vulnerabilities,” said Toussaint.

    Now the prospect of another calamitous storm season has galvanised the international community, with Bill Clinton, who became the United Nations’ envoy to the country in May, joining a new effort to make sure that this year, at least, does not bring Haiti to the tipping point.

    There is however a bigger question: does Haiti offer a cautionary tale of what can happen to a country that does not adapt to climate change? The Guardian has made the first of a number of visits to Haiti over the course of this year’s Atlantic storm season to report on the country’s efforts to adapt.

    In its updated hurricane forecast earlier this month, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration predicted seven to 11 named storms would rise up out of the Atlantic before the end of November, with three to six developing into full-blown hurricanes.

    Haiti could well be on their route; the names of hurricanes past slip easily into conversation here. Jeanne, in 2004, was the deadliest in recent memory, killing more than 3,000. Last year’s quartet – Fay, Gustav, Hanna and Ike – killed 500 in Gonaives, and caused widespread destruction in Nippes and southern Haiti. For the old timers, there was Flora in 1963, which killed about 5,000 people in Haiti, blowing the roofs off villages and levelling entire banana plantations.

    But, the hurricane veterans say, even far lesser storms are bringing huge devastation, with intense flooding and storm surges. For grandmother Swazilliya Pierre Louis, 52, the 2008 storm season destroyed a lifetime of hard work, building up a small business selling snacks to working men in the provincial market town of Miragoâne. When Gustav hit, flooding her tin-roofed wooden shack, Louis had just enough time to grab her purse and her bible. Her savings, which were under the bed, were lost to the rising waters.

    She got $125 (£75) in compensation to try to rebuild her life, but it wasn’t enough to rebuild her shack. “This last storm I saw was the worst. Even with Flora, the water wasn’t so high. A child could stand up in it,” she said. “Now I’ve got nothing left. These aren’t my clothes. I even had to borrow bedding.”

    The Haitian government readily admits that even middling storms are wreaking widespread and severe destruction. The country’s natural defences are now destroyed. More than 98% of Haiti’s forests have been cut down – mainly by peasants desperate to turn the trees into charcoal they can sell as cooking fuel – leaving barren hills, and soil that is easily washed away. Twenty-five of the 30 water basins, natural systems that once directed rain and flood water safely out to sea, have been clogged or otherwise damaged. The mangroves that once protected coastal areas have vanished.

    In Google map images of Hispaniola, the island shared by Haiti and the Dominican Republic, the western, Haitian half is bare.

    In truth, the loss was visible long before satellite imagery became widespread. In 1985, the conservationist Jacques Cousteau spent several months off the island on his vessel Calypso, and produced a documentary warning that Haiti was losing a dangerous amount of tree cover. The country’s steep hillsides, which already made farming difficult, were at increased risk of erosion. Debris from successive storms was being washed into the sea, driving the fish further offshore, where Haitian fishermen in their dug-outs struggled to compete against modern trawlers from other countries.

    Early efforts to save Haiti’s forests were misguided, or defeated by political turmoil. One scheme by the US Agency for International Development encouraged peasants to grow fast-growing eucalyptus – only to see them swiftly cut down for fuel. Other efforts collapsed in 1990, when the international community blocked fuel and other shipments to Haiti after the overthrow of the elected leader, Father Aristide. More than 40% of forests were lost in that decade alone.

    It took until last year for the country’s elite to begin to see a connection between the devastation of the landscape, and natural disaster. “I have to admit that for the majority of the business society, managing water, managing soil, climate change, these are all things that they talk about on CNN and BBC, or that you hear Al Gore going on about,” said Gregory Brandt, a prominent businessman. “It’s not for us. I’d say the majority was aware but not concerned.”

    The international community was also slow to grasp the connection, said Anita Swarup, who has worked as a consultant on climate change for Oxfam, Unicef and other organisations. “As far as I can see, little or nothing has been done in terms of dealing with climate change,” she said. “The international community is not sufficiently focused on the impacts of climate change on a poor country like Haiti and considerably more needs to be done.”

    Now that reality is inescapable because of the increasing severity and frequency of storms. The Haitian government and the international community are now fully engaged, but those on the front line of efforts to repair the environmental degradation that has left Haiti so exposed to climate change now admit they feel overwhelmed.

    In the last few years Oxfam and other international organisations have been working with farmers to build up the hillsides to prevent the massive rush of water towards the sea. Farmers are being encouraged to plant avocado and mango trees, that could help the soil cling to the slopes, and that could bring income over time. They are also being asked to try to shore up ravines with hedges or even sandbags.

    But it often feels like too little too late, said Alexandre Pierre Claudel, an agronomist working with Oxfam in Petite Riviere des Nippes. “It’s like we have to keep starting over and over. Nothing lasts for more than a year, and then I am always afraid a hurricane will come,” he said. “The farmers are not ready at all. They are relying on God and praying that nothing will happen.”

    A year on from 2008’s hurricane quartet, Haitian government officials have launched an intense push to avoid the worst of the coming season of storms. Town and village councils in the southern Nippes region have drawn up evacuation plans and alarm systems. But most of the town defence teams do not even have radios, let alone cars, to move people to higher ground.

    And if they did, the main road to Port-au-Prince remains completely submerged by an inland lake that burst its banks in last year’s flooding. Fisherman now row travellers across the break.

    Even in Gonaives – the focus of international relief for Haiti, with visits from Clinton and celebrities including Wyclef Jean – a third of the town remains in ruins. Dozens of people are still living in plastic tents on a scrap of waste-ground on the edge of town. Gary Dupiton, the town engineer, thinks it will take five years to restore the town completely, provided it does not flood again.

    Dupiton has spent the last few months overseeing an ambitious project to widen the La Quinte river, the biggest of several that empty at the town, so that it does not burst its banks once again. In Dupiton’s best-case scenario a quarter of the city, Haiti’s third largest, will be flooded in the event of a heavy tropical storm.

    And in the worst-case scenario? Duputin does not want to dwell on that prospect. He holds up his hands with fingers crossed. “We are going to have to wait and see,” he said. “Everyone is crossing their fingers and hoping there will be no hurricanes this year.”

    Haiti’s hurricanes: Trail of destruction

    1963 – Hurricane Flora – Over 8,000 people were killed in the 6th most deadly tropical hurricane in the Atlantic ever.

    1994 – Hurricane Gordon – Nearly 1,000 Haitians were buried in mudslides due to widespread deforestation.

    1998 – Hurricane Georges – 400 victims and 80% of crops destroyed.

    2004 – Hurricane Jeanne – Floods caused by over 13 inches of rain killed over 3,000 people, mainly in the seaside city of Gonaives.

    2008 – Hurricanes and storms Fay, Gustav, Hanna and Ike – 793 people died, 310 went missing and 593 were injured. Nearly 23,000 homes were destroyed. The hurricanes affected 800,000 Haitians, 70% of the country’s crops were wiped out. Damage was estimated at $1bn, 5% of Haiti’s GDP.

    Haiti: an ‘ill-fated society

    It is perhaps a testament to the scale of Haiti’s ecological devastation that the oceanographer, Jacques Cousteau, spent as much time filming on land as on sea during the four months he spent in the country in 1985.

    At the time, Haiti had 7% of its forests left – compared with the 80% cover when Christopher Columbus landed on the island of Hispaniola in 1492. Great tracts of land were cut down by the French and Spanish colonisers to grow coffee and sugar cane.

    An account of Cousteau’s expedition in the October 1985 edition of his Calypso Log fanzine draws the link between the deforestation, declining agricultural yields and dwindling fish stocks. The publication takes its name from the vessel Cousteau used for his expeditions.

    “Rainfall has lessened and when rain does fall, it pulls away topsoil, causing severe erosion. Two-thirds of all the country’s watersheds are partially or totally deforested, and if present trends continue, Haiti will have no watersheds at all by the year 2008,” the article says. “All around the island the land has become exhausted.”

    An article in the December 1985 edition noted: “Haiti’s own minister of agriculture told Captain Cousteau his country is at a ‘crisis point’, a crisis of environment.”

    The conservationist, who travelled the world for more than 60 years, used his visit to Haiti as a primary example of what he called an “ill-fated society” during his speech to the Earth Summit in Rio seven years later in 1992.

    Cousteau also used the occasion to vent his less well-known – and by modern standards utterly reprehensible – views on population control for poor countries.

    Haiti in numbers

    • Population: 9.8 million

    • Poorest country in the Western hemisphere. In 2008, GDP per capita was roughly £800 ($1,300), which places Haiti among the world’s 20 poorest nations.

    • Nearly 80% of the population lives on less than $2 per day and 56% on less than US$1 per day

    • Average life expectancy – men 56, women 59

    • Forty percent of Haiti’s schools have no actual buildings

    • 25 doctors per 100,000 people

    • Infant mortality rate per 1,000 live births – 84

    • Economic outlook – Instability and violence, especially since the 1980s, have put the economy into a tailspin. Riots in 2008 were sparked by food price rises.

    Sources: World Bank, UNDP

  • Why do we allow the US to act like a failed state on climate change?

     

    The cuts it proposes are much lower than those being pursued in the UK or in most other developed nations. Like the UK’s climate change act (pdf) the US bill calls for an 80% cut by 2050, but in this case the baseline is 2005, not 1990. Between 1990 and 2005, US carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels rose from 5.8 to 7bn tonnes.

    The cut proposed by 2020 is just 17%, which means that most of the reduction will take place towards the end of the period. What this means is much greater cumulative emissions, which is the only measure that counts. Worse still, it is riddled with so many loopholes and concessions that the bill’s measures might not offset the emissions from the paper it’s printed on. You can judge the effectiveness of a US bill by its length: the shorter it is, the more potent it will be. This one is some 1,200 pages long, which is what happens when lobbyists have been at work.

    There are mind-boggling concessions to the biofuels industry, including a promise not to investigate its wider environmental impacts. There’s a provision to allow industry to use 2bn tonnes of carbon offsets a year, which include highly unstable carbon sinks like crop residues left in the soil (another concession won by the powerful farm lobby). These offsets are so generous that if all of them are used, US industry will have to make no carbon cuts at all until 2026.

    Like the EU emissions trading scheme (ETS), Waxman-Markey would oblige companies to buy only a small proportion (15%) of their carbon permits. The rest will be given away. This means that a resource belonging to everyone (the right to pollute) is captured by industrial interests without public compensation. The more pollution companies have produced, the greater their free allocation will be – the polluter gets paid. It also means, if the ETS is anything to go by, that the big polluters will be able to make windfall profits by passing on the price of the permits they haven’t bought to their consumers.

    In one respect the bill actually waters down current legislation, by preventing the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating coal-burning power stations. If the new coal plants planned in the US are built, it’s hard to see how even the feeble targets in this bill can be met, let alone any targets proposed by the science.

    Even so, I would like to see the bill passed, as it at least provides a framework for future improvements. But why do we expect so little from the US? Why do we treat the world’s most powerful and innovative nation as if it were a failed state, rejoicing at even the faintest suggestion of common sense?

    You have only to read the comments that follow this article to find out. Thanks to the lobbying work of the coal and oil companies, and the vast army of thinktanks, PR consultants and astroturfers they have sponsored, thanks too to the domination of the airwaves by loony right shock jocks, the debate over issues like this has become so mad that any progress at all is little short of a miracle. The ranking Republican on the House energy and commerce committee is Joe Barton, the man who in 2005 launched a congressional investigation of three US scientists whose work reveals the historical pattern of climate change. Like those of many of his peers, his political career is kept on life support by the fossil fuel and electricity companies. He returns the favour by vociferously denying that manmade climate change exists.

    A combination of corporate money and an unregulated corporate media keeps America in the dark ages. This bill is the best we’re going to get for now because the corruption of public life in the United States has not been addressed. Whether he is seeking environmental reforms, health reforms or any other improvement in the life of the American people, this is Obama’s real challenge.

    monbiot.com

  • Getting the green message across

    Among environmentalists the preoccupation has shifted away from scare tactics (although it was shock advertising which helped change attitudes to smoking) to trying to find ways to seduce consumers into dramatically changing their behaviour.

    Caroline Lucas of the Green party talks of an urgent need to describe a low carbon future which is not about sitting around flickering candles in caves. What results from this kind of discussion is what the Sustainability Development Commission calls “alternative hedonism”. It amounts to a kind of green communitarianism of shared local vegetable plots. It’s homely, collaborative, local – very appealing if you are that way inclined and have always had a sneaking affection for patchouli and flower power.

    One environmentalist described the low-carbon future as the 1950s standard of living but with better healthcare and the internet. Forget cars, foreign holidays, much less advertising (if any). That could be appealing if you have a puritanical, ascetic streak.

    These options for the future are helpful – they give us hints of where we might be going. But still the gulf between now – the Jeremy Clarkson mentality of petrol guzzling glamour and Paris Hilton obsessive consumer disorder – and there seems to yawn even wider. And the rhetoric reflects that. We need a “mass epiphany” or a “moral renaissance” said different speakers in the course of a conference by Surrey University’s Resolve programme of research on environmental attitudes. This is a huge task – when in history have values changed dramatically? And how did it happen? And if there is a feedback system so deeply entrenched – advertising encouraging, stimulating consumer behaviour which is environmentally damaging – how do you break through its insistent messaging with a radical challenge?

    Increasingly, the environmental movement seem to be looking to social psychology to provide insight into how you change a value system. What are the levers in a personal psyche which can be pulled which could prompt this revolution in values? What comes out of the research of people like Tim Kasser is that the more materialistic you are, the less happy you are. But the task to persuade millions of people that they might be happy – perhaps even happier – in a 50s-style economy is a tall order.

    Where it ends in deadlock is that the politicians – for example Ed Miliband – say they need a mass climate change movement to help provide the political space for them to introduce radical policy. While on the other hand, the environmental organisations feel the politicians are passing the buck, refusing to take leadership on the difficult decisions which might restrict consumer choice or even challenge the assumptions of a consumer economy.

    The priority of the government is getting the economy back on track – getting everyone back in the shopping malls, spending and piling up the debt. There seems no other model for economic growth on offer from Westminster. So while the government can take some credit for pioneering a Climate Change Act, carbon budgets and demanding targets for cutting carbon, those actions are undermined by their preoccupation with getting out of the recession as quickly as possible. The value shift required is not going to be led from Westminster.

  • Hansen’s response to Australia

    Hon. Martin Parkinson
    Secretary
    Department of Climate Change
    Government of Australia

    Re: Australia’s Response to Climate Change

    Dear Secretary Parkinson:
    Thank you for your letter of 6 April, in which you provided reasoning behind the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) announced in your Government’s White Paper,1 including the emissions trading program to be implemented 1 July 2010.
    The White Paper is forthright about the “need for action on climate change”. The first section pulls no punches, stating:

    Carbon pollution is causing the world’s climate to change, resulting in extreme weather, higher temperatures, more droughts, and rising sea levels.
    Eleven of the past 12 years rank among the 12 warmest years since records began and Australia had warmer-than-average mean annual temperatures for 16 of the past 18 years.
    As one of the hottest and driest continents on earth, Australia will be one of the nations it hardest and fastest by climate change if we don’t act now.

    This kind of straight talk is admirable, as is the statement in your 6 April letter that “We strongly agree with you that climate change requires urgent and significant changes in human activity.”
    I am also encouraged by the policy proposed in the White Paper to return 100 percent of revenue from permit auctions to Australian households and businesses. Unless the tax is fully returned to the public, in a transparent fashion, they will not permit the carbon fee to rise to the needed level.
    However, despite these laudable aspects, it must be pointed out that the emission targets outlined in your letter and the White Paper are inadequate to stabilize climate. Moreover, the plan to base the CPRS on a cap-and-trade approach is unlikely to meet even the goals that are stated.
    Below I critique Australia’s targets – but let me assure you that I am equally frank about plans of other nations, including my own. I also point out flaws of cap-and-trade below. I hope you will reconsider your plan – we cannot lose another decade to such a disastrously ineffectual approach.

    Australia’s GHG Reduction Targets

    You note that the Australian Government has committed to reducing 2020 greenhouse gas emissions by 5-15% from 2000 levels, which would be as much as a 41% reduction in per capita emission from 1990 levels. However, your assertion that these reductions are “on par with those countries that have also adopted or proposed long-term targets” is misleading.
    Authoritative data show that Australia’s per capita emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel combustion, although comparable to those in the United States and Canada, are twice as high as per capita emissions in Western Europe. Here is a snapshot for 2005, the most recent year for
    this specific data compilation:

     CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning
     Country   Tonnes per capita (2005)
     Australia 4.95
     Germany 2.60
     France 1.69
     Denmark 2.32
     Spain 2.16
     Source: National CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning, Cement Manufacture, and Gas Flaring: 1751-
    2005, downloaded from http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/emissions/aus.dat (for Australia). For other
    countries shown, replace “aus” in link with “ger”, “fra”, “den” and “spa”. Figures exclude bunker fuel
    (ocean-going ships)

    These countries span a wide range of climate conditions, potential wind and solar resources, and use of nuclear energy. They all have robust per-capita incomes, high life expectancies, and
    desirable quality of life. The fact that per capita emissions in each country are roughly half of Australia’s suggests that Australia’s emission targets could be considerably more ambitious.
    Moreover, none of the various nations’ emission targets take into account the precipitous drop in economic activity, energy use, and GHG emissions from the deep worldwide recession.
    Available estimates suggest that the recession may eradicate about three years’ emissions growth. Emission levels that had been expected in, say, 2010 won’t be reached until 2013. That fact cries out for bettering prevailing targets.
    Obviously, there is room for Australia to cut its emissions much more than planned. How? With policies similar to those being promoted elsewhere: mileage efficiency standards for vehicles; power-usage standards for appliances and electronics; retrofitting of residential and commercial
    buildings for efficient heating and cooling; urban revitalization promoting walkable and bikeable communities; land-use policies encouraging proximity over sprawl; and wholesale conversion of the electricity energy source from fossil fuels to carbon-free sources – including Australia’s massive solar and wind resources.
    All of these measures will penetrate deeper, wider, and faster with carbon emissions pricing, as your letter recognizes. Indeed, if the carbon price is sufficient, the public will move rapidly to replace fossil habits and fossil infrastructure – once the tipping point is passed. With economic incentives, change will occur far more rapidly than is possible with mandated “goals” or “caps”.
    A rising carbon price is needed to transform consumer and life style choices, to make renewable energy and energy efficiency cheaper than fossil fuels, to spur business investment, innovation and associated economic activity, and to move the nation to the cleaner environment beyond the
    fossil fuel era. The carbon price will need to be significant, and the public and businesses must understand that it will increase in the future. It should be applied to all fossil fuels – oil, gas and coal – uniformly at the source (the first sale at the mine or port of entry).
    Will the public accept a rising carbon fee. You bet – if the revenue is distributed 100% to the public. More than half of the public (those who do better than average in limiting their direct and indirect carbon emissions) will receive a dividend larger than the amount they pay in carbon
    fee via higher energy prices. The revenue should NOT go to the government to send to favored industries – in general governments are lousy investors.
    Will the public just turn around and spend the dividend on the same inefficient vehicle, etc.? No, not if there are better alternatives and if the public knows the carbon price will continue to rise.
    And there will be plenty of innovators developing alternatives. Objections will come mainly from special interests, those benefitting from business-as-usual – you will recognize their lobbyists from their alligator shoes.
    As a U.S. citizen, I am well aware that implementing such policies is easier said than done. My country’s per capita CO2 emissions stood at 5.32 tonnes in 2005,3 about 10% greater than yours.
    Marshaling public opinion and political will is a tremendous task, given the forces aligned for business-as-usual. In Washington there are four energy lobbyists for every Congress-person.
    Political leadership is desperately needed. It is easiest to give in to business-as-usual. That was the approach to the automobile industry by politicians in the United States, giving in to industry lobbyists. It cost our country world leadership in that industry. That industry is a pittance, compared with the stakes with global climate. We must recognize our fiduciary responsibility, if not our moral obligation, to our children and grandchildren. And humans are but one of millions of species that will be affected by our choice to take, or not to take, needed actions.

    Cap-and-Trade: A Circuitous, Ineffectual, Inefficient Path to a Carbon Price

    I’m gratified to read in your letter that “The Australian Government agrees that a rising forward arbon price is an essential part of effective and efficient national and global responses to climate hange.” But you go on to state: We do not accept … that a carbon tax will be the best mechanism to deliver such a price… [W]e consider that a cap and trade scheme [and] well designed quantity-based approaches have some significant advantages over price-based approaches.

    First, let us level the terminology. If “fee and dividend” is to be called “tax and dividend”, then the pseudonym “cap and trade” must be replaced by “tax and trade”. One is no more a tax than the other – they both raise the price of energy for the consumer.

    The consumer does not directly pay any tax or fee in the “fee and dividend” – the fee is paid at the fossil fuel mine or port of entry. It is transparent, uniform, honest, and fair. It is a single number per tonne of carbon. No large bureaucracy is needed, no traders, speculators, gamblers.

    Please let me address specific points you raise, which in fact strongly disfavor cap-and-trade:

    On Certainty. You note that “robust quantity-based approaches can achieve specified emissions reductions with a high degree of certainty” and “quantity of emissions reduction will be uncertain under price-based approaches.” These points beg the questions: “Is year-to-year
    quantity uncertainty intolerable?” and “Will cap and trade be robust?”

    In fact, uncertainty is inevitable with either approach. Moreover, our scientific knowledge and our political wisdom will likely improve over the next 40 years. So adaptability of present law is actually desirable.

    Cap and trade is not robust. It has a great number of flaws, which I am sure you will agree should not be ignored in our analyses.

    1. Realistic caps are incomplete and do not control what matters – total emissions.
    2. Offsets are usually allowed and often poorly guaranteed, creating more uncertainty.
    3. As with any law, caps can and will be changed, many times, before 2050.
    4. National caps have been and are widely rejected, so the global cap will be far too high.
    5. When caps are accepted, they are often set too high – as happened, e.g., with Russia.
    6. If a complete set of tight caps were achieved, global permit trading would likely result in a Gresham’s-Law effect – “bad money drives out good.” Some countries will issue too many permits or fail to enforce requirements. These permits, being cheapest, will find their way into the world market and undermine the world cap.
    7. Caps will be extremely hard to enforce because they must be set relative to business as usual, which cannot be predicted with any accuracy. (China’s BAU emissions rose 27% from 1990 to 2000, but will rise more than 100% from 2000 to 2010.) By claiming a mistake in estimating BAU, a country can easily refuse to meet its cap. Canada, a highly respected country, is now taking advantage of this.

    The view that we will have a “robust” cap is an illusion based on looking at rules for an ideal cap instead of the politics of real caps. Problem #4 above will cause trouble, e.g., because permit trading has characteristics that will likely provoke popular backlash. For example:
    1. Consumers may discover, as they did in Europe, that they are charged for “free permits.”
    2. Some permit traders will become millionaires by speculating on carbon prices – this
    money does not come out of thin air – it comes out of consumer pockets.
    3. An effective cap will eventually cause a high implicit tax rate. As Nordhaus (see below) notes, volatility of this tax may become “extremely unpopular with market participants.”
    Such problems would cause repeated changes, or abandonment, of a global cap-and-trade system. If that system attains only limited coverage, as is now the case, worse problems will arise in the global offset markets. For these reasons, and because they believe a cap-and-trade
    approach will continue to stymie international negotiations, some of our top economist from across the political spectrum vigorously oppose cap and trade. Notable among these are William D. Nordhaus, Joseph E. Stiglitz (Making Globalization Work, Chp. 6), and N. Gregory Mankiw.

    On Permit Price Volatility. I am surprised by your first point about prices. You say, [Emission permits] “will generally provide greater security and improved risk management for firms and market participants than a tax or administratively set prices.”
    Actually, volatile permit prices are almost universally considered to be the chief deficiency of cap and trade relative to a carbon tax. Nordhaus, in A Question of Balance (2008), examines the volatility of SO2 permit prices in the United States and finds they have been twice as volatile as the S&P 500 index and nearly as volatile as oil prices. He then concludes (p. 155):
    Such rapid fluctuations are costly and undesirable, particularly for an input such as carbon whose aggregate costs might be as great as those of petroleum in the coming decades. An interesting analogue occurred in the United States during the monetarist experiment of 1979-1982, when the Federal Reserve targeted quantities (monetary aggregates) rather than prices (interest rates). During that period, interest rates were extremely volatile. In part because of this increased volatility, the Fed changed back to a price-type approach after a short period of experimentation. This experience suggests that a regime of strict quantity limits might have major disruptive effects on energy markets and on investment
    planning, as well as on distribution of income across countries, inflation rates, energy prices, and import and export values. Quantity limits might consequently become extremely unpopular with market participants and economic policy makers.

    We now have data on EAU futures that were unavailable to Nordhaus when he made his study of volatility. Using futures with settlement date December 2012, which now have nearly a four year time series, we find they are 3.5 times as volatile as the S&P 500, with the phase II period
    (starting Jan. 1, 2008) being slightly more volatile than the earlier period.

    On Price Discovery. The hope that futures and options markets will “reveal” future carbon prices under a cap and trade system is a case of whistling past the graveyard – with the gravestones bearing names like “securitization,” “derivatives,” and “credit-default swaps” that have brought the global economy to the brink of ruin. It would be less than prudent to give license to institutions in Australia and elsewhere to construct new, potentially toxic financial instruments, particularly ones that will help decide the fate of essential investment in zero- and low-carbon technologies.4 I also have to question the capacity of millions of Australian households and small-business owners to employ price discovery to guide their decisions to purchase low-carbon cars and houses and to move generally to climate-sustainable lifestyles. Why not just give them the future carbon price straight-up?

    On Progressively Rising Tax Rates. You note that you are “unaware of instances where countries have committed to, and delivered, a program of progressively rising tax rates.”

    Pollution taxes have rarely been tried under the traditional mindset favoring command-andcontrol regulations. But two examples of progressively rising pollution taxes come to mind: the tax on chlorofluorocarbons and other ozone-destroying chemicals implemented by the United States beginning on Jan. 1, 1990 to support the Montreal Protocol5; and the carbon tax that took effect in British Columbia, Canada’s third largest province and roughly the same population as your state of Victoria, last July 1.6 Your concern that “a price-based approach [such as a carbon tax] may not be capable of achieving the political mandate required to deliver the ambitious emissions reductions called for by the science, over the long run,” surely depends upon whether 100% of the carbon fee is returned to the public. Certainly, the nation should and will have the option of deciding whether the carbon fee will continue and how fast it will rise. My guess is that, as they see the benefits and consequences, and as many receive more in dividends than they pay in increased fossil energy cost, they will encourage continuation of this simple, honest, transparent system. On the contrary, with cap and trade (tax and trade) the first time that problems associated with “securitization,” “derivatives,” “credit-default swaps”, and speculator millionaires hits the media, the politicians in office will be running for the hills as fast as their legs can carry them.

    On implementation. The carbon tax in British Columbia took only months from announcement, in February 2008, to implementation, in June 2008. Cap and trade schemes have taken an order of magnitude longer to craft and introduce.7 The difference arises from the complexity of cap and trade vs. the simplicity of a carbon tax or fee. It is this contrast that helps account for the shift in opinion that has become palpable in the U.S. business community, the political commentariat and, now, in the U.S. Congress.

    The dividend, which you presumably would choose to give to all adult legal residents, can be implemented just as quickly, delivered electronically to bank accounts every month. It could be added to debit cards of anybody who does not have a bank account.

    In closing, I note the recent comment of New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman: [S]simplicity matters. Americans will be willing to pay a tax for their children to be less threatened, breathe cleaner air and live in a more sustainable world with a stronger America. They are much less likely to support a firm in London trading offsets from an electric bill in Boston with a derivatives firm in New York in order to help fund an aluminum smelter in Beijing, which is what cap-and-trade is all about. People won’t support what they can’t explain

    I believe Friedman is right about Americans and that the same applies to Australians. People are hungry not just for a sustainable climate, and cleaner air and water, but for political openness and honesty. They want their leaders to level with them. I am confident, given the recent leadership of the Australian Government’s on climate issues, that you will do precisely that in the next steps of adopting suitable targets and selecting an optimal path to achieve them.

    Thank you for your openness to my information and point of view. I look forward to your reply and your continuing leadership.

    Sincerely,
    James E. Hansen

  • Methane Hydrates

    It is perfectly feasible, therefore, that relatively small areas of land, like the west Siberian permafrost, or the deep sediments around the Gulf of Mexico, have enormous potential both for energy supply and heating the atmosphere to a level that would cause a catastrophic mass extinction of life.

    If we take the current controllable methane sources as being about 300 million tonnes (or 6400 million tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent) then the complete release of the western Siberian reservoir would be the equivalent of 233 years of current human methane emissions. It is believed, however, that the total reservoir of methane hydrates within the permafrost and under the sea could be anything between 750 and 3000 billion tonnes of methane, or up to 2000 years worth of human greenhouse gas emissions.

    Now, I’m not suggesting for a minute that all of this methane is going to pop into the atmosphere in one great Earthly gasp – there is no chance of this happening – but there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the great permafrosts of the north are no longer staying frozen during the summer months, and may be disappearing entirely. Although methane emissions have temporarily stabilised due to the drying out of wetlands, they will again begin to rise inexorably, and to these emissions will be added the methane that is coming from the hydrates that were previously safely encased in the arctic ice.

    No one can put a figure on the expected increase, but this is clearly a greenhouse effect feedback that we could do without. Even if the amount of methane was only doubled, we would see the total global warming potential increase by 20%. If, due to global warming, just the west Siberian permafrost reservoir were to be released, over a period of, say, 50 years, then within 12 years the amount of methane in the atmosphere would rapidly increase to 9000 million tonnes. The impact of this would be catastrophic.

    The current (2007) level of methane in the atmosphere is about 1.8 parts per million. This would increase by a factor of 20 to about 36 parts per million, resulting in the amount of human induced global warming increasing by a factor of 3.6. The simple outcome of this would be an increase in global temperatures of at least 3 degrees Celsius, with a dramatic increase in violent storms, desertification, flooding and, of course, the widespread inundation caused by sea level rise. The actual outcome would be far worse – the three degree increase would trigger a further set of feedbacks described by Mark Lynas thus:

    “The end of the world is nigh. A three-degree increase in global temperature would throw the carbon cycle into reverse. Instead of absorbing carbon dioxide, vegetation and soils start to release it. So much carbon pours into the atmosphere that it pumps up atmospheric concentrations by 250 parts per million by 2100, boosting global warming by another 1.5C. In other words carbon-cycle feedbacks could tip the planet into runaway global warming much earlier than anyone had expected.”

    And all this from just one piece of permafrost, in just one of the two great hydrate complexes on Earth. And we haven’t even considered carbon dioxide.

    Defusing The Timebomb

    Guess what? This doesn’t have to happen. It really doesn’t.

    There is no doubt that humanity, as a whole, has to dramatically cut the amount of carbon dioxide it produces; that is a task that has to remain the top priority for every sector of society – individuals, communities, businesses and governments. Without a dramatic reduction – some estimates put it as 80-90% – in carbon emissions in the next 30 or so years, the planet will be well on the way to the kind of tipping points so graphically described in the previous section.

    What struck me when I was researching this article, though, was how quickly the concentration of methane in the atmosphere can fall when its emissions are reduced, compared to the 50-200 years taken by carbon dioxide. Remember how the methane levels remained static at 9000 million tonnes in the west Siberia permafrost example? This stabilisation was because a methane molecule only remains in the atmosphere for an average of 12 years.

    According to the IPCC, if we can reduce our emissions of methane by just 50% – which seems perfectly reasonable given the incredibly wasteful lives we currently lead – then within 12 years, atmospheric methane levels will have fallen to 70% of their current level. This is equivalent to a 5.4% reduction in total radiative forcing (the measure of how much extra we are warming the atmosphere) – something that with carbon dioxide would take around a hundred years even if emissions were massively, and rapidly reduced.

    So there you have it. A greenhouse gas that could potentially make this planet uninhabitable in a very short time is also a gas that – because we are currently producing it at pointlessly high levels – could easily be reduced with a few simple, if significant, changes, and buy us valuable time in which to fix the problem we have created.

  • Cores confirm C02 link with warming

    From Science Daily

    The first expedition, led by Heiko Pälike of the University of Southampton’s School of Ocean and Earth Science, based at the Centre, and Hiroshi Nishi (Sapporo, Japan), ended on 4 May after successfully coring over 3.5 km of the sediments and rocks from below the Pacific Ocean seafloor. A second expedition to the equatorial Pacific will depart Honolulu, Hawaii, on 9 May and will recover sediment cores from the seafloor at three more drilling locations.

    The entire scientific team is made up of 60 scientists from over 15 different countries and represents scientists at every stage of their career from graduate students to senior professors. Scientists, drillers, and technical staff participated in live interactive video conferences with enthused students and teachers who learned about the expedition’s discoveries, ocean drilling, and life at sea. The scientists supported by the UK are Heiko Pälike, Paul Wilson, Edgar Kirsty (National Oceanography Centre, Southampton), Paul Bown and Tom Dunkley Jones (University College London), and Peter Fitch (University of Leicester).

    The scientists are using mud and rocks from far below the equatorial Pacific Ocean floor to uncover details about the climate history on Earth. The sediment layers recovered from six drilling locations act like pages from a book, and record inch-by-inch Earth’s climate history. The two-month expedition succeeded in obtaining records ranging from the present to the warmest sustained ‘greenhouse’ period on Earth around 53 million years ago. At that time, alligators lived as far north as the Arctic, and palm trees grew in the Rocky Mountains. Reconstructions have shown that there were no significant polar ice caps, and greenhouse gas concentrations were several times higher than today.

    The super-greenhouse early Eocene was followed by gradual cooling and the sudden buildup of major ice caps on Antarctica around 34 million years ago, leaving its mark in the equatorial sediment cores that the scientists are bringing back to Hawaii. The voyage discovered the effect of large-scale climatic changes on the oceans of the past. 53 million years ago, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was much higher than today, and made the ocean much more acidic, such that only little carbonate is preserved in sediments recovered from those times. In contrast, during the buildup of ice on Antarctica, the ocean became less acidic very rapidly, and more carbonate was suddenly preserved in the deep ocean. The transition from warm to cool climates took place in less than 100,000 years – well within the time span that humans have been living on our planet.

    The onboard studies revealed that changes in ocean acidification, linked to climatic change, have a large and global impact on marine organisms. Co-Chief Scientist Heiko Pälike remarked: “It is truly awesome to see 53 million years of Earth’s history pulled up onto the drill ship’s deck, and then to pass through our hands and past our eyes. We saw the effects of Earth’s climate machine in action. Ocean drilling is the equivalent of the space programme to the Earth Sciences, and this truly international exploration would not have been possible without more than 40 years of scientific drilling research helping us find the best places to drill.”

    Because of the important role of the equatorial Pacific in climate processes, environmental changes are recorded by shells of microfossils the size of a pinhead that make up the sediments, which the international group of scientists have now brought from more than three miles below the sea surface onboard the unique scientific drilling vessel JOIDES Resolution.

    “We can use the microfossils and layers of this superb sediment archive as a ‘yardstick’ for measuring geological time. This will allow us to determine the rates of environmental change, such as the rapid first expansion of large ice-sheets in the Antarctic 33.8 million years ago,” said Expedition Co-Chief Scientist Hiroshi Nishi. “This polar process had a profound impact on phytoplankton even at the Equator. We managed to catch several records of this important climatic transition.”

    The JOIDES Resolution is a research vessel with unique capabilities for exploring and monitoring the sub-seafloor; it operates as part of the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP). IODP is supported by the US National Science Foundation and Japan’s MEXT. Additional programme support comes from the European Consortium for Ocean Research Drilling (ECORD) to which the UK Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) contributes. Other contributors are India (Ministry of Earth Sciences), the People’s Republic of China (Ministry of Science and Technology), the Republic of Korea (Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources), Australia and New Zealand. The JOIDES Resolution is now poised to help IODP continue to push the envelope of science by collecting unique sub-seafloor samples and data that would otherwise remain out of reach to researchers