EcoRadio

Author: admin

  • China and India are leading the way.Yes, I’m optimistic

     

    Hu Jintao, the Chinese president, made specific commitments on curbing the growth in greenhouse gas emissions as China continues its extraordinary economic growth. While the president promised a reduction by a “notable margin” rather than a specific figure, there is no doubt that the cut will be significant. And the environment ministers of both China and India made important and constructive proposals for how their countries will reverse deforestation.

    This was the kind of leadership I had hoped to see at the summit – organised by Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary general – with developing and emerging countries showing that they can tackle climate change while continuing their efforts to reduce poverty. But we still have a long way to go before we can be sure that a strong agreement is in place for Copenhagen.

    In the next couple of years, annual emissions of greenhouse gases are likely to reach a level of 50 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. If we are to have a reasonable chance of avoiding a rise in global average temperature by more than 2C, annual emissions have to be cut to no more than 20 gigatonnes by 2050.

    That means that the 9 billion people who will be living on the planet in 2050 must be producing, on average, no more than about two tonnes of greenhouse gases per year each.

    At the moment, the rich industrialised countries of the European Union average about 10-12 tonnes per head of population, while the figure for the United States is almost 24 tonnes. China, by contrast, emits about 6 tonnes per head at present. Thus rich industrialised countries in particular must substantially reduce their emissions.

    The developed countries must now demonstrate that they have the political will to reach a strong agreement in Copenhagen. In New York, Japan’s new prime minister, Yukio Hatoyama, outlined how his country will reduce its emissions by 25% by 2020, compared with 1990. This was a positive example that few others matched.

    President Obama has already committed to a cut of 80% in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, compared with 1990. But the American Clean Energy and Security Act passed by the House of Representatives sets an interim target for 2020 that is not considered ambitious enough by many other countries. And it is not clear when, or even if, the Senate will pass a comparable act to reduce emissions.

    It is these interim targets that should now be addressed by all countries during the coming weeks. If we are to reach the goal of reducing emissions to 20 gigatonnes by 2050, we must be at about 35 gigatonnes by the halfway point of 2030.

    That means global emissions have to peak within the next five years and be steadily falling by 2020. And while the commitments by the largest emitters already on the table for 2020 offer significant cuts relative to today’s emissions, they collectively fall 4 or 5 gigatonnes short of what is necessary if we are to be on a realistic trajectory to reach the 2030 and 2050 targets.

    Developing countries should also sharply reduce their emissions – but they must be supported, financially and through technology sharing with the rich industrialised countries. Without commitments to such support, the negotiations ahead will prove very difficult.

    Although the political leaders must devise and implement the right policies to guide national and global emissions trajectories, it is the private sector that will be the main engine in the transition to a low-carbon global economy.

    In that respect it was very encouraging that 181 investors, collectively responsible for the management of more than $13 trillion in assets globally, launched a statement in New York last week to support a global agreement on climate change. The Leadership Forum for business leaders, which ran alongside the summit, also highlighted a tremendous variety of innovative ideas from within the private sector for the low-carbon transition.

    So there are some reasons to be more optimistic about the prospects for securing a strong agreement in Copenhagen, following the New York summit. But the obstacles that remain are very big and will require an even stronger effort to overcome, starting at the G20 summit in Pittsburgh and continuing during the coming round of treaty negotiations in Bangkok next week.

    There must be real vision, leadership and creativity, as well as a mutual understanding of the difficulties of making and implementing domestic policies. But if we can muster the effort, we can, as a world, forge a path towards a more prosperous and sustainable future – for us, our children, and generations to follow.

  • Spending crisis could put brake on clean coal project

     

    Miliband has said that the government will provide funding for up to four demonstration plants, but this is now likely to be revised downwards. Energy companies believe two new plants could now get public support.

    It will also take years for those plants which are promised funding to be built. Ministers will use a “gradualist” approach, staggering the tenders to build the new plants, which will also have the effect of deferring public spending commitments. The current tender, which began in 2007, may not be concluded until 2011.

    On Monday the energy minister Lord Hunt met industry body the Coal Forum. His claim that the UK was in the lead in promoting the technology was challenged by frustrated executives who believe other countries have now moved ahead.

    In April Miliband announced a radical policy to ban the construction of coal plants which do not fit expensive new CCS technology to store their carbon emissions underground. He said that the government would fund the additional new demonstration projects mainly via levies on consumers’ electricity bills. But the Treasury still needs to approve any levies because they amount to a tax, and the proceeds are treated as public spending. Officials fear that the need to slash public spending to cut the estimated £805bn of public sector debt could have an impact on such green energy subsidies.

    Matthew Lockwood, from thinktank the Institute for Public Policy Research, said: “Back in April Ed Miliband made a bold decision to expand the UK’s ambitions on developing CCS, but unless the government follows through with clarity on the financing of new power stations and infrastructure, and an accelerated timetable, that ambition will fall at the first hurdle.”

    A spokeswoman for the energy department insisted that it was still a target to fund four projects and that there was no change in its plans. “The UK has set out bold proposals for coal and CCS – they are a world first – and our ambitions remain firm. We’re determined to drive the development of CCS as part of the transition to a low carbon economy.”

  • UN climate summit: Leaders take small stps towards action on climate change.

     

    China said it would curb pollution by 2020 – but it did not say by how much. Japan reaffirmed an ambitious new target for cutting emissions and offered cash to developing nations to adopt new green technology and for small-island and low-lying states, to escape the worst ravages of climate change. It did not say how much.

    America committed itself to finding a solution – and for the first time accepted its share of the blame for climate change. France threw out an idea for an entirely new leaders’ summit in November.

    Even the Maldives, which is generally included at such gatherings as a prime casualty of climate change, offered to do its share. It would be carbon neutral by 2020, its president, Mohamed Nasheed, said.

    An outpouring of pledges of action from the world leaders was precisely what Ban intended when he said the summit was the first time such a sizeable group of world leaders had gathered to devote a full day to global warming.

    Last night he said the gathering had saved the Copenhagen negotiations from outright collapse. “I am convinced that something missing from the last few months has returned,” he said. “This ­summit has put wind in our sails.”

    The Danish prime minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who will be the official host of the Copenhagen meeting, said the deadlock had been broken. In a ­further sign of confidence, he said he was now inclined to invite heads of state and ­government to the talks, picking up the challenge by Gordon Brown last week.

    UN officials said in advance they hoped new commitments from the big industrialised states, such as Japan and China, would prod other countries into action so that they not be seen as the spoilers of a potential deal at Copenhagen.

    Last night, they said that the offers from China and Japan, and recent shifts in position, had changed the dynamics of the negotiations. The industrialised and developing world now appeared to share a sense of common cause on climate change – rather than recrimination about who was to blame, they said.

    They also agreed it was crucial to keep heads of state and government involved because of the complexity of negotiations. The negotiation documents have on their own become a source of conflict, at 200 pages with hundreds of footnotes.

    In his most direct foray into the debate, China’s president, Hu Jintao, said climate change would be an essential factor in its economic planning. “We should make our endeavour on climate change a win-win for both developed and developing ­countries,” he said, adding that China would cut carbon emissions by a “notable margin”, which he did not specify.

    Hu also said China would step up use of renewable energy to 15% by 2020, and increase its forests.

    Environmentalists saw the pledge – though lacking in specifics – as an important move. “These announcements should sweep away the canard that China is not willing to reduce emissions,” said Dan Dudek, the director of the China programme for the Environment Defence Fund. “Is it enough to make Copenhagen a success? That will depend upon whether Hu’s new climate initiatives propel Obama and the Senate into action on controlling greenhouse gases.” Obama offered no promises on pushing through legislation before Copenhagen. The Senate has been preoccupied with healthcare reform, though Democratic leaders said this week they hope to get to energy in early October. Instead, Obama made an overture to the developing countries, acknowledging the US and other industrialised states had failed for too long to acknowledge their responsibility. “It is true that for too many years, ­mankind has been slow to respond to or even recognise the magnitude of the climate threat. It is true of my own country as well. We recognise that,” he said. “But this is a new day.”

    Though it was largely overlooked, he also showed he was committed to trying to green the US economy, announcing a project to track greenhouse gas emissions. The president promised further small-bore action at the G20 summit in Pittsburgh where he said America will propose phasing out subsidies for fossil fuel.

    Environmentalists almost uniformly agreed that the US president had missed an opportunity to commit to working with the Senate on ways to get a bill that caps America’s greenhouse gas emissions.

    Even so, the emerging focus on climate finance, with the US and Japan yesterday ready to commit funds, could help ease a contentious issue: how to help the developing world prepare for climate change.

    There are still details to be ironed out. China is pushing for the developed world to spend 1% of GDP. The state department climate change envoy, Todd Stern, called that sum “untethered to reality”. But at least, said UN officials and environmentalists, it looks as if there is a renewed willingness to engage.

  • Climate change is killing our people

     

    As the ground in the village remained flooded, there were a lot of mosquitoes around, and five of my family members became ill with malaria. Because there was no clean water to drink, some people got cholera and diarrhoea. Many of the people in my village died. Children didn’t go to school since they were too weakened by disease and their parents had no money for school fees.

    Our farms were ruined, so we didn’t have food until the government came to help us. This was so humiliating for us, because we had never depended on aid to survive.

    This year, when we managed to get seeds to plant for our own food, we were struck by a drought like we had never seen before. It was so hot, all of the crops dried up and the wells where we used to collect water also became dry. There was no water in the boreholes, and so the cycle of hunger and thirst returned, but this time caused by the excessive heat.

    We didn’t understand why this had happened. We wondered what we had done to make God so angry. But we now know it’s climate change. The cycle continues, and it hasn’t gotten much better, as we have had more droughts and more floods. It’s very hard for us to grow food, and some mornings, I go to my field only to find that someone has stolen the potatoes. Although it makes me angry, I know that if my neighbours didn’t steal the potatoes, they wouldn’t have anything to eat.

    When I heard that leaders of the world were meeting at the UN in New York to talk about fighting climate change, I wished that there was a way I could tell them what my community has gone through. I wanted to make them understand that we are getting poorer and poorer because of climate change, and we are dying. I wanted to be there to tell them our story.

    With Oxfam‘s help, I am have joined a number of women like me from different corners of the world in New York to speak my mind.

    I ask the leaders of the rich countries to take action to reduce their carbon emissions so that we can look forward to rains to plant our crops without having to face floods that wash them away. And I ask them to help my community fight the climate change that destroys our houses, increases diseases and stops our children from attending schools. That’s all I am asking for on behalf of my fellow villagers.

  • City dwellers have smaller footprints

    A report from the International Institute for Environment and Development released last week indicates that city dwellers emit an average of two thirds of the emissions of those who live in cities. Larger cities and their transport networks tend to be more efficient but the details depend on a large number of factors. Residents of Rio di Janiero, for example, emit about one third of the national greenhouse gases average per person. The report notes that by 2050 more than half the world’s populations will live in cities and concludes that making those cities as sustainable as possible will be one of the key factors in reducing greenhouse emissions.

    Read the full story

  • Populate and perish: Sydney’s time bomb

     

    The director of the Australian Demographic and Social Research Institute, Peter McDonald, said the natural constraint of the Blue Mountains would force the city to spread to the north and south, until it eventually met growing populations in Newcastle and Wollongong.

    ”I think you will see the coming together of those three cities into a single urban area,” Professor McDonald said.

    ”It isn’t simply that the Sydney metropolitan area will continue to grow. I think at some point people will actually choose Wollongong and Newcastle over Sydney to avoid the crowding and congestion and the cost of living.

    ”But the end result is that they will probably end up living in a larger metropolitan area anyway, with Sydney at its centre and a continuous urban link to those regional centres.”

    Planners and experts in health and sustainability said a 50 per cent increase in Sydney’s population would require tens of thousands of additional hospital beds and nearly a million new homes. The amount of water consumed for household use would increase from 1.3 billion litres a day to 2.1 billion litres, requiring a far greater utilisation of water recycling or a new dam.

    ”In the Sydney basin we may not be able to sustainably meet this population increase,” said Dr Chris Dey, a sustainability expert from the University of Sydney. ”We need greater diversification – more harvesting, recycling, more reuse of waste water.”

    Stuart White from the University of Technology’s Institute for Sustainable Futures said public transport and housing would be greater challenges. ”These are major pieces of infrastructure that must be integrated into the city on a mass scale and that is an extremely difficult task, particularly when you’re starting from the position we’re in now.”

    While the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, welcomed the population increase, Labor backbencher Kelvin Thompson said Australia was ”sleepwalking into an environmental disaster”.

    ”Another 13 or 14 million people will not give us a richer country, it will spread our mineral wealth more thinly and give us a poorer one,” Mr Thompson said. ”It will make a mockery of our obligation to pass on to our children a world in as good a condition as the one our grandparents gave to us.”