Copenhagen Climate Summit

[Guest Greenzen]

The average temperature of the earth's surface has risen by 0.74 degrees C since the late 1800s. It is expected to increase by another 1.8° C to 4° C by the year 2100 - a rapid and profound change - should the necessary action not be taken. Even if the minimum predicted increase takes place, it will be larger than any century-long trend in the last 10,000 years.

 

The principal reason for the mounting thermometer is a century and a half of industrialization: the burning of ever-greater quantities of oil, gasoline, and coal, the cutting of forests, and the practice of certain farming methods.

 

Over a decade ago, most countries joined an international treaty -- the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) -- to begin to consider what can be done to reduce global warming and to cope with whatever temperature increases are inevitable. More recently, a number of nations approved an addition to the treaty: the Kyoto Protocol, which has more powerful (and legally binding) measures. The UNFCCC secretariat supports all institutions involved in the climate change process, particularly the COP, the subsidiary bodies and their Bureau.

 

The 2007 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali yielded a mandate for negotiations on

a strong international climate change deal, to be concluded at the Copenhagen Climate Change

Conference at the end of 2009. The deal is to cover the key issues of mitigation (reducing greenhouse gas emissions), adaptation (coping with the inevitable consequences of climate change) and finance and technology (needed to help developing countries to step up actions to limit the growth of their emissions and adapt to climate change impacts). The Copenhagen outcome is to follow on the first phase of the Kyoto Protocol, which expires at the end of 2012.

 

Copenhagen is to result both in a post-2012 outcome as well as important decisions and start-up finance to immediately kick-start action on climate change in 2010.

 

In a joint press briefing, COP 15 President Connie Hedegaard and UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer stressed that we have reached an important phase, with the high-level segment of the conference about to begin.

 

Ms. Hedegaard said that in order to achieve the desired success, “Ministers must be extremely busy and focused over the next 48 hours."

 

While Ministers have now got down to serious work, Mr. de Boer pointed out that “there is an enormous amount of ground still to be covered.” Ministers have been consulting until late into the night on crunch issues that include emission reduction targets, developing country actions and long-term finance.

 

[Guest American for Progress]

The international climate change conference in Copenhagen took an important step this past weekend toward tackling the "mortal threat" of climate change. After a week of rancorous talks that descended at one point into a public row between U.S. and Chinese negotiators and a walk-out of developing nations, major emitters reached an agreement which was grudgingly acknowledged by nearly all countries in attendance. This step was not as large or as bold as many nations, NGOs, and experts had called for. And if additional steps are not taken, the world will remain in tremendous peril as the threat of climate change grows. However, the fact that an agreement was reached with China and India and other developing countries is a significant step that potentially signifies a major structural shift in international climate change negotiations and lays the groundwork for bolder future action. After eight years of obstructing action at international negotiations by the Bush administration, the Obama administration has sought to reassert America's role as a global leader. However, while President Obama played a critical role in brokering the accord, American negotiators were hamstrung by lack of action in the Senate, which served as a major obstacle to bolder action.

 

WHAT WAS ACHIEVED: The agreement that emerged out of Copenhagen contains emission targets for greenhouse gases for both developed and developing countries, as well as commitments on the part of developed countries to contribute $100 billion per year to assist developing countries deal with the effects of climate change. Importantly, the agreement moved past one of the major points of contention between the U.S. and China, as the Chinese -- as well as all major developing countries -- agreed "to a regime of reporting and verification of their emissions goals." The deal was brokered in rather dramatic circumstances, with Obama crashing a multilateral meeting involving the leaders of China, India, Brazil, and South Africa, amidst fears that leaders were about to depart Copenhagen with no accord in hand. The New York Times noted that "Obama deserves much of the credit. He arrived as the talks were collapsing, spent 13 hours in nonstop negotiations and played hardball with the Chinese. With time running out...he forged an agreement that all but a handful of the 193 nations on hand accepted." Shortly before departing Copenhagen, Obama gave a brief statement where he said the conference had delivered a "meaningful and unprecedented breakthrough," but noted that "we have come a long way, but we have much further to go."

 

THE SHORTCOMINGS: To those hoping for and demanding bold action, the agreement fell far short. The deal failed to set concrete targets for mid- to long-term reductions in greenhouse emissions and failed to set a deadline to reach a binding treaty for next year. Additionally, initial optimism over deals to protect forests and transfer technology from rich to poor countries were premature and devoid of detail. As the Washington Post noted, "Some of the targets included, meanwhile, aren't adequate. A U.N. report leaked last week concluded that, taken together, pledged emissions cuts would almost certainly allow for warming far beyond 2 degrees Celsius, the threshold beyond which scientists say global warming could be disastrous." During the conference, a group of top climate scientists warned that "global GHG emissions would almost certainly need to decline extremely rapidly after 2015, and reach essentially zero by midcentury" for warming to stay below two degrees. A significant number of developing countries -- those most at risk -- vehemently argued that the agreement didn't go far enough. The German center-left newspaper, Süddeutsche Zeitung, explained that "without the minimum of figures that the powerful countries should have committed themselves to in Copenhagen, an agreement in Mexico will not be enough to achieve the distant goal of climate protection -- insofar as an agreement is even possible. The fight against global warming has been set back by years." While the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung described the conference as "an all-out failure." The Financial Times noted that Obama "might have angered Europe by agreeing a hasty deal with key developing countries and disappointed environmental activists calling for bold action but...with Congress a long way from passing legislation to cut carbon emissions in the world's second largest polluter, Mr Obama could not have signed up to any binding agreement."

 

NEXT STEPS: While there is no question that the Copenhagen conference did not do enough by itself to mitigate the threat of climate change, it did however lay the groundwork for bolder action in the near future. The agreement may signal a structural shift in future international climate negotiations. The New York Times summed up the agreement in an editorial this morning, "For the moment it is worth savoring the steps forward. China is now a player in the effort to combat climate change in a way it has never been, putting measurable emissions reductions targets on the table and accepting verification. And the United States is very much back in the game too. After eight years of playing the spoiler, it is now a leader with a president who seems to embrace the role." Andrew Light of the Center for American Progress pushed back against claims that the deal was meaningless. "The truth right now is that this agreement is not only meaningful but potentially groundbreaking. ... The Copenhagen Accord was not forged among our closest allies in the developed world; it was the product of cooperation between the US and a group of the largest carbon emitters in the developing world." Contrary to the assumptions behind the talks in Kyoto, which pit developed countries against developing and placed the sole responsibility for action on the developed, in this agreement "a framework has finally been advanced for cooperation between developed and developing countries on reductions rather than continuing a process mired in the old divisions which have hampered us for so long." Carl Pope, the Executive Director of the Sierra Club, agreed, "This deal is still not nearly enough, even for these four countries, but it is a major step forward." Robert Stavins of Harvard's Belfer Center concluded, "We may look back upon Copenhagen as an important moment...the foundation was laid for a broad-based coalition of the willing to address effectively the threat of global climate change."

 

BATTLE IN THE SENATE: The attention of the world will shift to the U.S. Senate. This past summer, the House passed significant legislation to tackle climate change, but it has been bogged down in the Senate. The Copenhagen Accord should strengthen the President's hand, as well as those in the Senate trying to tackle the threat of climate change and promoting clean energy jobs. The Center for American Progress Action Fund's Daniel J. Weiss, noted, "Although the Accord is not yet binding, this agreement should quell some senators' uncertainty about China, India and other developing nations' level and transparency of pollution reductions. These concerns have been a major reason that some senators from Midwestern states were reluctant to support domestic global warming legislation." A recent poll indicates that three out of four Americans view climate change "as a serious problem that will harm future generations if not addressed." Weiss concluded, "President Obama's international and domestic leadership, the Copenhagen Accord, the need for jobs, EPA's enforcement of the Clean Air Act, completion of health care, and the public's support for reform are all factors that should improve prospects for Senate legislation in 2010."

[Guest Human]

Are any of you out there getting a flavor for what's coming?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2009/12/11/worldupdates/2009-12-11T194759Z_01_NOOTR_RTRMDNC_0_-446505-2&sec=Worldupdates

 

 

Friday December 11, 2009

INTERVIEW - Japan seeks to make CO2 tech part of its goal

By Risa Maeda and Kentaro Hamada

TOKYO (Reuters) - Tokyo is considering ways to reflect in its 2020 greenhouse gas emission-cutting goal the value of a global contribution to emissions cuts from Japan's energy-saving technology, a vice trade minister said on Friday.

 

Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama is under pressure to say how he will keep a pledge to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent by 2020, a target which analysts say is too stringent to be met solely through domestic technology innovation.

 

"We should somewhat refer to it as a way (to meet the 25 percent goal)," Teruhiko Mashiko, senior vice minister of economy, trade and industry, said in an interview with Reuters.

Mashiko did not elaborate further on how to do so and said time was not ripe yet to discuss details with other countries at the Copenhagen climate summit.

 

"Global leaders are aimed at taking similar steps, like President (Barack) Obama who is focused on technology innovation in his Green New Deal," he added, referring to the U.S. drive to restore growth while dealing with climate change.

 

Mashiko is to join Environment Minister Sakihito Ozawa in attending the U.N.-led Copenhagen talks, which are meant to agree on the outlines of a global pact beyond 2012.

Japan, the world's fifth-biggest emitter, reiterated on Friday that it would keep its 2020 target, based on 1990 figures, provided all major emitters agreed with a deal to replace the Kyoto Protocol, whose first period ends in 2012.

 

Mashiko's comments come as makers of "green" products such as LED bulbs, solar panels, hybrid and electric cars, increased calls for concessions on their CO2 emissions in a policy mix Tokyo is considering to deepen emission cuts beyond 2012.

 

But critics say Japan's stance on the issue of its huge vehicle exports and their contribution to global carbon issues is unclear.

 

Emissions of CO2 from energy use by companies and households in Japan accounted for 88 percent of greenhouse gas emissions of 1.29 billion tonnes in the past fiscal year ended in March 2009.

RENEWABLE ENERGY DRIVE

Mashiko also said the ministry aimed to turn a current "feed in" tariff scheme into a full-fledged one by November next year to bolster usage of renewable energy sources, resulting in more CO2 emission cuts.

 

Under the scheme launched last month, power firms buy at a higher rate surplus solar power produced by households.

By expanding the system with electricity users paying more costs than currently, the share of renewable energy will be able to rise to 12 percent in Japan's primary energy supply, Mashiko said, quoting the trade ministry's estimate.

The share is only 3 percent at present, with hydrogen power taking another 3 percent.

Mashiko also said the extra costs would be pared if and when Japan introduces a carbon tax on fossil fuels.

EMISSION CUTS ABROAD

It is already cheaper for Japan, one of the world's most energy efficient countries, to invest in emissions cuts abroad than to do so domestically.

 

The government and companies, mainly steel and power firms, have bought a total 400 million tonnes of carbon rights under Kyoto's market mechanisms for delivery over 2008-2012.

A study based on an economic model by International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) calculates Japan would be able to cut emissions by 17 percent at maximum in 2020 from 1990 levels with technological innovation only.

 

Under this scenario and assuming countries use a global carbon offset market beyond 2012, Japan may have make up the gap with over 100 million tonnes a year of carbon rights from abroad over the 13 years.

(Editing by Keiron Henderson)

Copyright © 2008 Reuters

[Guest USCCB]

As leaders of nations and scientists were gathering in Copenhagen to figure out ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions that have been linked to global warming, representatives from the United Methodist Church (UMC) and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) held their third meeting to discuss Christian responsibility in caring for God’s creation.

 

The dialogue between the UMC and the USCCB dates back to 1966 and has covered a broad range of theological and moral topics. In Round 7 the two churches are focusing on caring for God’s creation from a Eucharistic perspective, a theme that Bishop William S. Skylstad of Spokane, Washington, Catholic co-chair, views as holding out opportunities for Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox Christians to “witness together in solidarity and common responsibility.” Bishop Skylstad was among the twelve bishops of Oregon and Washington State who issued the 2001 Pastoral Letter, “The Columbia River Watershed: Caring for Creation and the Common Good.” The letter has been a reference point for the dialogue.

 

“The beautiful natural world is a loving gift from God,” said United Methodist Bishop Timothy Whitaker, co-chair of the dialogue, in an opening presentation to the dialogue which met December 15-17 at St. Paul’s College in Washington D.C. Whitaker, who is bishop of the UMC Florida Conference, drew on the writings of Methodism’s founder John Wesley in showing how social holiness belongs to the basic call to discipleship with Jesus Christ.

 

“Through social holiness, we make ourselves channels of God’s blessing to the world — a blessing that extends to the renewal of all creation,” Whitaker said.

 

Against the backdrop of the Copenhagen summit, Christian leaders from around the globe have been speaking out about the need to link combating environmental degradation with economic development. On December 16 the Vatican released Pope Benedict XVI’s World Day of Peace Message (January 1, 2010), whose theme this year is “If you want to cultivate peace, then protect creation.” Earlier this fall, Greek Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew I visited the United States and spoke at a number of venues on the spiritual renewal needed around the world to redress the destructive effects of deforestation and uncontrolled fossil-fuel emissions.

 

The recent United Methodist-Catholic dialogue session covered a range of topics that will help the participants draft a final statement on the covenantal relationship that exists between Christian worshipers and the natural environment. Members also are exploring ways to develop an instrument on faith and ecology for adult education to be used in local congregations.

 

Catholic presenters included Dr. Angela Christman, of Loyola University, Baltimore, who examined texts of the ancient Greek and Latin Fathers that make the connection between Eucharist and creation; and Father Drew Christiansen, S.J., Editor of America Magazine, who assessed the mystical theology of Jesuit scientist Teilhard de Chardin, with special emphasis on his Mass on the World.

 

United Methodists looked to the Weslyan tradition and more recent UMC statements to draw connections between the sacramental perspective and environmental stewardship. Dr. Karen B. Westerfield-Tucker, of Boston University, Mass., spoke on the piety of John Wesley, whose hymns often invoke thanksgiving to God for the works of creation; Dr. Edgardo Colón-Emeric, of Duke University Divinity School in Durham, North Carolina, compared Wesley’s doctrine of sanctification (holiness) with St. Thomas Aquinas’ theology of the virtues; and Dr. Sondra Wheeler, of Wesley Theological Seminary in Washington, assessed ethical authority in the United Methodist Church, with a particular emphasis on environmental teachings and advocacy.

 

Other participants in the dialogue included Father James Massa, executive director of the Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs at USCCB; Dr. John Hart of Boston University; and Rev. Betty Gamble, acting ecumenical officer for the UMC, who also served as secretary for the meeting.

 

The next session of the dialogue is scheduled for June 28-30, 2010 at St. Paul’s College in Washington.

[Guest Simon Zadek]

We need to rely on the power of national interests, supported where possible by international co-operation. Of the many national interests that might exist, I argued, growth and development comes top on everyone’s list, so ‘low carbon growth and development’ should and will be the touchstone of success in climate management.

[Guest Human]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/30/ap/latinamerica/main6040316.shtml

 

Chavez Disputes Spanish Official's Climate Remarks

Venezuela's Chavez Condemns Remarks By Spanish Environment Minister On Climate Talks

 

AP) CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is trading barbs with Spain's environment minister over the Copenhagen summit on climate change.

 

Chavez objects to remarks by Spanish Environment Minister Elena Espinosa, who suggested Venezuela and Bolivia were to blame for the lack of a solid accord.

 

Espinosa was quoted as saying in the newspaper Publico that Chavez and Bolivian President Evo Morales opposed an accord, perhaps in defense of their oil and natural gas industries.

 

Chavez said Wednesday that Espinosa's contention was false and he hopes it isn't the Spanish government's opinion.

 

The leftist Venezuelan leader has blamed wealthy countries for the failure to agree on binding climate targets.

[Guest Greenzen]

I thought this was an interesting interview by the Associated Press:

 

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/12/18/ap_interview_sc_senator_stumps_for_climate_change/

 

Sen. Lindsey Graham makes an unlikely champion for action on climate change.

 

The South Carolina Republican has joined forces with Democrat John Kerry of Massachusetts and independent Joe Lieberman of Connecticut to drum up support for a bill that would put a price on heat-trapping pollution.

 

Graham's position has irked just about everybody. He has been censured by Republicans back home for supporting a bill that would clamp down on greenhouse gases. Environmentalists have criticized his push for nuclear energy, more oil drilling — and most recently his support of a GOP effort to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases. Some Democrats are just befuddled.

 

But his ability to attract enough votes for a bill to pass the Senate may well determine whether President Barack Obama can deliver on the promises he makes at U.N. climate talks in Copenhagen this week, and whether he will achieve one of his top domestic priorities: setting up a cap-and-trade system that would put a price on each ton of global warming pollution released.

 

Graham sat down with The Associated Press for a half-hour interview Thursday to discuss his stance on climate change.

 

Q: How did you get involved in this issue?

 

A: It was a slow evolution. I started traveling with Sen. (John) McCain, who has been a climate change advocate for a long time, and I went to the Arctic region with him and Sen. (Hillary Rodham) Clinton. I came to the conclusion from listening to the scientists ... from people who lived in the regions, that the canary in the coal mine is in the Arctic regions, and that the planet is heating up. How much is caused by greenhouse gases, I don't know. But I believe to some extent it's a contributing factor. ...

 

Now, why did I choose to do something this time around? ... The one thing that I could say without any doubt, that the best chance to create jobs for the future here in this country is energy independence. And you will never become energy independent until you price carbon.

 

Where are the friction points to getting to 60 votes (to advance a bill)? If the emissions standard is not meaningful, if it's not economy-wide, I don't think you get there. This whole issue of China and India and a global regime looms large in getting 60 votes in the Senate. Without some assurances that this is not a unilateral surrendering of market share to China and India — because our companies will have a burden imposed upon them not shared by China and India — is a huge political problem. ... Those are some of the trip wires that exist to getting to 60 votes.

 

Q: Why haven't you been able to convince other Republicans to buy your argument?

 

A: I can convince Republicans pretty quickly of (oil and gas) drilling, nuclear power and alternative energy. This is not about polar bears for me, it's about jobs, cleaner air and purer water.

 

Cap-and-trade has been a tainted term. The bills that exist today have not been able to gather moderate Democratic support, they have not been able to gather Republican support. The cap-and-trade system has been called cap-and-tax and I think for some good reasons. So what I have to convince Republicans of is that you know as well as I do this is the best way for us to create new jobs in the future, that you know the green economy is coming worldwide and the only way we are going to get there is to lead, not follow.

 

Q: Obviously it seems that you are not for the EPA regulating greenhouse gases through existing law?

 

A: This is the worst of all worlds. They (the EPA) can only impose burdens on business, they can't give business the tools to comply with those burdens. They can't give the nuclear power companies the incentives they need to build more nuclear power plants.

 

Q: Are any Republicans still talking to you?

 

A: My ace in the hole is business. The one thing I have going for me that could win the day is I have a lot of business people encouraging me to try to do this compromise.

 

Q: Are you concerned about the political fallout back home, where some Republican leaders have censured you for your climate change stance?

 

A: My state has 12 percent unemployment, so I think I am going to win the day back home. I am confident that I can sell this because my state is on its knees economically.

 

Q: What are your thoughts on the scandal over the hacked e-mails from some prominent climate scientists, which many Republicans have claimed discredits the science showing that pollution is causing climate change?

 

A: Well, I never embraced this from that point of view. You will never convince me all these cars, and all these trucks, and all these power plants spewing out carbon, fossil fuels, day in and day out for 60 or 70 years is a good thing. It makes perfect sense to me that this amount of carbon pollution over a long period of time has had a detrimental effect on the environment. I don't get wrapped up into how much is caused by man, or how much is caused by nature. I do believe pursuing clean air and clean water is a good thing for my generation to do.

[Guest Human]

Do I believe that the climate changes every day? Yeah!!!

 

Do I believe in Climate Change as defined by politicians, and some in the scientific community? Not a Chance in this life time.

 

Ahem!!! This snow storm puts the iceing on top of that cake "3 feet of iceing" 2/06/10.

[Guest Allister]

Wow.. I still find it funny how there is a Climate Change "DEBATE"! I live in Canada, and we are very concerned with, aware of, of few of us doubt the reality of climate change. The climate is changing, deserts world wide are growing, and CO2 levels in the atmosphere are increasing. These are empirical facts. The question is are humans the cause.

 

The reason many people (even scientists) say no to this is because they are afraid to take responsibility. Like the person who accidentally runs over a toddler. In order to avoid feeling like a horrible person it is natural for the driver to put blame on the kid "he came out of no where!" , the roads "it was slippery! City should've put salt on the roads", or the weather "it was dark and snowing I couldn't see!" This is a natural phenomenon many psychologists are familiar with.

 

The reality is, however, that ice core results show a dramatic increase in CO2 since industrialization. Isotope ratios are changing. The weather is shifting. The ice caps are melting at the fastest rate in history. These are empirical realities that can be twisted to a persons agenda, but they are happening regardless of agenda or cause.

 

Speaking of agenda, it should be noted: when listening to someone who is preaching climate change, or no climate change, ask yourself "what does this person have to gain if I agree with them?". Oil companies (and, lets face it, that means every world government) benefit from the no climate change argument, so they will promote this ideology. Does Dr. Peck benefit if you agree with climate change? No. He benefits if his papers are well written and can be considered relevant (is there a change to note, is the science accurate, does this have policy implications). This will get him published. Published means notoriety which translates into job opportunities and grant money. So he does not win if you agree or disagree with climate change. SciAm wins if there is controversy (controversy = readers = profits).

 

So, the only thing scientists have to gain by people agreeing with climate change is that people agree with their conclusions. Big woop. On the other hand if people agree with their conclusions it means we might make changes in the way we do things in order to prevent a climatic problem later on down the road.

[Guest Human]

Okay!! Let’s take it as fact that there is Global Climatic Change to the Earth’s Natural Climactic Cycles.

 

How long to reverse it? PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow.. I still find it funny how there is a Climate Change "DEBATE"! I live in Canada, and we are very concerned with, aware of, of few of us doubt the reality of climate change. The climate is changing, deserts world wide are growing, and CO2 levels in the atmosphere are increasing. These are empirical facts. The question is are humans the cause.

 

The reason many people (even scientists) say no to this is because they are afraid to take responsibility. Like the person who accidentally runs over a toddler. In order to avoid feeling like a horrible person it is natural for the driver to put blame on the kid "he came out of no where!" , the roads "it was slippery! City should've put salt on the roads", or the weather "it was dark and snowing I couldn't see!" This is a natural phenomenon many psychologists are familiar with.

 

The reality is, however, that ice core results show a dramatic increase in CO2 since industrialization. Isotope ratios are changing. The weather is shifting. The ice caps are melting at the fastest rate in history. These are empirical realities that can be twisted to a persons agenda, but they are happening regardless of agenda or cause.

 

Speaking of agenda, it should be noted: when listening to someone who is preaching climate change, or no climate change, ask yourself "what does this person have to gain if I agree with them?". Oil companies (and, lets face it, that means every world government) benefit from the no climate change argument, so they will promote this ideology. Does Dr. Peck benefit if you agree with climate change? No. He benefits if his papers are well written and can be considered relevant (is there a change to note, is the science accurate, does this have policy implications). This will get him published. Published means notoriety which translates into job opportunities and grant money. So he does not win if you agree or disagree with climate change. SciAm wins if there is controversy (controversy = readers = profits).

 

So, the only thing scientists have to gain by people agreeing with climate change is that people agree with their conclusions. Big woop. On the other hand if people agree with their conclusions it means we might make changes in the way we do things in order to prevent a climatic problem later on down the road.