iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Climate Deal For Copenhagen: Time Is Running Out

ARTHUR MAX   11/ 2/09 07:16 PM ET   AP

Globe

BARCELONA, Spain — As China's actions to curb gas emissions garnered praise at U.N. climate talks, the United States came under renewed pressure to come up with a plan to cut pollution blamed for hastening global warming.

Delegates at the weeklong talks in Barcelona pressed Monday for Washington to make specific commitments on reducing carbon emissions and contributing to a global climate fund to help poor countries cope with damage caused by climate change.

"We expect the United States to be able to deliver on one of the major challenges of our century," Denmark's Minister for Climate and Energy Connie Hedegaard said.

Delegates expressed frustration Monday that, after two years of talks on drafting a new pact, the U.S. has been unable to make firm commitments because it is waiting for Congress to enact legislation.

World nations hope to finalize a new global warming pact in time for it to be adopted at a major U.N. conference next month in Copenhagen. The deal would replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, but require both industrial countries and developing countries to rein in emissions of carbon and other heat-raising greenhouse gases. Kyoto applied only to industrialized nations, and was rejected by the United States.

Hedegaard noted that President Barack Obama, cited for raising hopes of a more peaceful and climate friendly world, will receive the Nobel Peace Prize in nearby Norway on Dec. 10 – just after the decisive climate conference gets under way.

"It's very hard to imagine how the American president can receive the Nobel Prize ... and at the same time has sent an empty-handed delegation to Copenhagen," said the Danish minister, who will chair the Dec. 7-18 talks in Copenhagen.

U.S. chief delegate Jonathan Pershing said the U.S. intended to be part of a deal, but would ensure that any deal it signed would be accepted by Congress. "We don't want to be outside an agreement," he said.

He said the U.S. would avoid the mistake of 1997 when its delegation signed onto the Kyoto Protocol, but found unanimous opposition in Congress and was not submitted for ratification.

In Stockholm, Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt said EU leaders wanted Obama to clarify the U.S. position on climate change this week as they meet in Washington. Reinfeldt – whose country holds the rotating EU presidency – was traveling to Washington along with European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso and EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana.

In an indirect slap at Washington, Yvo de Boer, head of the U.N. climate secretariat, said countries like China, India, Mexico, Brazil and South Korea were moving faster on climate change than the wealthy industrial countries.

"China is probably the world leader in limiting greenhouse gas emissions," de Boer said.

China has tried to shift to low-carbon development, but it's growth rate is so fast – more than 8 percent a year – that it's carbon emissions will continue to climb for decades. Between them, the U.S. and China emit 40 percent of the world's man-produced carbon.

But while the U.S. lagged in developing alternatives to fossil fuels, China became a world leader in the use of wind energy, and President Hu Jintao has said China would generate 15 percent of its energy from renewable sources within a decade. He promised in a speech at the U.N. General Assembly in September that China also would make "substantial" reductions in its carbon emissions per unit of economic output.

Pershing acknowledged that China "has a list of impressive activities" to curb its emissions, but said it still needs to define what it intends to do to fulfill Hu's pledge of substantial reductions.

Earlier, de Boer warned that the Copenhagen agreement must have legal force because developing countries do not trust promises from the wealthy nations.

The legal status of the agreement and whether nations will face consequences for failing to meet their commitments are contentious issues in the talks.

"We live in a world of broken promises," de Boer told The Associated Press. Developing countries are concerned the rich countries "will commit to targets and not deliver."

Pershing, in a separate AP interview, said compliance with the agreement in Copenhagen should rest with the domestic laws of each country, which can be very strong.

Countries should register the actions they intend to take to lower the growth rate of carbon emissions, which would then face international inspection. But they would not face punishment for failing to meet their promises, he said.

"I don't think people here are talking about sanctions at all. That's not the discussion," he said.

But many countries want tough compliance measures to be part of any agreement.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

BARCELONA, Spain — As China's actions to curb gas emissions garnered praise at U.N. climate talks, the United States came under renewed pressure to come up with a plan to cut pollution blamed fo...
BARCELONA, Spain — As China's actions to curb gas emissions garnered praise at U.N. climate talks, the United States came under renewed pressure to come up with a plan to cut pollution blamed fo...
Filed by Katherine Goldstein  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 38
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
fumes
Midnight Toker
11:22 AM on 11/04/2009
religion = believing-is-seeing

science = seeing-is-believing

and so.. how hot does the surface of the earth have to be in the first place..

to release sufficient infrared radiation in the second place..

for CO2 and water vapor to capture it and create a greenhouse effect in the third place?

a) hot enough to make water vapor or b) not hot enough to make water vapor
12:19 PM on 11/03/2009
environmentalist become climate scientists. they begin their research with a conclusion and focus their effort of finding data to support their beliefs. it's a religion. other groups enter into the area with the funding. NASA must maintain a pro-global warming stance to get a piece of the multi-billion dollar funding.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
05:07 PM on 11/03/2009
A religion is a belief system that is not supported by the empirical data; the empirical data strongly supports man-made global warming theory.

And speaking of belief without empirical data, what empirical data are you basing your "they begin their research with a conclusion and focus their effort of finding data to support their beliefs" belief on?
07:22 PM on 11/03/2009
Computer models are not empirical data.
10:33 PM on 11/02/2009
the problem is that some faux "scientists" publish drivel like this which can cause confusion amongst the educated:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/16460

This so-calledd phd actually shows us some really fu$%ed up graphs designed to obfuscate THE TRUTH!!!

check out these other lies:

•"The Medieval Warm Period 1000 years ago was warmer than today.
•The Holocene Optimum from 3000 to 8000 years ago was warmer than today.
•The last three Interglacial periods were warmer than the current one.
•The claim of 0.6 degrees C rise during industrial times was unverifiable because the scientist refused to disclose the evidence and then the government ‘lost’ the data.
•Four of the warmest years on record in the US were in the 1930s not the 1990s...
•1934 was the warmest in the US not 1998...
•The Goddard Institute of Space Studies adjusted historic data down to make the modern record relatively warmer.
•Temperature increases before CO2 ....
•CO2 levels currently at 388 ppm are the lowest in 300,000,000.
•There’s a limit of at most 1.4 degrees C to the amount of temperature can increase even if CO2 doubles or triples.
•In the 20th century human production of CO2 didn’t fit the temperature record. From 1900 to 1940 human CO2 production levels were low but temperatures increased the most. From 1940 to 1980 human production levels increased the most but temperature declined.
•... models predicted the atmosphere would warm faster than the surface but the opposite is happening."
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
shockmagog
Infrared hair, UV shades, SPF 110 dome.
10:48 PM on 11/02/2009
That "article" was written by Dr. Tim Ball, chairman of the NRSP:

'The Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP), a Canadian non-profit group, including a number of leading climate change sceptics, was launched October 12, 2006. The website for the site, nrsp.com, was taken down in March 2008 and the group now appears to be defunct.'

'The NRSP has been exposed as being controlled by energy industry lobbyists.'

(snip)

'The NRSP maintains it has no direct connection with the Calgary-based group of climate change skeptics the "Friends of Science" (FoS), even though the FoS's most outspoken member, Tim Ball, is now the Chairman of the NRSP. With the exact same purpose and goals, and most of the same scientific allies and members as the Friends of Science, the NRSP is viewed by many as a reincarnation of the FoS, after the FoS was "outed" by The Globe and Mail newspaper in August 2006 as being partly funded by the oil and gas industry.'
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Natural_Resources_Stewardship_Project
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
11:01 PM on 11/02/2009
marbiol: "check out these other lies:

•"The Medieval Warm Period 1000 years ago was warmer than today."

I read stuff like this and I can't tell it the poster - in this case marbiol - is being serious or is instead intending to be sarcastic. In any event the truth is that, for example:

"The Medieval Warm Period 1000 years ago was warmer than today."

is in fact a lie, or at best a grossly misleading deception. That claim is not an established scientific fact - far from it. We don't have enough information to be fully sure, but the current scientific assessment is that the Medieval Warm Period, globally, was probably cooler than today. More details here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_period
11:41 PM on 11/02/2009
even i can write for wikipedia! give me a PUBLISHED PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL ARTICLE!! As for Dr. Ball being on the "take", given our government's williness to accept the fact that WE--and not natural climate cycles--are THE cause of climate change --has been dogma for years. how many anthropogenic climate change studies have been funded by the Feds????

facts are facts--tho you can interpret them differently; you can use different statistical tests to answer your questions; from everything I've seen...give me DATA over MODELS!!!
09:45 PM on 11/02/2009
Why are scientists who don't believe in human caused global warming accused of being on the take from oil companies, but Al Gore is given a pass for the profits he earns as an investor in companies that directly benefit from proposed carbon legislation? Hypocritical anyone?
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
10:18 PM on 11/02/2009
I don't care about Gore - I care about what climate scientists think. The vast majority of climate scientists believe that man-made global warming is real; of the small minority who don't a significant portion of them are on oil company payroll.

_______________________________________

Public release date: 19-Jan-2009

University of Illinois at Chicago

Survey: Scientists agree human-induced global warming is real...

A group of 3,146 earth scientists surveyed around the world overwhelmingly agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising, and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.

Peter Doran, University of Illinois at Chicago associate professor of earth and environmental sciences, along with former graduate student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, conducted the survey late last year.

The findings appear today in the publication Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union....

Two questions were key: have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

In analyzing responses by sub-groups, Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 and 64 percent respectively believing in human involvement.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-01/uoia-ssa011609.php
10:25 PM on 11/02/2009
That study is a piece of schaet. It is so full of bias and technical errors.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dnegri
03:21 PM on 11/02/2009
Who are these deniers, or better yet, who's manipulating them?

http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Cover-Up-Crusade-Global-Warming/dp/1553654854/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard2
12:03 AM on 11/03/2009
162 American physicists have signed a letter that calls for the APS to review its current position on AGW. In addition, five of these physicists have sent a letter to the members of the U.S. Senate, stating that there is no "consensus."

"You can do physics without climatology, but you can't do climatology without physics."
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
12:15 AM on 11/03/2009
According to you, 162 American physicists want to change the following official position by the 47,000 member American Physical Society:
__________­__________­____

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.
__________­__________­____

If I were a global warming denier I'd want the APS to change their official position there that man-made global warming is real too. Good luck on that one though - the APS reaffirmed that official position again just last year.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/02/senate-climate-bill-doome_n_341965.html#postComment
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realpolitic
Proud member of the reality-based community!
12:18 AM on 11/03/2009
How can they say there is no consensus when there is an overwhelming consensus on the fact that co2 causes warming?

"In a recent study of climate scientists, "Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role."

"Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A few organisations hold non-committal positions."

The conclusions reached by the IPCC were endorsed by...

Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/there-is-no-consensus.php
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realpolitic
Proud member of the reality-based community!
12:07 AM on 11/03/2009
They are partly manipulated by their own disdain for science and learning in general!
12:37 PM on 11/02/2009
Without true compliance measures then we will continue in the same vicious cycle we are in now. It is not enough to have countries say they will do this or that, the world needs to make sure that they follow through with what they are claiming to do. Without transparency in compliance we will get nowhere.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
fumes
Midnight Toker
10:30 AM on 11/02/2009
soot and sulfates.. and volcanoes.. no way!

''A new study, led by climate scientist Drew Shindell of the NASA Goddard Institute used a coupled ocean-atmosphere model to investigate how sensitive different regional climates are to changes in levels of carbon dioxide, ozone, and aerosols. The researchers found that the mid and high latitudes are especially responsive to changes in the level of aerosols. Indeed, the model suggests aerosols likely account for 45 percent or more of the warming that has occurred in the Arctic during the last three decades. Aerosols can influence climate directly by either reflecting or absorbing the sun's radiation as it moves through the atmosphere. The tiny airborne particles enter the atmosphere from sources such as industrial pollution, volcanoes and residential cooking stoves.'' http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warming_aerosols.html
08:08 PM on 11/02/2009
Those damn volcanoes. We ought to tax the hell out of them!
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
08:21 PM on 11/02/2009
Volcanoes drive global cooling.

Black carbon emissions - like CO2, another fossil fuel pollutant - drive global warming.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
08:14 PM on 11/02/2009
* That study was published in April from the same James Hansen-led NASA global warming research group that global warming deniers generally deride as practicing "bad science."

* The results of that study are also in full agreement with IPCC estimates of global warming via aerosol forcing.

* That study is also in agreement with the primary role that CO2 and other global warming greenhouse gas forcing agents including ozone have with respect to driving global warming. If the study's findings hold up to additional scrutiny what this means is that made-made global warming greenhouse gas forcing agents including increased atmospheric CO2 are still he dominant current global warming driver, and that man-made black carbon emissions - that is, a different man-made, major fossil fuel pollutant - play a more substantial secondary role in man-made global warming, particularly in the arctic region (though again said role is in agreement with IPCC estimates).
09:46 AM on 11/02/2009
All climate change debates never mention the two elephants in the room. China and India.

These are two countries that quite simply, don’t care about the environment, and are willing to lie about doing so. Anyone who has ever dealt with a Chinese company knows that they will promise anything but deliver as little as possible. India is little better.

We could get China and India to agree to any environmental treaty. Then they would break it, immediately if not sooner, if was in their best interest to do so. They are the two most polluting countries in the world, and willing to hide it any way they can.

America and other Western countries would be fools to sign any agreement where China and India are also included. Why hobble ourselves with an “agreement” that only one party will honor? Why worry about our 5%, when those two refuse to curb their 30%?

It simply doesn’t make sense to shoot ourselves in the foot with this legislation. Until we can insure that all parties are acting honestly in accord, any agreement is going to hurt America and not do a thing for the environment.
09:38 AM on 11/02/2009
As long as lobbyism is in full swing, nothing big can be done.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
fumes
Midnight Toker
09:04 AM on 11/02/2009
NASA's Shindell:
"We will have very little leverage over climate in the next couple of decades if we're just looking at carbon dioxide," Shindell said. "If we want to try to stop the Arctic summer sea ice from melting completely over the next few decades, we're much better off looking at aerosols and ozone."
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warming_aerosols.html

say.. aren't we supposed to be scared sheetless of CO2???
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
08:15 PM on 11/02/2009
You seem to have missed my response to your taking that quote out of context in another thread, fumes - here's that response again:

The reason why Dr. Shindell is saying that we need to look at black carbon emissions with respect to the *arctic* in the next *few decades* is not because CO2 doesn't play a huge role with respect to global warming - it's instead because CO2 global warming forcing operates on a larger timescale than black carbon, and also because black carbon plays a more stronger role *in the arctic region* than globally.

But hey, you keep throwing that mud - as you know there's a sucker born every minute.