Christiana Figueres: Catastrophes Have Renewed Countries' Urgency To Fight Climate Change

BEIJING — The United Nations' climate chief on Friday urged countries to be flexible in order to make progress at weeklong climate talks in China next month, the last formal negotiations on climate change ahead of a major year-end meeting in Cancun, Mexico.

Christiana Figueres, head of the U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, said countries need to be willing to negotiate with each other in order to pave the way toward consensus on a global climate deal.

"It is in their interest to be very practical, very pragmatic, and take very concrete and firm steps forward in Cancun," she told a small group of reporters.

Figueres was on a brief trip to Beijing to finalize preparations for the Oct. 4-9 preparatory meeting in Tianjin, outside the capital.

Last year's U.N. climate summit in Copenhagen disappointed many environmentalists and political leaders when it failed to produce a global and legally binding treaty on curbing the greenhouse gases that cause global warming. Instead, nations agreed to a nonbinding political declaration on fighting climate change.

However, Figueres said countries have felt a renewed urgency to address global warming given this year's series of frequent and catastrophic disasters, including massive flooding in Pakistan, drought and fires in Russia, and mudslides and floods in China.

"All these events are constant reminders to governments that they need to deal in a consummate manner together to address climate change," she said, adding, "It needs to be the contribution of all countries together to be effective."

The goals for Cancun are less about reaching a binding treaty than moving forward on operational decisions on funding and technology transfer from industrialized nations to developing countries to deal with the effects of climate change, she said.

A key component would be implementing the transfer of billions of dollars from industrialized nations to developing nations to deal with the effects of mitigating and adapting to climate change. Rich nations had pledged to give $30 billion over three years, with an eventual goal of $100 billion by 2020.

It would also include the establishment of a mechanism so cutting-edge technology could be transferred between advanced and developing nations to combat climate change.

The Tianjin conference will be critical in allowing countries "to begin to identify what is already ripe for adoption (in Cancun) ... and what are those issues that require further conversation," Figueres said.

Figueres, from Costa Rica, was appointed earlier this year to replace outgoing climate chief Yvo de Boer, who resigned after expressing frustration over the limited results at Copenhagen.

Comments

[dhhh]

08:09 PM on 10/09/2010

Unfortunately The extinction level events are now on this planet.Europe now faces the worst winter they have had in 1000 yrs. We did too little too late. We blundered lied and covered up.Now do you have any suggestions??? you so called Elite..You world leaders. You men of power.You who control most of the worlds wealth and assets. What are you going to do?

[rr52]

09:24 AM on 10/04/2010

After writing 775 environmental blogs in 4 years for my newspaper, I'm burnt out by the denial and the latest round of backstepping by countries. There is too much politics involved with what could be a dire outcome for every living thing on earth. China is hosting a conference right now, and they are every bit as political about this as the U.S.unfortunately: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/22/copenhagen-climate-change-mark-lynas

If Cheney's 1% principle relative to WMD's can get us in a war, then it should be the same for climate change. If there is a 1% chance that man is affecting climate, then it is our duty to stop that effect. But rightwingers and deniers (who for the most part are supported by big industry) will not budge until MN's forces are in their own back yard! It may take one of China's regime members houses sliding off a cliff in a flood, or a tornado or flood wiping out some members of congress homes.

Jobs in the U.S. are the current topic of concern for many politicians, but ask the people caught by surprise by Katrina if they were thinking about their jobs when that disaster hit. Our way of weighing real problems in the U.S. are way off kilter because of big industry's manipulation of politics. It will be our demise if it doesn't change. And I don't see that coming unless Mother Nature keeps up her wrath.

[golfvue3]

09:26 PM on 09/20/2010

Problem with the point of this article is there is no link of individual weather events to "global climate change".

http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/climatechange/story/36018/man-induced-warming-has-no-sig.asp

[Publicola]

12:45 PM on 09/22/2010

Problem with the point of your post is that no individual weather event can ever be explicitly and definitely linked to global climate change.

What science can and does say however is that increased extreme weather events like what we have been seeing this year are consistent with what we expect from global warming.

[SFTor]

03:44 AM on 10/03/2010

The point is that local weather events are being linked to climate change, in a perverse logic that wants it both ways. We are asked to believe that the weather events this summer constitute a pattern that proves climate change. That is not the case.

[Spazoid-droid]

07:36 PM on 09/18/2010

you know what? most of this climate stuff is in kids tv shows but its never much on the news? whats the story? are we sposed to learn it on cartoon shows and get our parents to beleve it cause we do? shuldnt the news be about whats important for all of us? kids are geting the message but grown ups are not. how wrong is that?

[gallon]

02:32 PM on 09/22/2010

Consider that the mission of news is to have ratings and sell advertising. Axe murders play much better than climate.

[maxwells]

08:01 PM on 09/16/2010

BTW, SFTor,

Though never a climate researcher, I do atmospheric science. So,

are jet stream physics well-understood? YES.

Are daily jet stream fluctuations precisely predictable? NO.

Here's why. The "jet stream" is a region atop the troposphere marking the boundary between tropical and polar-based air. It's where the tropical/polar temperature gradient is steepest, thus generating the highest velocity winds.

Why does it shift around?

Because it gets bumped north and south by synoptic scale (1,000 km scale) eddies that transfer heat from the sub-tropics to the poles. These eddies travel generally from west to east, because solid earth rotates faster than the fluid atmosphere that gets dragged around with it. It's the same principle as spinning a cup around, while the water inside it can't rotate as fast - FRICTION.

So, to predict jet stream fluctuations, one must predict synoptic scale weather. But weather is subject to "butterfly effects". I.e., fluid dynamics is non-linear, so slight errors in measured initial conditions augment forecast errors exponentially.

So, we understand jet streams, but it's impossible to predict locations accurately more than a few days in advance and always will be.

Yet, by definition, climate is averaged weather, thus much easier to predict than weather or the jet stream because, by definition, longer-term averages are much steadier than fluctuations. E.g., can't say if the next flip'll be heads or tails, but the average after thousands of flips, will be close to 50/50.

[Spazoid-droid]

07:55 PM on 09/18/2010

good post maxwell. im a science mega freak in school so a lot of the other kids dont like me but I love to learn all this stuff. by the time I was 8 or 9 i knew GW was real. almost every kid at my school knows its real. so why is there all this fighting about it? if we stop letting oil and coal people pay $$$ to play hide n seek with the truth guess what? clean energy will come a lot faster.

[maxwells]

11:59 PM on 09/18/2010

Nice to hear from a school kid. Keep it up and you'll make a real contribution to the world some day. After all, the world's future belongs to you and your generation, not these old selfish curmudgeons here.

There's a lot of fighting about global warming because, as you already know, there's a lot of money at stake and the fossil fuel industry won't willingly give any of it up. So, they and their paid shills, and there are some obvious ones here, will say and do almost anything to stop average people from getting better informed about the facts.

In addition, one major political faction in this country has decided to take the position that "global warming" is some phony mantra owned by the other political faction. So, for about two decades now, the fight has really been largely politically driven, rather than an honest debate over what the facts are.

As more and more evidence for global warming has come in, to the point of seeming completely overwhelming to anyone sane, the denialists have dug their heels in, with more and more exaggerated, even completely irrational objections. But that's the way many human minds work. Once they take a position, they'd rather die than admit they were wrong the whole time, no matter how much the evidence stacks against them.

But here's hoping your generation isn't as obstinate as mine.

[gallon]

02:55 PM on 09/22/2010

If climate is averaged weather, would the converse be accurate? Is weather just what the climate is doing locally, right now? What is the formal connection between weather and climate?

[Richard2]

09:15 AM on 09/15/2010

"A key component would be implementing the transfer of billions of dollars from industrialized nations to developing nations to deal with the effects of mitigating and adapting to climate change. Rich nations had pledged to give $30 billion over three years, with an eventual goal of $100 billion by 2020."

Looks like it is all about the money, not the science. Here is an unelected official in an international organization, pressuring sovereign democratic nations to transfer billions of dollars their citizens money to the UN, for redistribution to the corrupt leadership of various non-democratic nations around the world.

Has this official ever heard of the word "austerity?"

[Publicola]

11:14 AM on 09/15/2010

R2: "Looks like it is all about the money, not the science."

As you don't understand the science how would you know, R2?

Speaking of, who pays you to incessantly mislead about and otherwise misrepresent climate science here on HuffPo? And is that $$ really worth the weight on your conscience?

[Richard2]

08:06 PM on 09/26/2010

It should be obvious that the main concern of this U.N. official is the redistribution of billions of dollars among nations. If someone came up with a one dollar cure for climate change, she wouldn' t be interested. That is what I meant to point out. Shifting our money around isn't going to have any impact on the earth's ever changing climate.

[maxwells]

02:18 PM on 09/15/2010

Now he's whining about wealth redistribution, as if Big Oil/Wall St. hadn't already ripped us BIG in summer/fall of 2008. But why would aging rich guys like Gore and Soros invest time and resources in promoting cap 'n trade, which Congress displays no interest in, when they could INSTEAD make BIG PROFITS NOW joining Exxon and the Koch Brothers, people who already know how to rip us off successfully, or Dick Cheney's Halliburton Corp., whose stock went from $5 to $54 while he was VP. Does that make any sense?

Gimme a break.

But with Richard2, it does seem all about money - his money

I.e., with 1590 posts, 99+% of them basically denying anthropogenic climate change and its impacts, anybody who looks at his profile honestly, from day 1, must notice that he just looks like another PAID SHILL. Nobody likes PAID SHILLS, not even those addicted to fact-free ideologies.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Richard2?action=comments&display=all&sort=newest
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Richard2?action=comments&display=all&sort=oldest

E.g., he posts 126 times before he writes even one that's off his pet topic. Who but a PAID SHILL would do that? But is it some special expertise in the area? Nah. We, who've bothered have thoroughly rebutted and refuted all his talking points hundreds of times. Yet, he drones on incessantly.

Moreover, though asked many times, Richard2 has never answered unequivocably whether he's a paid denier of anthropogenic global warming.

[Richard2]

04:47 PM on 09/15/2010

Ad hominem: Appealing to personal interests, prejudices, or emotions, rather than to reason. As in "an ad hominum argument." The American Heritage Dictionary.

[Richard2]

03:15 PM on 09/16/2010

Maxwells,

The word "denier" was used on global warming critics to create some odd equivilence with "holocaust deniers." If you took an objective survey of the American people, maybe a fraction of one percent of the public would be "holocaust deniers." On the other hand, if you asked whether people think that catastrophic man-made global warming is real, probably a majority of the public would state that CAGW is not real.

"Holocaust deniers" can be scolded for overlooking the overwhelming and copious evidence that the holocaust did occur. For example, visits to death camps are described in the personal letters of General Patton, and in the letters of many other members of the U.S. 3rd Army. Because of this odd association of words, It is a very rude insult to call someone a "denier."

Most everyone thinks climate change is real, as it has occurred for millions of years. The question is, what has caused it, and what is causing it now? There is a great deal of uncertainty in the data, and in the analysis of the data.

[Publicola]

12:28 AM on 09/15/2010

Juan: "Fighting climate change involves doing battle with our sun!"

Uh, our sun's linear radiative output trend over the past several decades has remained essentially constant while the Earth has warmed.

Juan: "There are enjoyable ways to pop the global warming bubble:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zeGY8zbzc8&feature=related "

Oh look - a link to "The Great Global Warming Swindle" - a hoax that has been so discredited that climate scientists featured in it want to be removed from it so as not to have their reputations tainted by its deceptions and lies.

http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/responseto_channel4.htm

Juan: "Another myth that you hear almost daily is that there is unanimous agreement among scientists. They pile myth upon myth - but this too is just more bunk:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ&feature=related "

Yet another reference to the 30,000 scientist hoax/lie - yawn.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py2XVILHUjQ

[MikeWebster]

11:05 PM on 09/16/2010

I can't believe we're seeing all these again. I guess they have a cyclical list - after another arrant piece of nonsence has been well and truly debunked, give it a rest for a year or two, whilst substituting other - probably mutually contradicary - fabrications, until in they too are widely known to be debunked.

[Dr Juan]

11:52 PM on 09/14/2010

What is she thinking? - Fighting climate change involves doing battle with our sun!
By rights, any connection with the Global Warming Hoax should be an embarrassment to the Obama administration. And any coverage of it by Huffpost that helps perpetrate the mythology espoused by what amount to propagandists like Gore should embarrass Ariana. Climate Change is just an activist ploy to end automobile use, stop petroleum exploitation, halt development and bring down the west. If cap and trade appeals to Obama then you certainly know where he stands.
There are enjoyable ways to pop the global warming bubble:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zeGY8zbzc8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKPt-KGtxOs&NR=1

Another myth that you hear almost daily is that there is unanimous agreement among scientists. They pile myth upon myth - but this too is just more bunk:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ&feature=related

Now remember, yes the earth could be warming - but it does that even without man. So all theories should leave man out of the equation. And warming is vastly better than freezing. And it can actually be soundly argued that there is a tipping point beyond which we go into an uncontrolled ice age. So to Al and friends, warmth is a good thing.

[Publicola]

12:33 AM on 09/15/2010

Juan: "Now remember, yes the earth could be warming"

No "could" about it - that the Earth has warmed over recent decades is scientific fact.

Juan: "but it does that even without man. So all theories should leave man out of the equation."

By that science-denier "logic" all cancer theories "should leave man out of the equation" too since cancer happens without man too.

So don't worry, and instead keep smoking those cigarettes - right?

Gotta love science-denier "logic". Or not.

[MikeWebster]

11:09 PM on 09/16/2010

Some people want their information to be backed by facts, instead of the demonstrated drivel that you've just posted.

If you want a picture of the Oregon institute and it's staff, there's one on this page:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/oregon_petition_and_the_right.php

[Publicola]

05:09 PM on 09/14/2010

Dr Juan: "There is no consensus among unbiased scientists."

Wrong.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-01/uoia-ssa011609.php

Dr Juan: "I remember in the mid 70's, the big scare around the university was the coming ice age. "

Misleading and stale science-denier talking points were better in the 70s.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB3S0fnOr0M

And like most models of extremely complex systems, man has little ability to recognize, let alone measure, any where near all the key factors involved. I remember in the mid 70's, the big scare around the university was the coming ice age.

[Publicola]

05:15 PM on 09/14/2010

Dr Juan: "And like most models of extremely complex systems, man has little ability to recognize, let alone measure, any where near all the key factors involved.

Classic anti-science b$. *All* of science is is models of extremely complex systems; taking what you assert here seriously invalidates science.

[Dr Juan]

11:08 PM on 09/13/2010

Here is the only factual component to cap and trade: "A key component would be implementing the transfer of billions of dollars from industrialized nations to developing nations" And why Obama, with his Kenyan family loyalty, is a big fan.

There is no consensus among unbiased scientists. And like most models of extremely complex systems, man has little ability to recognize, let alone measure, any where near all the key factors involved. I remember in the mid 70's, the big scare around the university was the coming ice age. And cars certainly were belchers then! Well now, the pendulum has certainly swung and will no doubt swing again and again as climatologists slowly peel back and digests each layer of the puzzle.

[SFTor]

03:54 AM on 09/14/2010

Please stop it, Dr., unless you want to cite some examples of Obama's Kenyan family loyalty. Obama is the President of the United States, and sworn to protect us all. He deserves your respect, agree with him or not. The slur you just made should be beneath you.

[Dr Juan]

07:35 AM on 09/14/2010

I guess what I really mean is that Obama is not a builder or creator of wealth and infra structure, even when he has the power,capacity and resources of the US at his disposal. Instead he views his job as equalizing. That is draining it out to others and to other societies that have no ability or coordination to build anything. He might serve better by slightly altering the rules of capitalism and taxation to make sure little counties and little people are in a better position to build their own. And extremely large global companies use the system to maximum advantage to the point of monopolistic growth. He should develop a healthy anti-trust attitude fostering employment and competition. From my point of view he seems to believe his job is that of Robin Hood.

[DocSkull]

07:29 AM on 09/14/2010

"Obama, with his Kenyan family loyalty, is a big fan"

Why would Obama be loyal to a government which fired his estranged father for being an appointee of a previous administration?

"like most models of extremely complex systems, man has little ability to recognize, let alone measure, any where near all the key factors involved"

If no one knows anything how are you so sure that "the pendulum has certainly swung and will no doubt swing again and again?"

[dragonmaster]

02:36 PM on 09/13/2010

The US Media has largely ignored the events in Pakistan, Russia- and even in the USA- with flooding this year in New England, Tennessee, Oklahoma, and elsewhere.

Rags like the NYT, Wash PO and others still give extreme climatic events page 18.

What happens when the Holland Tunnel is flooded? Or Perhaps the is an endless drought and heat wave in the near future in the agricultural heartland?

Perhaps by then the paid off media prostitutes in the American will be tarred and feathered along with the Tea Party.

[WeWantSocialismNow]

09:17 AM on 09/13/2010

Climate change is real The question is who is at fault. Last weeks Penn State report

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/07/penn-states-greenhouse-gas-solution-cow-beano/

stated:

“... worldwide, livestock emits 37 percent of anthropogenic methane. ...compared to carbon dioxide, methane has 23 times the potential to create global warming."

It's not the humans that are the problem it''s the cows. Since we are blaming people, I blame PETA. If they would just eat Whopper burgers, it would reduce the number of cows around the world and save the planet. PETA is destroying our planet!

[OneVoiceInACrowd]

01:52 PM on 09/13/2010

Methane (CH4) emitted from livestock obtains its Carbon from the food the livestock eats. The food it eats receives it's Carbon from the CO2 in the atmosphere. The Methane breaks down into CO2 relatively quickly (~8yrs).

This process in no way compares to the process of extracting stored Carbon (millions of years old) in the form of fossil fuels and burning it to release copious amounts of ghg's into the atmosphere.

The real problem is releasing the Carbon that has been stored for millions of years into the active Carbon cycle. The other issues, like this one, are dwarfed in comparison.

[WeWantSocialismNow]

03:48 PM on 09/13/2010

Sorry... I will not be blinded by facts. I still like my PETA is destroying the earth theory.

[MikeWebster]

11:12 PM on 09/16/2010

Are you mad? Firstly posting Anthony Watts website, and secondly to not understand the difference between emissions from fossil fuels vs. emissions from livestock.

I'll give you a clue though: you can have all the animals you like burping and breathing and farting, and they will not make the tiniest bit of difference to atmospheric CO2. Not so for burning of fossil fuels.

[realpolitic]

10:16 PM on 09/12/2010

Are the same crazies still denying climate change?  Man, when will these guys enter this century?

[DocSkull]

10:21 AM on 09/13/2010

"Are the same crazies still denying climate change?"

Yep. They don't have much new to say either.

[realpolitic]

09:37 PM on 09/13/2010

Their learning curve is zero.  Imagine negating science just because one philosophically disagrees with big government solutions.

[fumes]

10:01 AM on 09/12/2010

~BREAKING NEWS:

"The corrections for deformations of the Earth's crust have a considerable effect on the amount of ice that is estimated to be melting each year," said Vermeersen, whose team worked with NASA's Jet Propulsation Laboratory and the Netherlands Institute for Space Research.
"We have concluded that the Greenland and West Antarctica ice caps are melting at approximately half the speed originally predicted."
http://www.physorg.com/news203066251.html

[StephenBP]

03:26 PM on 09/12/2010

You really need to talk with Richard2. The article you cited refers back to Nature Geoscience. According to Richard2, Nature is indistinguishable from a supermarket tabloid. So which is it guys, is Nature and its subsidiary, Nature Geoscience, tabloid trash, or is it something you should cite in a scientific discussion?

BTW, you appear to be admitting, by this citation, that the Greenland and West Antarctica ice masses are both melting...... more slowly than previously estimated, but still at rather alarming rates ( over 100 GIGATONS per year)..

Do you not see the irony in this?

Probably not....

Have a nice day droning around!

[Richard2]

10:54 AM on 09/13/2010

Nature's editorial about Republicans and "deniers" is indistinguishable from a supermarket tabloid. The traditional science content of "Nature" is not. The editorial is inconsistent with the traditional character of "Nature."

[DocSkull]

04:34 PM on 09/12/2010

"We have concluded that the Greenland and West Antarctica ice caps are melting at approximately half the speed originally predicted"

That is good news!

[So Cal Kramer]

07:44 PM on 09/11/2010

These are the key excerpts from this story that show what AGW is all about:
"The goals for Cancun are less about reaching a binding treaty than moving forward on operational decisions on funding and technology transfer from industrialized nations to developing countries to deal with the effects of climate change, she said.

A key component would be implementing the transfer of billions of dollars from industrialized nations to developing nations to deal with the effects of mitigating and adapting to climate change. Rich nations had pledged to give $30 billion over three years, with an eventual goal of $100 billion by 2020."

The NIEO failed so they came up with the idea to use global warming as the way to redistribute wealth (both within and among) nations and transfer technology and technological know-how from industrialized countries to developing countries. They also want to use AGW as a means to get a global government installed. The goal is to reduce the global disparites of wealth and income and end up with all nations having very similar standards of living. Of course, the industrialized countries standards of living will be much lower since the greens say that it would take over 5 earths for everybody on the earth to have a standard of living like we do here in the USA. This means either a significant lowering of our lifestyle or a massive reduction in the world population.

[StephenBP]

08:30 PM on 09/11/2010

Put on your tin foil hat baby,
'Cause we're going out to night.
Put on your tin foil hat baby,
'Cause we're going out to night.
You better wear some boxing gloves
In case a fool might wanna fight.

Put on your tin foil hat,
Put up some tin foil on your head.
Put on your tin foil hat,
Put up some tin foil on your head.
I'm pretty sure now baby
'Cause you know, you're gonna knock 'em dead.

Put on your tin foil hat,
Wear your tin hat on your head.
Put on your tin foil hat,
Wear your tin hat on your head.
Well I'm pretty sure now darling
'Cause you know you gonna knock 'em dead.

[TokyoStormWarning]

01:54 AM on 09/13/2010

LOL. I wish I could fan you again Stephen.