More

Davos 2011: Climate Change, Clean Energy Hot Topics At World Economic Forum

Davos

KARL RITTER and MATT MOORE   01/27/11 02:34 PM ET   AP

DAVOS, Switzerland — Businesses, especially U.S. ones, must get more involved in the global effort to slow climate change and help pressure politicians to enact policies that promote green growth, international leaders said Thursday.

"They are part of the problem and they must be part of the solution," South African President Jacob Zuma said at the World Economic Forum.

In a panel discussion at Davos, where some 2,500 business leaders and politicians are gathered, he vowed to press for a greater corporate role in the U.N. climate talks that his country will host in the coastal city of Durban later this year.

"I think that's one of the areas we are going to work very hard leading to Durban to convince business to be party so that it's not just governments alone," Zuma said, sharing the stage with Mexico President Felipe Calderon, European Union Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard and U.N. climate chief Christiana Figueres.

There is serious concern about how to keep the global economy moving forward while, at the same time, ensuring that people in the developing world are not denied a chance to better their lives without contributing to factors that have caused global warming.

Hedegaard said that governments can provide the right conditions for green growth, but "the solutions have to come from business."

"That is why setting the political targets are so crucial because then we can set a price on carbon," she said. "If it costs a lot to pollute a lot, then business has an incentive to pollute less."

She noted that President Barack Obama didn't mention climate change or global warming in his State of the Union address "because of the political situation." But she implored U.S. businesses to be bolder in embracing more energy-efficient economies.

"It's bad business to not be among the front-runners," she said. "I hope that even more American business people would understand that they need to put the pressure on their politicians."

Calderon said very little can be achieved without U.S. involvement, and he called for a change in American public opinion on global warming.

"My perception is most of the people in the United States are afraid about the economic situation," he said. "They perceive this issue of climate change like an obstacle for their own progress. And we need to change that perception."

China, which has overtaken the U.S. as the biggest greenhouse gas emitter, has now realized it makes economic sense for it to become more energy efficient, Figueres said.

"China is committed to winning the green race," she said. "And honestly they are not doing it just because they want to save the planet. They are doing it because it's good for the economy."

The discussion comes after global talks on a new climate pact escaped failure last month in the Mexican resort town of Cancun, where nations agreed on a modest set of decisions that put climate change negotiations back on track after the bitterly divisive summit in 2009 in Copenhagen.

The Copenhagen talks exposed the rift between rich and poor nations on the fundamental question of how to share the responsibility of tackling climate change – chiefly curbing the emissions of heat-trapping gases from the burning of fossil fuels.

Copenhagen produced only a nonbinding accord with voluntary climate targets to cut greenhouse gas emissions that wasn't even formally adopted by the conference.

At Cancun, nations brought those voluntary pledges into the U.N. negotiating process and established a green fund to manage the $100 billion a year by 2020 that developed countries have pledged to help poor nations cope with global warming.

But the ultimate goal of crafting a new global climate pact was put off till the next climate conference in Durban or beyond. The main issue that remains to be resolved is the legal status of such a treaty: Should the commitments inscribed in it be compulsory?

China and India oppose legally binding emissions targets, saying that would hobble the economic growth they need to lift millions of citizens out of poverty. For its part, the U.S. says it would only consider binding commitments if China and India do the same.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

DAVOS, Switzerland — Businesses, especially U.S. ones, must get more involved in the global effort to slow climate change and help pressure politicians to enact policies that promote green growt...
DAVOS, Switzerland — Businesses, especially U.S. ones, must get more involved in the global effort to slow climate change and help pressure politicians to enact policies that promote green growt...
Filed by Joanna Zelman  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 87
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard2
10:25 AM on 02/01/2011
"She noted that President Barack Obama didn't mention climate change or global warming in his State of the Union address "because of the political situation." "

Can anyone explain what "Political Situation" prevents President Obama from mentioning "climate change or global warming?"

Is it: A large majority of the public no longer thinks man-made global warming is credible? Is this the political situation?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard2
09:17 AM on 02/01/2011
Others view the Davos meeting differently.

"Wesfarmers chief executive Richard Goyder told The Australian at the Swiss ski resort of Davos at the weekend ... (he) was struck by how climate change had taken a back seat at Davos to concerns about water scarcity and food security as the big emerging market economies drove global growth.

How can an existential threat to humanity suddenly become too boring for words? Impossible, unless it never was really a big threat to start with.

How else to interpret the abrupt lack of interest in planet-saving at not just Davos but almost every big political occasion? Take Barack Obama’s State of the Union address last week:

Barack Obama has paid less attention to climate change in his State of the Union addresses than any other president in the past 20 years, an analysis by a British researcher has found.

Obama made no mention of the words climate change, global warming or environment in his hour-long speech on Tuesday night...." Andrew Bolt, Herald-Sun
03:24 PM on 01/31/2011
My Dad, a cold warrior, gave this short answer when asked about Mutually Assured Destruction or MAD defense policy; " GIVE ME Liberty or GIVE ME Half-Life "

I envision an offensive policy of Mutually Assured Sustainability (MAS) a new "Green Cold War" . Based on carbon accountancy, the rules are simple; Who ever moves more Carbon from the air to the Soil wins, but so does second place, as third and so on.

This work by Dr. Dull is getting attention. Together with Dr. William Woods and citing Bill Ruddiman, the pieces of anthropogenic climate change fall into place.

Columbian Encounter and the Little Ice Age: Abrupt Land Use Change, Fire, and Greenhouse Forcing

Dull argues that the re-growth of Neotropical forests following the 1492 led to terrestrial biospheric carbon sequestration of 2 to 5 GtC, contributing to the well-documented decrease in atmospheric C recorded in Antarctic ice cores from about 1500 through 1750. from charcoal in lake bed studies it documents increased biomass burning and deforestation during agricultural and population expansion in the Neotropics from 2500 to 500 years BP, which corresponds with atmospheric carbon loading and global warming 1100 to 650 years BP.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all?content=10.1080/00045608.2010.502432

The char & pollen evidence is hard to ignore.

The Soil Carbon Standard committee’s work with USDA, EPA and Congressional Ag committees offers real hope, with expansion to ISO status, the world can all be on the same soil carbon page.
03:17 PM on 01/31/2011
A Brief History of Agricultural Time
Our farming for over 10,000 years has been responsible for 2/3rds of our excess greenhouse gases. This soil carbon, converted to carbon dioxide, Methane & Nitrous oxide began a slow stable warming that now accelerates with burning of fossil fuel. The unintended consequence has been the flowering of our civilization. Our science has now realized the consequences and developed a more encompassing wisdom.

Modern Agriculture has evolved in the ability to remove the limitations to plant growth, from burning forest for ash fertilizers, to bison bones, to Guano islands, then in 1913, to crafty Germans figuring out how to suck nitrogen from the air to now with natural gas derived fertilizers. These chemical fertilizers have over come nutrient limits to growth for 100 years.

NPK and the “Green Revolution” in genetics have brought us to where we are, all made possible by basically mining soil carbon stocks. So we have now hit a carbon limit in two distinct ways. The first is continued loss of soil carbon content, the second is fossil carbon energy cost. The present farming system spends ten cents of fossil energy delivering one cent of food energy.

We can not go back, but we can go forward with our newly acquired wisdom.
Agriculture allowed our cultural accent and Agriculture will now prevent our descent.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
padrushka
question authority
04:40 AM on 01/31/2011
If we have too many Jack Kingston (R-GA) types, who do not believe in evolution or science in general, convincing our govt to get their act together will be challenging. We are rated low on science scores compared to international community. It might be time for upgrading science curriculum, our lives depend on informed individuals. Frightening to think about.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
nellre
growth is not sustainable
07:45 PM on 01/30/2011
"Mother Nature is just chemistry, biology and physics. That's all she is. You cannot sweet-talk her. You cannot spin her. You cannot tell her that the oil companies say climate change is a hoax. No, Mother Nature is going to do whatever chemistry, biology and physics dictate"

"Mother Nature always bats last, and she always bats 1.000"

-Rob Watson

We'll either have a century of amazing improvements to our way of life... that includes all people, not just rich nations, or we'll see collapse of civilization altogether.

Our choice.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Katmandu01
07:35 PM on 01/30/2011
continuing...
In the meantime, my original question remains as a challenge and don't waste your time copying and pasting some blog or the kind of BS that Singer or Lintzen are shoveling out. I'm looking for real science and that comes from peer reviewed scientific publications and national scientific academies...anyone? I'm waiting.
07:29 PM on 02/07/2011
That's because it doesn't exist. It's their inconvenient little truth. And yet there are mountains of data from scientists around the world and across a vast array of subjects illustrating the effects of climate change.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Katmandu01
07:33 PM on 01/30/2011
Global warming is here and it's happening. The best the deniers can toss out seems to boil down to the following:
- Climategate and the CRU emails – the issue has been studied by five independen¬t investigat¬ions which concluded that there was nothing improper in the way the CRU collected or processed data
- The IPCC screwed up by including sloppy research into its reports concerning how long it would take for the Himalayan glaciers to collapse – they admitted this mistake but in fact, their reports have tended to be too cautious
- Those who warn of AGW including the scientists and the politician¬s are in it for the money – most of these researcher¬s don’t earn much more than a high school science teacher and I really don’t care how rich Al Gore is
- It’s possible to find hundreds of “experts” who are skeptical about AGW – among scientists one will seldom find 100% agreement on any issue concerning a natural phenomenon since they are always critiquing each other’s work; it’s what they do but on this issue there is a consensus since not one credible scientific body supports the arguments of the deniers and skeptics
- NASA's data can't be trusted since it has shut down much of its ground based temperature collection sites – that's right and these stations have been in the Arctic where warming trends are greater and the result is that NASA's readings have been moderated so that global warming trends don't
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Katmandu01
07:30 PM on 01/30/2011
Through all of this ferocious argument that's going on, can anyone name a single national scientific academy or refer to a single peer reviewed scientific publicatio¬n that disputes the fact that?
- the earth's climate is heating up more rapidly than at any other time in human experience
- this is caused primarily by the burning of fossil fuels and the release of C02
- this process will have serious consequenc¬es on human society and indeed on all life on this planet
- we are already seeing evidence of this process
- if we act now, we can slow it down and perhaps even halt the process
Any takers out there? How about the American Geophysica¬l Union, the American Associatio¬n for the Advancemen¬t of Science, the National Oceanic and Atmospheri¬c Administra¬tion or NASA? Any articles from Scientific American or Nature? If the best you can do is dredge up one of Senator Inhofe's “lists” or refer to "Lord" Moncton's website, forget it. I'm looking for real science and if no one can cite the establishe¬d scientific sources that I've listed, then that's just not good enough to dispute the fact that the science is settled.
miloiki
sweet as can be
06:57 PM on 01/30/2011
Earth's climate changes. It always has. It has been warmer (much), and it has been colder (much). And there is nothing anybody can do about it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Katmandu01
08:12 PM on 01/30/2011
Of course the climate has heated and cooled many times but very rarely has it ever happened this quickly.The last time was about 70 thousand years ago when the Toba volcano erupted. The ash that was spewed into the upper atmosphere probably caused a drop in worldwide temperatur­­e of 3 to 5 degrees celcius and it brought on a cooling that lasted about a 1000 years. The human population was probably reduced to only 10,000 breeding pairs. A similar catastroph­­e happened when a large meteorite struck the earth about 60 million years. Would anyone like to have been around then? The heating of the earth's climate is happening far more quickly than when the last ice age ended. That took centuries and most though not all animal species that were affected were able to adapt or migrate. Those humans that were affected, probably no more than 1 million at the time, simply had to pick up their few meagre belongings and move. We don't do so well with just what we can carry and now the numbers that will be affected will be in the 100's of millions. How do I know? Where do I get my informatio­­n? From sources like Scientific American, Nature and the reports of the Royal Society of London and the American Associatio­­n for the Advancemen­­t of Sciences. It's thick reading but it's not conjecture and it's a lot more informativ­­e then just googling or visiting some blog.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
10:09 AM on 01/31/2011
Untrue.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
05:37 AM on 01/30/2011
No one cares about climate change anymore. Time to move on.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Exusian
Nature bats last
08:23 PM on 01/30/2011
And as you move on CO2 will continue to accumulate in the atmosphere and earth will continue to warm and it's climate change in response.

Nature doesn't care if you move on or not, it will just continue to do what it does regardless.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:23 AM on 01/31/2011
The myth has been discredited. False data, dubious claims, and sketchy e-mails of those making the claims. Even Obama didn't mention it as part of his State of the Union address. Yes, people have moved on.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
10:10 AM on 01/31/2011
You may not care about the can//cer in your lungs from smoking, but that doesn't make it go away.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard2
10:45 PM on 02/01/2011
Step out side. Feel the Global Warming.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:25 PM on 01/29/2011
These are the international corporate criminals people rant about about. If they're for it, you should be against it. The global warming hoax is one of the fundamental tools they will use to enslave the world.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Katmandu01
07:49 PM on 01/30/2011
International corporate criminals? Gee...I thought this "hoax" was all the work of radical leftists, socialists, communists, marxists and associated pinkos. Can you conspiracy theorists at least get on the same page...better go...I think Skully and Mulder are watching.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Exusian
Nature bats last
08:25 PM on 01/30/2011
And fo ols will continue to call physical reality a hoax.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ander35
05:31 PM on 01/28/2011
They made up the the himalaya glaciers would be gone in 30 years and their icecap/seal level increase claims were cut in half because they didn't bother bother to account for tectonic glacial something. They make stuff up.
photo
DocSkull
My questions aren't rhetorical.
11:32 AM on 01/29/2011
"They made up the the himalaya glaciers would be gone in 30 years..."

Who is they? You don't appear to have a handle on the people involved.

"and their icecap/sea­l level increase claims were cut in half because they didn't bother bother to account for tectonic glacial something."

Tectonic glacial something! lol

"They make stuff up."

You make stuff up!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Exusian
Nature bats last
08:27 PM on 01/30/2011
The didn't make it up, they simply transposed the digits.

And their sea­l level increase projections were not cut in half, they have been doubled.

It's you and those like you in the denialsphere who make stuff up.
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
10:03 PM on 02/05/2011
Hey Exusian, the climate science defenders of HP wonder if you would care to join us, you will recognize the names, follow the link:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/gallon/climate-change-natural-di_n_786718_73978550.html
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ander35
05:19 PM on 01/28/2011
Himalaya Glacial Melting Lie and how it earned $500,000 in Uk telegraph here
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7062667/Pachauri-the-real-story-behind-the-Glaciergate-scandal.html

Last week, the IPCC, led by its increasingly controversial chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, was forced to issue an unprecedented admission: the statement in its 2007 report that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035 had no scientific basis, and its inclusion in the report reflected a "poor application" of IPCC procedures.

What has now come to light, however, is that the scientist from whom this claim originated, Dr Syed Hasnain, has for the past two years been working as a senior employee of The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), the Delhi-based company of which Dr Pachauri is director-general. Furthermore, the claim – now disowned by Dr Pachauri as chairman of the IPCC – has helped TERI to win a substantial share of a $500,000 grant from one of America's leading charities, along with a share in a three million euro research study funded by the EU.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ClimateHawk
Think before posting.
05:57 PM on 01/28/2011
Last week?

By Christopher Booker 5:44PM GMT 23 Jan 2010

My how time flies.

True, there was a mistake in the report and it was corrected.

As far as the scandal goes, what is the $500,000 being used for?
photo
DocSkull
My questions aren't rhetorical.
11:35 AM on 01/29/2011
"the statement in its 2007 report that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035 had no scientific basis"

The statement was based on a quote from a noted expert and always cited as such. You seem fixated on the IPCC when it isn't even the subject of the above article.
04:11 PM on 01/28/2011
If you believe that CO2 is the problem, it's already too late to stop the warming. If you don't believe CO2's the problem, the warming that we're in is going to result in changing climate anyway. Over population and the increasing costs of oil for energy and manufacturing are going to further impoverish an already-impoverished third world. When people can no longer afford oil to cook with and heat their homes, the earth is going to look like Haiti - with not a tree in sight.

What we actually need to do is replace oil and coal, where practical, with nuclear, solar, geothermal, and wind. Power our vehicles with natural gas and electricity. This will help keep oil cheap due to reduced demand.

Alternative energy is great, but it will never be able to power freight trains, trucks, ships or airplanes. Without it, world economies will go back to the level of the 18th century.

The problem is that these other technologies are more expensive than oil. Unless the cost of oil rises - permanently - no one in industry will make the long term investments needed. They'd just go bankrupt the next time oil prices dip.

I'm not in favor of a carbon tax as it's currently proposed, but we do need a mechanism for making it cheaper to produce locally than to ship things half way around the world; and, to allow alternative energy sources to be developed with some realistic expectation that they can compete in the