iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Christiana Figueres: U.S. Inaction On Climate Change A 'Very Serious Hand Brake' On World Efforts

Christiana Figueres Climate Change

By CHARLES J. HANLEY   05/12/11 05:01 PM ET   AP

NEW YORK -- Washington's inaction on climate legislation is a "very serious hand brake" on world efforts to combat global warming, the U.N. climate chief said Thursday.

But Christiana Figueres said she believes the U.S. will eventually join the rest of the industrialized world in mandatory reductions of greenhouse gases.

"I don't think it's a permanent state of affairs that the world will be able to live with," she said of the failure of the U.S. Congress to cap emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases blamed for global warming.

Figueres, head of the U.N. climate treaty secretariat, met with Associated Press editors and reporters in New York as the National Research Council issued an authoritative report in Washington on "America's Climate Choices," urging the federal government to act to "substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions."

Climate change, "very likely caused by human activities," is "one of the most important challenges facing the United States and the world today," said the 22-member expert panel.

Figueres, a Costa Rican environmental specialist appointed to the U.N. post last year, oversees the long-running global negotiations that thus far have failed to produce a new binding agreement on slashing greenhouse emissions, in good part because of American opposition.

The U.S., alone among industrial nations, rejects the existing agreement, the Kyoto Protocol, whose mandatory, relatively modest reductions expire next year. Washington says such mandates should apply to poorer but fast-developing nations, such as China and India, and not just to the developed world.

Although some Democrats in Congress oppose climate action, the main resistance comes from Republicans, many of whom reject scientific evidence on warming and climate change. The Republican Party takeover of the U.S. House this year rules out action for at least two years.

Figueres said she sees a "very remarkable dissonance" between the "political incapacity" in Washington and the United States' technological potential to lead the world toward a future of clean energy and less dependence on polluting fossil fuels.

"From an international point of view," she said, it "puts a very serious hand brake on the whole pace of negotiations."

Faced with these obstacles, the Obama administration for two years has promoted a voluntary approach to emissions reductions. But Figueres said international negotiators increasingly realize this unreliable "bottom-up" approach will fall far short of what's needed to keep temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees F) above preindustrial levels.

That's the level beyond which scientists predict severe damage from extreme weather events, droughts, floods, rising seas and other impacts of global warming.

Because of that realization, she said, she believes the annual U.N. climate conference, in Durban, South Africa, late this year, might produce movement toward an eventual legally binding agreement of "predictable" emissions reductions.

"The expectation is that the United States live up to its responsibility, to its historical responsibility" as the past single greatest source of greenhouse gases now filling the atmosphere, Figueres said.

Without emissions reductions, the U.N. network of climate scientists projects global average temperatures might rise as much as 6.4 degrees C (11.5 F) in this century. An authoritative scientific assessment issued May 3 forecast sea levels rising by 90 to 160 centimeters (35 to 63 inches) by 2100, as oceans expand from heat and from runoff of melted land ice.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

NEW YORK -- Washington's inaction on climate legislation is a "very serious hand brake" on world efforts to combat global warming, the U.N. climate chief said Thursday. But Christiana Figueres said s...
NEW YORK -- Washington's inaction on climate legislation is a "very serious hand brake" on world efforts to combat global warming, the U.N. climate chief said Thursday. But Christiana Figueres said s...
Filed by Travis Donovan  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 530
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (7 total)
08:24 AM on 06/23/2011
"You must cripple your economy," she says. No thank you very much. As to the seriousness of the problem go here:
http://junkscience.com/2011/06/22/nasas-james-hansen-1-2-million-in-illegal-income/#more-1720

(Yeah, yeah, I know, junkscience after all. But pay attention to the posts.)

Please get a grip. The doomsters are just at it again, like the Club of Rome Report that predicted we'd be out of breathable air, potable water, oil, coal, and steel by the year 2000.

Are we there yet? Are we there yet?
04:29 PM on 05/23/2011
Check out Christopher Horner on the global warming scam!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9M4MqTEXI_I
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
NJP1
01:49 PM on 05/23/2011
Climate change is adversely affecting our future, and with a devastating effect that is already in our present. Still, with people like senator John Shimkus ( as chairman of the U.S. House subcommittee on the economy and the environment) able to reassure us that his god will not allow the destruction of the Earth there seems little to worry about. Deities aside however, in global terms humanity has achieved the status of a plague species. Imagine the world in the context of the human body. With a fever and rising temperature the Earth is taking steps to rid itself of infection: us. Every intelligent member of the United States government—OK OK, that’s a minority then,-- knows that global warming is real, and based on previous messianic records, they also know that no messiah is going to return to clear up the mess we’ve made. Admitting it however, and actually doing something about it, is electoral suicide. Voters have willing trapped themselves between the politics of comfort and the certainty of god’s will and no politician dare stray outside that. Even Barack Obama, essentially a good man, is caught in the same system.
That is the inherent flaw in the U.S. political system, and I fear, with much of humanity itself. No species can survive beyond the supply constraints of its environment, and we are all living well beyond our means by stealing our children’s future. http://www.yourmedievalfuture.com/
photo
Ragnar Danneskjold
Defender of Liberty
11:33 PM on 05/22/2011
I Figure the alarmists have failed to see the total lack of any evidence whatsoever of the devastating predictions they have been crying wolf over for years. 10 Years ago the IPCC report warned that in the next decade there would be a mass exodus from lower lying areas and island nations that would suffer from climate change devastation such as sea level rise and increasing hurricane and storm activity. What actually happened is the population in those areas increased and they failed to sink into the sea. This call for mandated reductions in GHG is just a ploy to weaken the United States economy to bring us down to the level of most other nations in the name of "fairness" and the "public good". This is unadulterated power grabbing nonsense.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael J OConnell
Enduring curiosty and quest for rationality
11:08 PM on 05/21/2011
"But Christiana Figueres said she believes the U.S. will eventually join the rest of the industrialized world in mandatory reductions of greenhouse gases.

"I don't think it's a permanent state of affairs that the world will be able to live with," she said of the failure of the U.S. Congress to cap emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases blamed for global warming."

Christiana is right about the US intransigence but she is way off base on her assumption that we are goind to come around. She needs to study the politics of BIG OIL and the RELIGOIOUS RIGHT to get a better understanding.

First we have to admit that global warming is a problem AND that it is predominantly man made before we actually attempt to do something about it. Even President Obama essentially blew off the whole concept by tying CO2 reductions to the levels in 2005 rather than the much earlier date agreed to in Copenhagen. Let's face it, we have already locked in temperature rise that will be catastrophic for some countries and by the time we pull our heads our of the sand we will have sealed our own fate along with much of the rest of the world's.
photo
Ragnar Danneskjold
Defender of Liberty
11:37 PM on 05/22/2011
Global warming is not a problem There is NO doomsday devastation to point to. THere is NO sea level rise sinking our cities. There is NOTHING but greed for power and jealousy over the private sector econom of the USA that creates wealth and helps the entire world with advances in the human race. These people simply dislike Liberty with a passion.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard2
01:17 PM on 05/21/2011
The existence of the little ice age and the medieval warm period were an embarrassment to the global-warming establishment, because they showed that the current warming is almost indistinguishable from previous warmings and coolings that had nothing to do with burning fossil fuel. The organization charged with producing scientific support for the climate change crusade, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), finally found a solution. They rewrote the climate history of the past 1000 years with the celebrated “hockey stick” temperature record.

The first IPCC report, issued in 1990, showed both the medieval warm period and the little ice age very clearly. In the IPCC’s 2001 report was a graph that purported to show the earth’s mean temperature since the year 1000. A yet more extreme version of the hockey stick graph made the cover of the Fiftieth Anniversary Report of the United Nation’s World Meteorological Organization. To the surprise of everyone who knew about the strong evidence for the little ice age and the medieval climate optimum, the graph showed a nearly constant temperature from the year 1000 until about 150 years ago, when the temperature began to rise abruptly like the blade of a hockey stick. The inference was that this was due to the anthropogenic “pollutant” CO2.

- Princeton physicist William Happer
This American
An end to all this nonsense
11:22 PM on 05/22/2011
And remember Happer holds an endowed chair in Physics at Princeton. There is no one in the field of climatology that draws any where close to the water Will Happer does. Mann JT Jones Hanson, etc are insects next to Happer. The alarmist posters here who pretend to have some knowledge will say fewer useful words in their entire lives than Will Happer says by lunchtime.
07:19 PM on 05/19/2011
Well DUH!

The more research that is done the more UNLIKELY that Global Warming is man made.

Well, unless you're the UN trying to steal TRILLIONS from wealthy nations. In which case sure, they are 90% sure. Even though they only understand 5% of the complexity of the climate system on Planet Earth.

Only Id-Juts would believe anything out of a group of lying theiving commies who don't have enough scientific knowledge at hand but still claim they are 90% sure of a scientific fact.

If Einstein had played by these crackpot rules the bomb over Hiroshma would have been a dud.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
REMEMBER2050
Bring on that War on Women, GOP! I'm game.
08:13 PM on 05/19/2011
Would you please stop exactly posting the same thing? I think I just saw you on page 3.

Here's a site I hope keeps you out of trouble in the future: http://www.skepticalscience.com

Look up any skeptic argument in the left column or search for one. You will then be shown the peer-reviewed and scientific literature telling you why you're flat-out wrong. Hypothetically the way I expect you should use it is that before you make a post, you check out why you're wrong first, and then you won't have to post. Saving us all buckets of time.

Unless. I keep wondering if you're doing a whole Bilderberg Jewish banker conspiracy, or are you one of those enthusiastic capitalists who never quite got over the Cold War or missed the news about the USSR's implosion? I suspect skepticalscience would not have peer-reviewed and scientific research that would take care of those idiosyncracies. Unfortunately, it only addresses science.
photo
Ragnar Danneskjold
Defender of Liberty
11:38 PM on 05/22/2011
Yea and I have seen that link posted by the greedy UN lovers like yourself far more than 3 times.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MikeWebster
Always happy.
08:58 PM on 05/19/2011
Commies? You mean that every major scientific organisation world wide has been taken over by commies, including every national science acadamy worldwide, including US, UK, Australia, Russia etc. Too funny.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
REMEMBER2050
Bring on that War on Women, GOP! I'm game.
10:06 PM on 05/19/2011
We should look on the bright side. A little further down an agw denier says: "Will we hunt down the agw fraud players the way we hunt down other politcal [sic] criminals like Nazis and terrorists­? or will they just get a pass?" I don't know if that guy is off his meds or what, but that's disturbing.
04:20 PM on 05/23/2011
Hi Mike Webster,
Check our Obama's cooperation with me :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ck02k6d-_nI
04:38 PM on 05/18/2011
Would you like to know what a scientific consensus science, on anthropomorphic climate change, looks like...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/97_Climate_Experts_1024.jpg
04:47 PM on 05/18/2011
The 2% (gray) are undecided whether human activity contributes to global climate change.
The 1% (red) are convinced that human activity does not contribute to global climate change.

Which leaves 97% that don't have their "heads in the sand". Here's an explanation of the graphic...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Infographic-97-out-of-100-climate-experts-think-humans-causing-global-warming.html

And here's the new book that explains how climate deniers have their "heads in the sand".
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate-Change-Denial-book.html
04:53 PM on 05/18/2011
Ouch! I meant to drop "science" from the original question (must have been the wine). Pretend there's a lineout drawn through it.
04:59 PM on 05/18/2011
Double ouch! Shortcut, cutting and pasting can bite you on the butt if you're not vigilant.

The "1%" should have read...

The 1% (red) are convinced that human activity [does] contribute to global climate change.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
agwscam
Nullius in Verba
03:38 PM on 05/18/2011
Has the environmental movement been completely destroyed by greed?
Is the green movement too corrupt to accomplish anything of substance?
What will it take and how long will it take for them to regain any credibility?

Why Don't We Hear About Soros' Ties to Over 30 Major News Organizati­ons?
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/05/11/dont-hear-george-soros-ties-30-major-news-organizations/

Why Is Soros Spending Over $48 Million Funding Media Organizati­ons?
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/05/18/soros-spending-48-million-funding-media-organizations/#ixzz1MhyZTUY3

If it wasn't for the constant support of the major news organizations the global warming scam would have died years ago. This is the same corruption and group-think that has turned the 'peer review' and publishing process of scientific research into a complete unethical farce. The only people who still believe in anthropogenic global warming are those don't really care that its not true. THEY just want to use the scam to suspend freedoms and accumulate the wealth and power THEY need in order to force THEIR changes on the world that THEY have decided are "urgently needed". Forget about "Big Oil" and "Big Coal", worry about "Big Green"...

Spread the word and stop these people before it is too late or you will not like the world you live in under the control of unelected and unaccountable UN/World "green" leaders. Money and power, that's all the global warming scam has ever been about.
05:51 PM on 05/18/2011
Foxnews is a credible source?

Could you discribe how the world would look like under control of -what you call- "unelected and unaccountable UN/World "green" leaders"?

Cheers,

Turtuga Blanku

* Solar Power Music at: www.TurtugaBlanku.com *
This American
An end to all this nonsense
11:31 PM on 05/22/2011
"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination...
So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts... Each of us has to decide what the right
balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both. "

- Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alteredstory
Hold on to the center
10:45 AM on 05/17/2011
Thought some of you would appreciate this:

USA Today: Climate science deniers now like birthers

http://climateprogress.org/2011/05/17/usa-today-climate-science-deniers-now-like-birthers/
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jim Milks
Ecologist
02:05 PM on 05/17/2011
Here's one that should make the deniers see red:

http://climateprogress.org/2010/05/19/national-academy-of-sciences-america%E2%80%99s-climate-choices-global-warming/
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alteredstory
Hold on to the center
02:48 PM on 05/17/2011
It'll probably bounce off their deflector shield. After all, we all know that the national academy of sciences is corrupted by "green" money.

They must be or they wouldn't say things like that, right?

(yes, that was sarcasm - disclaimer because people have gotten confused in the past)
07:22 PM on 05/19/2011
You lost all credibility when quoting from McNewspaper.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alteredstory
Hold on to the center
09:24 PM on 05/19/2011
If you have a problem with my sources, they all cite THEIR sources, and you can follow the numbers.

If you have done that and have a problem with the data, by all means we can discuss it, but unless you have tried to get to the source of the numbers an have been unable, you really have no cause to complain about credibility.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chris 1
07:43 PM on 05/16/2011
A hand brake on fraud and communism is exactly what is needed.

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/15/former-alarmist-scientist-says-anthropogenic-global-warming-agw-based-on-false-science/

The question is?; Will we hunt down the agw fraud players the way we hunt down other politcal criminals like Nazis and terrorists? or will they just get a pass?

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/15/former-alarmist-scientist-says-anthropogenic-global-warming-agw-based-on-false-science/

Pension time is just around the corner for many, the financial incentives are fading. The understanding of agw fraud grows everyday.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Exusian
Nature bats last
10:17 PM on 05/16/2011
The delusion is very strong in this one.
07:22 PM on 05/19/2011
And the Ig-NorhAnce is huge with you.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alteredstory
Hold on to the center
07:08 AM on 05/17/2011
The farce is with you, I see...
06:32 PM on 05/16/2011
"David Evans is a scientist. He has also worked in the heart of the AGW machine. He consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modeling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. He has six university degrees, including a PhD in Electrical Engineering from Stanford University. The other day he said:

"The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic."

And with that he begins a demolition of the theories, premises and methods by which the AGW scare has been foisted on the public.

"The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now outrageously maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.""

Thank Dave Evans for being honest and forthcoming with what we knew was
the greatest Hoax perpetrated on mankind in the history of civilization.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Exusian
Nature bats last
07:05 PM on 05/16/2011
Well, we know at least one person has fallen for Evans' hoax.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alteredstory
Hold on to the center
10:29 AM on 05/17/2011
Please see the two replies to Evans' statement that I posted above.

First of all, he agrees that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so you can't attribute that to him.

As to his plant claims, they rely on an ideal world, where warmer temperatures don't change weather patterns.

Oh, and he's lying when he says the tropospheric hot spot is proven not to exist.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Exusian
Nature bats last
04:15 PM on 05/16/2011
A paper by Wegman and Said, coauthors of the discredited Wegman Report on the "hockey stick," has been retracted by the journal Computational Statistics and Data Analysis.

USA Today:
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2011-05-15-climate-study-plagiarism-Wegman_n.htm
and
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2011/05/retracted-climate-critics-study-panned-by-expert-/1
photo
AGooglyMinotaur
Ahh, Theseus. It appears you are out of thread.
04:19 PM on 05/16/2011
Wow, it almost sort of makes you question the academic integrity of the deniers' work. ;)

Thanks for the link. F&F
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Exusian
Nature bats last
04:27 PM on 05/16/2011
For the full run-down on the unfolding Wegmangate saga see DeepClimate's and John Mashey's series of posts here:
http://deepclimate.org/
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Exusian
Nature bats last
04:11 PM on 05/16/2011
The long promised paper "Analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatolog y Network temperatur es and temperatur e trends," coauthored by a group of climate change deniers including rAnthony Watts, John Christy, and Roger Pielke Sr, has shown us what we already know, namely that there is no net "urban heat bias" in the surface station temperatur e record.

See: http://rabett.blogspot.com/2011/05/rabett-is-always-right.html
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
REMEMBER2050
Bring on that War on Women, GOP! I'm game.
12:02 PM on 05/16/2011
To those of you who've come here to post a skeptic argument, would you please do this before posting:

Go to http://www.skepticalscience.com. Climate skeptic arguments are in the left column, and if you don't see your argument, you can search. Click on your argument, and you'll get an explanation of the peer-reviewed and published research that says why you're wrong. Peer-reviewed and published research means that this is SCIENCE (all caps absolutely intended!!!)--and it's been vetted.

It's not an accident that more than 97% of scientists agree climate change is happening, we're causing it, and we need to fix it immediately because we are ruining the planet.

And what a concept--people should use science(!!!) and not political bias. You can also usually choose your answer from "basic" to "advanced," so you don't need to be a climatologist to understand why you're wrong. It even has free IPhone and Droid apps so you don't need to remember anything--download it

My theory behind referring skeptics to skepticalscience is that you'll save the rest of us a gawd-awful lot of time if you check in advance why you're wrong. Please cooperate!!

We're the only nation on Earth which still believes there's a climate change "debate"--and it's split on political, not scientific, lines. That's not workable if we want our kids and grandkids to have a future. I suggest using scientific explanations to understand scientific phenomena should no longer be a novel concept.
photo
AGooglyMinotaur
Ahh, Theseus. It appears you are out of thread.
03:32 PM on 05/16/2011
Symbolically re-fanned and enthusiastically faved.

The fact that our country believes there's a "debate" correlates strongly with our dismal rankings in science education. Now, I know correlation doesn't imply causation, but it's an interesting coincidence, don't you think?
06:37 PM on 05/16/2011
"we need to fix it immediatel­y because we are ruining the planet" Wow, so you think mankind
can change the climate when we can't even reliably make weather predictions.
Now that's being optimistic to a fault.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
REMEMBER2050
Bring on that War on Women, GOP! I'm game.
06:53 PM on 05/16/2011
You are the poster child that site was made for. You should look at it. Everything you said is wrong in spades. Now that was sarcastic, but I swear you have nothing going for you by ignoring science, because we are talking about the atmosphere of the entire planet.

Here's something else you could do which is a whole education in itself: get "Storms of my Grandchildren" by James Hansen from your local library. He is the world's foremost climate scientist, and best of all worlds, he's not even a liberal. He explains climate change scientists in layman's terms without dumbing it down. He also explains his own ethical quandary as a scientist: should he speak out on what he knows is happening, or should he relegate himself only to straight scientific research. He is a humble man.

Frankly, you might get through the site faster than his book, but please do one or the other. It works to no one's advantage for you to disregard science. By the way, understanding the climate has nothing to do with predicting tomorrow's weather.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Exusian
Nature bats last
07:09 PM on 05/16/2011
Actually, we know that cyanobacteria have changed Earth's atmosphere and climate.

For humans to do so has been like child's play.

But then we shouldn't expect someone who can not distinguish between climate and weather to understand that.