New Delhi, India -- That's me, the lonely American, as I watch heads of state, environmental ministers, and political luminaries from nation after nation deal head on with the issue of rescuing the climate from impending disaster. They all acknowledge that this is the biggest challenge humanity faces.
Yesterday it was president of Afghanistan Hamid Karzai who was willing to look forward and discuss the need for low carbon development, in spite of the catastrophes plaguing his country. Today, others joined Karzai and Afghanistan. Guatemala, with 0.2 percent of the world's carbon emissions, laments its fate as one of the five nations most vulnerable to climate disruption. Farooq Abdullah, India's Minister of Alternative Energy from Kashmir, says "Kashmir no longer has the snows that used to require us to get up in the middle of the night to shovel off the roof so it would not collapse." Juan Elvira, Mexico's Secretary of the Environment and Natural Resources, described the two metrics he is using to measure progress towards a sustainable future: how many green jobs Mexico has created, and how much it has cut its carbon emissions. Ricardo Lagos, former President of Chile, warns that the rigid distinction between rich and poor nations in terms of their contribution to climate change is rapidly eroding.
I listen to the former prime minister of Finland, Esko Aho, lay out a European view of the core dilemma:
Tomorrow's voters and shareholders don't vote. It is much easier to be a leader who says, 'where do we all want to go?' rather than a leader who says 'There is the lighthouse we must steer by. We must stay on course.' But it is the latter, long term type of leadership we need.
A dissenting voice on the definition of sacrifice comes from Bhutan's Minister of Agriculture and Forests, Lyonpo (Dr.) Pema Gyamtsho, who begins by warning that "We have become indifferent to the fate of other living beings." He then goes on to describe his nation's commitments: a) 60 percent of his country must remain under forest cover for perpetuity; b) elimination of pesticide use for the entire nation of Bhutan; and c) half of country must be preserved in parks or natural reserves. Bhutan has, by and large, achieved UN Millenium Development Goals while also achieving this sustainability record, and entrusting its future to its highest governmental planning body, "The Growth National Happiness Commission."
As usual, the most pungent comments came from India's Minister of State for Environment and Forests, Jairam Ramesh, who is very much in political crosshairs for his willingness to stop outrageous mining and public works projects if they violate India's environmental frameworks. Ramesh said:
I don't think in any other country you would be in the news for implementing the law as a Minister... the Prime Minister has a program to green India. The biggest way to green India is to stop degreening India. We need to stop destroying forests. It's hard to increase forest area in a country like India where we have so many competing uses for each hectare. What we can do is to improve the quality of our forests... 40 percent of India's forest is degraded. Improving forest quality is our biggest opportunity.
But Ramesh warns that forest restoration has to accommodate the presence of human communities. "The classic forester wants to protect his forest by having no people in it. But in India 250 million people depend on the forest for their livelihoods. We can't just expel them all."
Ramesh concedes, "Cancun was a political success but an environmental disappointment." He thinks the negotiating process must continue, but there will be no single jump to a final deal. "There is no magic bullet agreement, because objectives are conflicting. Negotiators must worry about economic and political as well as environmental issues. In Cancun, my heart was with Bolivia, but my head was not."
Ramesh also pointed out that India has already levied a tax on coal, and is open to a global carbon price. This point becomes the focus for the next set of interventions, from representatives of the industrial world.
Canada's Stephane Dion then offers just the sort of magic bullet Ramesh is skeptical of. Dion proposes aiming for eventual harmonization through a global carbon price. Instead of setting hard limits, change the incentives and cut carbon emissions dramatically. Begin, Dion says, by eliminating the $312 billion in fossil fuel subsidies -- "just bad public policy." Then establish a global carbon price. India will agree, he says, and "I think China will too, as long as the money they collect stays at home. Developing countries keep the money, and spend it as they need. And it gives the industrial governments a funding source to help the developing countries with both adaptation and mitigation."
Britain's Lord John Prescott joins the chorus for comprehensive action: "We cannot leave with the politics of despair. We can do a global agreement, even if not on the timetable we had hoped, as we did in Montreal with CFCs."
But whether you are an incrementalist like Ramesh, or a great-leap-forward advocate like Prescott, there is one thing you agree on: The United States is AWOL, and that is the biggest challenge.
As I said, it's a bit lonely being an American in the global climate conversation.
Follow Carl Pope on Twitter: www.twitter.com/CarlPope
The move is a manifest change of policy as the building of nuclear reactors was once taboo in the Netherlands. And offshore wind farms was regarded as a pillar in the development of the renewable energy economy, just like in Germany, at least until the new government came into office in October last year.
The new government is justifying the radical shift mainly with reference to rising costs. "The Netherlands wants to reach the European objectives in the most cost-effective manner ,†says the Ministry of Economics. Subsidies for offshore wind power and photovoltaics are not currently included. In Germany, the solar industry itself has proposed cuts in order not to weaken public support for the technology. from GWPF
Americans can see a hypocrite a mile away!
If we are truly out to save the planet and environmentalist say but you can't build that giant wind turbine because it may hurt birds! But we find out later, that one of the main opponents was against it because it effected their view; the whole cause suffers!
When environmentalist object to building a solar array in the desert because it may threaten tortoises.
Jeff Foxworthy had a series of jokes about Red Necks, they are funny! Maybe it works for NIMBY or AMP environmentalist!
You might be a NIMBY environmentalist if you object to wind power because you find wind mills unsightly on your bay!
You might be a NIMBY environmentalist if you object to snowmobiles in Yellowstone because they upset your horse!
You might be a AMP environmentalist if you go out and protest an old Coal generation plant in the Rust belt but don't think a thing about the fact that China consumed over 45% of all the coal burnt on the planet in 2009 and never say a word!
The list is endless! Hypocrisy is killing us all! Pun intended!
Suggested reading: “Who’s to Blame: 12 Politicians and-Execs-Blocking Progress on Global-Warming: Charles and David Kochâ€, Rolling Stone, Jan 19, 2011
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/lists/whos-to-blame-12-politicians-and-execs-blocking-progress-on-global-warming-20110119/charles-and-david-kochceo-and-executive-vp-koch-industries-19691231
This year alone, even with a strong La Nina and a Sun minimal, we still managed to set all time record high temperatures across 1/5 of the Earth's surface. Pretty neat trick without the influence of greenhouse gases.
http://www.mtshastanews.com/opinions/x1950206316/Citizens-seeking-answers-to-aluminum-contamination-concerns
In less then 150 years, C02 has risen over 100ppm- which in the past would have taken a minimum of 10,000 years!
The planet and civilization are in deep trouble. Species, of animals and plants will not be able to adapt in such a short time frame. Including us.
Americans and their political leaders are going to be blindsided very soon into a harsh new reality that will test this country like never before in its history- the same can be said for the entire global community. However this country will have to shoulder much of the blame for the coming fossil fuel disasters for its pandering to greedy special interests.
How naive is Mr Dion really ? Cut fuel subsidies ?? What of inflation ? How are millions of poor people in the developing world, go to work, buy food, buy clothes, etc ? With high levels of inflation and high levels of unemployment, the economic mess that Mr Dion would have us create is not quite worth the cost.
The only way REAL environmental progress can take place is with active technology. We need to invest in developing technology that lets us clean our atmosphere, such as scrubbing out atmospheric green house gases in the air and develop economically viable models for forest conservation and land utilization. Passive legislation isn't going to get us anywhere .
Could someone describe what the best climate is, in terms of precipitation, temperature, atmospheric pressure, etc and equally importantly, what facts you have to support your claim.
TIA
The state of Texas just experienced rolling power blackouts during the recent very cold weather. The energy agency has so far refused to explain exactly what the circumstances were surrounding the blackouts. Did they occur because it was too cold for the powerplants to operate? If so, why weren't they winter hardened? Did they occur because the extensive wind farms in the state stopped operating during the cold? Did they occur because the natural gas lines couldn't operate normally in the cold?
Whatever the case, the public has to wonder why public agencies have been spending so much time and money worrying about hypothetical climate changes 100 years from now, instead of investing in things to protect the public's energy supply, which is needed to keep people from freezing in the winter, when big storms occur, as they have occurred since the founding of our nation.
It appears that someone has been asleep at the switch, worrying only about possible warming, and totally ignoring the possible cooling we might face. What are your thoughts about the power blackouts in Texas?
- cold temperatures caused equipment failures such as frozen sensors indicating no water flow even though there was, which led to shut down.
- Natural gas stations that would otherwise kick in to back up the coal plants had to be shut off to preserve gas pressure to residential and commercial heating needs
- Mexico offered up some reserve power, but as far as I know they took back the offer
- All four Texas nuclear reactors were operating at 100%
- I don't know about the state of the wind power during the blackouts, but intermittent sources such as wind can become a problem when the grid is already stressed with no reserve available
I'm sure there's more to this story and I recommend not relying on my interpretation as your sole source of information about the blackouts.
So, has the worm turned, has the sea changed, will countries like the US be abandoning 160 years of petroleum use and attendant dependent technologies? Or, will we keep the good stuff, and do like AlBore says, and repower using alternatives? Or, we could just shut everything off for a while, computers included, start saving terawatts today, and let the rest of the world kind of get a handle on their own situations. 'OFF' isn't that hard to do. Speaking of, I'm shutting this computer off. Bye, now!
Also, why you are quoting Lord John Prescott for Britain - he is not in the government either, but is a member of the opposition in the largely irrelevant House of Lords.
Eco-groups are nonprofits regulated primarily under IRS Code Section 501(c)(3), and funded predominately by your donations and by the perennial giving of big foundation and corporate donors. IRS Code enforcement is supposed to limit these nonprofits’ direct political lobbying and candidate endorsements. But, in recent decades the upper tier of green groups has developed partisan “fund†affiliate groups that are slush funds for lobbying and political propaganda.
The Chronicle of Philanthropy “2010 400 Data†report lists the top 400 nonprofits, their incomes/expenses, and ranks them by private donations. Sixteen (5%) of the 400 are eco-groups. Most of the eco-group nonprofits were up in donations for the first two years of national economic recession, but are now down for 2010 after climategate.
Here’s a list of some of the most active and well endowed eco-groups and their 2010 data:
Nature Conservancy, ranked 20th, income $856 million, down 29.9%;
Environmental Defense Fund, ranked 155th, income $125 million, up 5.2%;
World Wildlife Fund, ranked 174th, income $152 million, down 10.3%;
Natural Resources Defense Council, ranked 211th, income $99 million, down 7%;
Climate Works Foundation, ranked 306th, income not available, down 87.8%;
Sierra Club Foundation, ranked 320th, income $59 million, % change unavailable;
National Audubon Society, ranked 326th, income $74 million, down 13.7%.
Source: “The Kochs' Climate Change Denial Media Machine†by Anne Landman, PR Watch, Feb 4, 2011
http://www.prwatch.org/node/9915