Negotiations are underway in Panama, the last gathering of climate diplomats prior to the big Durban Climate Conference at the end of the year.
Last June Yvo De Boer, former head of the UN climate convention and for years THE stalwart champion of the negotiating process, commented that "this process is dead in the water, it's not going anywhere." I generally don't repeat self-defeating soundbites, but his words did seem to echo a sense within the climate community that perhaps more immediate progress could be made in a bottom-up approach at the national or business level.
I recently asked current UN climate head Christiana Figueres what she makes of this. She told me a bottom-up approach is not mutually exclusive from a top-down effort to get a treaty:
"The first encourages countries to seek the opportunities that are most evident at the moment in order to start the process of the transformation, but the top down is necessary to ensure that the collective effort responds to the requirements of science. Think of it as paying a bill. We can start making payments in amounts that are possible right now, but in the end we have to pay the full bill, or we will pass it onto our children."
So here are seven reasons why we still need to fight for a fair, ambitious and legally binding, international agreement in order to pay that bill on behalf of our children:
1) It's urgent. We need to get the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere to stabilize at 350 parts per million or lower. We have currently overshot the mark at 390 -- so we need to drastically reduce our emissions, and fast. Global CO2 emissions need to peak within the next few years, and then steeply decline from there on out. The longer it takes to reach that peak, the steeper the reductions will have to be in subsequent years. The graph below, although several years old now, visually demonstrates just how much harder it will be to deal with the problem if we don't move quickly.
2) It will create long-term certainty for business investment. The International Energy Agency has estimated that $26 trillion in capital investment is needed to meet global energy demand through 2030. Clearly most of that investment will be made by the private sector, and businesses repeatedly say they need long-term certainty to guide those investments. For example, will carbon polluters continue to get a free ride, or will a binding emissions reduction target result in a high price on carbon? The answer to that question matters a lot when it comes to investing in energy infrastructure. And while renewables make sense in their own right, investment in large-scale energy efficiency doesn't generally happen without regulatory or financial incentives. Doing this one country at a time is too slow, and...
3) It will be more economically efficient for countries to do it all together. Whatever you may think of carbon markets as a means of reducing emissions, they are having an impact. But there is a patchwork of different schemes, which is not nearly as economically efficient as a more comprehensive scheme would be.
4) Collective action is needed. While countries like the Maldives set an important example by moving towards carbon neutrality even in the absence of a binding law requiring them to do so, most countries are not as noble. Many will want to know that their competitors are taking comparable action before they make the deepest cuts in emissions. Signing, ratifying and passing legislation to implement an international agreement with effective compliance and enforcement mechanisms demonstrates a longer-term commitment not easily undone following the next election.
5) Unpopular decisions may be more palatable if other countries are taking them as well. Misinformation campaigns by the fossil fuel industry have whipped up populous opposition in several countries which have tried to pass legislation reducing CO2 emissions. It's time to wage the mother of all wars against these special interests, and this will be easier if they can't play one country off against another.
6) Who will otherwise pay for adaptation? It's too late to halt climate change altogether. The Netherlands, where I live, learned about storm surges the hard way when nearly 2000 people lost their lives in the flood of 1953. The Delta Works -- a €5 billion system of barriers and dikes -- was constructed to ensure this never happens again. How will Bangladesh, a country which did little to cause the problem, ever be able to provide their citizens with the same degree of protection? And coastal flooding is only one of the many problems caused by climate change. No-regrets measures to improve energy efficiency and scale up renewables will not take care of this problem.
7) We are morally obligated. For the sake of intergenerational responsibility, climate justice and social equity we must effectively and comprehensively address the climate problem. And for the reasons described above, this will only happen through an international agreement.
So here are a few recommendations for negotiators meeting in Panama:
In 2010, CO2 emissions went up by 5% -- the fastest rise in the last 20 years. The big emitters need to start talking seriously about increasing their level of ambition, and must stop obstructing progress in the negotiations. And the rest of us need to hold our governments accountable to deliver the necessary agreements sooner rather than later.
Follow Kelly Rigg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/kellyrigg
Rolf Schuttenhelm: What Burped CO2 and Wasn't Ocean or Neanderthal?
Charles Redfern: Durban Climate Conference: Puff and Bluster at Armageddon
Andrew Weaver: Our Politicians Not Warming to Climate Change
Special powerful interests in the coal oil and natural as lobby are preventing the growth in renewable energy.
James Hansen has basically said that in 2015 - emissions must peak, and then decline 5% a year for 350ppm to be possible by the end of the century. The possibility for that is now impossible.
If we can limit C02 to under 450ppm (likely to be reached by 2033)- on the BAU path we are one now- we have a chance. If C02 reaches 450ppm- we are setting ourselves up for catastrophic climate change- at the present level of C02 - 391ppm- we have already crossed into dangerous climate change.
Policy now is not progressing toward any reduction in emissions. We will likely see 500-550ppm and a 2-3 degree C rise in global temperatures by mid century.
It is a global problem. US needs a new Congress to change this scenario or we are all in deep trouble.
Get in touch with your local green movement and support Green Dog Democrats. The Republicans are totally the enemy, but Democrats who support polluters should be purged.
Get involved. Primary season is approaching. Organize locally now. Take back Congress for the true greeing of the economy and punishing the lords of carbon. Support Green Dog Democrats for Congress!
The best thing we can do is prepare for whatever may come next. (If anything)
Just a month ago Svensmark and CERN proved the mechanism by which the Sun's magnetic activity controls climate. Maybe some reading off the reservation is required for those who keep insisting the beneficial trace gas that makes plants grow can change climate while continuing to ignore the fiery furnace in the sky.
May I refer you to Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv instead: www.sciencebits.com/CLOUDresults
http://wwwÂÂÂÂ.opticsÂiÂnÂfÂobasÂe.ÂorÂg/ÂaÂbstÂracÂt.ÂcÂfmÂ?URIÂÂ=josÂÂa-43Â-Â11-1Â0Â3Â7
http://wwwÂÂÂÂ.opticsÂiÂnÂfÂobasÂe.ÂorÂg/ÂaÂbstÂracÂt.ÂcÂfmÂ?URIÂÂ=ao-ÂÂ1-6-Â7Â59
http://wwwÂÂÂÂ.stormiÂnÂgÂmÂediaÂ.uÂs/Â49Â/Â498Â9/0Â49Â8Â90Â7.htÂÂml
Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industÂÂÂÂrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperaturÂÂÂÂes which is warming the planet. While fossil-fueÂÂÂÂl derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.
http://caiÂÂÂÂt.wri.oÂrÂgÂ/ÂfiguÂreÂs.ÂphÂpÂ?paÂge=Â/WÂoÂrlÂd-FlÂÂowChÂÂart
Finally here’s what the boys at mythbusterÂÂÂÂs have to say about it.
http://wwwÂÂÂÂ.youtubÂeÂ.ÂcÂom/wÂatÂchÂ?vÂ=ÂpPRÂd5GÂT0ÂvÂ0I
Well, it turns out they have been reading the thermometers wrongly:
"Climate scientists had long believed infrared thermometers measured thermal radiation from the atmosphere and assumed it was 'proof' of the greenhouse gas effect (GHE). Their assumption was that infrared thermometers (IRT’s) were measuring ‘back radiated’ heat from greenhouse gases (including water vapor and carbon dioxide). But damning new evidence proves IRT's do no such thing.
Now a world-leading manufacturer of these high-tech instruments, Mikron Instrument Company Inc., has confirmed that IRT’s are deliberately set to AVOID registering any feedback from greenhouse gases. Thus climate scientists were measuring everything but the energy emitted by carbon dioxide and water vapor.
One of the researchers involved, Alan Siddons, has analyzed the GHE for over six years. He has long condemned the practice of using IRT’s as a means of substantiating the increasingly discredited hypothesis. "
climaterealists.com/index.php?id=8401&linkbox=true&position=8
That will require cooperation, which is what America should be promoting right now. Instead, we're hanging back from a task which we should be leading.
Hanging back wouldn't be so bad if we had a good reason, but the only reason we have is that the GOP/TP has managed to sell to its people a weird conspiracy theory in which the world's climatologists have plotted for decades to impoverish America. The sheer stupidity of this idea makes it a fine example of the Big Lie technique.
They wnat to MONETIZE air!
Climate change is kind of like a bad tooth. The longer you wait to fix it, the harder and more expensive it is to fix. In the case of climate change, the first part of the solution is to upgrade our power supplies to cleaner versions. It's the kind of infrastructure improvement every civilization has to perform at some time or another, and there is no sense in delaying that change.
Since nothing like that is being suggested, maybe the "ridiculous reasoning" you're seeing is in your own head. It's called a straw man argument, if you want to look it up.
"Therefore, if this plan was to be accepted, you'd be more likely to see more confidence in capital expenditure in energy efficiency and emissions abatement," he said.
http://www.trust.org/alertnet/news/analysis-world-divided-on-new-plan-to-combat-global-warming