And so it begins.
The United Nations climate negotiations re-opened today in South Africa, and the gloves are off. With the echo of the opening gavel still reverberating in the Durban International Convention Center, acrimonious political differences are already playing out in the media.
Rumors about rich countries colluding to avoid taking on new legally-binding commitments before 2020 took a new turn yesterday, when the BBC reported that India and Brazil had defected to the other side, joining countries like the US, Japan and Russia who have been holding out against a new binding agreement.
AOSIS, the Association of Small Island States, reacted furiously: "It is a betrayal not just of small island nations, many of whom would be destined for extinction, but a betrayal of all humanity. There are no plausible technical, economic or legal impediments for not taking the actions required by science -- we need to act now!" These are strong words coming from diplomats schooled in pulling their punches, and rightly so.
Canada, duly playing its part as a climate criminal, has thrown its own Tar Sands oil on the fire. Environment Minister Peter Kent recently told the House of Commons that "Canada goes to Durban with a number of countries sharing the same objective, and that is to put Kyoto behind us." Canadian media reported yesterday that Canada will formally announce its withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol next month under cover of Christmas holiday darkness. Kent's other mission in Durban? To defend Alberta's tar sands as an "ethical and reliable energy source." In other words, we should buy our poison from a nice country like Canada (let's just ignore this Kyoto withdrawal business) instead of a nasty country like Saudi Arabia.
Not that I would defend Saudi Arabia, which doesn't even pretend to be ethical when it shamelessly promotes its own self-interestas this recent headline attests: "Saudis Seek to Ensure Climate Talks Won't Hurt OPEC Oil Income."
"Saudi Arabia, OPEC's largest crude producer, will seek to ensure climate talks starting next week in Durban, South Africa, won't unfairly limit the exporter group's income, the kingdom's envoy to the negotiations said."
But we've come to expect it from these countries. The UK, on the other hand, has prided itself on being a leader in the climate negotiations. Just last week, Energy Secretary Chris Huhne passionately defended the need for a legally binding international agreement, standing up to advisers and other governments who prefer a weak outcome in Durban. But now it turns out that the British government has been giving secret support to Canada's campaign to stop the EU from classifying tar sands as a disproportionately major source of greenhouse gas emissions, which would deter European suppliers from buying the stuff.
The window of opportunity to deal with climate change in a sensible way is closing quickly. We have already reached 1°C of warming and the impacts are already being felt in the form of drought, heat waves and extreme precipitation. Scientists tell us we should aim to limit the planet's warming to 1.5°-2° but we are currently on a pathway to a 3°-6° world. The difference between these numbers may sound small, but nothing could be further from the truth. Think of it like an earthquake. The difference between quakes of magnitude 5 and 8, in terms of damage and lost lives, tend to be enormous. We need to change course quickly.
What we need in Durban are heroes. Fortunately, they are there in abundance, for example:
Those are just a few on my list, how about yours?
Follow Kelly Rigg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/kellyrigg
Carl Pope: Once More Into the Breach, Dear Friends
Take a look at the amounts for energy variable from rooftop solar, offshore wind and waste bio char bio fuels and you see it is 100 times what we need. And cheaper than nukes or clean coal.
We have 100 reactors that will melt down from a single EMP blast or CME from the sun. If the backup system fail as tests have, every earthquake of flood is a potential world nuclear disaster.
Rooftop solar, offshore wind, waste bio char bio fuels, efficiency, and underwater turbines is the ONLY system that is:
forever, 24/7, clean, safe, cheap enough now, cheaper in the long run, ready to go now, doubling every year or 2 and able to replace fossil and nukes within 7 to 15 years, depending on our enthusiasm and will.
Once we agree, we can deal with obstacles.
To call Canada a "climate criminal" is just another silly alarmist attempt to promote the anti-scientific notion of "climate justice" which is a fallacy when one actually looks at CO2 global flux data and finds that the USA and Canada absorb far more CO2 than they emit. Africa for example is in fact a much larger net emitter of CO2 than the USA or Canada as they have made very poor choices on land use.
President Obama was wise to reverse the USA pledge of $100 billion/year to UN climate change programs. The Climategate Part 2 emails are demonstarting the that UN/IPCC science is far from settled. We have plenty of time to further study the science to be accurate before we commit trillions.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011JC007110.shtml
Ya, really think that won't change the climate?
Even if you don't,
what about taxing all heavy metal pollution?
You know like a garbage fee.
Well? or do you just think it's ok to trash the commons?
rooftop solar, offshore wind, waste bio char can replace fossil and nukes. Forever, 24/7, carbon land and water negative, clean and safe. Already as cheaper as nukes and clean coal, wind and waste bio char half that costs.
So lets fix that first.
We already have garbage fees in the civilized world, but they do not address important pollutants such as mine tailings, fly ash, transuranic waste, fertilizer runoff, livestock waste, etc.