In exactly one year's time, world leaders will converge on Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, for the UN conference on sustainable development, 20 years after the first "Earth Summit" was held there in 1992. Will this turn out to be another "Copenhagen moment" for the climate movement? Most people I speak to think it will not deliver the treaty we all hoped to get in Copenhagen, but with record levels of carbon emissions creating new climate disasters every day, it's certain Rio +20 will present a moment for decisive action.
According to the latest estimates from the International Energy Agency, greenhouse gas emissions are rising with a vengeance, having briefly slowed during the global recession. Fatih Birol, chief economist of the IEA, noted that prospects are becoming increasingly bleak for keeping global warming below 2°C (not to mention the 1.5°C limit which more than 100 countries have called for, which is a survival limit for many vulnerable countries).
Like offering an outstretched hand to a guy hanging off the edge of a cliff, he added, "If we have bold, decisive and urgent action, very soon, we still have a chance of succeeding."
Climate-saving measures will most likely slip in through the back door of the Rio process, taking the form of ambitious energy targets where win-win solutions are there for the taking. The recent IPCC special report on renewables shows the way forward on a myriad of energy-related crises including poverty, health, and security as well as climate. But tackling climate change head-on? Everyone is wary.
It wasn't always like this. In 1988 climate change was an issue whose time had come. Delegates at the "World Conference on the Changing Atmosphere" held in Toronto that year concluded that "Humanity is conducting an uncontrolled, globally pervasive experiment... the Earth's atmosphere is being changed at an unprecedented rate by pollutants resulting from human activities... It is imperative to act now."
This was not a partisan issue in those days. The UK's arch-conservative Tory Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher said, "We have unwittingly begun a massive experiment with the system of the planet itself," and a swaggering U.S. President George H.W. Bush promised decisive action: "Those who think we're powerless to do anything about the greenhouse effect are forgetting about the White House effect. As President I intend to do something about it."
Four short years later, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change was signed in Rio, along with the Convention on Biological Diversity, an agreement to negotiate a Desertification Treaty, a set of Forest Principles, the Rio Declaration and Agenda 21, a UN action plan for sustainable development. Looking back, it seems remarkable that governments were able to achieve so much in such a short period of time, compared with the polarized atmosphere that pervades international negotiations today.
In those four years, however, the dynamics that plague the current round of climate negotiations had already taken root. For a fascinating reminder of what happened in Rio 92 (in particular the spoiler role played by the Bush Sr. administration, explained as a "desire to solidify its domestic right-wing support in the face of the electoral challenge from Ross Perot") this brief summary from a 1992 issue of the Multinational Monitor is worth a read.
In any case, the 1992 climate convention did not include legally binding targets and timetables for CO2 emissions reduction commitments and the rest, as they say, is history. 20 years on, we are still looking for binding commitments that are sufficiently ambitious to catalyze massive investments in renewable energy to fight the climate crisis.
Between now and the start of the next Rio Conference in June 2012, three things need to happen:
1) The public -- the global electorate -- needs to actively engage, not just on climate but on the full suite of issues that will be under discussion. We must demand leadership from our elected representatives, and we must listen in particular to the voices of youth -- to those who will be left to deal with the consequences of the mess we've made. The most memorable moment of Rio 92 was 12-year-old Severn Suzuki's address to the assembly:
Her message is as powerful today as it was then, though its urgency has increased by orders of magnitude.
2) Businesses need to more consistently practice what their green PR preaches, and they must leave the fossil dinosaurs behind. Fossil fuel industries MUST decline in importance in all of our energy and manufacturing needs. This will require both government and business investment in an array of new technologies. It will be easier and cheaper if businesses cooperate with one another, and if governments cooperate with business. One way to ensure this is for business to lobby government for smart regulation and smart incentives for the 21st century, instead of for regulations and incentives that fit another moment in history.
3) Governments must rise to the challenge. They must come to Rio prepared to commit not only to lofty long-term targets which will be left to some future government to implement (or not as the case may be), but to the immediate actions that put us firmly on the right path towards those targets. If they come to Rio with empty hands, history will not forgive them.
Speaking of history, here's an idea. I propose we set up a wiki to serve as the "Climate History Book" as in, "will you go down in history as a climate hero or a climate criminal?" Every politician who knowingly shirks his/her responsibility for the sake of getting re-elected should be prepared to go on record with that position in the Climate History Book. Likewise every climate denialist. Come Judgment Day, and by that I mean the day when our children and grandchildren ask us what we did to protect their futures, back in the time when catastrophic climate change was still preventable, the record will speak for itself.
Follow Kelly Rigg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/kellyrigg
First Preparatory Committee for the Rio Climate Summit 2012 ...
Is Rio Earth Summit 2.0 Doomed to Fail? « Stephen Leahy ...
Best regards
Kaj
Large and extended climate extremes were recorded in several parts of the world, causing significant socio-economic impacts. In particular the flooding in Pakistan and Australia as well as the summer heatwave in the Russian Federation were among the most remarkable climate extremes of the year.
To access the entire WMO report, go to:
http://www.wmo.int/pages/publications/showcase/documents/1074_en.pdf
“One of the most ominous threats of global warming today is from rising sea levels, which can cause marine waters to inundate the land,†says the team’s co-leader, Queen’s graduate student Joshua Thienpont. “The threat is especially acute in polar regions, where shrinking sea ice increases the risk of storm surges.â€
By studying growth rings from coastal shrubs and lake sediments in the Mackenzie Delta region of the Northwest Territories – the scene of a widespread and ecologically destructive storm surge in 1999 – the researchers have discovered that the impact of these salt-water surges is unprecedented in the 1,000-year history of the lake.
Source: “Striking ecological impact on Canada’s Arctic coastline linked to global climate change,†Queen's University, May 16, 2011
http://www.queensu.ca/news/articles/striking-ecological-impact-canada-s-arctic-coastline-linked-global-climate-change
2011 Winter Outlook – The Wait is Over! | Farmers' Almanac
Aug 29, 2010 ... First of all I would like to thank “Farmers Almanac†for there ... So, just prepare for the colder weather we're having and let “God†and ...
www.farmersalmanac.com › Weather -
â–º
Cold Weather Continues For Canada | Farmers' Almanac
Mar 13, 2009 ... According to the 2009 Canadian Farmers' Almanac harsh ...
www.farmersalmanac.com › Press Releases - Cached
Cold Weather on Tap? - May 12th, 2010 | Farmers' Almanac
May 12, 2010 ... Meet May's "Three Ice Men"; Landscape without going broke ...
www.farmersalmanac.com › 2010 Newsletters
2010 Farmer's Almanac Predicts Extreme Cold | Farm Wars
The Farmers' Almanac bases its long-range weather forecasts on a top-secret mathematical ... 21 Responses to “2010 Farmers Almanac Predicts Extreme Cold†...
farmwars.info/?p=212
The non industrial world was ~ 40 quadrillion BTU's in 2000 today it's about 80 quadrillion BTU's and by 2035 it will be 160 quadrillion BTU's.
http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/ieo/coal.html
Of course coal will have replaced oil as the most consumed fossil fuel of choice.
If man made climate change is real, there is nothing the industrial nations can do to stop it or realistically slow it down without drastic changes in the fast developing world.
Seeing our abilities on the diplomatic front over the past decades I think it is time to start adapting to the changing conditions!
There is a solution. Environmental tariffs or taxes based on the environmental footprint of manufacturing, transportation, and sustainability of products sold in the industrial world.
In developed countries, we need to stop wasting energy. We also need to help the most vulnerable countries --who did the least to contribute to the problem, but will suffer the most -- to adapt. This means funding. No one likes to hear that in times of economic difficulty, but it's like burning down your neighbour's house and then saying he should pay to rebuild himself.
But I was really appalled to read an article concerning Bangladesh:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5080386.stm
Talk about cutting your own throat.
To learn the diffiernce between the two terms, go to:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2737050.html
"A genuine skeptic surveys the full body of evidence coming in from all over our planet and concludes that global warming is unequivocal. A climate denier, on the other hand, reacts to this array of evidence in several possible ways."
I look at a lot of the data, but I don't consider it to be unequivocal. There is data which supports natural cycles in the climate, as many meteorologists are now suggesting.
Here is my soap box moment: Correlation does not equate to causality... CO2 does not equal global warming.
I'm not talking about allowing the government or industry pollute with no end, we just need to be practical, and address tangible issues that affect our day-to-day lives.
Have you seen this recent finding?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/feb/02/climate-change-hacked-emails
Climate change's leading experts had falsified information to support his biased perspective? Something that had gone on for over 20 years?