As international climate change negotiators confer in Cancún over the next ten days, a sweeping new global agreement won't be on the table. The groundwork has not been laid for that. Instead they may start to pivot toward a new strategy of gradualism, and that would be a step in the right direction.
Participants in the UN talks, just as in the U.S. Congress, have shied away from comprehensive action on climate change, and the recent elections have left the Obama administration with little ability to advocate for a bolder approach. And yet national and state governments are steadily showing the way forward -- with steps toward a clean energy economy that will cut greenhouse gas emissions.
Embracing such a "building block" strategy -- with steps that make sense in their own right and reduce the rate at which the world is pumping heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere -- can build confidence in the efficacy and attractiveness of action while increasing the momentum behind a greener energy economy.
For better or worse, this is a game in which the United States is now a laggard, not a leader. Most notably, China is setting the pace on energy efficiency -- with a 20 percent improvement over the past five years and a commitment to continue those gains -- and on renewable energy, in which it reportedly plans to invest $738 billion over the next 10 years to establish clear global leadership in the field.
China is far from alone in this. The other BASIC countries -- Brazil, South Africa, and India - as well as Korea, Japan, and the European Union, all have taken impressive steps in the same direction. In the United States, the states have led even as Congress has failed to act. In November California voters overwhelmingly rejected the oil industry's attempt to overturn the state's comprehensive global warming legislation.
The way forward in Cancún is to build on these gains and encourage others to follow suit. Investments in energy efficiency are cost-effective for every country in the world. Increased use of renewable energy is particularly attractive in developing countries where the electricity grid is absent or unreliable and where high-cost imported oil is often the fuel source.
A particularly attractive near-term focus would be on emissions of black carbon -- soot from forest burning, household cooking with wood or coal, and diesel engines. These emissions are the second largest contributor to global warming after carbon dioxide and have a much shorter lifetime in the atmosphere -- weeks, not years. Immediate action with known technologies -- preventing deforestation, using more efficient stoves and cleaner engines -- could slow the effects of climate change for a decade or more.
Previous negotiations have cued up building-block agreements -- on avoided deforestation and land use change; technology development and cooperation; and adaptation assistance for the poorest countries that are being hit the hardest by a changing climate. However, the United States has called for strict standards of "MRV" -- monitoring, reporting, and verification -- before green-lighting such deals.
MRV is needed to ensure that countries will take actions they would not do otherwise -- when they are being told to take their medicine. But a building-block strategy is good for both the countries implementing them and the rest of the world. That makes rigorous MRV desirable but not a deal-breaker.
Let's go after the low-hanging fruit now while we are building a ladder to the more difficult to reach. This will build trust among nations and confidence that the transition to a low-carbon economy is both possible and beneficial, setting the stage for a truly comprehensive agreement in South Africa next year or Brazil in 2012.
The atmospheric physics of climate change are not affected by the political maneuverings of the human species. The more heat-trapping gases we put in the air, the hotter the planet will become. Indeed, 2010 is on track to be one of the two warmest years in a steadily warming record.
The goal of the UN climate negotiations has been, and should continue to be, a global agreement to reduce emissions dramatically, decisively, and comprehensively. That will not be politically possible in Cancún. Rather than bemoan our human frailty, let us resolve to make what progress we can, when we can. The rising impacts of climate change -- on our poorest neighbors today and on our children and their children tomorrow -- demand no less.
Timothy E. Wirth is President of the United Nations Foundation and former Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs. John D. Podesta is President and CEO of the Center for American Progress and former White House Chief of Staff.
Carl Pope: A Year and a Difference
"Relying on heavy oils and tar sands as the feedstock for liquid fuels will exaggerate the greenhouse-gas emissions associated with fossil-fuel use, a new study finds.
Light crudes are the easiest to work with. But as their biggest and most accessible reservoirs have been tapped — and often tapped out — the oil industry has increasingly been turning to what has been termed “unconventional” stocks. These are viscous, if not tarry, forms of petroleum. And as the upper graph below shows, the average “gravity” — viscosity of crude — has fallen into the heavy range (below an average of about 31 degrees on the American Petroleum Institute scale) beginning in 2000. At least for oil processed by U.S. refineries.
Not surprisingly, it takes extra work to convert viscous gunk into the gasoline, diesel and other high-value fuels that power engines the world over. And the extra fuel that powers those upgrades releases bonus greenhouse-gas emissions, thereby upping the carbon footprint of each gallon of refined product created.
It also takes extra energy to process “sour” crude — petroleum naturally bearing high concentrations of sulfur. That sulfur can poison catalysts used in refining. And as the lower graph below (courtesy of the Department of Energy) indicates, the sulfur content of crude oil entering U.S. refineries has been climbing steadily since at least 1985.
www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/66902/title/Food_security_wanes_as_world_warms
Dec.1st, 2010
"Since summer, signs of severe food insecurity — droughts, food riots, five- to tenfold increases in produce costs — have erupted around the globe. Several new reports now argue that regionally catastrophic crop failures — largely due to heat stress — are signals that global warming may have begun outpacing the ability of farmers to adapt.
"Severe summer droughts in Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan ravaged 2010 cereal yields. When Russia, the fourth largest wheat exporter, imposed an export ban in August, international markets responded with price spikes. Having sold around 17 million metric tons on world markets in 2009, Russia’s 2010 wheat exports are expected to fall closer to 4 million metric tons, according to a November Food Outlook report by the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization, or FAO. (Russia’s export ban is slated to remain in effect until next July.)"
That gives me the ability to increase useage by 60%.
Fair, yes?
So, let's tell people in Africa and India not to create any soot when they cook their meals, while we commit to nothing. Yeah, they'll buy that. That's the ticket.
Thanks a lot guys.
Do something: http://completelybaked.blogspot.com/
Who needs oil anyway?
Who cares that most plastics, fertilizers, some medicines, and common lubricants depend on oil.
We made out pretty good with wood, mud, and bone for building materials and utencils.
There are also solar pots and pans, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe some of the hundred-dollar-laptops are at least partially solar, right?
Your larger point is the big one though--I didn't miss it.
What remains as disturbing about the U.N.’s climate culture is the socialist governance that has now been openly advocated by members of the IPCC. Several members meeting this week in Cancun at the annual conference to replace the 2012-expiring Kyoto Protocols have spoken in pure Marxist-socialist principles – wealth redistribution.
A Chinese member said that multi-billion dollar Western developed-nation payments would be the key to success of the Cancun meeting. And, co-chairman of the IPCC's third working group, Ottmar Edenhofer, has stated, "One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy.... One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy."
The IPCC meeting in Cancun is not expected to accomplish much more than to subtly shift the operative regulatory language from “climate change” to “global biodiversity,” and attempt to shakedown developed countries for billions in order to fund underdeveloped countries under the guise of environmental and social justice. Karl Marx would be most proud.
It is clear that socialist ideologies and cultish environmentalism have replaced prudent science and economics in U.N. climate policy. Militant environmentalism and green-obsessed bureaucrats have become an “axis of antagonism” that we can no longer afford.
Oh, by the way, did you hear that in Italy they captured and imprisoned this dangerous "scientist" in a tower who was using some new eye-extension device to preach blasphemy about the heavens? I don't know how up to date you are on your news--thought I'd mention it.
While I think your idea is super, my idea is tried and true--whale oil. Whales are cheap and plentiful, and are a renewable resource. If they start to run low, we just hunt more of them. And there is absolutely no credible scientist alive today who will tell you that harvesting whale oil harms whales. Even Rachel Carson, the environmentalist's Queen, said nothing about whales in Silent Spring. We must return to a whale-based economy before it's too late.
You'll be fine though. It's my kids your lazy attitude is screwing over.
What do our corporate masters want? That's the only question, because that's what we will get.
Then see who has the political power..
GE and the BO administration are pushing this green crap on US. If the EPA has its way we can and will have our energy rationed. Everything new has smart chips in them. Once the " Smart Gird" is up and running they can and will control thermostats and the flow of electricity.
Who holds major interest in these "green" companies? Look at who the major stock holders are.
The electric company does not OWN anything after the box.
Put a white noise generator on your power curcuit.
Electricity is a RIGHT!
It would be better to have each house in the USA have its own windmill on the roof to generate electricity for that house. R&D batteries to store the energy for home use.
Of course the government will never allow that.It would make the "Smart Grid" unnecessary and take the control of energy out of the governments hands.
But in certain areas wind is very efficient and reliable, as solar is in certain areas. I think we need to pursue both distributed grid and large-scale renewable generation if we hope to meet the challenge of converting from a fossil fuel powered economy to a renewable powered economy. And I would worry less about the "big government" boogyman and more about the electric utilities, who stand to loose control of electric production and have far less power to control the price they are paid. I expect they will fight tooth-and-nail against distributed grid technologies.
However, the MWP deniers, such as the IPCC, US EPA, and the UK’s MET Office, will never admit the existence of the MWP because it means that their religious-like belief in AGW is exposed for the steaming pile of junk science that it truly is.
In total, climate change is complex and not well understood.
But this part is simple.
Since the world was warmer when CO2 levels were lower, CO2 cannot be the earth's temperature regulator. There must be other factors.
In the past, the Earth was warmer than it is today; before the social and industrial advances that have made modern people the healthiest and most prosperous in history. MWP deniers want us to believe that plant friendly and life giving CO2 is a bad thing to better advance their meglomanical desire to both boss around the developed world and further impoverish the poor while pocketing a lot of taxpayer money along the way.
Useless, misguided attempts to control carbon are not the answer to the ever changing climate.There is only one answer to changes in climate that has ever worked for humanity.
That is adaptation.
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
http://www.intechopen.com/articles/show/title/a-regional-approach-to-the-medieval-warm-period-and-the-little-ice-age
What separates people like you from scientists, is that they take thoughts like you raised, and put them as questions: "How big a factor is CO2?" That leads to new knowledge.
You're coming here having done what--20 hours of research? 50? 10? and think you can draw absolute conclusions.
The Center means of disseminating information, their magazine and website CO2 Science, includes articles both questioning the existence of climate change as well as touting the benefits to the biosphere from carbon dioxide enrichment. All aspects of climate change and its predicted effects - from melting ice caps to species extinction, to more severe weather - are criticized by the Center and either refuted or presented as beneficial. Fred Palmer, head of Western Fuels, said about the center: "The Center's viewpoint is a needed antidote to the misleading and usually erroneous scientific claims emanating from the Federal scientific establishment and adopted by leading politicians, such as Vice President Al Gore." The Center has since tried to distance itself from the Western Fuels Association, however, the Center is run by Keith and Craig Idso, along with their father, Sherwood. Both Idso brothers have been on the Western Fuels payroll at one time or another. Keith Idso, then a doctoral candidate at the University of Arizona, was a paid expert witness for Western Fuels Association at a 1995 Minnesota Public Utilities commission hearing in St. Paul, MN, along with MIT's Richard Lindzen, Patrick Michaels, and Robert Balling (The Heat is On). According to news from Basin Electr ic, a Western Fuels Association member, Craig Idso produced a report, "The Greening of Planet Earth." Its Progression from Hypothesis to Theory," in January 1998 for the Western Fuels Association (Basin Electric Latest News no date given).