Copenhagen Accord Barely Alive As Deadline Passes

January 31st, 2010 by ktuerff No comments »
Valerie Davis and Kevin Tuerff attended COP 15 as delegates.

Valerie Davis and Kevin Tuerff attended COP 15 as delegates.

U.N. deadline passes with mixed results; Mexico prepares to try again for global climate treaty

Fifty-five of the 193 countries that participated in the U.N. climate summit in Copenhagen have submitted their emission-reduction plans by the January 31 deadline. Without India and China submitting plans, the Copenhagen Accord is on “life support” as a tool for reducing global greenhouse gases. However, the United States and most of the biggest polluting nations submitted their commitments to the United Nations.

“It’s a soft deadline,” explained Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework on Climate Change. “If countries follow up the outcomes of Copenhagen calmly, with eyes firmly on the advantage of collective action, they have every chance of completing the job,” he said.

President Barack Obama worked with other world leaders to negotiate the outcome of COP 15 in Copenhagen last month. We participated in the event as business delegates, and blogged at http://www.GreenDetectives.net.

Feb 4 UPDATE: Todd Stern, the US Special Envoy for Climate Change, issued a statement about the results: “We are pleased to be among 55 countries – including all of the world’s major economies — that have submitted pledges to limit or reduce their greenhouse gas emissions under the Copenhagen Accord. These countries represent nearly 80% of global emissions. In supporting the Accord, we are taking an important step in the global effort to combat climate change.”

“In addition to the countries that have submitted targets or actions, a number of others have conveyed their support for the Accord. We urge all countries to join this broad coalition by promptly conveying their support for the Accord to the UNFCCC Secretariat.”

“The Copenhagen Accord includes important advances on funding, technology, forestry, adaptation and transparency. The United States is committed to working with our partners around the world to make the Accord operational and to continue the effort to build a strong, science-based, global regime to combat the profound threat of climate change.” (From US State Department)

This could be interpreted to mean: sign up for the accord, or no financial aid from the U.S.

Behind the U.N. and U.S. spin of the final outcome for the accord is a valley of discontent between developed and developing countries. Some believe the differences are so great that the largest countries should try to fix the climate problem on their own. Others want to give UNFCCC negotiations a chance, with up to five more negotiating sessions this year, concluding in late November at COP 16 in Cancún, Mexico.

Copenhagen Accord Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goals by 2020
According to news reports, these large countries reported these emission-reduction commitments from 2005 levels. Check here or come back to GreenDetectives.net for updates.

Country     % Reduction  % of Global Pollution
Australia                        5                      1.3
Brazil                            20                     6.6
Canada                         17                      2
European Union            20**                 15
Indonesia                     26                     4.7
Japan                            25**                 4
United States              17                     18
** by 1990 levels

China, the world’s largest emitter (generating 22 percent of global emissions), said publicly it would reduce its carbon intensity by at least 40 percent (a different measure) while allowing overall emissions to increase. India (6 percent) pledged a 20-25 percent reduction of 2005 emissions.

U.S. negotiators in Copenhagen were trying to encourage countries to sign the accord, dangling a $10 billion carrot of financial aid from the United States and others. The money would be used for climate adaptation and mitigation.

“The proof of their commitment, their credentials will be demonstrated if the $10 billion flows as promised,” said, Jairam Ramesh, India’s Environment Minister. “If it doesn’t, we would believe that developed countries aren’t serious about climate change.”

Picture 3Mexico willing to lead

COP 16 moved to Cancún

Mexican president Felipe Calderón sees a problem with the dispute between poor countries and rich countries. Calling it a false dilemma, he says, “It’s as if we were in an airplane that has serious problems, and there is a terrible dispute between the passengers of first class and tourist class.”

At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, last week, Calderón said, “My perception is lack of consensus is related to economic problems in each nation. There are huge economic costs associated with the tasks to cope with climate change.”

Noting the climate financing proposals from developed countries are probably not enough, he urges good-faith negotiations to move forward. He appears ready to try to be the bridge builder between rich and poor. For Calderón, COP 16 is both a logistical and political challenge. However, a successful outcome could bring dramatic changes to improve Mexico’s global image.

It’s interesting to note the Mexican government has moved the climate conference from the polluted Mexico City, to the beautiful resort area of Cancún. The beaches and crashing waves should provide a better backdrop for the conference than Denmark’s frigid temperatures and snow. Face it: global warming conferences should only be held in regions where it’s warm in December. And the Yucatan has faced more than its share of disasters due in part to rising ocean temperatures, including hurricanes and dying coral reefs offshore.

Perhaps Americans will pay more attention because of their proximity to and familiarity with Cancún, but I doubt it. No worries, the Green Detectives will be there. And we’ll continue following the climate issue here throughout 2010. –Kevin Tuerff

Millions burn lamp oil for light; U.S. nudges change with solar l.E.D. lamps

January 23rd, 2010 by ktuerff No comments »

We saw this presentation by Energy Secretary Steven Chu in the Bella Center, in Copenhagen last month. The video shows the night sky across the earth, and the disparity between where the most energy is used, versus population centers.

Picture 1

Secretary Chu was announcing a $100 million Climate REDI (Renewables and Efficient Deployment Initative), an international climate adaptation aid package, including a technology transfer grant for poor countries whose populations still use lamp oil to light their homes. As Americans, we often take basic electricity for granted. Fuel-based lighting is inefficient, provides limited and poor quality light, and exposes users to significant health and fire hazards. Burning the hurricane lamps and wick lamps indoors causes large numbers of premature death from indoor air pollution.

To promote solar and LED programs, the Climate REDI fund is supporting the Lighting Africa initiative, TERI’s Lighting a Billion Lives program, and the U.S. Department of Energy’s Lumina Project.

Lighting_Africa_Students

The funding will help develop best practices and efficiency standards for solar-powered LED lamps, which should drive down the cost to around ten dollars each. Cutting the price is seen as a critical step toward broad implementation.

For all the complex, expensive climate solutions like carbon sequestration, there are some simple, affordable solutions that reduce pollution while providing millions of poor families across the world with the basics like lighting and water.

Environmental woes exacerbate Haiti catastrophe

January 20th, 2010 by aseale No comments »

At first glance, it might seem the earthquake and humanitarian catastrophe in Haiti have nothing to do with climate change and deforestation. But while climate change certainly didn’t cause the devastating quake, unsustainable practices dating back more than 200 years have magnified the scope of the disaster.

If poverty can be considered a sustainability issue, then this issue was at the root of many thousands of deaths and injuries. Just as with the mud houses in Pakistan and Iran that collapsed in earthquakes in recent years killing tens of thousands, when natural disasters strike, the death toll is often a function both of the phenomenon itself but also of poorly constructed buildings that are a result of poverty.

This poverty in Haiti, which flows from a textbook constellation of social justice issues — from slavery to oligarchic corruption to lack of education — has been greatly compounded by an age-long squandering of Haiti’s natural resources.

Many of Haiti’s native forests — its remaining evidence just across the border in the Dominican Republic, with which it shares the island of Hispaniola — were cut to plant sugarcane and other crops under French colonial rule. Its most valuable timber was shipped to Europe. And because of Haiti’s poverty, many of its citizens now cut down the few trees left for firewood. Today, while the Dominican Republic retains 28 percent of its original forests, Haiti is down to 1 percent. It probably is not coincidence that per capita income in the Dominican Republic is some five times greater than in Haiti. The reasons for this disparity are many, but it’s not hard to see that deforestation is both a cause and an effect of poverty.

Without its trees, Haiti’s soil is free to blow or wash away, and what is left is nutrient poor and yields less to a people who rely heavily on subsistence farming. This poverty leads to a self-reinforcing menu of woes and makes any nation more susceptible to the corruption that has marked Haiti’s history. What’s more, deforestation greatly increases the likelihood of catastrophic mudslides once the rainy season arrives.

And while sustainability issues like deforestation have contributed to Haiti’s poverty generally, many of those same issues are now impeding its recovery directly. Perhaps the most dire need at this time is fresh water. Trees in large numbers are a critical player in the whole hydraulic cycle. With their roots, they keep the water table high and accessible. As they hold soil in place, they keep rivers and streams from becoming muddy. And their amazing root systems filter out numerous impurities. In large enough numbers, trees even make it rain.

With its largest city in ruins, thousands of former urban Haitians naturally are returning to the countryside for subsistence living — a countryside bereft of trees with poor soil and inadequate water. While more abundant fresh water in Haiti wouldn’t have necessarily quenched the thirst and met the medical needs of victims in the immediate aftermath, the less water aid workers have to ship in, the more they can concentrate on other supplies like food, medicine, and blood.

While we do whatever we can to improve the situation of those whom the earthquake of 2010 spared, we do well also to glean from the tragedy whatever lessons we can about how centuries-long unsustainable practices have exacerbated the catastrophe.

An ecologically sound Haiti still would have been hit by the earthquake, and it would have been devastating. But with a more prosperous population, more buildings would have withstood the quake, and fewer people would have died. And in a more forested Haiti, the survivors would have had more fresh water, a more fertile countryside to welcome the city’s refugees, and more stable hillsides if, God forbid, the aftershocks continue, especially in the rainy season.

Our thoughts and prayers are with the people of Haiti and with the global community of rescue and aid workers who are supporting them. And our dollars too. By matching employee contributions, EnviroMedia Social Marketing is sending more than $4,600 to Haiti relief efforts, $2,000 of that directed to the United Nations Foundation. —Avrel Seale, EnviroMedia

A new, clean alternative to boiling water with firewood

January 19th, 2010 by aseale No comments »

The burning of firewood throughout the developing world is a double-whammy for climate change. The first whammy is cutting down the trees (which absorb carbon); the second whammy is burning them, which releases their carbon into the atmosphere.

One of the biggest uses for wood fires around the world is purifying water — for drinking, for cooking, for bathing, and for laundry. In sub-Saharan Africa, as many as three out of four people purify their water by using solid fuel like wood, charcoal, kerosene, or coal to boil it.

The Solvatten Safe Water System

The Solvatten Safe Water System

Now, a Swedish company, Solvatten, has invented a machine that purifies water using solar power. The Solvatten Safe Water System, a portable, 10-liter container, uses a combination of solar power, filtration, and UV rays to purify the water, a process that takes between two and six hours, depending on the weather. An indicator tells the user when the water is pure.

The World Wildlife Federation has selected Solvatten as a “Climate Solver.”

The company’s web site says, “Solvatten AB is looking for customers and partners for projects to provide safe drinking water in a sustainable way. We are taking orders for units to be shipped from spring 2010.  Sales will be in batches of at least 72 units and customers distributing to developing countries will be prioritised.”

Haiti could certainly make quick use of tens of thousands of these units, as could remote communities around the world.

For purchasing information, e-mail info@solvatten.se.

5 research profs: Prepare Texans for Climate Change

January 14th, 2010 by ktuerff No comments »

What do you get when you put together a Longhorn, Aggie and Red Raider researchers? A really strong idea for a climate consortium in Texas. It’s no joke. Professor Jay Banner, a friend of EnviroMedia, and four other prominent climate researchers from UT-Austin, Texas A&M and Texas Tech penned an opinion piece that was printed in the Houston Chronicle, Austin American Statesman, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, San Angelo Standard-Times and others.  Note the opinions expressed in the op-ed are as individuals, and do not represent their institutions.

Prepare Texans for Climate Change

by Jay Banner, Charles Jackson, Katharine Hayhoe, Gerald North and Liang Yang

Our atmosphere and climate are changing in unprecedented ways, due in part, to human activity. Population is also expanding; Texas is home to four of the top 10 fastest-growing cities in the United States. The natural landscape is becoming increasingly urbanized. At the same time, our demand for water, land, and other natural resources is increasing. All of these issues raise concerns about what our future may hold.

Projections of future climate can be made using computer models of the climate system that take into account both natural and human effects on our world. The models predict a much drier Texas, particularly in the western half of the state, on par with or even exceeding 10-30 year ‘megadroughts’ of past centuries. These changes carry potentially enormous implications for Texas’ agriculture, wildlife, water, infrastructure, public health, businesses, and energy use. Consequences include lower stream and lake levels, water shortages, and growing competition between urban, rural, and industrial users.

During the 1950s, Texas experienced a seven year drought that was part of a larger dry spell that gripped the Great Plains and the American Southwest.  As a result, 244 of the 254 counties in Texas were declared federal disaster areas. During the last ice age around 20,000 years ago, mineral deposits — forming from water dripping deep into Texas caves — typically grew 10 to 100 times faster than they do today, indicating that Texas was a much rainier region during the last ice age. In the more recent past, trees in central and West Texas leave a record in their rings of multiple megadroughts since the 13th century. Scientists link the rainy ice ages and megadroughts of the past to cyclical shifts in Earth’s orbit and natural cycles such as El Niño.

Our ability to predict changes in Texas’ future climate will meet continuing challenges and there will be uncertainty about how the state should plan for the changes. The likelihood of some effects is becoming clear, however, with improved consensus from the scientific community. For example, projections are consistent that the American Southwest will likely become drier throughout this century, marking a transition to a new average climate for the western part of Texas similar to the drought of the 1950’s. It is uncertain exactly when the transition would occur, although some projections suggest that this transition is already underway.

We propose that Texas needs to take three key steps in the near future to address the risks associated with future change. First, assemble the best climate change information that currently exists. Second, improve this information through further research. And lastly, identify information gaps and uncertainties, and determine how to use the best information to plan for the changes.

There is currently no coordinated effort in the state of Texas to fill these needs. This is in contrast to the global consortium of experts that constitutes the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); state-level efforts such as in California, which has a branch of its Energy Commission dedicated to quantifying climate change impacts and possible adaptation strategies; and municipal efforts such as in Chicago, which has a city-wide Climate Action Plan that includes estimates of future costs. To better understand the risks that Texas may face in the future, and how best to respond to changing risk, we propose that Texas draw on its depth of knowledge to establish its own expert consortium of scientists, policy makers, resource managers, state agency representatives, educators, and stakeholders.

A climate consortium for Texas could conduct the following essential functions:

• Bring together leading experts and stakeholders to determine the top concerns about how climate change may impact Texas.

• Quantify uncertainties of future changes, so that the state can determine how to best plan investments for adaptation and for research to reduce uncertainty.

• Prioritize areas for new research; for example, generation of high-resolution climate projections for regions within Texas, and the response of aquifers, streams, soils, and air quality to changing climate.

• Summarize the latest scientific data for policy makers with accurate quantification of uncertainties.

• Compare the costs to Texas of acting vs. the costs of not acting.

As world leaders work to build global accord on climate change, and as other states and regions are enacting their own legislation regarding greenhouse gas emissions, Texas needs to lead in determining what climate change will mean for Texans and what we should do about it. We are fortunate to have leading researchers, planners and policy makers in our state’s institutions, agencies and businesses, and we should take advantage of these resources by bringing them together to help address this important challenge.

Banner and Yang are Professors and Jackson is a Research Scientist, all in the Jackson School of Geosciences and Banner is Director of the Environmental Science Institute, University of Texas at Austin.

Hayhoe is a Research Associate Professor in the Department of Geosciences, Texas Tech University.

North is a Professor in the Department of Atmospheric Sciences, Texas A&M University.

Last Call For Stronger Emissions Targets. Pretty Please?

December 23rd, 2009 by vdavis No comments »

As we arrived in Copenhagen December 9, something called a “Copenhagen Accord” was only a glint in the eye of climate negotiators representing more than 190 countries at COP15. Considered disappointing and vague, this Accord is better than “a total collapse” of negotiations many feared on the last day of the two-week conference. Actually, COP15 spilled an extra day into Saturday, December 19, with a still-unprecedented outcome and 115 bleary-eyed heads of state heading home. The point of the Green Detectives blog is to demystify key elements central to climate talks, and the Copenhagen Accord is now one of them. So here you go.

The Copenhagen Accord is a three-page document that:

  • Gives a January 31, 2010, deadline to developed countries like the US to commit to 2020 emissions reduction targets. It gives the same deadline to developing countries to outline their “mitigation” actions. Mitigation basically refers to tactics, such as preventing deforestation, which reduce carbon emissions. President Obama has already committed the US to a 17% reduction by 2020. We heard many countries were strongly disappointed he didn’t bring something new to the table during his Friday morning Copenhagen speech. Could the US have more robust emissions targets if a Senate climate bill should pass before January 31? See blog below for Kevin’s outlook on 2010.
  • Establishes a Copenhagen Green Climate Fund of $30 billion for 2010-2020 for adaptation and mitigation funds to developing countries from developed countries, and $100 billion per year by 2020. You can brush up on Adaptation and Climate Finance by watching our Green Detectives Decoder Videos.
  • Acknowledges REDD and Technology Transfer as viable mitigation tactics. You can also watch our videos on these two topics.
  • Cites the need to prevent a 2C rise in global temperatures and calls for an assessment of the implementation of the Accord in 2015, when negotiators could consider strengthening the long-term goal of preventing a 1.5C rise in temperatures.
  • Does not call for a legally binding agreement in 2010. This fell off the table in the 11th hour of COP15 and was a huge disappointment to many, especially countries like Tuvalu that are most vulnerable to the effects of climate change.
  • Is “noted by” but not an official agreement of the COP.
  • Has been called a huge disappointment but does not mean more solid direction and traction will not be found by negotiators before the the end of the next COP meeting, slated for Mexico City in December 2010.
  • Is available for you to read for yourself on the UNFCCC Web site.

What’s Next for Climate? German Beer, Tequila Protocol

December 23rd, 2009 by ktuerff No comments »

Note: If you’re unfamiliar with any of the terms below, see our climate decoder.

Most everyone wants a legally binding agreement among nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and funding for climate adaptation and mitigation in poor countries. The (next) path to a treaty in 2010 should look something like this:

JANUARY 31, 2010 Deadline for countries to sign onto the Copenhagen Accord. Developing countries must declare to the UNFCCC their baseline GHGs and reduction commitments to achieve by 2020. No submission, no money for climate aid from the new $30 billion pool donated by rich countries.

FEBRUARY THROUGH APRIL, 2010 All Democratic leaders in Congress are predicting successful passage of an energy and climate bill. Al Gore predicted legislation would be finally passed by the next Earth Day (April 22). Such a law would provide the US with tremendous leverage and credibility for developing a new climate Protocol (treaty).

logo

MAY 31 to JUNE 10, 2010 Meeting of the government climate ministers at the UNFCCC headquarters in Bonn, Germany. This meeting promises to be just as controversial as COP 15 in Copenhagen. Perhaps a visit to the Hofbrauhaus for beers would loosen tensions? The UN must determine a new negotiating process that does not rely on approving texts by consensus of 192 countries. The outcome will predict the likelihood of a new treaty being developed at COP 16 in Mexico City in December. Closely watching will be the Major Economies Forum (a group of the world’s 20 largest economies, who are responsible for the vast majority of GHG emissions). This group could decide to take their commitments and climate investments and go play by themselves without the burden of the UN.
bicentenario
November 29 to December 10, 2010
The sixteenth Conference of Parties (COP 16) will be held in Mexico, D.F. After witnessing the complete meltdown in Copenhagen, some wonder if the Mexicans wish they hadn’t agreed to host the meeting. Interesting to note, the US government is making a major contribution to Mexico to help them pay for the meeting logistics, security.

A friend suggested there would be less fighting among large v. small countries if everyone kicked back and had a few drinks together in Mexico. It would forever be known as “THE TEQUILLA PROTOCOL.”

Thank You, Copenhagen

December 20th, 2009 by ktuerff No comments »

bellactr-closedAfter two weeks (and the final 31-hour session) of negotiations, the UN climate conference in Copenhagen is finally closed. The Copenhagen Accord will be remembered as the starting point for final negotiations that may lead to a global treaty in Mexico in 2010. The EnviroMedia team bids farewell to Copenhagen with many memories.

Keep following GreenDetectives.net for our final comments on the COP 15 experience, plus continuing discussion of the complexities of climate change.

Anticlima(c)tic?

December 19th, 2009 by vdavis No comments »

Two weeks. Five pages. Is this what the world had hoped for? Is it enough to prevent the 2C rise in global temps? Read the “Copenhagen Accord,” as posted on the UNFCCC Web site. It may not be the final document but you can get an idea of where final negotiations were headed today. Key pieces are consistent with feedback (revisiting items in January 2010) I received by an NGO whose husband had been inside Bella Center for 36 hours and arrived back to the hotel for some much-needed rest in early afternoon.

The Bosses Away, But Work Continues at COP15 Without Sleep

December 19th, 2009 by ktuerff No comments »
US Climate negotiators Jonathan Pershing and Todd Stern on the extra day at COP 15.

US Climate negotiators Jonathan Pershing and Todd Stern on the extra day at COP 15.

When Barack Obama and other world leaders left Copenhagen last night, most believed the Copenhagen Accord would be passed within hours. It didn’t.

It’s almost tradition that the conference continues into an extra day. But this time, the wheels almost fell off the bus.

Hours of additional speeches went into the night, included heated discussions and emotional debate. Developing nations suggested the final COP 15 agreement was so weak, it wasn’t worth passing.

In the morning, there were several proposals to amend the final document to put some teeth back into the agreement. Although many countries agrees that each country should go home and adopt their own laws in 2010 consistent with the Copenhagen Accord, which would make having a global treaty a lot easier than the Kyoto Treaty. But now that language is gone, even though the US was okay with it.

UN Secretary General

UN Secretary General Ban ki-Moon

With the 190 countries split on some of the final amendments, UN Secretary General Ban ki-Moon was summoned to the plenary to give the remaining sleepless negotiators a pep talk. He said, “We have taken a significant step. The agreement will not satisfy all. But I believe that through this adoption of Copenhagen Accord, you will be able to get everything you need. This is a significant deal. You have agreed to all the four of the benchmarks for success. We must turn this into a legally binding treaty next year. We know this will not be easy. The road ahead is still very long. Climate change remains the defining challenge of our time. It is a journey we must make together.”

It’s Noon in Copenhagen, and rambling speeches continue.