Posts Tagged ‘global warming’

For God’s sake

March 11th, 2010

By Avrel Seale

Anyone who still believes that religious people and environmentalists must be on opposite sides of green issues like climate change needs to get out more, perhaps to a church, synagogue, mosque, or temple.

You could find plenty of examples of religious folk through history acting in ways we wouldn’t consider green. But stewardship of creation has been part of theological and intellectual dialogue in the West at least since St. Francis of Assisi some 800 years ago started saying things like, “If you have men who will exclude any of God’s creatures from the shelter of compassion and pity, you will have men who will deal likewise with their fellow men.” And, “Be praised, my Lord, through our sister Mother Earth, who feeds us and rules us,
 and produces various fruits with colored flowers and herbs.” (Canticle of the Sun, A.D. 1224)

There is a large and influential population that embraces both religion and science and grasps the obvious: that if you believe the world was created by God, then it probably would be a good idea to take care of it (or at least not actively ruin it). A 2004 Pew study found that by a two-to-one margin (55 percent to 27 percent) religious respondents backed strong regulations to protect the environment. “Backing for the environment cuts across virtually every religious group, from white Evangelicals to Jews, and has remained strong through the last few presidential election cycles,” Pew reported.

Moreover, another Pew study in 2007 showed that an overwhelming majority of religious people polled (79 percent) believes there is solid evidence that the average temperature of the Earth has been increasing over the past few decades. “Sizable majorities of each of the largest religious groups agree: 77 percent of Catholics; 79 percent of white mainline Protestants; and 70 percent of white evangelicals.”

Back in April, we wrote about how religious leaders in the United States are stepping up to the climate change challenge.

Now the United Nations is tapping the persuasive power of religion. Some 200 leaders representing the world’s major religions gathered Nov. 3, 2009, at Windsor Castle to launch a series of action plans on the environment. They were joined by U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and Prince Philip. “I have long believed that when governments and civil society work toward a common goal, transformational change is possible,” said Ban. “Faiths and religions are a central part of that equation. Indeed, the world’s faith communities occupy a unique position in discussions on the fate of our planet and the accelerating impacts of climate change.”

The three-day event was sponsored by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Alliance of Religions and Conservation (ARC), which Prince Philip founded in 1995.

Thirty-one leaders — representing the Baha’i Faith, Buddhism, Christianity, Daoism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Shintoism, and Sikhism — presented seven-year plans designed to promote “generational change” in attitudes toward the environment in the face of global warming, water shortages, deforestation, and other threats.

The Muslim plan establishes Muslim Associations for Climate Change Action (MACCA) and calls for an Islamic environmental labeling system, a “Green Hajj” so that within 10 years the traditional Islamic pilgrimage will be recognized as environmentally friendly, and the construction of a model “green mosque” to showcase best practices in heating, light, and design.

The Sikh plan urges all Sikh temples, gurdwaras, to recycle, compost, use green energy, use eco-stoves, start rainwater harvesting, and purchase reusable plates and cups.

Baha’is will use an existing system of regional training institutes to encourage “acts of service related to environmental sustainability” within their worldwide community. “Baha’is believe that religious belief and spirituality lie at the foundation of human motivation and behavior,” said Tahirih Naylor, a Baha’i representative to the United Nations. “We believe that efforts to change harmful human behavior – such as those actions that contribute to global warming or environmental degradation – can be greatly facilitated by processes that lead to a better understanding of our own relationship to God, and of humanity’s relationship with nature.”

“Climate change is complex, and dealing with it requires us to change at many levels,” said Olav Kjorven, assistant secretary general of the United Nations and director of the Bureau of Development Policy at the U.N. Development Program. “It requires a change of ethos. Religions have an unparalleled ability to reach out to people at the grassroots and to touch hearts and minds.” What’s more, he called religious institutions “the third-largest actors in international markets,” adding that just promoting environmentally friendly purchasing decisions by those institutions would have a huge impact across the world.

Tony Juniper, special adviser to the Prince of Wales’ Rainforests Project and former executive director of the Friends of the Earth, likewise emphasized the important role that religions can play. “Purely scientific rationalism cannot change our fundamental understanding of who we are and how we should live. Religion and science must work together to bring about a fundamental transformation in our relationship to the world. This kind of change needs a spiritual foundation,” he said.

After returning from the U.N. climate conference in Copenhagen, Green Detectives Valerie Davis and Kevin Tuerff both talked about how organized religion was a missing link in the negotiations for a global climate treaty. Watch this blog for more on this issue.

No matter what you believe or whether you believe, everyone who feels environmental action is important should be greatly heartened by these reports. Can I get an Amen?

Last Call For Stronger Emissions Targets. Pretty Please?

December 23rd, 2009

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.

Obama at COP15: No transparency “doesn’t make sense”

December 18th, 2009

obamaOverview

At roughly 5:40 a.m. CST time, President Obama told climate negotiators at the Plenary Session, “I don’t know how you have an international agreement without sharing information. That doesn’t make sense.” Obama followed Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao’s address, and both the US and China seemed to say the same thing — we’ve got our act together, why doesn’t everybody else? Obama talked about America’s investment in a green economy, our renewed leadership in climate negotiations, and our collective $100 billion investment with other major economies in climate finance for poor countries. He said our move to a clean energy economy helps national security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil, that negotiators need to move from posturing to action, and that no country will get everything it wants: “There are those developing countries that want aid with no strings attached, and who think that the most advanced nations should pay a higher price. And there are those advanced nations who think that developing countries cannot absorb this assistance, or that the world’s fastest-growing emitters should bear a greater share of the burden.” It was roughly a 10 minute speech without once mentioning the word Kyoto — a big contingency point between rich and poor countries these past two weeks in Copenhagen. “We’re ready to get this done today but there has to be movement on all sides,” he said.

 

Transcript: Kevin just received full remarks from the State Department and they are pasted below:

Remarks of President Barack Obama—As Prepared for Delivery
Copenhagen Summit
Copenhagen, Denmark
December 18, 2009

Good morning. It’s an honor to for me to join this distinguished group of leaders from nations around the world. We come together here in Copenhagen because climate change poses a grave and growing danger to our people. You would not be here unless you – like me – were convinced that this danger is real. This is not fiction, this is science. Unchecked, climate change will pose unacceptable risks to our security, our economies, and our planet. That much we know.

So the question before us is no longer the nature of the challenge – the question is our capacity to meet it. For while the reality of climate change is not in doubt, our ability to take collective action hangs in the balance.

I believe that we can act boldly, and decisively, in the face of this common threat. And that is why I have come here today.

As the world’s largest economy and the world’s second largest emitter, America bears our share of responsibility in addressing climate change, and we intend to meet that responsibility. That is why we have renewed our leadership within international climate negotiations, and worked with other nations to phase out fossil fuel subsidies. And that is why we have taken bold action at home – by making historic investments in renewable energy; by putting our people to work increasing efficiency in our homes and buildings; and by pursuing comprehensive legislation to transform to a clean energy economy.

These actions are ambitious, and we are taking them not simply to meet our global responsibilities. We are convinced that changing the way that we produce and use energy is essential to America’s economic future – that it will create millions of new jobs, power new industry, keep us competitive, and spark new innovation. And we are convinced that changing the way we use energy is essential to America’s national security, because it will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and help us deal with some of the dangers posed by climate change.

So America is going to continue on this course of action no matter what happens in Copenhagen. But we will all be stronger and safer and more secure if we act together. That is why it is in our mutual interest to achieve a global accord in which we agree to take certain steps, and to hold each other accountable for our commitments.

After months of talk, and two weeks of negotiations, I believe that the pieces of that accord are now clear.

First, all major economies must put forward decisive national actions that will reduce their emissions, and begin to turn the corner on climate change. I’m pleased that many of us have already done so, and I’m confident that America will fulfill the commitments that we have made: cutting our emissions in the range of 17 percent by 2020, and by more than 80 percent by 2050 in line with final legislation.

Second, we must have a mechanism to review whether we are keeping our commitments, and to exchange this information in a transparent manner. These measures need not be intrusive, or infringe upon sovereignty. They must, however, ensure that an accord is credible, and that we are living up to our obligations. For without such accountability, any agreement would be empty words on a page.

Third, we must have financing that helps developing countries adapt, particularly the least-developed and most vulnerable to climate change. America will be a part of fast-start funding that will ramp up to $10 billion in 2012. And, yesterday, Secretary Clinton made it clear that we will engage in a global effort to mobilize $100 billion in financing by 2020, if – and only if – it is part of the broader accord that I have just described.

Mitigation. Transparency. And financing. It is a clear formula – one that embraces the principle of common but differentiated responses and respective capabilities. And it adds up to a significant accord – one that takes us farther than we have ever gone before as an international community.

The question is whether we will move forward together, or split apart. This is not a perfect agreement, and no country would get everything that it wants. There are those developing countries that want aid with no strings attached, and who think that the most advanced nations should pay a higher price. And there are those advanced nations who think that developing countries cannot absorb this assistance, or that the world’s fastest-growing emitters should bear a greater share of the burden.

We know the fault lines because we’ve been imprisoned by them for years. But here is the bottom line: we can embrace this accord, take a substantial step forward, and continue to refine it and build upon its foundation. We can do that, and everyone who is in this room will be a part of an historic endeavor – one that makes life better for our children and grandchildren.

Or we can again choose delay, falling back into the same divisions that have stood in the way of action for years. And we will be back having the same stale arguments month after month, year after year – all while the danger of climate change grows until it is irreversible.

There is no time to waste. America has made our choice. We have charted our course, we have made our commitments, and we will do what we say. Now, I believe that it’s time for the nations and people of the world to come together behind a common purpose.

We must choose action over inaction; the future over the past – with courage and faith, let us meet our responsibility to our people, and to the future of our planet. Thank you.

Hillary Clinton: US Will Help Raise $100 Billion for Climate Finance

December 17th, 2009

phenhallSecretary of State Hillary Clinton just announced at COP15 that by 2020 the United States will help raise $100 billion annually to aid poor countries with climate change. Clinton said this is contingent on all major economies contributing and helping to seal a climate deal with transparency from all parties.

Momentum is certainly building from President Obama’s cabinet here in Copenhagen with unprecendented US climate aid to developing countries practically growing by the day. Monday: Energy Sec Chu pledges $350 million in clean energy technologies; Wednesday: Ag Sec Vilsack pledges $1 billion in deforestation funds; Thursday: Clinton pledges $100 billion in climate finance; Friday: What will President Obama pledge? Watch our Climate Finance video to learn how our commitments fit into the big picture of climate negotiations. With heads of state in Copenhagen now, is this just the kind of commitment that will help alleviate tensions between poor and rich nations and make a climate treaty happen by tomorrow (or as negotiations likely spill into the weekend)?

Ag Sec Vilsack One-Ups Energy Sec Chu

December 16th, 2009

treesTwo days after Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced at climate talks $350 million over the next five years to promote clean energy technologies in developing countries, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced today from Copenhagen $1 billion over the next three years to reduce carbon emissions caused by deforestation.

“Protecting the wold’s forests is not a luxury — it is a necessity,” said Vilsack. According to the UN, 20 percent of the world’s carbon emissions are caused by deforestation. The U.S. joins Australia, France, Japan, Norway and the UK to dedicate a total of $3.5 billion in initial public finance for 2010-1012 “toward slowing, halting and eventually reversing deforestation in developing countries.” Learn what causes deforestation to emit so much C02 and how we all affect it in our daily lives. Watch the Green Detectives Decoder video on REDD – Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation. (Photo: deforestation display inside Bella Center)

“China Can Do More as Citizen of the World”

December 16th, 2009

With negotiations reportedly centered around what both the US and China will commit to, I went to the Bella Center this morning with high hopes of interviewing someone from China. I wondered what non-governmental representatives think.

With protesters causing a riot nearby, the light rail stop at the Center was closed down. Transit cops told me it was a short five-minute walk from the next stop. And it was snowing lightly. Somewhere inbetween, the UNFCCC decided to close off the building to any more non-governmental delegates or business representatives. Despite this disappointment, Chientai Chen, a Taiwan businessman was stuck at the entrance, too. Taiwan is an island governed by the Republic of China.

He shares a short story of a terrible Typhoon that hit his country in April of this year, and discusses views of Chinese awareness of global warming, and his personal opinion of climate negotiations between our two countries.

Thank you, Mr. Chientai for sharing your thoughts.

Ho, ho, huh? North Pole for Summer Vacation?

December 16th, 2009

noaaThe U.S. Climate Delegation may have its challenges in the Plenary Hall here at the Bella Center, but the US Center next door to the delegation offices wins in my book on coolest place to catch your breath — and learn. Dangling from the ceiling is NOAA’s illuminated “Science on a Sphere,” illustrating climate modeling just about any way you can slice a data set.

“By the year 2030, we can book our summer vacations to the North Pole,” said  NASA engineer Maurice Henderson during his demonstration with the Sphere. Watch our video, where Henderson explains how warming temperatures decrease the productivity of plant life in the ocean, thus making the ocean less able to store CO2.

2ndplace2Yes, in my opinion, the US Center even outdoes the posh “Global Platform — Multiple Solutions” lounge offered by Climate Consortium Denmark. Its black-and-white globe has become iconic over the past two weeks as a backdrop for media interviews with climate negotiators. The lounge has Denmark’s sleek design, but not quite the innovation of the US Center’s crown jewel from NOAA and NASA. Technology transfer anyone?

Exclusive: Why Africa Wants Kyoto to Continue

December 14th, 2009

Picture 5

Watch this Green Detectives Exclusive from COP 15: Obed Bapela, member of Parliament of the Republic of South Africa explained to me why the G77 walked out of climate negotiations today to protest wealthy countries avoiding the emissions reduction targets that came with the Kyoto Protocol.
As we’ve written before, climate negotiations are like a high stakes poker game. We predict the U.S. won’t budge when it comes to Kyoto, and that compromise will be met this week with wealthy nations ponying up billions to developing nations for climate finance, including technology transfer and adaptation. Back to climate poker, walk out, ante up. Who is calling whose bluff?

Learn more about climate finance in the climate decoder.


Looking for Winners at Copenhagen Climate Protest

December 12th, 2009

13343_1288197213080_1474693799_792231_7304891_n

IMG_0578

121209protest

Untitled 0 00 03-13

(COPENHAGEN) Throughout the day, the temperature dropped just as the number of estimated protesters increased.

What does it all mean? The latest reports from the Associated Press estimate 600 people were arrested today at a climate change rally of more than 40,000 persons in Copenhagen, Denmark. Organizers say it was closer to 100,000 people who participated.

We know this: despite temperatures below 32 degrees Fahrenheit, we saw thousands of people from all parts of the world on the streets of Copenhagen today, carrying signs and shouting slogans in support of an international agreement on climate change.

Whether it’s a political rally for gun rights or gay rights, the American public tends to give credit to causes which demonstrate the passion of large numbers who actually show up. Getting arrested is extra credit.

After three years of witnessing climate protests and related media coverage at United Nations events in Asia and Europe, we can say without a doubt that interest and concern about global warming is much higher than in our home country.

Do protest stats and news coverage automatically translate into the best policy? It shouldn’t, but often it does, because consumers don’t have time to learn the details of the policy debate.

Learn more about the background issues being debated in Copenhagen and Washington, DC through the Green Detectives climate change decoder.

Photos by Valerie Davis and Kevin Jung. To see more photos, visit our Facebook page.

A Few Gigatons Short of a Deal

December 8th, 2009

According to a report released Sunday by the U.N., pledges from the world’s nations for carbon cuts currently equate to 46 billion tons emitted worldwide by 2020.

Scientists say to keep the Earth’s temperatures from rising no more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 F), the world’s nations should collectively emit no more than 44 billion tons of carbon dioxide by 2020.

Said U.N. Environment Program Director Achim Steiner to the Associated Press: “We are within a few gigatons of having a deal. The gap has narrowed significantly.”

That’s good news I guess, but what the heck is a gigaton? I had to look it up, and a gigaton is 1 billion tons. OK. But still, what’s a gigaton of carbon dioxide? According to the U.S. Department of Energy, in order for coal plants to replace 1 “Gt” of C02 per year, they need to replace 1,000 conventional 500-megawatt plants with zero-emission power plants. Replacing that Gt of carbon can also be accomplished by increasing current U.S. wind generation 150 times (14,900 percent.) Or reforest more than 40 times the equivalent of Iowa’s farmland.

So, if we’re committed to 46 billion tons today, and we need to be at 44 billion tons, I guess we’re 2 Gt short of a deal. Can the world replace all those power plants and increase wind generation like that? Yes. Do we have the political will? We may be a few Gt short there too.