Planet in Limbo

Climategate - Drawing Blood from a Stone

2011-11-28T07:35:00.001-08:00

Once again, climate sceptics have tried to draw attention to uncertainties in climate science by publishing the private emails of climate scientists.

Is there any truth in these allegations of improprietry?

One particular email which has been drawn upon by the media refers to uncertainties in the climate data from the tropics. The statement by scientist Peter Thorne that "we need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest" is taken completely out of context.

What Thorne does say is that "observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others". However, elsewhere in the actual email, Thorne points out that "uncertainties are largest in the tropics and Southern Hemisphere high latitudes where radiosonde coverage is poorest".

It is well known that data coverage in the tropics is poor due to a lack of weather data stations and meteorological records. This means that the temperature and climate change are not well understood in these regions, including phenomenon like the ENSO (El Niño/La Niña-Southern Oscillation).

In fact, this uncertainty actually makes climate change even more dangerous. It means that communties and countries are not able to adapt to the growing challenges and extreme weather events as they occur. Even a sceptical group of scientists recently agreed that global temperature is rising.

The uncertainty and lack of knowledge on certain areas actually makes climate change even more worrying and dangerous as people will be less able to adapt! For example, in this recent book chapter explains that over much of Africa, there is considerable uncertainty about how rainfall patterns will change, an issue affecting millions of farmers.

Is it a coincidence that the hacked emails were posted on a Russian server? Unlikely. Climate change has become a political issue. Putin once joked that climate change is good for Russia, and it certainly seems Russian oil companies are set to benefit from melting Arctic ice, even as the rest of the world burns. So it does not surprise me that the emails were posted on a Russian server.

Obama Killed the Copenhagen Talks

2010-05-27T13:39:00.000-07:00

Since the Copenhagen conference, there has been much media speculation blaming China and India for the failure of the Copenhagen talks. However, the secret recording of the last hours of the Copenhagen talks, released by the German paper 'Der Spiegel', tell a very different story.

It appears that the meeting intended to save the planet from potentially irreversible climate impacts was not important for Obama. In fact at the meeting on 18th December 2009 he was recorded saying "we are not staying until tomorrow.... all of us obviously have extraordinarily important other business to attend to."

What is the "other business" Obama referred to that was so "important"? What could be more important the only planet we inhabit, the sole habitat for all life in the known universe, from potentially irreversible and catastrophic biosphere changes?

Of course - Obama was referred to the economic recession - a problem Obama obviously considers "extraordinarily" more important than the future of the entire planet.

China have been blamed for rejecting the mention of targets of 80% cuts by 2050, and asking for more time. However, it was Obama who first snubbed the Chinese Premier, apparently, by organising an important meeting without him. Due to this political snub, Wen Jiabao did not attend the final talks and was replaced by a junior minister; possibly affecting the final outcome (although this could also demonstrate the dangerous power of rumours).

The Chinese representative was right to point out that the vast percentage of historical responsibility for climate change lies with developing nations like the US and Britain; not with developing nations like China and India where the population is only just managing to escape from dire and abject poverty.

French PM Sarkozy tried to accuse the Chinese of hypocrisy; which deeply offended the Chinese - since of course the historical evidence and data demonstrate it is the developed nations that are being hypocritical. The whole energy system of developed countries has been built up around petroleum-based consumption, and now they are saying that the Chinese must somehow 'share' the cost of the climate problem that they caused themselves.

The basis upon which the burden and cost of mitigation were to be shared was not being hammered out clearly. The details were left entirely vague and undefined. The principle of 'common but differentiated responsibilities' had to be considered. That was probably why the Chinese asked for more time. They did not want to be backed into a completely unfair and unequitable agreement.

As the Chinese minister pointed out; "in the past 200 years of industrialisation, developed countries have contributed more than 80% of emissions. Whoever created this problem is responsible for the catastrophe we are facing". This is a totally ethical and reasonable argument. However at this point in the recorded meeting, the Chinese minister was interrupted and talked over by the other leaders.

At this stage, the talks were suspended for a break for the Chinese minister to speak to the Premier, and also to meet some developing countries in another room (India, Brazil and South Africa). However, it was then that Obama secretly met privately with this 'BASIC' grouping and hastily signed the appallingly weak 'Copenhagen Accord'.

Obama signed the agreement behind the European's backs, also completely excluding the rest of the world, thereby sneakily signing a weak agreement that suited his own interests (which are clearly not climate change). The world has been so blinded by Obama's personal prowess that they have brushed over this appalling failure.

He was not even willing to stay a few more hours to attempt to sign something more sufficient for the planet.

Only time will tell whether he will redeem himself.

Can you really discount the future?

2010-03-28T08:53:00.000-07:00

Economists often use a 'discount rate' on their investments, effectively assuming that we value the present more than the future. It is assumed that in the future, people will be better off, so the value of savings will be lower.

The Stern Review turned that around; arguing that because of the chance of catastrophic impacts in the next 100 years from climate change, we should not discount the future at such a high rate. There is the chance that the next generation or the one after that will be worse off, in many ways. Particularly since we will have used up so many finite natural resources.

We come to the issue of intergenerational equity. Can we really 'discount' the future? Do people really value their children more than their grandchildren?

I would argue that is unethical. Of course we should value the present, but also think about the future for our children and grandchildren. We cannot just 'live for the moment' which justifies all kinds of reckless behaviour (and on an individual basis it will shorten your lifetime, for example excessive drinking).

A high discount rate reflects a level of impatience or myopia (short-sightedness). Instead we should be investing in the future, rather than solely focusing on fuelling our ultra-consumerist whims and desires. People used to say things like “a penny saved is a penny earned” - but people seem to have forgotten about those values. Household savings in China are much higher than in the West, perhaps one of the reasons they are doing so well.

Also, if we used a lower discount rate it would obviously make renewable energy investments much more attractive. Instead of continually paying to 'fuel' your boiler or supply, you pay an upfront cost for the equipment and then reap the benefits of free, renewable energy later on (apart from maintenance costs).

How much would it really cost to avert a climate crisis? Most estimates place the cost of mitigating climate change at about 2% of world GDP. Since world GDP is $60trillion, that makes it around $600 Billion.

However, the cost of the “bank bailout” was around $400Bn in the US and £850Bn in the UK according to some estimates! (Source: Reuters) That already exceeds the cost of mitigating climate change over the whole world....

The economists and politicians that run this planet must be crazy.

Sinister Encounter

2009-12-13T07:16:00.000-08:00

On Thursday 10th December I had the displeasure of encountering “Lord Monckton” the internet-renowned climate denier, just after he had been hounding the US youth. It was a dramatic and unsettling experience.

I had heard that this self-aggrandised 'Lord' had been caught on camera the day before describing the environmental youth from the US as “Hitler Youth” (the footage can be found on youtube). This comment was clearly despicable and gives some indication of his own lack of integrity.

Despite this, I decided to approach him in the conference, just after he had been deliberately hassling a Professor from Copenhagen University who studies ice sheets. I quietly asked him; “Do you ever think about the future generations?” I cannot recall the whole conversation but it went something like this...

He replied to my question with a comment about biofuels, arguing that poverty in Africa had been made worse by the biofuels crisis. I replied by responding that I agreed that biofuels have so far caused problems; and asked again if he would please answer my question concerning sustainability.

During the conversation, he became quite livid and noticeably agitated. Camera's and press started popping up all around. I began to quiz him about climate science, during which time he argued he was “a scientist who had long-studied much research on climate science” and had accumulated research proving the climate was insensitive to greenhouse gases because of the “ocean buffer”. (Later on, I looked on his wikipedia page to note that he does not have training in science, in fact he studied Classics at Cambridge.)

Luckily, I have been revising climatic science for exams next week; so quickly remembered some facts about the other greenhouse gases – what about Nitrous Oxide and Methane? He stated that Methane concentrations have stabilised since 2000.

He also claimed that the temperature had increased by 3 degrees between 1600 and 1675 (he became confused later in the conversation and described this as a period of 40 years). At this exact moment, a youth delegate with a laptop brought up the IPCC climate graph, and the screen showed him the temperature change had been around 0.2C in this period. He looked noticeably embarrassed but quickly said; “Oh, but that is the hockey-stick graph which is obviously wrong”.

As the conversation continued, he appeared eager to persuade me to his point of view so I feigned interest. He spoke frantically, jumping from point to point, and shut out anyone else's comments, including my own, but seemed very keen to hear his own voice. He went on a long tirade about the methods used to collect data, including something about “measuring temperatures above the Amazon forest” from aeroplanes.

I asked him what he thought about renewable energy; and he argued that wind turbines “slice birds out of the sky”...“there is a website full of pictures”. I pondered whether his random opposition to wind turbines actually demonstrates his real agenda in support of fossil fuels (rather than having anything to do with climate change...).

Finally, I pointedly asked him; “Who was funding him to be at the Conference?” He immediately said that he was funding himself out of his own pocket. Then, I asked him whether he knew that a Petroleum lobbyist had previously influenced the climate reports in the USA. He said “I wrote to the New York Times about that... it was completely inaccurate”. I asked why he had felt the need to write to a newspaper in support of oil interests? Had they paid him to do that by any chance?

At this point, Monckton looked deeply uncomfortable and stuttered “oh, I can't remember what company it was, I thought it was a coal company”. (How funny, I wondered, that he could not remember....!)

It also makes me wonder also why he was specifically targeting the US Youth Climate campaigners.

What I found most troubling about my encounter with this odd man was that he was being followed by two young minions, who looked about 20 years old, with badges that said “Americans for Prosperity”. One of these minions had the most annoyingly smug expression I have ever seen in my life. The cameras dispersed, and so, immediately, did Monckton. There were thousands of young environmental campaigners at the conference. Yet seeing these few young 'anti-environmental' campaigners, who were there with Monckton, was deeply unsettling.

What I found mostly disturbing is that Monckton was claiming to speak on behalf of developing nations affected by biofuels. He was using this to feign an ethical standpoint. However, this is the same man that once wrote an article claiming that all people with AIDS should be segregated! Scary stuff. I am at a loss for words why some of 'trolls' on the internet actually believe him. They are using every PR trick and electronic medium they can to promote denial theories on the internet; which might indicate the kind of resources they have behind them.

Wednesday 9th December

2009-12-13T07:13:00.000-08:00

On my second day at the Copenhagen conference, negotiations went into pure stalemate. The Plenary had to be suspended, because several developing countries (India and China) opposed the formation of a 'contact group' proposed by Tuvalu, to discuss commitments post-2012. After this, NGO observers found it difficult to access the plenary.

What was really occurring behind the scenes? Those who agree with the principle of “climate justice” would agree that it is completely unfair for developing countries to be forced to take on commitments, whilst developed countries have done virtually nothing themselves. Moreover, they continue to propose weak or non-existent targets. The whole situation seems a mess, unless Obama can get on board and sort it out, fossil-intensive 'laggards' like Canada and Australia will continue to hide behind the US. Then again, it is not really up to Obama, it is up to the Senate...

It will ultimately be up to Senators, like James Inhofe, who famously claimed that climate change is the “greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people”. What is immensely ironic about this is that Senators like Inhofe point out that the Kyoto Protocol had little impact on the environment. That is ironically true since the real climate impact of the Kyoto Protocol without US participation was to reduce emissions by ONLY 0.9% according to the CICERO study 2001 (Hagem and Holtsmark). There is also truth in the criticisms of carbon trading which point out the potential for fraud (as the recent 5Bn Euro fraud in the EU demonstrates). This is the real “scam” that is being perpetrated.

The greatest scam may yet be uncovered; I believe it is the promotion of the idea that the economy and environment are 'at odds' with one another, when nothing could be further from the truth. Our economy and prosperity depends entirely on the underlying environmental resources. Moreover, renewable energy and energy efficiency have the potential to increase the well-being of the whole population. Renewable energy technology will pay for itself after a number of years, so when it is mass produced and decentralised, people will have much lower energy bills and be less dependent on the central energy companies. However; fossil-fuel companies appear to be actively discrediting the new technologies & renewable energy, to keep us hooked... (Watch the documentary: 'Who killed the electric car''). Most energy efficiency measures can be made with a fast payback time of 1-2 years. Eventually, business might get around to doing the maths and promoting clean energy, but by then it might be too late.

African civil society argues for only one degree of warming

2009-12-08T11:18:00.001-08:00

Shortly after entering the Copenhagen Conference at COP 15 today, we were confronted by the prospect of a 'Danish text' that has been floating around. The text is utterly weak and would undermine all the previous negotiations on the LCA text.

The Danish text is dangerous and considerably weaker because; it does not include the target of 1.5 degrees as an option, and only mentions 2 degrees. It does not refer to indigenous people's rights. It includes the possibility of forests being included in carbon markets and becoming another loophole in mitigation commitments. There is also no reference to 350ppm as the ultimate stabilisation target (which is essential according to James Hansen at NASA). We need all these elements in the final LCA text; by comparison the Danish text is useless.

As I was sitting there considering these texts, the corridors of the COP 15 erupted into a protest by African Civil Society. There was chanting of "suicide" and a flood of press and security personnel formed around the protesters, in front of the main Plenary. We managed to speak to an NGO member from Kenya as he was being interviewed by SABC News.

"We must keep warming to one degree" - Umuro Godana, executive director of PISP argued. He argued the IPCC Report AR4 was very clear that even 0.8 degrees above current levels will have devastating impacts on Africa. He stated that "2 degrees of warming effectively means 4 degrees for Africa", so while 'two degrees' might be suitable for Western countries, it is not for African countries and many Island States. He repeated the call for a fair deal at Copenhagen, and that it could be better to have no deal than a useless deal.

However, it is difficult to say whether the world is already committed to a certain amount of warming; perhaps 0.6 degrees (according to NASA) which just demonstrates the already urgent need for agree on finance for developing countries, plus an agreement to halt emissions. We must remain positive and insist on the fact that survival is not negotiable.

Climate change and uncertainty

2009-12-08T11:00:00.000-08:00

The recent email hacking at CRU has highlighted the fact that there is always an element of uncertainty in science, especially in such a massively complex project as climate modelling. If scientists were actually attempting to keep certain papers out of the peer-reviewed process, that would have been unscientific. They might have plausibly done this out of an attempt to reduce the uncertainty in the balance of evidence, due to the severity of the issue, perhaps under a misguided assumption that politicians do not cope well with uncertainty... However, we must remember that all politicians must be guided by the precautionary principle; which was sensibly agreed on at Rio in 1992. When the potential consequences of inaction are so globally catastrophic, we would definitely do well to be cautious and avoid them. Ask yourself - if you knew there was a 50% chance of dying when you crossed a road, would you cross it? Politicians have to consider these kind of complex risk probabilities, as we all do in everyday life.

The AR4 Report by the IPCC actually contains many statements instructing the lead authors to exercise caution in the careful use of language to communicate uncertainty. The experts were reminded to consider 'groupthink', and I quote; “be aware of a tendency for a group to converge on an expressed view and become overconfident”. Moreover, experts were told to use careful and cautious judgement in explaining ranges; “If you cannot be confident in the range, use a less precise approach””. The lead authors were also instructed to “use neutral language” and “avoid value laden statements”. Thus, there were firm safeguards on the expression of uncertainty in the IPCC Report. Despite these safeguards, the definitive conclusion was that there was more than a 90% certainty that global warming is anthropogenic.

The Saudi Arabian comment at COP 15, calling for a re-assessment of climate science, is beyond ridiculous. The fact that Saudi Arabia the world's largest oil reserves makes their argument completely transparent. Their comment on this matter just highlights that the email “hack” was a strategic move to derail the climate change negotiations. Support for climate scepticism by Saudi Arabia merely undermines the validity of the 'climategate' position, by showing that those with interests attempt to generate and promote this discussion. The Saudi's would be better off asking for finance than making these comments; since making that comment simultaneously undermined their request for finance.

Also consider this simple thought experiment; what is the worst that could happen if we shift to a lower carbon economy? We would lower our energy bills and transfer over to renewable energy (which humanity will have to do eventually anyway). Moreover, we conserve the oil we have left for plastics and pharmaceuticals, prolonging this valuable resource. What is the worst that could happen if we do nothing and anthropogenic climate change occurs as predicted? Along with potential tipping points and positive feedback mechanisms... the consequences hardly bear thinking about..........

Climate and Economy...

2009-06-30T15:49:00.000-07:00

I have been thinking for some time about the connections between the climate and economic crisis. The economic crisis was, they say, partly caused by DEBT. We are trying to service debt at unsustainable levels. The climate crisis is caused by similar mechanisms. Higher levels of 'credit' than we earn give us the opportunity to purchase more goods, burn more energy and drive more cars. It is a similar economic machine causing both things.

We have been building economic growth on unsustainable ground for some time now. Not built on resources we can grow or plant ourselves, it was built on energy resources that we dug out of the ground. Energy laid under by millions of years of plant and animal growth. Not energy we earned, but that we borrowed from previous generations of organisms.

Moreover, little did we know that we were also 'borrowing' that energy from future generations too. We were removing fuel that could not be replenished. We may also, by changing the climate, be removing their ability to grow new crops or resources for themselves. We were, in effect, stealing from future generations.

People were consuming at a rate that outstrips their resources; their own financial resources, and the planets. "Living for the moment" has become the order of the day. Therefore we built more houses, schools and hospitals, even with public-private financial loans (PFI's) that have to be paid off by future generations.

The entire debt of the economy looks almost as large as the credit. "Growth" became the buzzword for politicians - assuming that makes everything better, or makes us happier. Yet it seems obvious - we cannot build unlimited economic growth on a finite energy base. Our economic, jobs and daily lives depend on energy. Fossil fuel prices will rise, putting a strain on our economy in its dependent state. (Is it a coincidence that oil prices rose before the current crisis?)

If the benefits of energy use are to be spread to the millions without access to energy, now and in the future, we will need a renewable energy basis. This economic blip could be a sign of what's to come if we don't shift to sustainability. Or predictably, we may reach the carrying capacity of our planet. Luckily (or perhaps not) we can be conscious of it. Conciousness could either be the saving grace, or the tragedy.

Luckily, a sustainable world is possible, without even causing an 'economic' problem. Doing a simple calculation will show you that installing renewable energy pays for itself, after what ever period, in comparison to the continual payments we spend on fossil fuels.

When a child is born, they would see it as extremely worthwhile to fit their home with green energy - so their parents have no energy bills thereafter. Maybe, in this case, it would be something worth getting into debt for. Maybe, we should start spending our debt on SUSTAINABILITY. Then, at least, it is something we can actually repay.

Special Interests in the 'Low Carbon Buildings Programme'

2009-01-13T01:49:00.000-08:00

Shocked to find that the renewable energy grants for charities, public and non-profit sectors are being monopolised by a small groups of so-called 'Framework Suppliers':

http://www.lowcarbonbuildingsphase2.org.uk/page.jsp?id=6

Why should E.ON get the contracts for public sector renewables? Are they not funding the building of new coal power stations? And British Gas, that great bastion of increasing energy bills. How can they be trusted to effectively install microgeneration technologies that will lower their profits in the long term?

There seems to be some special interests going on here, and powerful lobbyists at E.ON have monopolised the contracts for supplying 'green' technologies to the non-profit sector.

Day of Climate Action - my last day.

2008-12-29T11:58:00.001-08:00

Saturday 6th December

I could only stay for the first week at the UN Climate Conference, so Saturday 6th December was my last day - and the Day of Climate Action. We dressed in clown costumes in the town square, to demonstrate how politicians need to "stop clowning around". It was a fun day with a serious message - if we do not take climate change seriously, millions will suffer.

Although it was sad that I couldn't stay longer at the Conference, I was so glad to have been able to go, to speak to delegates and come away with so much information. In particular, the experience of talking to delegates will be useful in the run-up to Copenhagen. Interesting points included meeting the Russian delegate who denied the existence of anthropogenic climate change. I was inspired by the enthusiasm of the international youth at the conference, but it was unfortunate the meetings couldn't be more inclusive. I was also shocked that even within the UN Climate Conference, which is supposed to represent the world, the EU and US had a huge 'designated area' for delegates, whereas the whole of Africa did not! Money, it seems, still buys a place at the table. How do some national delegations cope with only one delegate when there are so many meetings going on at the same time? Unfortunately some of the countries most affected by climate change are those less represented at the COP. Could funding be used to promote more representation? The issue of climate justice extends to the inequality at the conferences that are supposed to deal with the problem itself. I was also disappointed that when I got home, the UK media did not cover the conference in much depth. It was difficult to work out what was going on, but they should at least have made an effort. The experience did not fill me with optimism, but there is still hope for next year.

The UN Climate Conference concludes - everyone is "waiting for Obama"

2008-12-29T05:00:00.001-08:00

Friday 5th December 2008

In the morning, I briefly wrote up my ideas for a successful EU Climate and Energy package. It included the need to auction emission permits, and for a target of 40% cut in EU emissions by 2020 in line with the EU's historical responsibility.

Following this, me and Florent managed to gain access to a closed EU meeting. Of course, we were not supposted to be there, but I noted all information down for the sake of democratic openness and will publish it here. In the LCA debate, the EU were postponing the issue of auctioning. The decision on the Adaptation Fund Board had been described by a UK delegate as a "train smash". The World Bank were apparently acting as a trustee as an "interim measure"! LULUCF (Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry) discussions were described by Malta as an "abomination". Malta pointed out we must prevent REDD (Reduction Emissions from Deforestation in Developing Countries) from "following the lousy rules of LULUCF" and "prevent REDD from becoming like LULUCF". We need clarity on the rules because we cannot say to developing countries "we've got bad rules, you need to do better". Australia argued that we "do need action in REDD".

The spokesperson from Australia, who had been invited to the EU meeting, said that Australia was still making the decision on their target, which would be an emissions cut of at least 25% by 2020, and within the 25 - 40% range. The representative from Civil Society, from the US Climate Action Network, expressed concern that France and the US were co-hosting a reception on Thursday to "say goodbye to the outgoing administration" and that this "looked like a parallel process". He was concerned about undue influence of Bush from "beyond the grave". The 'MEN process' was run primarily by the US but France insisted it was still valuable. They appeared to be "waiting" for the new US Administration. However, they expressed relief that members won't be negotiating with the negotiator Jim Connaughton "unless he gets a job in the Obama Adminstration". The EU meeting ended with a mention that Italy would hold the G8 Presidency next year.

I then attended a side event on the 'Post 2012 technology and finance framework' hosted by the Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands, as I had aimed to understand finance at the conference. The speaker said that "international politics is by nature a conservative process". He argued the issue of intellectual property rights needs to be understood. For example, the flexibility of TRIPS could be used to address climate change. The rest of the seminar was not very engaging.

The last side event that I managed to attend was on adaptation. The speaker argued Hurricana Katrina should not have been a surprise, but we discount the future (and the past). He argued that "all societies are in unstable equilbrium... and rest on the strength of early warning systems". For example, who was watching the banks? We seem to spend more time looking at small projects in Africa in order to save a few dollars, than regulating the banks. "Creeping" hazards are especially dangerous, because no government knows how to deal with creeping problems, until they become a crisis. For example, the drying out of the Aral Sea in Central Asia, which could have been prevented.

Finally, we were able to arrange a meeting with the UK's EU Chief negotiator, Ms Droogsba on Friday after an EU meeting had finished. We asked about how the negotiations were going for the EU Climate and Energy package, and she said "not good". They were not moving at all, as nobody wants to proceed now or show their position, before the US policy comes out. The EU package will be decided in January. Everyone seems to be waiting for Obama, and in the interim there was no hope for G20 influence. I asked whether industry lobbying had prevented the auctioning of credits. However, she said there were some positive signs from industry and that the Climate Group and CBI were now supportive of action.

We asked whether there would be an opportunity to move towards concrete policies and measures (such as a carbon tax) rather than 'flexible mechanisms'. However, she said it would be difficult to agree on a tax; the EU had tried it in the 1970's. She admitted the ETS was only half the solution, and would not work on it's own. She praised the new Climate Minister Ed Miliband, and we expressed our enthusiasm about the Climate Bill. Finally we asked whether the "2 degrees of warming" target could be reached. She said it was not sensible to focus on the 2 degree target, it makes people give up. In particular, it won't be achieved so there is not point focusing on it. I came away with the impression she was on-side. However, although she said we need more "positive messages" it was worrying that she believes ultimately the 2 degree target will not be reached. It seems difficult to focus on being "positive" if there will be 2 degrees of warming, and therefore we may hit the climatic tipping point...

UN Climate Conference continues - delegates from Russia to Cyprus...

2008-12-29T03:51:00.000-08:00

Thursday 4th December 2008

The first event I went to was a side event on 'innovative financial mechanisms' presented by Poland. It was a 'debt-for-environment' mechanism whereby Poland undertook afforestation and land management in return for debt cancellation. The figures seemed a bit optimistic; the cost of the the programme was £75M and had apparently reduced 12,000M tonnes of CO2 (thus a cost of 0.03Zl per tonne or less than 1p). I was dubious about whether that much had really been acheived for that cost.

Today, I spoke to an interesting Russian delegate for about half an hour. We originally stopped him in the corridor to interview him but he did not wish to be videotaped. Instead, he provided his "off-the-record" views that; 1) He did not believe the IPCC Reports that humans have any role in climate change. 2) We "need to keep the lights on". 3) No technology is safe, even wind energy could be harmful.

I was shocked to hear these views from an official Russian delegate, and quickly wrote them all down. Among his gems of wisdom, he tried to persuade me that the IPCC is "political and can't be trusted". The climate had begun warming in the "middle ages" and then got colder until the 1970's, when the recent warming began. I mentioned Russian's oil and gas economy, and he argued that we "need to keep the lights on". When I mentioned renewable energy, he said with conviction the wind energy caused a dangerous "ultrasound" of 7dB and apparently I should look it up. It shocked me that a Russian delegate at a climate conference was denying the IPCC Reports... Is this their official position or just the personal views of their representative? Either way, very worrying.

I attended a meeting at which Yvo de Boer (chair of the UNFCCC) spoke to civil society. He hoped there will be a draft text by June 2009. He said we are "not entirely operating in a vacuum" and we are "pretty close to having a floor for action in Annex I countries". He argued that the "Kyoto Protocol can be a time saver for Copenhagen". However this implies that an agreement will take longer if we want to fundamentally change the Kyoto Protocol. The CDM would need to be "streamlined and improved". De Boer was cautiously optimistic, but his words did imply that the agreement at Copenhagen would be based on the Kyoto Protocol. Based on the ineffectiveness of the Kyoto Protocol, I only hope that this does not mean a continuation of the status quo.

De Boer joked he himself had been labelled a 'watermelon'; (green on the outside, red on the inside!) He pointed out that the 2 reasons the US rejected the Kyoto Protocol were just as important today. The financial crisis was mentioned, including the need for a green recovery, and the need to make the Copenhagen agreement "self-financing" via auctioning emission rights etc. If there is no auctioning, how do we get money? He made the frank comment that "business wants predictability, as long as it doesn't apply to me". Responding to a question on risk of a speculative binge in deregulated carbon markets, De Boer said we must "use a binge to sober up". He also said the "sectoral approaches" were another way for business to say "I do what I feel I can do and you guys leave me alone". De Boer's honest answers reminded me that he is not a politician, restrained by the party line. Yet he did say at the beginning that he didn't wish to be re-quoted; since sometimes his honest comments come back to bite him!

Following the mention of 'sectoral approaches', which I knew little about, I caught the end of an EU Side Event on Sectoral Approaches, presented by the European Commission. The South Korean representative made several interesting comments. There is a gap between perception and reality. Annex I (developed countries) have the perception that non Annex-I have a lower efficiency; that is not true with regards to South Korea, which is highly efficient. Annex I also have the perception that increasing energy efficiency will be uncompetitive; that is not true either.

Later that evening, along with Savvas, we spoke to a Cypriot delegate after a meeting on emissions from shipping. However the delegate did not wish to answer any questions on the climate change negotiations, and would only answer questions on shipping. Again, a politician with their hands apparently tied. The civil servant from Cyprus was more open with us, briefly answering our questions about how the EU negotiations were going (not well, she said). Altogether, it was a packed day. I was excited about the possibility of arranging a meeting with the EU Chief Negotiator tomorrow.

The UN Climate Conference Continues...

2008-12-04T01:50:00.002-08:00

Wednesday 3rd December

Had a packed day, spending more than 12 hours in the conference centre. The International Youth meeting at the start was exciting as the youth were well organised and cooperative (perhaps even more than the adult delegations). However, the similarity also extends to the amount of bureaucracy in the meetings, and the lack of presence of youth delegates from developing countries.

We printed out our proposal documents after discussion and translation. There was controversy over our proposal that 'per capita' emissions should be included as an additional measure. This issue is very problematic for developing countries since it implies emission cuts at a future date. To be honest, I did not realise that the idea of per capita emission measurements would be so contentious.

The three main demands by Young Friends of the Earth are now as follows:

1. Achieve a binding commitment by Annex I countries for a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions of 40% by 2020 and 100% by 2050.

2. Address Climate Justice. Climate change solutions should not jeopardise developing countries growth.

3. Promote genuine renewable energy solutions . Our definition of renewable energy does not include nuclear, agro-fuels or large hydro.

I attended an interesting Side Event by Greenpeace on their proposal for an Energy Revolution. Their concrete proposal calculated that the target of 400ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere can be acheived through deployment of renewable energy. However the speaker recognised that to acheive the target of 350ppm (to have a good chance of avoiding the climate tipping point) there would need to be 40% less transport. The information was not comforting to say the least. However it was promising to hear that renewables are already cheaper than new coal in the long run. This shows how important it is that infrastructure development takes the right path. The Greenpeace speaker also criticised the top-down planning of the CDM (Clean Development Mechanism) and suggested something like a feed-in law for developing countries could be more effective.

Later, the Global Environmental Facility side event (with great refreshments and t-shirts) gave information about technology transfer. The speaker from India said there were some issues about licensing and intellectual property, but these were avoided by having a subsidiary company in India and conducting R & D there. Patenting issues may be more difficult for other countries. Another issue is that tech transfer may require knowledge about maintenance otherwise projects will fail in the long term.

Phew... it was a long day. However I did manage to speak to 2 UK delegates. In the corridor, I briefly spoke to a DEFRA member who informed me most of the UK policies for the negotiations were set a few weeks ago. The UK Youth delegation had already spoken to the Chief of Negotiations and heard that UK Policy often comes under that of the EU. However, the EU policy is not set in stone. Infact the 'Fossil of the Day' Award (given by the NGO CAN every day to the most obstructive country) was received by the European Union on Tuesday for 'coming to Poznan without a credible position on financing mitigation and adaption in the global South'!!

UN Climate Conference in Poznan

2008-12-04T01:50:00.001-08:00

Tuesday 2nd December

After a 25-hour coach journey through Berlin, I arrived in Poznan, Poland on Monday 1st. Tuesday was exhausting; after registering, gathering materials, and finding the NGO and delegation offices, we finally attended a reception in the EU Pavilion.

I attended one interesting Side Event on ''Carbon Capture and Storage''' organised by the European Commission. A representative from Shell promoted the benefits of CCS Technology, but another speaker admitted that the technology would not be able to contribute to emission cuts before 2020. Members of the audience were dubious, questioning whether there are enough geological sites to store captured CO2. Shell urged for EU funding to be available for demonstrations. I asked a question to the panel: whether limited resources and EU funding would not be better spent on renewable energy technologies that are already tried and tested? Unfortunately the representative from Shell misrepresented my question, and started talking about the economic climate. Another member of the audience questioned whether investing in CCS would tie us into fossil fuel consumption in building new coal plants, before the technology is even ready. The problem is that permission may be given for a new generation of coal plants that are ''capture ready'' with no guarantee that the technology will be fitted. This seems to be contentious subject. I noticed the EU Pavilion is hosting several events this week promoting CCS.

It was an interesting start to the week and fantastic to be in the atmosphere of the United Nations Conference. It was also interesting to see the delegation offices. Most developing countries do not have any designated office space, which contrasts with the large space for Europe and North America.

Could renewable energy be the answer to terrorism and economic crisis?

2008-08-06T16:09:00.000-07:00

The environmental benefits of renewable energy technologies are well represented, but not so much notice has been paid to the fact that renewable energy could improve global peace and security. Western countries continue to court the House of Saud, which lies at the root of Al Qaeda’s acts of terrorism, and the resulting expensive war on terror. Our energy dependency lies at the crux of a dangerous dependence on the finite resources of some of the most brutal dictatorships in the world. Renewable energy could lead us away from this insecure dependence, and simultaneously improve our economy.

The history of the relationship between the US and Saudi Arabia goes back to 1945 when Roosevelt sat aboard the naval ship the USS Quincy with King Saud and formed a tacit alliance. The alliance helped to build the economy during the decades when cars and plastics were booming. However, there was a dark side – the “oil curse” which also struck countries such as Nigeria and Venezuela, who failed to grow and develop in an equitable way despite having such abundant natural resources. The alliance between the West and the oil-rich countries can be seen as more of a deathly embrace when we consider its long-term climatic consequences.

The Iraq War has already been extremely expensive and Joseph Stiglitz has documented that it the final costs may be in excess of $2 Trillion, with unforeseen economic repercussions. Moreover, the oil output from Iraq since the War has decreased and oil prices have soared. Rising oil prices have had, and are likely to continue to have, a negative impact upon the global economy in number of ways which include raising the price of transport, industry and the average loaf of bread.

Ultimately, we will have to shift to resources that will last if we want to continue to travel around and use energy-intensive technology. Ironically renewable energy technologies can actually save money, which may be a better long-term investment than putting your money in a bank! For example, Solar heating will save 70% off the hot water bills of most houses and will pay for itself after a few years, saving on household bills from then on. The story is repeated for most forms of renewable technology fittings such as wind and solar electricity which can be sold back to grid. When you make the calculation, the return of investment from renewables is actually more than the interest you would get from putting money into a bank.

Without even mentioning the environment, there are sound economic and security reasons for switching to renewable energy forms. Dealing with slow climate change will only become more expensive the longer we leave it, particularly if the economy is stumbling and people have other priorities. If we are prepared, we can make arrangements. Investing or buying into renewable technology will create a virtuous cycle as demand will bring down prices, but someone needs to start the ball rolling. It could be you.

Did you know....

2008-01-07T14:56:00.000-08:00

The state of Texas has a bigger carbon footprint than the whole of Sub-Saharan Africa. Texas has a population of 23 million whereas Africa has a population of 720 million.

Sub-Saharan Africans have an average per capita carbon footprint of 0.83 tons/CO2 whereas in the US this figure is 20 tons/CO2 and rising. This means that the average American is twenty times as responsible for emissions than the average African. And yet, the Bush Administration claimed that there must be binding target for developing countries before they would accept any target. This seems to be a carefully calculated ploy to avoid responsibility, as without looking at the figures you could assume that it is "fair" for all countries to have targets. Yet it is not morally feasible to expect countries who have not caused the problem to have to deal with it.

Moreover, the policy under Clinton, now taken up by the EU, was to encourage the use of "emissions trading" which would apparently reduce the cost of action on climate change. I may reduce the cost, but will also reduce the effectiveness. Especially since there is the prospect of "hot air" credits for Russian 'reduction' of emissions which happened in the early 1990's due to the collapse of Communism.

The institutions to deal with climate change have not resulted in any actual change in policy because despite the 'targets', global emissions have continued to rise. Science has called for rapid action which does not seem to be happening. Deforestation and fossil fuel use continues, driven by economic growth. Yet many 'developed' countries still insist upon 'growth'... Is this necessary? Does GDP really need to rise in countries that are already 'developed'? Is it really an accurate measure of well-being?

Einstein said ''no problem can be solved by the same thinking that created it''. Some have seen climate change as a commercial opportunity which needs technological fixes, and governments are trying to create a 'market' for carbon emissions. But by putting an economic value on a natural substance, are we just continuing the same ideology that got us into this mess?

Bali Summit ends in Deal

2007-12-15T17:21:00.000-08:00

A momentous event appears to have happened today as the UN Climate Change Convention at Bali ended as the draft know as the 'Road Map' was finally accepted by the United States. This is a great surprise for many who thought a deal would not be reached. However, the talks were still marked by the opposition of the US to the position of many other countries as they have not ratified Kyoto. The atmosphere became heated with particular resentment shown towards the US, and it seemed as though the US was actually embarrassed by the deep unpopularity of their position into changing their stance.

An interesting a damning comment was made by South Africa, who argued that the commitment and flexibility shown by developing countries was not being recognised. The South African delegate also said that the G77's new commitments were not being included or represented fully in the draft. The subtext of this was that the US was not recognising the flexibility they were showing. Prior to this the US delegation said that they would still not accept the draft because the commitments of developing countries were not included.

When the US said that the draft was still not acceptable to them, there was a chorus of booing. This was a show of an unprecendented level of resentment against the US, in the context of an international negotiation, and shows how isolated the US had become. Only the Saudi Arabian delegation appeared to show support for the US when they expressed caution about the document.

Ugauda made an begging appeal to the US "to agree with us" because they had listened to their strongest views in consultation, and "we feel that their interests have also been taken into consideration". Tanzania made an impassioned plea to their neighbour sitting to their right, the US, because they had the power to block progress and in their hands lies the "power to wreck the progress that has been made thus far".

The media hero of the Bali conference was Papua New Guinea, with the crucial comment; "There is an old saying, if you're not willing to lead, then get out of the way". He asked the US, "We asked for your leadership, we seek your leadership, but if for some reason you are not willing to lead, leave it to the rest of us. Please, get out of the way." There was exuberant applause.

Minutes later, the US was back on the speakers list to say that they were "heartened" by the comments by developing countries, and "we believe we have a shared vision and we want a road map forward, we want a success here in Bali.. we want to be part of a road map, to do our part." They went on. They were "committed to giving the views of others very serious consideration, especially that of Japan, Canada, the European Union, to lead to a halving of global emissions by 2050, as well as those of our developing country partners as we enter this discussion."

On mitigation, "measurable, reportable, verifiable, nationally appropriate" are the new catch-phrases. The US reassured South Africa they were "very committed to this effort" and "just wants to really ensure that we all will act together". Finally they US delegate ended with their decision to the Chairman that "we will go forward and join consensus in this today". The applause was vigorous.

It appears that the US was finally convinced by the developing countries that there would be engagement. Or was it that in the heat of the negotiation, the US delegation went further than the Bush Administration would have liked? Perhaps the US delegates were thinking of the impact of their decisions and wanted to place a footprint in history, in the effort to address climate change. The negotiations reached a direct and dramatic conclusion.

I recommend you to look at the video footage of Bali on the news or the web, because even though it is slow-paced it is pleasing to see the international delegates finally agree and speaking with such blunt honesty, for example the comment by Papua New Guinea. Perhaps the problems of our planet can be solved if we all sit down together and talk. Of course, though, it does depend on the resulting action.