Could the Mayans be right? Climate Change nears tipping points in 2012

As we cross the prophesied date of the 'end of the world' (according to some interpretations of Mayan calendars), there is a more scientific, and more dangerous, reality emerging.

Scientists such as Dr. James Hansen of NASA have warned about a 'tipping point' or threshold at which we will no longer be able to stop global climate change, as it is likely to become irreversible due to feedback mechanisms.

So while the 'doomsayers' have been looking towards NASA for news of asteroids moving towards earth, there is a much more scientific and deadly potential catastrophe heading our way, from right here on earth.

For example, the melting permafrost contains vast quantities of methane gas, which is a powerful greenhouse gas more than twenty times as potent as carbon dioxide in warming the atmosphere.  UNEP has warned that most of the recent climate projections do not include the permafrost feedback.

Scientists have estimated that once we cross the 400ppm (parts per million) level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, it will be difficult to stabilise the climate at 2 degrees of warming.

But this year, in 2012, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere actually reached the threshold of 400ppm in Barrow, Alaska, as discovered by NOAA scientists, and explained here by WRI.

The NOAA website contains a log of the monthly mean levels recorded at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, which shows this level creeping up and current reads 392ppm...

It is of course difficult to say where the exact tipping point will be.  Dr Hansen of NASA said we need to stabilise the CO2 level at 350ppm to have a chance to avoid overshooting tipping points and triggering irreversible change.  So it is already too high.  Stabilising at 450ppm leaves only a 50% chance of limiting warming to 2 degrees.

This month, the UN Climate talks in Doha ended in an extension of the Kyoto Protocol (which was also supposed to end in 2012), but agreement this covers only about 15% of total global greenhouse gas emissions.  Countries have decided to form a global UN agreement that includes all countries, but this will not be put in place until 2020.

By then, it may be too late.

Ironically, the Mayans themselves were wiped out my climate change, with anthropologists recently discovering that the.collapse in Mayan civilisation was due to drought (natural rather than man-made). The irony is immense.

The Profligacy of Today: Can we save our finances and the planet?

[Original Date of Posting: January 26th 2011]

We are hearing a lot at the moment about the reducing the government's deficit and the national debt. At the heart of this is a moral and ethical problem: excessive borrowing and spending builds up the burden and cost on future generations, in terms of the repayments and interest payments that build up.

Borrowing and consumption could be seen as the opposites of saving and conservation; whether that be conserving economic or natural resources. In our culture of consumption, many people have the urge to use their credit card to buy a bigger TV's or cars, or borrow more to buy a larger home. What is the impact on the world's resources of this consumption driven by debt? It has now become so easy to buy items, like mobiles, that will be thrown away after a short time. In fact many items are not 'built-to-last' but are actually built with 'inbuilt obsolescence' which encourages us to buy more!

We have a situation where we are rapidly using up many natural resources, with barely a thought for future generations who may have to suffer the repercussions. Once we have used up most of the oil; what then? Will we still be able to make cheap plastics for food storage and pharmaceuticals? When we have used up the earth’s phosphorus, can we easily make the fertilisers that we use for crops? What about when we can only find exotic animals in zoos, since we have destroyed their natural habitat? It is possible that future generations (if they exist at all) will be extremely angry about the lost opportunities that have been taken from them.

Therefore debt is much like unsustainable consumption; it is effectively stealing from the future. When politicians enter massive debt to provide services or infrastructure for the populace, if they do not do this in an economically sustainable way, they are simply deferring problems for the future. When banks started creating toxic debt to help home-owners gain excessive mortgages, we ended up with the financial crisis. Our economic calculations must look further into the long-term, and be more prudent. For example, if bee populations around the world collapse because farming with pesticides appears “cheaper” than organic farming, we could end up with a situation where one third of the food we eat cannot be pollinated! The network Avaaz recently launched a petition highlighting this ‘Global Bee Emergency’.

Proudhon once said: “property is theft” but perhaps also “debt is slavery”. Once you are in debt, you have no choice but to attempt to repay, and you can be drawn into a spiral of debt where you lose your will to be sensible. For instance, in the debate about student loans in the UK, we have not fully considered the mental pressure upon students who will forced to shoulder the burden of repayments for many years. Students may be sucked into a system which reduces their ability to pursue alternative or lowly-paid careers.

In terms of energy resources, we are rapidly burning up the finite fuels that fuel our whole economy. Solar and wind power may appear “expensive” today; but not if you look further into the future. If you build renewable power, at some point in the future you will still have that power source and it will become cheaper as we learn how to improve it. Whereas if you build a gas or coal power station, at some point, that source will run out.

China, India and other rapidly-growing Asian countries have some of the highest rates of personal savings in the world. In fact, China has a high level of saving in government, as well as households and business savings. Some have argued this culture of saving helps with resilience in the long-term. By contrast, the US now has one of the highest levels of household debt. It seems sensible to encourage saving, which increases resilience to the economic and environmental challenges ahead.

This is not to say that all debt and credit is bad. If lending is well-managed it can help people access opportunities they otherwise would not be able to; but they have to be able to pay off their debt eventually! Microcredit institutions such as the micro-loans in Bangladesh, set up by Nobel-prize winner Mohammed Yunus, can be an immense help for poor people. However, these institutions need to be fair and not become “loan sharks”.

The essence of the problem is consideration of fairness and equity, rather than a problem with credit itself; it is question of morals, not money. Yet the world of politics has hardly connected the dots between issues of ecological and financial debt - the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) does not mention the issue of debt and environmental damage. Moreover, the international economic institutions, the IMF and WTO, hardly consider environmental issues or inter-generational equity. We urgently need more intelligent harmonisation of policy.

If politicians want to cut the deficit, what about cutting spending on environmentally damaging activities, as well as improving efficiency? Governments are spending on fossil fuel subsidies amounting to $700Bn per year globally according to the International Energy Agency (IEA), as well as subsidies for intensive agriculture which amount to 39Bn Euros per year in the EU alone! Cutting the deficit may be possible without cutting important public services, but instead by cutting the wasteful spending that damages those in the future. Ultimately, the cost of profligacy can be financial and environmental ruin.

Climategate - Drawing Blood from a Stone

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.

Sinister Encounter

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.

Climate change and uncertainty

-->

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..........

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

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...

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...

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

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.

Did you know....

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

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.