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.
Thursday, 27 May 2010
Sunday, 28 March 2010
Can you really discount the future?
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.
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.
Sunday, 13 December 2009
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.
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
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.
Tuesday, 8 December 2009
African civil society argues for only one degree of warming
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.
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
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..........
Tuesday, 30 June 2009
Climate and Economy...
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
