Roland watched the TV news, despondently hoping for a breakthrough deal in Copenhagen, or Kobnhavn, depending upon your point of view. It was depressing, watching the apparent cream of the crop from around the world bickering like schoolkids, while The Maldives, Kiribati and Tuvalu each sank a little lower into the briny deep.

The Chinese had apparently sent their “No” man to the negotiations, after he had won the Chinese Checkers match that put their “Yes” man on the outer, leaving the winner on the inner.

Binding agreements by other nations? “No”
Verifiable progress on emissions cuts? “No”
Commitment to a 2020 target? “No”
Commitment to a 2050 target? “No”
Commitment to a peak year of CO2 production? “No”
1.5 degrees Celsius maximum temperature increase? “No”
Can you make a decision on anything? “No”
Wny not? “I’ll have to call my superiors on that”

Barry O’Bama, President of the Free World, Defender of the Peace, Nobel Prize Winner and Great Consensus Maker, came on the screen and announced a deal that he had brokered between a group of significant nations, paving the way for a 2deg C increase in temperature over an unspecified number of years. The good news arising from this announcement would mean that anyone living less than 2 metres above the high tide mark in their part of the world was about to start enjoying regular saltwater baths, free of charge. It would also ensure famines in parts of Africa, a rare and nasty experience that everyone seemed to agree would be “cleansing” and “novel” for the good folk of Africa.

However, it turned out that no-one else knew about the deal, which was announced just in time for US news networks to pick it up and broadcast it to their parochial, carbon dioxide exhaling viewers, on their evening news shows. Mass confusion broke out, prompting the leaders of those countries that really don’t have much in the way of TV coverage to spit their collective dummies, circle their wagons and begin shoving hatpins into small effigies of poor Barry.

In all, it came down to 45,000 people descending upon a freezing cold town where you can’t even get a decent coffee and a Danish, to discuss how to reduce the amount of CO2 we put into the atmosphere on a daily basis. Despite all of the hot air coming out of the whole crowd of them, not a single snowflake was melted as a result of their presence.

After achieving exactly nothing, they all got back in their jetliners and flew home to their shrinking, sinking paradises, punching holes in the sky and adding a lot more CO2 to the atmosphere in the process.

Finally, in sheer disgust, Roland threw the remote control at his 50 inch plasma screen TV. It bounced harmlessly to the floor, as the screen had been made in China and was therefore tougher and better quality than most other manufacturers’ screens.

Roland turned his clothes dryer back on and turned the ducted airconditioning down another degree as it was a bright, sunny day outside, and slightly warmer that it had been yesterday. There was a documentary on polar bears on the Discovery Channel, so he flipped over to watch it.

The last-minute, cobbled-together, non-binding, specifics-lite COP15 “accord” managed to unify almost everyone in disappointment, though perhaps not in surprise. Many, including climatologist James Hansen and economist Jeffrey Sachs, have for months called the drawn-out politically-driven process “broken.” When there was no time to waste, time was wasted. The representative from the fast-sinking island of Tuvalu noted forlornly that the fate of the world was “being decided by some senators in the U.S. Congress.”

Really? Just a handful of senators? A few people out of a few dozen determining the future of six billion? If true, then as a species perhaps we deserve ourselves – though our fellow travelers on this blue dot planet certainly deserve better.

Tom Friedman, never one to shy away from clever turn of phrase, has called on “Father Greed” to save us from the political inertia letting  Mother Nature run amok. He wants to see a sort of green tech “arms” race between the U.S. and China, the two largest emitters responsible together for spewing half the greenhouse gases mucking up the atmosphere. To the winner will go economic advantage, an innovation edge and millions of jobs.

To the loser – well, there are no losers. With the world’s two largest economies leading the way, Friedman is certain the rest of the world will follow. Developing countries will build low-carbon smarter from the get go and a variety of disasters will be scaled back, if not altogether averted:

• Global CO2 levels will steady at safe-ish levels

• There won’t be quite as many record-breaking snow-storms, floods, droughts and famines

• The advance of vector-borne diseases into temperate zones will slow (anything that involves a mosquito, gnat or tick)

• Glaciers will return to an appropriately glacial crawl, slowing their retreat, possibly advancing and assuring millions of people living down-slope of reasonably predictable seasonal water supplies

• Oceans won’t turn lethally acidic, so corals and the fish that depend upon them will survive

• Oceans won’t rise as fast or as high as worst-case predictions, which will spare islands and coastlines from worst-case devastation

• Fewer forests will be blistered by drought, so won’t be incinerated in super-hot, soil-scorching mega-fires

• Fewer species will go extinct

• Climate refuguees will number in the tens of millions instead of the hundreds of millions by 2050

The good news will be less bad news, which doesn’t have either much political cache or headline appeal, which is why the cynically optimistic Friedman is banking on greed: “(T)he way you get big change is by getting the big players to do the right things for the wrong reasons. If you wait for everyone to do the right thing for the right reason, you’re going to be waiting a long, long time.”

Time? Who’s got time?

RELATED READING / LISTENING / VIEWING

• “The Fate of My Country Rests in Your Hands” (GOOD blog post / video)

• “Jeffrey Sachs: ‘Copenhagen expectations unlikely to be fulfilled’” (EarthSky podcasts / audio)

• “Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth about the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity” by James Hansen (book website)

ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2004/20040416_tuvalu.jpg

Meet the People of Tuvalu, the World’s First Climate Refugees.

By Rachel Morris Nov./Dec. 2009 motherjones.com

IT’S A BRIGHT, BALMY SUNDAY afternoon and I’m driving through the western outskirts of Auckland, New Zealand, the kind of place you never see on a postcard. No majestic mountains, no improbably green pastures—just a bland tangle of shopping malls and suburbia. I follow a dead-end street, past a rubber plant, a roofing company, a drainage service, and a plastics manufacturer, until I reach a white building behind a chain-link fence. Inside is a kernel of a nation within a nation—a sneak preview of what a climate change exodus looks like.

This is the Tuvalu Christian Church, the heart of a migrant community from what may be the first country to be rendered unlivable by global warming….
http://motherjones.com/environment/2009/11/tuvalu-climate-refugees

Taken from 350.org
By Jamiehenn

At a press conference that is just wrapping up at the UN climate talks, the Prime Minister of Tuvalu had a clear message for the world: ”Survival is not-negotiable.” After showing a powerful video of devastating flooding in Tuvalu, the President made a powerful appeal for a real deal that meets the latest science: ”Our future rests on global action to address climate change and we must have a set of safe guards based on sound science. We must ensure that global temperatures peak at well below 1.5 degrees Celsius. It means that global greenhouse gases must stabilize at 350 ppm. These safeguards are non-negotiable.”

Prime Minister Ielemia also highlighted the immense amount of pressure that small island states are coming under to accept a weak deal: ”Under the last few days we have seen considerable pressure to accept a deal based around 2 degrees limit. We have not yielded to this pressure because our future is not negotiable.” He highlighted pressure from Australia in particular:

“There are some countries like Australia who have been trying to arrange a meeting with us to probably water down our position on 1.5 degrees celsius. We did not attend that meeting, but I heard from other small islands that Australia was trying to tell them if they agree to the 2 degrees limit, money would be on the table for adaptation process. That’s there choice to accept the money and back down. But Tuvalu will not. As I said in my speech, 1.5 degrees celsius is our bottom line…

I as a human being I feel that the leaders that are pushing their countries to adopt this 2 degrees they should know from science that that will be killing a lot of people around the world, that should change their position. I will not sign anything less than 1.5.”

Those are brave words. Australia and other rich countries will continue to increase the pressure on developing countries to back down. Get ready for the media to get involved as well: articles blaming poor countries for the failure of the talks are already beginning to circulate. But Tuvalu and many others know that no amount of money can protect their homes or their future: they need action, not bribery. When asked about what he would do if an agreement could not be reached and climate change not stopped, the Prime Minister closed his speech with a touching appeal,

We just have to prepare ourselves for the worst. We have no where to run to. We must prepare ourselves individually, family wise, so that we no what to do when a cyclone comes or the hurricane blows. There is no mountain we can climb up, no inland we can run to. We just have the face it. And that’s why we’re making noises around the world … We don’t want to dissappear from this Earth.

We want to exist as a nation. Because we have a fundamental right to exist alongside yourselves.

Today, thousands of us are going without food to show solidarity with Tuvalu and the other most vulnerable countries. Please keep up the great work and don’t back down: Tuvalu isn’t.

Taken from 350.org
By Jamiehenn

Consolidated live from COP15
Ping
ECO Singapore

The final meeting of the Ad-hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action (AWG-LCA) was supposed to commence early in the evening on December 16. It instead commenced at 4.45 in the morning on December 15, after negotiations went through the night. The meeting was considering a new version of a text on long-term cooperative action that is to be considered by world leaders over the next few days. In this meeting, the United States delegate watered down the nature of any mitigation commitments that would be required from developed countries. The text that he is referring to (with the changes included) is here.

A fundamental problem with any international treaty is that for it to work it has to be ratified by its Parties, in this case including the United States Senate.

At an earlier meeting of the Conference of Parties, when discussing Tuvalu’s proposal for a fair, ambitious and legally binding deal, the Tuvalu negotiator made some eloquent remarks on the role of the US Senate in these negotiations, noting the irony that the fate of the world is in the hands of a few US Senators.

The sensible practical view we have been pushing for the last few weeks.

Good interview with the delegate from Tuvalu. Sensible stuff.

shareyourride.net/images/Its_Never_Too_Late_To_B

Climate Change in Hawaii : Caught Between a Rock and a Big Wave

In a perverse way, climate change has inspired people around the world to make competing claims that they are its first victims. From low-lying Pacific islands like Kiribati and Tuvalu, where people face being literally swallowed by rising seas, to Tibetan farmers in Kashmir’s remote Ladakh region, where receding Himalayan glaciers threaten agriculture, people in every corner of the world are coming forward as being on the frontline of global climate change.

Crop failure and drought in Africa, loss of biodiversity in the Amazon and extreme flooding and heat waves in Europe all prove that, if nothing else, climate change is successfully uniting the world in a collective state of imperilment.

Now add to the list Hawaii.

As the only US state located in the tropics, and the only one surrounded entirely by water, scientists expect climate change to affect the Hawaiian Islands in ways unlike anywhere else in the country….. http://www.truthout.org/1215093

* A key feature of capitalism in America is the complete insulation of elites from the violence the system inflicts against the poor. This is illustrated well in today’s health care debate; the actual human suffering and death caused by our broken health care system is invisible to people like Joe Lieberman, who is therefore free to consider health care reform as a purely abstract game centered around revenge against his enemies. To bring up the fact that people are actually dying over this is considered unspeakably rude—a total breach of decorum. Frank Rich and BAGnotes make the same point today about the invisibility of suffering in the economic crisis as a whole.

* In any event, Lieberman won (with an apparent assist from Rahm): the Medicare buy-in is officially dead.

* Ezra Klein explains why everyone is so terrified of reconciliation.

* Grist says the big story out of Copenhagen’s first week is the emergence of tensions between richer and poorer developing nations.

The one significant new feature of this treaty round is the emergence of a distinct voice for small island nations and the poorest states—the folks for whom climate change is an existential, not just economic, problem. Inside the talks, this manifested in the tiny island state of Tuvalu’s call for a new, post-Kyoto treaty that would require mandatory reductions not only from rich countries but from the biggest and fastest-growing developing nations, including China and India. It would also set 1.5 degrees C as the target for limiting the rise in global temperature, rather than the 2 C agreed upon in previous talks (and still maintained by big emitters). This amounts to the first big public eruption of the simmering tensions between major developing countries and their smaller/poorer brethren. Whereas China and India want to shelter their economic development above all else, Tuvalu, well, might go under water soon.

* The ultimate Disney/Marvel mashup.

* Millions of “lost” Bush administration emails discovered by computer technicians. MetaFilter has your schadenfreude.

* Could Bernanke really withdraw his nomination for chairman of the Federal Reserve?

* And I wanted to post this a few days ago, but seem to have forgotten: the situation with Arizona’s Sheriff Joe Arpaio is rapidly growing completely insane.

11 Dec, 2009

The problem with climate change, is that it only affects those it affects. This is not as cryptic as it sounds. For many of us who go about our lives in the so-called ‘developed’ world, climate change is too often a distant issue. So – the earth is a couple of degrees warmer. So – the summers/winters are a bit wetter/dryer. So – there’s the odd flood here and there. That’s just the weather isn’t it?

In a way, it is. But weather’s what you get – as in here and now; and climate is what you expect – in the sense of the state of the climate system. And many of us are too comfortable for the effects of climate change to really hit home. But at some point for many of us, it is our homes that will be hit. It’s only when that comfort has been taken away, and we realise that we can expect the same thing to happen year after year, that the difference between weather and climate gets fully appreciated. But that could be next week, next year, or in five or ten years time. So we change our light-bulbs, don’t leave the TV on standby, recycle our wine bottles, maybe think about buying a hybrid car…

Many people around the world don’t have the luxuries of time and space – in places such as Bangladesh, Tuvalu and the Maldives. For them climate change is a here and now issue.

It’s all-too-easy to condemn the power of the developed nations over the developing – G8 v G77, but looking deeper into the each of their issues reveals the essence of this UN Summit – two sides driven by almost equal intensity, but with very different motivations.

Most of our climate change debaters live in developing countries, so you might expect them to take any opportunity to knock the more affluent powers. If you do, you’d be wrong. As the first week of Global Youth Panel Climate Change debating slips into a weekend of debating, browsing back through our week online reveals balanced views, intelligent comments, and genuine understandings of all sides of global politics and economy; as well as a realisation that deals have to be made and why.

A good example of this was our Bangladesh topic: ‘Bangladesh should get at least 15% of any climate fund’. We pitched our Bangladesh group against the rest of the world on this issue. Almost 60% disagreed, almost 27% agreed, the rest were undecided.

While the Bangladesh group may not have won the debate, they did gain the opportunity to passionately voice their predicament, for example: “According to our own experts, by 2050 Bangladesh shall cease to exist. The population of Bangladesh is 150 million, this many people cannot be rehoused as easily as the paltry populations of the AOSIS countries.” While on the ‘Against’ side: “But how would funding avert displacement? excessive inundation/flooding will still occur since the climate crisis has already begun. If anything, countries to where the Bangladeshis will be displaced, should get funding (to take care of inevitable flood victims)”.

You have to admire the sense of balance delivered by many of our debaters. How many of us would maintain a sense of reason if we found ourselves and our families, one morning, up to our knees in water, with no home, no work to go to, no food and nowhere to go. And if we lived under the threat of this happening tomorrow, what would we do about it today?

www.debatewise.org

www.gyp.debatewise.org

If we are even two degrees warmer than now then we are in big trouble.  We already are in big trouble but 1.5 degrees or celsius

and 350 parts per million are a  lot safer.  Filmed by Federation of Young European Greens

Last night the Avaaz team had dinner together at a local restaurant. We went around the table and shot out highlights from week one of COP15. My highlight was Tuesday afternoon. Tuvalu, a tiny island nation already being forced to plan for the displacement of its population, had just changed the course of the negotiations. Tuvalu, supported by over 100 countries was standing up for a legally-binding and enforceable agreement as opposed to a political one. Less than an hour after hearing the news of Tuvalu’s brave actions, organizations and youth mobilized to make signs and rally inside the Bella Center to say “Tuvalu is the Real Deal” and “Stand with Tuvalu”. By Friday the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) had submitted a formal proposal that finally put a real climate deal on the table in Copenhagen.

Before I offer a few things you should know about week 1, I want to offer two priorities for the final week:

1. Raise Expectations by Supporting Real Leaders
The final week is all about holding heads of state accountable for a writing a real deal. To raise expectations, we must generate a groundswell of citizen support for the demands of small island states, Africa, and other vulnerable nations inside of COP15. These brave leaders are calling for exactly what we want – a fair, ambitious, and binding treaty that gets us to 350 ppm and limits warming to 1.5 degrees C. We need to remind our leaders that our fates are bound together. By ensuring survival for the world’s most vulnerable we can avoid climate tipping points that would put all of our futures in jeopardy.

2. Stop a Greenwash
We need to draw a bright line between a real deal and a greenwash. Coalitions of nations have formed to create loopholes in everything from how we account for forest emissions reductions to whether we will create additional funds for adaptation and technology transfer or steal money from existing aid budgets. Despite a new administration, the United States remains the central figure keeping global ambitions low at COP15. When countries try to water down a deal, we need to be ready to respond both in Copenhagen and back home on a dime. If the deal is riddled with loopholes, sets emission targets too low, does not include strong long-term financing for developing countries, or is not legally-binding, it simply will not work. With 110+ heads of state putting their credibility on the line in Copenhagen, the risks for an empty political deal rather than a real deal could not be higher.

With those priorities in mind, here’s what you should know about what happened in week 1:

Small Islands and Africa Stood Up for A Real Deal

- On Tuesday and Wednesday COP plenaries were suspended as Tuvalu, supported by more than 100 countries and civil society groups, stood up for a legally-binding treaty.

- On Friday, the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), a key bloc of 43 countries, put forth a proposal for a fair, ambitious, and legally-binding treaty that would keep temperatures below 1.5 degrees C and rapidly decrease carbon levels to 350 parts per million.

- Wealthy countries came closer together this week on a number of issues while attempting to divide poor countries. I heard reports of intimidation tactics being used on Tuvalu for their bold actions.

- While speaking to NGOs the lead delegate for the G77 called the goal of limiting warming to 2 degrees C “certain death for Africa and AOSIS”. He called for radical reductions of emissions from developed countries- 52% by 2017, 65% by 2020, 80% by 2030, and well above 100% by 2030. He called the $10 billion/year climate finance proposal “pittance” and called for something like the Marshall Plan, which dedicated 3.2% of the US economy after WWII.

The World Stood up for A Real Deal
- All weekend more than 150,000 people joined the largest climate demonstration in history in Copenhagen, including tens of thousands in Australia, and thousands more in more than 3000 vigils worldwide, all calling for climate justice and a real deal.
- More than 1200 people were arrested in a much criticized crackdown by police in response to a few small skirmishes and minor property damage. The rallies wer overwhelmingly peaceful, beautiful, and positive. At the end of the Saturday march there was a moving candlelight vigil just outside the Bella Center with Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Mary Robinson, and forty children.
- Using media stunts, e-activism, and the mobilizations we defined a successful outcome for Copenhagen as a “real deal” with $200 billion in finance for developing country adaptation and technology transfer per year by 2020, a global peak year in emissions by 2015, and a legally binding treaty.

The EU, Japan, and other wealthy nations failed to lead
- Despite pressure from youth, aliens from Planet B, and groups like Avaaz.org and Oxfam, Japan and the EU have so far passed on the opportunity lead on a strong and long-term global finance package for developing country adaptation and technology transfer.
- Japan strongly opposed setting a second commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol, winning “Fossil of the Day” on Kyoto’s twelfth birthday on Friday.
- The EU put forth a “fast-start finance” proposal for $10 billion by 2012. Unfortunately Germany missed an opportunity to ensure the money was new and additional to existing commitments, leaving the value of the proposal greatly diminished.
- Poland blocked a decision to raise the EU’s emission target to 30% below 1990 levels by 2020 from 20%.
- Many wealthy nations are waiting for heads of state to arrive next Wednesday before making tough decisions and moving the ball forward.

Tuvalu vs. China

Tuvalu is a small Pacific Island state, with the third smallest population of the sovereign states (about 12,000 people). In UN terms, they aren’t a heavy weight like China (population 1,345,751,000, estimated, last census was in 2001). However, what we saw last week was a diplomatic exchange of blows between these two delegations – a David and Goliath story to warm the heart (or rally the troops…?)

Tuvalu’s delegation at the COP-15 presented a paper to the conference reaffirming the Bali objective for COP-15 of having a Legally Binding Agreement in place by next Friday evening. They also wanted the world to commit to a 2100 target of 1.5 degrees increase instead of 2, which is considerably more ambitious and requires even developing nations to commit to carbon cuts before 2050 here at COP-15. However, they amazingly garnered the support of several large blocks of delegates, including the Pacific states block (who, like Tuvalu, might cease to exist after a sea level rise of 60cm) and the African block (the proposal emphasised that a 2 degree increase for the world at large meant a 3.5 degree increase for Africa), totalling more than 100 delegations, which was enough to get them a bit more time in the limelight after the Danish negotiating chair initially batted down their submission.

Well, China didn’t take kindly to being bullied into a legal agreement that had them reducing emissions; the proposal required developing nations (in which China is currently counted) to commit to targets, to hit a 1.5 Degree increase at 2100, which is more ambitious than the current Annexe I-led proposal of 2 Degrees. This also conflicts with the Annexe I interests directly, since it means developing nations need more cash in order to meet their development needs without the extra carbon cost, which means the €7.2 Billion already pledged by the EU needs to increase, and the US and Russia will also need to cough up a bit more. Harder targets and greater cost is not something they are going to agree to without something in return, and when the only response is "the survival of my nation", it seems they don’t have an economic incentive. Oh how differently would a Lib Dem UK Government react to such arguments; what with actually having a humanitarian heart in the right place and all.

Sadly, owing to this massive mismatch of motives, the Tuvalu papers seem to have fallen down the back on the UN negotiating sofa. boo, hiss, boo, get off the stage, etc.

Everyone likes a Conspiracy Theory!

Russia always have a rather eccentric approach to international negotiations; based on past form there is a roomer going around that they will try something in the dying hours of the summit, to claim a contribution while actually having done not very much, although this may not actually happen (let’s wait and see, hey? Give them a chance at taking the process seriously and applying themselves to solving the problems.)
As an Annexe I country, Russia is a bit atypical in that they have cut their carbon emissions since 1990 / Kyoto, take a look at the graph below (as compared to yesterday’s), once again please click on the graph to see it properly.

The Russians (and Ukranians) sell their reduced carbon levels as offsets to other countries.

As you can see, they are quite happy to commit to an extended Kyoto as it allows them to massively increase their carbon emissions, while selling offsets to other nations in the meantime. This may be a neat economic trick, but it will distract from the goal of reducing the emissions (for them and others).

Russia need to get serious about this issue, just because they have the ace this hand doesn’t mean they will clean up in the end-game in 20 years, that’s not how international negotiations work (or games of poker for that matter).

Last week,, the small island state Tuvalu asked for – and got – a suspension of climate negotiations to gain time to resolve the issue of formulating a legally binding climate agreement that was even tougher than the Kyoto Protocol.

Several small island states and poor African states have demanded a legally binding treaty to aim at a maximum global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius. They also wanted greenhouse gas concentrations stabilized at 350 parts per million (ppm) rather than the 450ppm favored by developed countries and some major developing nations.

Tuvalu is an archipelago of nine coral atolls in the Pacific with a total of 11,000 inhabitants and one of the most at risk countries.

So here we have a small country with a population of less that the attendees and groupies of the Copenhagen Conference demanding that the “big boys” stand up to their global responsibilities and actually come up with a meaning ful agreement that might actually make a difference.

Now I know that some of you folk out there are a wee bit skeptical about global warming. Yours truly is one of them. I am not convinced that the climate modeling with all its assumptions is necessarily an accurate reflection of the doom and gloom to come. But… as Rupert Murdoch recently said, beileve it or not.. the important thing is to give the earth the benefit of the doubt. And so we should.

So finally, it takes the chutzpah and doggedness of a tiny state to tell the rest of the world to actually stop pontificating their navel and actually come to an agreement that will actually mean something and produce a result. Yes, Copenhagen attendees and groupies, beleive it not, its the outcome that is important not just the outputs.

Results are what count not just lovely words and glitter events.

Several draft texts that could play a role in a possible treaty outcome have now been released. The first to appear was an early draft of a possible political agreement drafted by the Danish government in consultations with others. This was leaked to the Guardian earlier this week, and was opposed by the G77. It is probably not as bad as the Guardian article made out, and some of the claims in the article did not appear to be reflected in the actual text.

On Wednesday, there was a discussion in the COP plenary for an agenda item based on submissions 6 months ago from Tuvalu, Australia, the United States, Costa Rica and Japan. The main focus of the discussion was on Tuvalu’s proposal, which had strong legally binding emission reductions. This was supported by many small islands states, as well as countries from the Sahel. Tuvalu sought to establish a contact group to discuss this text, this was blocked by China, India, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Oman, Algeria, Botswana, Libya, Kuwait. A consensus is required to establish a contact group. The COP was then suspended. The next day the COP/MOP was suspended because a contact group to examine amendments to the Kyoto was also blocked.

Yesterday the chair of the ad-hoc working group on long term cooperative action (AWG-LCA) released a draft text. This is now being discussed by the COP.

The chair of the ad-hoc working group on further commitments under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP) also released a draft text.

Draft AWG-LCA text is here: lca chairs text – 11 dec[1]

Draft AWG-KP text is here: awgkpchairstext111209

Draft AOSIS text is here: 23989010-AOSIS-Proposal-for-KP-Survival-and-New-en-Protocol-Final

Draft Danish text is here: 23831690-091127copenhagen

The first official draft on a climate deal has been written and issued.  The expectation is the details won’t be worked out for another 6 months or so, which was what a lot of people were thinking going into this Summit.  Keep in mind that George Bush’s crew did everything they could for 8 years to make sure the climate crisis was worse when they left than when they took power.  President Obama’s administration has had only 10 months so far to undo those 8 years of damage.  That little fact will be very handy when the Cons start screaming that the Summit and the U.S. President are failures.  Gotta love those patriots!  Back to the draft:

A key working group under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) came up with a six-page text Friday. The draft may form the core of a new global agreement to combat climate change beyond 2012, when the present framework, the Kyoto Protocol, expires. However, most figures in the text are shown in brackets – meaning that there is not yet agreement on these specifics. Most importantly, the draft states that emissions should be halved worldwide by 2050 compared to 1990 levels, but it also suggests 80 percent and 95 percent reductions by that year as possible alternative options.

Those two emphasized statements are at the root of a lot of disagreement between parties, as I cover below.

AOSIS (the Alliance of Small Island States) wants global emissions to peak by 2015, only 5 short years away.  China hasn’t offered any kind of peak emission goal whatsoever to this point and they’re probably not likely to any time soon, despite heavy lobbying by the European Union and others to do so.  Moreover, AOSIS has held onto Tuvalu’s limit of 1.5C temperature (which we haven’t hit yet) rise and 350 ppm maximum for atmospheric CO2 concentration (which we’re well beyond already). China has expressed support for a 2 degree maximum and has never supported 350 ppm.  Needless to say, the diplomats have their work cut out for them.

A group of Senators have identified a couple of goals for the U.S. (emphasis mine): a cut in carbon pollution “in the range of 17%” [of 2005 levels] by 2020 and 80% or more by 2050.  It’s unclear to me at this time whether the 80% goal is baselined by 2005 or 1990.  There were obviously more emissions in 2005, which makes 80% of them unattractive to parties who are being affected most by climate change today.  It would be far better to aim for 80% of 1990 levels and not succeed than aim for 80% of 2005 levels and not succeed, all other considerations being equal.

This goes back a ways in time, but most people are probably unaware that Brazil is making some important progress in trying to slow and then halt deforestation of the tropical rain forests in the country:

Under the plan, deforestation is to be reduced by 70 per cent by 2018, which would avoid 4.8 billion tons of greenhouse gas emissions. Brazil wants “to eliminate net loss of forest cover by 2015”, Kahn said.

Good for them.  4.8 billion tons of GHGs is a significant amount to avoid.

To set up the next item, I wanted to provide a trustworthy source of information on the hacked e-mails that has the right-wing’s panties all in a bunch.  ThinkProgress’ Wonk Room provides a comprehensive timeline of events.  Plenty of wingnuttery in the comments, if you can stomach it.  Bottom line: the e-mails do nothing to disprove the scientific proof that exists.  The only people making this a big deal are those who hate science/scientists and love being controlled by mega-corporations.  What frustrates me is I haven’t heard of any effort to arrest the hackers, who committed the only crime(s) in this mess.

Which leads me to the a-hat of the day – James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), who wrote to Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, the Chair of the IPCC, demanding that anyone involved in “nefarious” e-mail exchanges be barred from participating in any way for the IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report.  A number of retorts sprang to mind when I read about this.  We could start with the fact that Mr. Sensenbrenner has no formal scientific training.  For him to criticize someone (anyone) else about proper conduct in the scientific realm is pathetic.  Nor did Mr. Sensenbrenner have any problem with damage to the public trust when Bush was in office, eviscerating citizens’ rights for 8 years.  This partisanship and naked power ploy from Mr. Sensenbrenner could be characterized as ridiculous if it wasn’t so normal for the Cons these days.  It doesn’t, of course, make it any less unacceptable.  I recommend Mr. Sensenbrenner take Rep. Grayson’s advice to Dick “Darth” Cheney: STFU.

The public trust hasn’t been violated, by the way, as this poll continues to demonstrate.  61% responded that humans are  mostly responsible for the warming Earth.  As to why unneeded confusion continues in public, maybe the wording of this question can provide some insight:

1. You may have heard about the idea that the world’s temperature may have been going up slowly over the past 100 years.

Um, no, Ipsos/McClatchy.  There is no doubt that the world’s temperature has gone up over the past 100 years.  It’s not just an idea, idiots, it’s been proven, just like it’s been proven that the Dow Jones Industrial Average has gone up over the past 100 years.  Those facts don’t, by themselves, imply anything about the future behavior of either measure.  But facts aren’t ideas, geniuses.

Unlike Sensenbrenner, other Americans are actually trying to propose solutions to our energy, climate and employment crises.  Some, like the Center for American Progress, are trying to tackle all three at once.  They’re such overachievers.

My 10Dec2009 summary is here.

My 9Dec2009 summary is here.

My 7Dec2009 summary is here.

Cross-posted at SquareState.

by Tom Duncan

Alliance Of Small Island States (AOSIS), led by Tuvalu, has brought forward an all or nothing, high stakes bid for a new agreement in Copenhagen, that asks big developing country polluters such as China, India, Saudi Arabia, to have binding legal targets. In response, China, India and Saudi Arabia stated that they thought this was a plot to kill the Kyoto Protocol, to distract from the matter at hand. The substantial and tragic matter that Tuvalu brought to attention by it’s strong intervention in the Copenhagen merry go round-cum chessboard – is that island states will disappear if countries like China and India do not agree to new and binding targets, in much the way Annex 1 Countries did, under the Kyoto Protocol. Phase II of the Kyoto Protocol, the ‘new deal’, that must be ’sealed’, is being used as a weapon by developing countries that are large emitters, to point the finger at rich nations tht have not honoured the Kyoto commitment, and say, ‘You havn’t even achieved your Kyoto commitments, yet here you are wanting us to sign up to new targets’. Its like asking someone to clean up their room, when your own room is very messy. Its something people usually learn at a very young age – personal responsibility, in the context of familial responsibility.

So when did the western civilisation supposedly lose it’s way and started breaking promises? Well, to be honest, from the beginning of western civilisation, we have been taking for granted that we are somehow special, and therefore absolved of responsibility. With freedom comes responsibilty – we are very concerned with our rights, but not our responsibilities. This lack of trust at Copenhagen, is a symptom of a long term pattern, of broken promises and avoided responsibilities. It is understandable that countries such as China and India would like to point the finger. But, this finger pointing threatens the very lives and livelihoods of islanders, globally. The wounds of the past are rearing up their ugly heads, and preventing constructive dialogue, and negotiation. This headached from the past, that has resulted from the consistent breaking of promises, let downs, and inability of the west to be honest, means that countries like Tuvalu, Kiribati, Maldives, Marshall Islands, and many many more, will disappear, if China and India do not sign of to Kyoto Phase II, with legally binding targets.

How does this rest in the minds and heart’s of those whose comfortable existence in the western economies, deprives the right of others, to even exist? It is quite apparent that most in the west have no idea of their past wrongs, and current consequences. In much the same way, in Australia for example, many of the privilege whites had no idea the effect their way of living, and political system, was affecting Indigenous Australians. Those who did not know, also felt the idea of apologising to the forgotten Australians was wrong, because they personally had not harmed an indigenous Australian directly. What we need to get across is that our existence, in our society, political system, economy, our way of life, denies the very existence of others.

The history of the mis-trust is something that will take a long time to heal, but it needs to start with the western countries taking responsibilities for past failures, and apologising for the broken promises. What is also needed, is the countries who feel a victim of the broken promises, to respond in a compassionate way, so as so as to avoid being the bringers of death to the people of island states, and their environment.

When we don’t deal with the past, it comes back to haunt us. Will Tuvalu, Kiribati and other island states, come back to haunt us after Copenhagen? Certainly the flood of environmental refugees will be something that comes to Australia.

An ethical and compassionate response, is to create a new class of refugee status that is eligible to migrate to Australia, that being, ‘Environmental Refugee’. But surely we can act as a global community to prevent the tragedy of ‘Environmental Refugees’?

This is not a chair.

In my first year of high school I had an English teacher who, rather outrageously, insisted we simply call him John. John had spiky bleach blond hair, earrings in both ears and a conspiratorial grin. One stifling hot afternoon, much to the entertainment of myself and 29 other 7^th graders, John stood at the front of the class and declared that the chair in front of him was not, in fact, a chair at all.

Well it, whatever ‘it’ was, certainly looked like a chair to us. But, captivated, we listened on intently as he proceeded to enlighten us with the idea that the object in question was only ‘a chair’ because we as a society had agreed to call it a chair. 

That’s mind boggling stuff for a 13 year old.

Yet taking the imposed frameworks of the universe for granted, is not limited to spotty, teenage, delinquents. For all our superior human intellect, even the cleverest of us occasionally demonstrate a tendency to accept what is put in front of us, without critically considering its validity. Now, there are of course, a plethora of examples of this phenomenon that I could use to be witty and provocative about. But, on the very, very, slight chance you are not completely bored to tears with all things Danish I thought I would freestyle it on the poor Raggedy Anne dolls which are developing countries in the climate change negotiations. 

The narrative that is repeated ad nauseum by all and sundry, throughout negotiations and stretching back to Kyoto and beyond, is that developing countries need to be allowed to increase their carbon emissions so they can continue the industrialisation path of development. Developed countries spout it, developing countries seethe it and apart from the Ewz country of the week Tuvalu, there is almost complete agreement on the point. And this is great, really fantastic, except for one teeny weenie, itsy bitsy, almost entirely inconsequential question I feel obliged to ask. What development exactly is it, which you would be speaking of?

It is a commonly acknowledged fact that a country in possession of a large amount of poverty must be in need of a great big fat developed country to come in and screw it over, under the pretext of ‘development’. This is exactly what’s been happening since the colonial project was kicked to the curb. Modernisation theory was a lie, Walt Rostow was a bigger story teller than Walt Disney; dependency theorists never managed to lift their gazes from their navels for long enough to do anything useful; and even the demi gods Sachs, Sen and Stiglitz have always found it difficult to achieve anything meaningful as they wallow in their own smugness.     

Aside from a few Asian Tigers, and the erratic BRIC, all of whom blatantly ignored established protocol, there has been the most spectacular lack of development in developing countries in the last half a century. So far, so boring. But, why does the climate change paradigm suddenly make us forget all of this? Why do we suddenly start holding this status quo up as the golden brick road for developing countries? At the very least if developed countries seem to actually have developing countries best interests at heart, shouldn’t we be very, very, suspicious?

For example, just maybe, could it actually be in the best interests of developed countries to keep developing countries away from sustainable low carbon economic strategies and technical innovations?

In other words, is the idea that moving to low carbon economies is a burden for developing countries, actually not a chair at all, but just what have agreed to call a chair?

Even as a wannabe hippy I am the first to agree that there are massive complexities, nay burdens even, in moving a country like America over to a low carbon economy. Entrenched oil interests don’t segue into pretty little wind farms painlessly. But, it doesn’t automatically follow that it should be the same for developing countries. Not to belittle say, Botswana, but not quite so many entrenched interests, not quite so many cashed up, hell bent, lobbyists, if you want to build a carbon neutral economy there.

Developing countries don’t have the same opportunity costs that the developed do. They are, in many cases, blank slates where new technology can be introduced without having to battle to oust old technologies. Underdevelopment suddenly stops being a drag, and starts being a head start. And the debate over the difficulties and expenses of aid and technology transfer has only obscured the long history of technology transfer between developed and developing countries and the role aid has in propagating carbon intensive industry. Least developed countries have never been in anymore of a position to build coal burning power stations than they are to build fields of solar panels. So why not simply skip the coal station and head straight for the shiny renewable? Why waste your breath arguing about whether you should or shouldnt have carbon limits, and just start demanding the good stuff?

Why not indeed?

Developing countries, if they have developed at all, have done so at the behest of their evil overlords, mostly in the interest of creating markets for developed country products, not for their own good. So consider for a moment the implications of a developing country forgoing imported oil because it is self sufficient in renewable energy. Consider the implications of all of their industry being equipped with the most efficient technology available. What happened to the albatross around their neck that was their crippling debt? What happened to their second rate economy and being the door mat to your dirty developed country boots? What happened to our nice little status quo?

Critiques of traditional development theory have long posited that the conditions no longer exist for developing countries to follow the same path developed countries took. So why does climate change suddenly make us argue for the right to keep to trying? The advantages are clear for developed countries, they get to dominate the new technology and cement their primacy for another century, while still being able to outsource the really dirty stuff elsewhere. But why are developing countries wasting so much energy demanding the right to continue along this futile path of dirty, inefficient, unsustainable, technology? It’s like demanding a betamax in a DVD era.

For better or worse, as a global society we have agreed to call concrete and steel and plastic and chopped down trees and dug up mines, success. But the irony is, development has not helped developing countries achieve anything like this. If we stopped for a moment to really consider the consequences of low carbon strategies we might find that rather than a burden they represent viable alternatives for developing countries to finally reduce poverty in a meaningful way. And maybe not just catch up with developed countries but to spectacularly leapfrog their way to the front of the race.

Have no idea where Tuvalu, Maldives or Kiribati are? All of these tiny island nations made headlines this week at the climate negotiations that are ongoing in Copenhagen. These islands, most of them spread out across the equator in the Pacific, say they are already being hit by the effects of climate change, including extreme weather conditions and rising sea levels. We pinpointed these nations and added in all of the current greenhouse gas emissions targets of the major player developed nations (thanks for the help from climatetracker). The result is our handy dandy Map guide to the COP15. We’ll be updating the map until the conference ends next Friday.

View Earth2Tech’s COP15 Map in a larger map

Phnom Penh Post – Cambodia expected to seek funding at climate summit

Cambodia’s delegation will soon touch down in Copenhagen, where it is expected to press for adaptation funding to help Cambodia meet climate related challenges.
Full article in the Phnom Penh Post

Bangkok Post – Battle of the texts looms at UN climate talks

China accused developed nations of failing to live up to their promises, and the Pacific-island state of Tuvalu called for a legally binding amendment to the Kyoto Protocol that would require large developing economies set targets for emissions cuts. Full article in the Bangkok Post

Reuters – Tiny Tuvalu in spotlight at climate talks

Key facts about Tuvalu and the climate-related challenges it faces as a Pacific island nation. Full article on Reuters

Mysinchew.com – Japan, Indonesia call for Copenhagen deal

Japan recently offered a 425 million dollar loan to Indonesia for climate change mitigation, as the two countries jointly set a standard for cooperation in order to involve other major emitters. Full article

Channel News Asia – China and India at forefront of Copenhagen discussions
Brunei FM – China willing to work with ASEAN to tackle climate change
The Standard – Asia particularly at risk to climate change

There was an important development at yesterday’s Climate Summit in Copenhagen that should have gotten more attention in the media.  There was also a data update that provides additional context for the importance of that development.

The island nation of Tuvalu wanted legally binding language to be written establishing limits in global atmospheric CO2 concentrations to 350 parts per million and global temperature rise to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.  For clarity, our current global CO2 concentrations, according to observations, is 387ppm.  So we’re already above the limit that scientists have identified as being a threshold we should not be above if we don’t want global temperatures much higher than they are today.  Tuvalu was asking, therefore, for nations to agree to reduce emissions drastically so that the atmospheric concentrations begin decreasing.  Why would they want legally binding language for such an audacious goal?  Because Tuvalu is a set of four reef islands and five atolls whose maximum elevation is 15ft.  They are extremely susceptible to any future potential sea level rise.  Larger, richer countries (like Saudi Arabia and China) would hear none of it.  They want to keep burning dirty fossil fuels and expand their economies like other developed nations did for the past 150 years.  Tuvalu and a group consisting of other island countries and poorer nations can’t afford to wait until China decides they’re ready to switch to 100% renewable energy at some point in the future.  They’re at risk today from climate change that is already occurring.  The issue was suspended for the time being.  Expect it to arise again before the end of next week (not that a solution will be found in that time frame, unfortunately).

Which brings me to the bad news of the day.  I’ve written for months now that the 2007 IPCC AR4 report was good for its time, but it left significant questions unanswered (I haven’t been the only one).  It was good, but didn’t go far enough.  Major drawbacks resulting from a far too conservative approach, an approach that didn’t examine extremes as likely enough to spend much time on.  Since the collection of papers for the 2007 AR4 release, scientists across the world have worked very hard to try to begin finding answers for the toughest questions remaining.  How sensitive is the climate to GHG emissions?  How responsive are temperatures to those emissions?  When will glaciers and ice sheets melt?  What kind of sea level rise can be expected?  Another paper was put together to try to answer that last question.  As with other facets of the research effort, conditions could very well be much worse than what the 2007 Report may have led people to think:

Sea level rise could occur 3 times faster than previously estimated.  Everybody should be able to click on the link and look at the pdf if they want.  Here’s the high-level message: based on our current emissions profile, which is as high as the worst-case scenario the IPCC examined, sea levels could rise by 6 feet (~2m) by 2100.  The rate at which sea levels have been rising has increased in the past 20 and 10 years.  Scientists’ predictions of sea level rise have been too low, contrary to the denialists’ hopes otherwise.  Natural causes alone have not and cannot explain the rise observed.  Like I wrote above, Tuvalu and many other countries are under immediate threat.  They have no more time to wait while rich countries throw tantrums like spoiled children.  This situation is likely to get worse before it gets better.

My 9Dec2009 summary is here.

My 7Dec2009 summary is here.

Cross-posted at SquareState.

Ian Fry, negotiator for Tuvalu, breaks down due to failing talks

The AWG-KP and AWG-LCA have been working simultaneously with different outcomes. Many developing countries want the Kyoto Protocol (KP) to continue into the next agreement period (post 2012), with stronger binding targets for developed countries. Many developed countries would prefer to scrap the KP, and instead work on one new legally binding agreement that includes both the developed and the developing world. For this reason there is growing frustration and perhaps a new stalemate. Tuvalu continues to be a loud voice in the negotiations, where the lead negotiator Ian Fry, continues to push for stronger binding targets as well as funding for adaptation projects. However larger players seem to be circling in tighter around them, boa constrictor like. An example is India who states that there are simply too many other problems on the floor to be discussed.

Protesters have begun their march to the Bella Center to motivate action, stronger political will, and imbue social responsibility. More soon. For now, I’ll stick to blogging here. When I get back to the states, I’ll probably switch to wordpress and add photos.