[See update at bottom.]
The big news this weekend was that a coalition of world leaders made it official: there will be no full-fledged, legally binding agreement out of the Copenhagen climate talks. Instead there will be a “politically binding” agreement, pledging to work out a full agreement in 2010—“one agreement, two steps.” This was Denmark PM (and Copenhagen host) Lars Lokke Rasmussen’s way of salvaging a half-win from what was threatening to be a total loss.
Of course opponents of climate action are portraying it as a disaster that augers the death of UNFCCC process; they do that with every setback or delay. Climate activists don’t seem to have decided quite yet what to think about it. My take: it’s not as bad as it looks. I’d endorse some mix of Broder, Romm, and Schmidt.
NYT’s John Broder is right about the main constraint here. Well, almost right. He says “Congress,” but the real culprit is the Senate. That dysfunctional body is taking its sweet, preening time as always, letting health care reform drag on into winter and now, in a fit of cluelessness, delaying a deficit-neutral, job-creating clean energy bill to ... focus on jobs and the deficit. Behind the scenes, that bill is getting larded up with enough retrograde energy pork to secure precious conservative votes. Best case scenario, it limps through the Senate, gets a little remediation in conference committee, and passes in April or May. Beyond then, midterm politics take over and reasonable legislating becomes impossible.
This absurdly protracted process is playing out as dozens of countries hang out, tapping their feet, looking at their watches, flipping idly through waiting-room magazines. Concerted international action can’t get started without the U.S., and the U.S. can’t get started without the Senate—the Obama administration won’t promise anything to which the Senate hasn’t committed. So the world waits for the Senate, observing its legislative process with a mix of bewilderment, anxiety, and disdain.
Joe Romm points out that the delay offers some needed breathing room. The sense that the world is waiting will increase pressure on the Senate to pass a bill (there’s pressure from Brazil and France already). Conversely, legislation from the U.S. would increase pressure on China and India to step up to the plate with targets and timetables.
NRDC’s Jake Schmidt notes that the extra time will be beneficial if a) enough details are settled in Copenhagen and b) world leaders focus on ironing out a final agreement in the intervening months. That’s a big if.
Nonetheless, if the world’s nations had headed into Copenhagen expecting a legally binding treaty complete with targets and timetables, the result would have been disappointment, acrimony, and worst of all, wasted time. By taking some of the pressure off Copenhagen, the two-steps agreement has avoided disaster and maintained momentum. It’s also given the Obama administration time to engage in more climate diplomacy. Now if something could just be done about the Senate ...
UPDATE: I’m hearing from people close to the international process that Rasmussen’s deal might not be as official as it’s been made to seem by the U.S. media. Apparently Denmark and the U.S. sprang this on their Asian partners and there’s been some pushback, from them and from small island states and African nations.
To boot, Rasmussen’s agreement seems like a variation on the plan Yvo de Boer has been fronting for a while—only without de Boer’s hard deadlines, thus letting developed countries off the hook.
Anyway, there’s a lot more to this story than is reflected in most media reports. We’ll bring you updates as events unfold.
U.S. warns China against ‘stillborn’ climate deal
Did Michelle Obama get the president to create a national Food Policy Council?
Comments
View as Flat
DavidSpratt Posted 3:11 am
16 Nov 2009
Permalink
Billhook Posted 4:49 am
16 Nov 2009
If & when the bill passes in the Senate, Stern would be negotiating under a ceiling of around a 5% or 6% cut by 2020 off the legal 1990 baseline, when the science, the developing nations, the EU, Japan, etc are demanding 25% to 40%.
This is an issue with hundreds of millions of lives hung on it - how could nations sign up to their peoples' destruction in an entirely predictable US-led genocide-by-famine ?
Respecting the 2.0 degree threshold that the recent G20 adopted as a "politically binding" target almost certainly requires Annexe 1 countries to cut the full 40% by 2020 off 1990, given the rapid acceleration of several potentially vast feedback loops so far this century. (Which is why the UK has offered 42% off 1990 if others will follow suit).
Yet that 2.0 degree threshold does not ensure safety; according to the UK Hadley Centre it would give only a 46% chance of avoiding the feedback loops taking off and causing catastrophic irreversible climate destabilization.
A less than even chance, which US legislatures spurn.
Obama is mistaken if he thinks that the Senate can successfully dictate to the world. On the contrary, if there is to be an effective treaty including the US from the outset, then a way must be found to disable the corruption both in Congess and the Senate.
Regards,
Billhook
Permalink
veritone Posted 8:33 am
16 Nov 2009
Again I'm reminded of Mark Twain: "Reader, imagine you are an idiot, now image you are a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."
Permalink
Steven Earl Salmony Posted 6:17 am
16 Nov 2009
Permalink
Steven Earl Salmony Posted 8:52 am
16 Nov 2009
Permalink
setb Posted 11:04 am
16 Nov 2009
Permalink
Openly Balanced Posted 11:20 am
16 Nov 2009
However, I worry about the impression that the rest of the world just has to sit around cooling their heels waiting for our Senate to get it together. On the economic side of things, the countries that take the lead on climate change will reap the rewards. While I would like the U.S. to be among them, our inertia should not prevent the rest of the world from moving forward with what needs to be done.
Permalink
F James Handley Posted 1:09 pm
16 Nov 2009
Really? If Obama wants to pass effective climate legislation maybe he should take the advice of his Budget director Peter Orszag who co-authored "Policy Options for Reduction of CO2 Emissions" which detailed the flaws of cap/trade and the advantages of a carbon fee. Or the advice of former Clinton advisor Elaine Kamarck (now at Kennedy School) who points out that almost every country could enact and enfoce a carbon tax, but few (if any) can manage a complex cap/trade system especially with offsets.
The continued squabbling over who gets the free allowances under cap/trade shows one of its many flaws, both political and economic. They say "three strikes and you're out!" Cap/trade is on its fourth swing in the Senate. Obama should call it "out" and move on to a revenue-neutral carbon fee.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 2:34 pm
16 Nov 2009
Permalink
Gene Preston Posted 3:36 pm
16 Nov 2009
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 2:52 pm
19 Nov 2009
Permalink
Gene Preston Posted 7:25 am
20 Nov 2009
Permalink
Gene Preston Posted 8:13 am
21 Nov 2009
http://worldfocus.org/blog/2009/11/05/taxes-curb-danish-oil-use-promote-energy-independence/8214/
Permalink
Gene Preston Posted 1:45 pm
16 Nov 2009
Permalink
Albanius Posted 5:21 pm
16 Nov 2009
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. Senate Democrats will attempt to pass a climate-change bill in "early spring" of 2010, Senator John Kerry told reporters on Monday, further complicating prospects for an international summit on global warming next month...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091116/pl_nm/us_climate_usa_congress_2
That gives our side time to reframe the issue in a more populist style,
by calling it the Clean Energy American Jobs bill, and mobilizing pitchfork populism to demand that Exxon and the other super rich exploiters pay for the transition.
If our side sounds like "eat your spinach", we can't defeat their massive disinformation campaign, but if we frame it as the people against the monied interests, creating millions of good jobs, making the polluters pay, we have a fighting chance.
Permalink
Openly Balanced Posted 5:26 pm
16 Nov 2009
I think we also need to frame it in terms of international trade. Other countries are moving forward on this. If the government does not step up to the plate, we put U.S. industry at a competitive disadvantage.
Permalink
rpauli Posted 5:25 pm
16 Nov 2009
This is the chance for governments to prove meaningful. But instead they are timid. Climate solutions may necessarily emerge outside of government actions. Although I have no idea how.
Permalink
Tom Athanasiou Posted 6:21 pm
16 Nov 2009
It's been clear for a long time that the political conditions necessary for a real deal are not in place. And Copenhagen was never going to put them there. Given this, the question is if we can find a way to early action with a transitional accord that is 1) good enough to start sharply bending the emissions curves, 2) fair enough to make the principle-based global accord that we actually need to stabilize the climate possible
Copenhagen was never going to be that accord.
So, actually, very little has changed. Save that, as a Danish Greenpeace activist just put it, the "smell of gunpower is in the air."
As for the “one agreement, two steps" stuff, it's going to require some real finesse. Because it's basically impossible (see above about missing political conditions) unless the global targets are really weak. And one nice thing about having more time is that we're all getting educated. So for example, maybe by the time a deal is actually on the block Dave Roberts will understand why increasing "pressure on China and India to step up to the plate with targets and timetables" is exactly the wrong way to think about a viable global accord.
Permalink
SallyVCrockett Posted 7:11 pm
16 Nov 2009
Permalink
Doug Meyer Posted 7:27 pm
16 Nov 2009
Of course the rest of the world would like to negotiate the terms of emissions reductions AND the amount of money to be paid to *developing* countries. Romm says that money will be included in the US climate bill! (Will it still be deficit neutral after that?)
SoHow will the world participate in the US climate bill negotiations? NYT headline next spring: China and India Veto Latest Senate Deal! And you thought getting a bipartisan bill would be hard!
C`mon people, give up already.
Permalink
laservisor Posted 4:51 am
17 Nov 2009
The UNFCCC has a very important equity phrase relating to "common but differentiated responsibilities," which effectively says that all countries have a role in reducing the growth of greenhouse gas emissions but that those that have *benefitted* from this growth in the past and have therefore gotten wealthy ought to make deeper cuts to make available some carbon space for poor countries.
What are China and India doing about their emissions? Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, China made a tremendous push to improve rural electrification, mainly through cooperatives and private investment (http://pesd.stanford.edu/publications/rural_elec_china/). This obviously contributed substantially to its increased GHG emissions, but then so did the huge increase in manufacturing in the 1990s and beyond. Nevertheless, China has had aggressive energy efficiency programs during all this time: during the 20 years that China's economy quadrupled in size, China's energy use only doubled, according to Jonathan Sinton at the International Energy Agency, and previously an author of a report on China from the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/sabl/2005/September/03-China-report.html).
Similarly, in the case of India, a recent report (http://www.truthout.org/1104094#1) from Prayas, Stanford University and IIT Madras shows that between 1990 and 2005 Indias GDP increased 2.3 times, but its energy consumption rose 1.9 times. Moreover, Indias energy intensity (energy consumption related to production) is much less than China's, but also less than the United States' and comes close to the European level.
So as we wait for the Senate to decide on how long to continue dragging its feet, and put up with gratuitous remarks from the floor about how the US shouldn't allow India and China with their "huge" emissions to jeopardize economic growth in this country, pay attention to the numbers.
Permalink
latecommer Posted 11:56 am
17 Nov 2009
That is why there will be no binding agreement.
The Senate will not pass the proposed legislation because it is unconstitutional to give any foreign body that kind of control over American citizens, and they are very aware of the backlash form the majority of Americans who do not believe that man is causing global warming.
Putting this off is a disaster for those hoping to reduce global CO2, and a very good thing for the rest of mankind.
I am a working scientist, and have studied the past climates of the Earth my whole professional life.
You are allowed your opinion but you are not allowed your own facts...and the facts do not support your ideas.
The null hypothesis is not AGW...it is the standard cylic model that thousands of scientists have built through tens of thousands of research projects in the last several hundred years.
AGW is the new kid on the block looking for, and not finding validation in the halls of science. For validation you need empirical proof...not theory.
Show the proof!
I set out to find the proof. I read all four IPCC reports...and the summeries (what a difference between them!) There was NO proof that wasn't more likely a result of natural forces...and there hasn't been since. So I bought the AGW books, read dozens of published papers, and found out that there just isn't any proof yet. I am a scientist and believe in the Popper method and of course will change my opinion based on empirical proof, but sadly there just isn't any.
Not a single "projection" from the GCM has happened in the last dozen years...in fact they have been very far off in EVERYTHING.
And no wonder...they are trying to model a chaotic system using linear processes without even knowing many of the precise values of the perameters needed for inputs. A fools errand.
Permalink
laservisor Posted 5:43 pm
17 Nov 2009
Permalink
Steven Earl Salmony Posted 6:23 pm
17 Nov 2009
Human beings who have maintained their silence by refusing to speak out about what is true to them have inadvertently made of themselves fearsome foes of the family of humanity.
At this late hour, our silence could be ruinous of everything we so vociferously claim to be protecting. The extent to which members of the human community remain willfully blind, hysterically deaf and elective mute, we end up fulfilling nothing more or less than the hopes and expectations of the Masters of the Universe among us, the wealthy and powerful elders of one not-so-great, greedmongering generation.
Permalink
latecommer Posted 9:24 pm
17 Nov 2009
Realclimate is run by Gavin Schmidt and what Gavin doesn't like doesn't get posted. I have posted and have had some removed. Axel Morner, a sea level expert with more than 570 peer reviewed papers on Oceanography, was censured as well; Hardly a scientific debate when contending issues are censured. Find a centralist site and you will learn more.
And Steven Earl?....all I can say is HUH!!
Permalink
ancberg Posted 12:20 pm
20 Nov 2009
Permalink
latecommer Posted 2:39 pm
20 Nov 2009
Thankyou for a scientific viewpoint...so rare these day.
AGW has been sold as THE climate forcer that will soon cause disaster if certain measures are not taken.
AGW is still a hypothesis supported primarily by models and not supported at all by observations.
As THE climate forcer, how could it's effects be overcome so easily without even an obvious (to most)counter forcer? Even if this is temporary it is a blow to the hypothesis that we are now in uncharted waters and heading for the brink.
The greenhouse effect is real...it is what allows us to live on the Earth by adding @ 33 degrees C to the base temperature caused by solar effects. But CO2 efficiency for absorbing heat is logarithmic in nature with each part per million doing less than the previous one. This is partly due to the chemical makeup of the gas and the atmoshpere, but also because there is a finite amount of earth radiated (reflected) energy that can be captured and re-emitted, and we already have more than is needed to hold our base temperature steady...extra CO2 is being used to grow extra amounts of flora.
NASA has some very interesting information on the growth of green plants in areas that havn't seen green for centuries ie. The Sahara Desert for one.
It is my opinion that the causes of the flattening of temperature are well known, but not admitted by those in the AGW camp.
Any solar physicist will tell you that the Sun, which had been in the highest state of activity in at least 200 years, has now entered a period of quiescence lower than any scientifically measured and perhaps not seen since the early 1700's.
With nearly all our energy coming from the Sun, is it any wonder that we would begin to cool as the Sun becomes less active?
Mars, according to NASA, warmed in the 90's and is now cooling. This is another piece of evidence that an active sun was responsible for our 25 years of warming, and a less active sun is responsible for what has happened since 1998. Of course with the buffering systems of the atmosphere, and the oceans (where 95% of all heat is stored) the lag in change was several years. So that the reduced activity of the Sun which is about a decade long took some time to translate to a reduced temperature on Earth.
I do not claim as you stated that "it would be stupid to claim that this now means that AGW is no longer a tenable explaination" I claim that it never was a tenable explaination.
Of course there is a small (and growing smaller) increase with each ppm, but never to a point, even in the doubling of CO2, that would cause any danger to man.
It was, according to the best science available, anywhere from 1 to 3 degrees warmer 800 years ago during the Medieval Warm Period and man flourished. It was perhaps as much as 5 degrees warmer 11,000 years ago during the Holocene Optimum (shortly after the end of the last glaciation) and man flourished and spread throughout the world.
It was as much as 10 degrees warmer during the time that it is believed that man and most modern animals evolved.
Warm means higher diversity of species, plant and animal.
I ask once again the question:
Who discided that today's climate is optimal?
This (The Sun) as I have tried to explain, is a much better fit than CO2 as a climate driver. It explains what is happening today, what happened in the 90's heat wave, what happened in the 70's cold period (where many of these same scientists were warning of the next glacial age in their striving for research monies), and what caused the 30's to be so warm.
The correlation between the total energy output (not just irradience) of the Sun during these periods and the temperature of the planet is very strong, while the correlation between CO2 and these same events is mostly illusion and non existant. This leads to a strong supposition that solar irradience, solar wind, solar gravitaional effects, solar angular momentum, and the orbit of the sun around the barycentre of the solar system, (along with more than a dozen more researched effects) are capable of overwhelming what ever heating caused by greenhouse gases in excess of the base temperature.
One has to make far more unbased assumptions to lable CO2 as the forcer of climate than to lable the chief energy source for the solar sytem as the cause, and science works that way...Occum's Razor (or "the simple explaination, unless proven otherwise, is usually the correct one) comes into effect.
The IPCC studied only one aspect of solar input on the Earth, the irradiation, claimed that it was for all practicle purposes constant, and dismissed it as a contender, while knowing, as I do, that irradiation is not even the strongest effect of the Sun upon the Earth.
They then through the modelers discided that clouds and cloud cover were consistant and could be ignored (studies since then have proven that factor wrong and to their credit GCM are attempting to incorperate these new perameters into their models... a difficult task since we have a very short data series for work with).
Peer reviewed papers have sincw shown that as little as a 2% change in cloud cover couls account for all the warming and cooling of the past few centuries.
The Russian Academy of Science is not one that supports AGW. They are not media and politically driven and they,5 years ago,issued a global cooling warming based on solar studies combined with paleoclimatolgcal research.
Their reserch on climate is becoming more available over time and serious students of climate should be studing what they have produced.
(I make sure mine do)
If what I say is true you may ask..."Why would so many people that should know have a different point of view in this?" that is a very good question that we all need to ask.
I believe that for most of them the answer is simple.
This philosphy will help them acheive their goals...not all of them goals we would argue with. The goal of a stable sustainable population, an Earth with clean water and air, a reduction in the dependence of fossile fuels (after all they ARE too valuable to burn) and the impetus toward a new safe energy source are all things I agree with.
To those scientists who are doing this I say: "shame on you for using our shared profession to decieve the people... even for a good end, You understimate and insult us."
But there are also those who are attempting to use this debate as a means of control and power over us.
Who can deny the power of one who controls Earth's energy?... and to them I say: I am doing everything I can to prevent you from your devious ends and will call you out at every turn And if you succeed I will fight you with every bit of strength I have.
Once again, thank you for a science based question, one gets so tired of the ad hominem attacks and welcome the ad rem discussion.
If you wish to talk further, contact me at:
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
//
var l=new Array();
var output = '';
l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[21]='\"';l[22]=' 111';l[23]=' 111';l[24]=' 104';l[25]=' 97';l[26]=' 121';l[27]=' 64';l[28]=' 114';l[29]=' 101';l[30]=' 109';l[31]=' 109';l[32]=' 111';l[33]=' 99';l[34]=' 101';l[35]=' 116';l[36]=' 97';l[37]=' 108';l[38]=':';l[39]='o';l[40]='t';l[41]='l';l[42]='i';l[43]='a';l[44]='m';l[45]='\"';l[46]='=';l[47]='f';l[48]='e';l[49]='r';l[50]='h';l[51]='a ';l[52]='
Permalink