The chief negotiator for the European Commission announced this afternoon in Barcelona that the failure of the U.S. Congress to pass legislation before December has doomed the chances for success in Copenhagen.

A climate protest at the Barcelona talks: World leaders with \'big heads\' moving cash from an aid money box to a climate money box. The stunt highlights rich country plans to use overseas aid money to pay for their climate finance commitments.Oxfam InternationalEurope now predicts that a legally binding treaty is impossible to expect in Copenhagen, and that it could take up to a full year beyond the global summit this December in order to reach a binding deal. 

Artur Runge-Metzger, the chief negotiator for the European Commission, told reporters today that, “It was highly desirable to have the [U.S.] numbers on the table in Copenhagen. There’s no doubt.”

Runge-Metzger confirmed that any chance of rescuing a deal in Copenhagen “depends then very much on President Obama himself, on how confident he feels [about] how far the process has moved forward, whether he can also put numbers on the table or not.”

“Everybody sees political realities particularly in Washington and we know that the process there is slowing down politically,” he said.  “So we need to be flexible. We cannot say that Copenhagen is the end.”

When asked whether Europe expected more rapid change from the Obama administration after eight years of Bush, Runge-Metzger said, “I have never expected the U.S. [position] changing totally. The interests in the different states are still the same as they were 5 years ago, 4 years ago, 3 years ago.”

“The reduction targets is really what, politically, is the most difficult issue, and certainly not something that is going to be decided by senior officials in a normal negotiation round. For that you will need to have ministerial blessing or heads of state coming together. We would hope that we can finalize that in Copenhagen,” Runge-Metzger said.

Runge-Metzger confirmed that, regarless of what transpires in Copenhagen, the E.U. plans to move forward with the implementation of policies to reduce European greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2020.

That target is far lower than the 40 percent or more reduction demanded by Africa and the G-77 developing nations.

“Their [African and G-77] demands on developed countries to make deep emissions cuts, I don’t think that this gulf will be closed in the next week,” Runge-Metzger said.

Sudanese delegate Lumumba Stanislaus-Kaw Di-Aping, who heads the G-77-plus-China block, confirmed Thursday that Africa and the G-77 remain steadfast in their position that a so-called “politically binding agreement” is an unacceptable result in Copenhagen.

“We are totally against that,” he told me in the hallway of the Barcelona convention shortly after the G-77 cancelled its daily press conference in what Lumumba described as an “unfortunate” move based on a “joint decision” by the G-77 not to speak with the press at present. 

If a legally binding agreement cannot emerge from Copenhagen, then “we resolve to continue the negotiations in the future,” Lumumba said.

But Africa and the G-77 developing countries refuse to entertain anything less than a legally binding treaty. The African and G-77 delegations want a treaty that commits developed nations to reduce emissions by 40 percent or more below 1990 levels by the year 2020, a level which Africa feels is necessary to avoid death and destruction in vulnerable areas.

With the news that all bets are off on reaching a legally binding treaty in Copenhagen, delegates and observers in Spain are left wondering what could have been if the U.S. had acted sooner domestically. The U.S. Congress has failed the world, and developing nations will pay a steep price unless President Obama can personally rescue the Copenhagen talks.

That will depend on whether he even shows up in Denmark in December. Sorry Africa, don't hold your breath.

Related Links:

China, India, U.S. commit to seal Copenhagen deal

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

The African delegation insisted today in Barcelona that its decision to walk out on negotiations Tuesday was necessary in order to jolt the intransigent European Union and other developed nations to move forward with serious discussions, rather than obstruct progress by bringing only lofty rhetoric and no numbers to the negotiating table. The plan seems to have worked, albeit temporarily, as negotiations resumed today about how to extend the Kyoto Protocol and forge binding agreements with the West to slash emissions and provide cash to developing nations to deal with climate shocks and facilitate clean economic development.

However, delegates from developing nations and climate campaign groups continue to report that progress has been too slow in Barcelona, setting the stage for inevitable failure in Copenhagen. Activist groups and developing world negotiators continue to press the West to pick up the pace immediately or risk failing to reach a legally binding agreement in Copenhagen next month.

Europe renewed its non-specific posturing today, at first suggesting that developed countries could still bring promises, if not numbers, to Copenhagen, but ultimately confirming that the Europe Union--and the U.S.--have no intention of entering a legally binding agreement in Copenhagen unless rapidly developing nations like China, India, and Brazil are also required to cut emissions and contribute funding to help poor nations survive as the climate deteriorates.

Copenhagen is the pinnacle in a series of negotiations stretching back two years over how to create a legally binding agreement that brings the United States into the fold on the international response to climate change, and simultaneously craft the next round of targets under the Kyoto Protocol. Since the U.S. failed to join the 1997 global treaty, negotiations have proceeded under these two tracks to ensure that work can continue on emissions reductions among Kyoto signatories, while the world grapples with how to hold the U.S. accountable internationally both on greenhouse-gas reductions and financial commitments to assist developing nations.

Sudanese delegate Lumumba Stanislaus-Kaw Di-Aping, who heads the G-77-plus-China bloc, challenged Europe and the industrialized world to get serious again Wednesday in order to move the fragile talks forward.
 
Lumumba, whose ability to articulate the urgency and necessity of the developing world’s pleas for action on climate change is unrivaled by any other delegate present at the talks, made clear once again today that the West must bring science-based targets and an indelible ink pen to the Copenhagen negotiation table, or else Africa, low-lying island nations, and indigenous peoples--the populations most vulnerable to climate change--will rapidly face death and economic ruin as the atmosphere cooks and sea levels rise. 

In the G-77 press conference this afternoon, I asked Lumumba whether he was concerned by the potential domino effect of additional developed countries adopting Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen’s position, reported by Reuters on Monday, that a “politically binding agreement” is more likely to emerge in Copenhagen rather than a legally binding agreement. The “politically binding” sentiment seems poised to snowball among other major industrialized nations, in spirit if not yet in the same exact words.

Lumumba, in his typically graceful fashion, calmly but sternly replied to my question stating, “I do not know of anything called a politically binding agreement. If there is anything that you know about politics and political manifestos is that they are worth very little. Tell me of any politician who delivered on his political manifesto. Is it Gordon Brown [UK]? Is it Kevin Rudd [Australia]?”

False promises of politically binding commitment without legally binding teeth will not be worth a damn to Africa and the rest of the vulnerable developing countries. As soon as one world leader from the West who signs onto such a wishy-washy agreement loses power, and their successor refuses to comply with such a non-binding agreement--an entirely possible scenario since there is no legal basis to follow through on such a commitment--the whole process would fail. Climate change would continue to punish the developing world, which would face many more years of delay while the negotiators reconvened to start over.

So only a legally binding agreement is acceptable in Copenhagen, or Africa and other vulnerable populations are doomed to death and destruction, Lumumba told me.

“What can we achieve in Barcelona? This is what we are asking developed countries. You have to live up to the ambition that saves the world. In Africa’s words, it is 40 [percent emissions reductions by 2020] minimum. Anything south of 40 means that Africa’s population, Africa’s land mass is offered destruction as the only alternative to choose from. And I think you can logically understand why the African states are very angry about that,” he said.

Yes we can, Mr. Lumumba. Yes we can.

Watch the G-77 press conference here. (I ask my question at the 8:15-9 minute mark and Lumumba responds beginning at the 16 minute mark)

Curious to hear the European response to the G-77’s clear call for a legally binding agreement, later today I asked the E.U. delegation to explain specifically what time frame would be acceptable to set legally binding targets if Copenhagen fails to produce solid results and instead ends with such a politically binding (i.e. hollow) agreement, or worse still, no agreement.

It was the last question the E.U. delegation took from the press today, and provides all the clarity that Africa and the developing countries can expect from the industrialized world for now. 

Artur Runge-Metzger, the chief negotiator for the European Commission, sitting next to the nodding Swedish delegate (Sweden currently holds the E.U. presidency), responded simply, “It should be as quickly as possible after Copenhagen.” (Full stop, microphones cut, end of press conference.*)

In contrast to the developing world’s clear, specific position, the E.U. seems to act as if these negotiations just started, as if talks haven’t been going on for years since Kyoto. Europe seems to project the image that it is suddenly being asked to answer this fundamental question.

In reality, Europe and the rest of the developed world have had more than ample time over the past decade to develop a clear position. But when pressed on specifics now, just weeks before the world expects a concrete treaty, they are still flailing around like fish out of water.

Much work remains to be done, and 99 percent of the burden rests on the E.U. and U.S. to show the rest of the world they understand the severe implications of any further delay in responding to the climate crisis. The anger from Africa and the rest of the developing world will continue to grow, as will the carbon emissions responsible for climate change.

Europe and the U.S. must stand up and be counted.

*The E.U. press conference is not online yet, but will be here tomorrow.

Related Links:

China, India, U.S. commit to seal Copenhagen deal

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

BRUSSELS -- E.U. leaders on Friday reached a compromise deal on how to help developing nations tackle climate change, but without putting a figure to Europe's contribution, officials said.

"We have an agreement," said Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, at the end of a two-day European summit in Brussels.

"The E.U. now has a strong negotiating position and the countdown to Copenhagen now has started," he added, referring to international climate talks in Denmark in December.

The E.U. leaders agreed that developing nations would need 100 billion euros worth of help annually by 2020 to tackle climate change and to deal with its consequences.

However the E.U. leaders failed to say how much of that money would be coming from Europe, amid strong differences mainly between the poor eastern European nations and the richer west.

Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite said that a working group would now be set up to seek a concrete formula on how the bill is divided up in Europe.

Lithuania, Poland, and seven other eastern E.U. nations have been firmly against the idea of linking contributions to polluting levels, which would leave them with a heavy bill.

They instead suggested that the burden sharing be divided according to national income, which would put the onus very much on the richer western European nations.

The 27-nation bloc prides itself in leading the fight against climate change, and has already agreed to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent by 2020, but many fear its leadership role could be compromised if it did not come to the Copenhagen talks with a strong, unified approach. 

Otherwise Europe's voice will be weakened when trying to persuade the likes of China, the United States, and India to make swingeing cuts themselves.

The E.U. has also said it is willing to increase its own promised emissions cuts to 30 percent if the rest of the developed world does likewise at Copenhagen.

"We can now look the rest of the world in the eyes and say we Europeans have done our job," said EU Commission chief Jose Manuel Barroso at the summit-closing press conference.

"It was essential that the European Union kept its leadership role and we have done that," he added.

However he cautioned that the E.U. "offers are not a blank cheque ... we are ready to act if our partners are ready to deliver."

Related Links:

China, India, U.S. commit to seal Copenhagen deal

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’

Now the world really is coming to the crunch point. As governments across the globe travelled the long, winding and rocky road to Copenhagen over the last few years, there have been many times when the next stage, usually steep uphill, seemed absolutely crucial. But none has come close to the importance of the stretch that begins this week.

On Thursday and Friday European heads of government, meeting in Brussels, will struggle to come up with proposals on how to finance measures in poor countries to cut emissions and adapt to the devastating effects of climate change -- the most critical of all the outstanding issues in the official negotiations on the new agreement that is supposed to be struck in the Danish capital.

Then on Monday, the negotiators will assemble yet again -- this time in the modernistic Fira Gran Via Convention Center in Barcelona -- for their eighth, and final, week of bargaining on the details of an agreement before the Copenhagen conference opens in less than 40 days time. And, as it ends, the finance ministers of the G20 countries will begin two days of meetings in the medieval surroundings of St. Andrews, the Scottish university town that is the home of golf.

The results of these intensive ten days of meetings will largely determine whether the Copenhagen meeting succeeds or fails, whether the delegates turn up in December still deadlocked or ready to shift on long-entrenched positions, making a deal possible.

The European Summit will do much to set the tone. For years Europe has been setting the pace in progress towards a new agreement, and success will largely depend on the leadership of European governments at Copenhagen. Europe has indeed hammered out a relatively strong negotiating position in every area but one, the all-important matter of climate funds for the developing world.

Last week Europe toughened much of its stance further. Environment minsters agreed to slash the EU's long-term emission reduction targets from 80 percent to 95 percent by 2050, if a deal is reached at Copenhagen, while retaining its relatively ambitious mid-term goal of a 20 percent cut by 2020, rising to 30 percent if other countries promise similar measures (both cuts use 1990 emissions levels as a baseline).

And they also resolved that aviation should cut its emissions by 10 percent, and shipping by 20 percent, by 2020, using 2005 levels as the baseline (both sectors have been exempted from the Kyoto Protocol). And the European ministers said they had decided on vigorous measures to tackle deforestation.

"This should be seen as a clear message to the world," said the meeting's chair, Andreas Walgreen's, environment minister of Sweden, which at present holds the EU's revolving presidency. His German counterpart, Sig mar Gabriel, added: "We have a complete negotiating mandate for Copenhagen, except for the finance."

But there's the rub. The very day before the environment ministers met, the finance ministers of the same governments refused yet again to put a figure on the table, in defiance of proposals by the European Commission itself, and despite an original promise to do so by early this year. Without the EU taking the lead, there will almost certainly be no agreement on funding in Copenhagen. And, unless there is -– developing countries have made clear -– there is little chance of making any worthwhile deal there at all.

Sweden's finance minister, Anders Borg, called the failure "a disappointing outcome." And Britain's Alistair Darling, who missed his flight as he tried to broker a compromise, added: "We had a good opportunity. Unfortunately, a number of countries wanted things that the majority found unacceptable."

In fact, there is a three-way split in Europe. One group of nations –- including Britain, Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands -- wants the EU to name a sum as soon as possible, to get things moving and encourage other countries to act. Germany and Italy oppose this, believing that announcing a early decision could weaken the continent's bargaining position.

Even more seriously, most of the EU's newer, and poorer members -– mainly from Eastern Europe and led by Poland -– object to providing funds to help developing countries that may be growing faster than their economies. Specifically, this bloc of EU states wants to start by making only voluntary payments for the first few years, and to share less of the burden afterwards.

Gordon Brown, who originally floated the idea of a $100 billion-a-year adaptation fund in a speech in June, will be pressing for an agreement in Brussels this week. If he succeeds, he will take it on to the G20 gathering at St. Andrews, which he will chair. This won't be easy, as some developing countries have blocked previous attempts to discuss this issue other than in the formal UN negotiations.

So the stakes are high, the time is short, and the issue is crucial to success. See what I mean about a crunch point?

Related Links:

China, India, U.S. commit to seal Copenhagen deal

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Cross-posted from TomDispatch.

Oil and natural gas prices may be relatively low right now, but don't be fooled. The new great game of the twenty-first century is always over energy and it's taking place on an immense chessboard called Eurasia. Its squares are defined by the networks of pipelines being laid across the oil heartlands of the planet. Call it Pipelineistan. If, in Asia, the stakes in this game are already impossibly high, the same applies to the "Euro" part of the great Eurasian landmass -- the richest industrial area on the planet. Think of this as the real political thriller of our time.

The movie of the week in Brussels is: When NATO Meets Pipelineistan. Though you won't find it in any headlines, at virtually every recent NATO summit Washington has been maneuvering to involve reluctant Europeans ever more deeply in the business of protecting Pipelineistan. This is already happening, of course, in Afghanistan, where a promised pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan and India, the TAPI pipeline, has not even been built. And it's about to happen at the borders of Europe, again around pipelines that have not yet been built.

If you had to put that Euro part of Pipelineistan into a formula, you might do so this way: Nabucco (pushed by the U.S.) versus South Stream (pushed by Russia). Be patient. You'll understand in a moment.

At the most basic level, it's a matter of the West yet again trying, in the energy sphere, to bypass Russia. For this to happen, however -- and it wouldn't hurt if you opened the nearest atlas for a moment -- Europe desperately needs to get a handle on Central Asian energy resources, which is easy to say but has proven surprisingly hard to do. No wonder the NATO Secretary General's special representative, Robert Simmons, has been logging massive frequent-flyer miles to Central Asia over these last few years.

Just under the surface of an edgy entente cordiale between the European Union (E.U.) and Russia lurks the possibility of a no-holds-barred energy war -- Liquid War, as I call it. The E.U. and the U.S. are pinning their hopes on a prospective 2051 mile-long, $10.7 billion pipeline dubbed Nabucco. Planning for it began way back in 2004 and construction is finally expected to start, if all goes well (and it may not), in 2010. So if you're a NATO optimist, you hope that natural gas from the Caspian Sea, maybe even from Iran (barring the usual American blockade), will begin flowing through it by 2015. The gas will be delivered to Erzurum in Turkey and then transported to Austria via Bulgaria, Romania, and Hungary.

Why, you might ask, is the pipeline meant to save Europe named for a Verdi opera? Well, Austrian and Turkish energy executives happened to see the opera together in Vienna in 2002 while discussing their energy dilemmas, and the biblical plight of the Jews exiled by King Nabucco (Nebuchadnezzar), a love story set amid a ferocious struggle for freedom and power, swept them away. Still, it's a stretch to turn aluminum tubes into dramatic characters.

Of course, the operatic theater here isn't really in the tubing, it's in the politics and strategic implications that surround the pipeline. In Eastern Europe, for instance, Nabucco is seen not as a European economic or energy project, but as a creature of Washington, just like the Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline from Azerbaijan to Turkey that President Bill Clinton and his crew backed so vigorously in the 1990s and which was finally finished in 2005. For those who have never believed the Cold War is over -- the Eastern Europeans among them -- once again it's the good guys (the West) against the commies ... sorry, the Russians ... at an energy-rich OK Corral.

The Great Borderless Gas Bazaar

Russia's answer to Nabucco is the 746 mile-long, $15 billion South Stream pipeline, also scheduled to be finished in 2015; it is slated to carry Siberian natural gas under the Black Sea from Russia to Bulgaria. From Bulgaria, one branch of the pipeline would then run south through Greece to southern Italy while the other would run north through Serbia and Hungary towards northern Italy.

Now, add another pipeline to the picture, the $9.1 billion Nord Stream that will soon enough snake from Western Russia under the Baltic Sea to Germany, which already imports 41.5 percent of its natural gas from Russia. The giant Russian energy firm Gazprom holds a controlling 51 percent of Nord Stream stock; the rest belongs to German and Dutch companies. The chairman of the board is none other than former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder.

Put this all together and Russia, with its pipelines running in all directions and firmly embedded in Europe, spells trouble for Nabucco's future and frustration for Washington's New Great Game plans to contain the Russian energy juggernaut. And that's without even mentioning Ukhta which, chances are, you've never heard of. If you aren't in the energy business, why should you have? After all, it's a backwater village in Russia's autonomous republic of Komi, 350 kilometers from the Arctic Circle. Built by forced labor, it was once part of Alexander Solzhenitsyn's Gulag archipelago. By 2030, however, you'll know its name. By then, a pipeline from remote Ukhta will be flooding Europe with natural gas and the village will be one of Nord Stream's key transit nodes.

While Nabucco as well as South Stream remain virtual, Nord Stream is a Terminator on the run. By 2010, it will be tunneling under the Baltic Sea heading for Germany. By 2011, it should be delivering the goods and a second pipe -- 39 foot wide, 100,000 tubes long -- will be under construction to double its capacity by 2014. Gazprom CEO Alexei Miller pulls no punches: this, he says, will be "the safest and most modern pipeline in the world."

How can Verdi lovers possibly compete? In the middle of a global recession, Gazprom is spending at least $20 billion to conquer Europe via Nord and South Stream. The strategy is a killer: pump gas under the sea directly to Europe, avoiding messy transit routes across troublesome countries like Ukraine. No wonder Gazprom, which today controls 26 percent of the European gas market, is expected to have a 33 percent share by 2020.

In other words, in many ways, the Nabucco versus South Stream energy war already looks settled. Nabucco is, at best, likely to be a secondary pipeline, incapable, as Washington once hoped, of breaking the E.U. away from energy dependence on Russia.

Brussels, predictably, is in its usual multilingual policy mess. Most bureaucrats at its monster, directive-churning body, the European Commission, publicly bemoan the "pipeline war." On the other hand, Ona Jukneviciene, chairwoman of the committees at the European Parliament dealing with Central Asia, admits that Nabucco cannot be the only option.

As for Reinhard Mitschek, managing director of the Nabucco consortium, he tries to put a brave face on things when he stresses, "we will transport Russian gas, Azeri gas, Iraqi gas." As for the top European official on energy matters, Andris Piebalgs, he can't help being a pragmatist: "We'll continue to work with Russia because Russia has energy resources."

From a business point of view, it's tough to argue with South Stream's selling points. Unlike Nabucco, it will offer cheaper, all-Russian natural gas that won't have to transit through potential war zones, and while Nabucco will always deliver limited amounts of Caspian natural gas to market, South Stream, given Russian resources, will have plenty of room to increase its output.

The fact is that, as of now, Nabucco still has no guaranteed sources of gas. In order for the gas to come from energy-rich Turkmenistan, to take but one example, the Turkmen leadership would have to break a deal they've already made with Russia, which now buys all of that country's export gas. There's no way that Moscow is likely to let one of the former Soviet Republics do that easily. In addition, both Russia and Iran could well be capable of blocking any pipeline straddling the floor of the Caspian Sea.

Gazprom will pay to build South Stream, and then distribute and sell gas it already controls to Europe; Nabucco, on the other hand, has to rely on a messy consortium of six countries (Austria, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, and Germany) simply to finance one-third of its prospective costs, and then convince wary international bankers to shell out the rest.

The Pentagon does the Black Sea

So what does Washington want out of this mess? That's easy. Rewind to then-prospective Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in her Senate confirmation hearings on Jan. 13, 2009. There, she decried Europe's dependence on Russian natural gas and issued an urgent call for "investments in the Trans-Caspian energy sector." Think of it as a signal: The new Obama administration would be as committed to Nabucco as the Bush administration had been.

What is never spelled out is why. Enter the Black Sea, that crucial geo-strategic stage where Europe meets the Middle East, the Caucasus, and Central Asia. Enter, thus, Bulgaria, home to a new Pentagon air base in Bezmer, one of six new strategic bases being built outside the U.S. and as potentially important to Washington's future games as the stalwart air bases in Incirlik, Turkey, and Aviano, Italy have been in the past. (Aviano was the key U.S./NATO base for the bombing of the Bosnian Serbs in 1995 and the 78-day bombing campaign against Serbia in 1999.)

With the Pentagon's bases already creeping within a stone's throw of Southwest and Central Asia, it doesn't take a genius to imagine the role Bezmer might play in any future attack on Iran (something the Russian defense establishment has already taken careful note of). With both Romania and Bulgaria now part of NATO, Article 5 of the alliance's charter now applies. NATO can take action "in the event of crises which jeopardize Euro-Atlantic stability and could affect the security of Alliance members."

In this way, Pipelineistan meets the American Empire of Bases.

Young Turks and Wily Russians

Why is everyone so damn hooked on Central Asian oil and gas? Elshad Nasirov, deputy chairman of the state-owned Azerbaijani oil company SOCAR, sums the addiction up succinctly enough: "This is the place where there is oil and gas in abundance. It is not Arab, not Persian, not Russian, and not OPEC."

It's the Caspian and, unfortunately for Europe, the region could, in energy terms, turn out to be not the caviar for which it's renowned but so many rotten fish eggs. No one knows, after all, whether the E.U. will ever be able to buy Iranian gas via Nabucco. No one knows whether the Central Asian "stans" have enough gas to supply Russia, China, and Turkey, not to mention India and Pakistan. No one knows whether any of their leaders will have the nerve to renege on their deals with Gazprom.

Ever since a 2008 British study determined that Turkmenistan may have natural gas reserves second only to Russia on the planet, the European Commission has been on a no-holds-barred tear to lure that country into delivering some of its future gas directly to Europe -- and not through the Russian pipeline system either. Turkmenistan's inscrutable leader, the spectacularly named Gurbanguly Berdymukhammedov, just has to say the word, but despite the claims of E.U. officials that he has agreed to send some gas Europe-wards, he's never offered a public word of confirmation. No wonder: with Nabucco unbuilt and a pipeline from his country to China still under construction, Turkmenistan can play Pipelineistan games only with Russia and Iran. In fact, Russia essentially controls the flow of Turkmen gas for the next 15 years.

Should Gurbanguly someday say the magic word -- and assuming the Russians don't throw a monkey wrench into the works -- he can marry Turkey, as the key transit country, with the E.U. and let them all sing Verdi till the sheep come home. In the meantime, angst is the name of the game in Europe (and so in Washington).

A declassified dossier from the FSB, the Russian heir to the KGB, is adamant: considering Nabucco's shortcomings, "Russia will remain the primary supplier of energy to Europe for the foreseeable future." Call it a matter of having your gas and processing it, too. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has been making the point for years. If Europe tries to snub it, Russia will simply build its own liquefied natural gas (LNG) plants, to facilitate storage and transport, and sell its LNG all over the world.

Anyway it's worth paying attention to what the St. Petersburg State Mining Institute (where Putin earned his doctorate) has to say. According to the institute, Russia has only 20 years' worth of its own natural gas reserves left. Since Russia plans to sell up to 40 percent of its gas abroad, "Russian" gas may in the future actually mean Central Asian gas. All the more reason for the Russians to make sure that those massive Turkmen and other reserves flow north, not west.

Whatever Washington thinks, the Europeans know that energy independence from Russia is, in reality, inconceivable. Bottom line when it comes to natural gas: Europe needs everything -- Nord Stream, South Stream, and Nabucco. The bulk of the natural gas in this Pipelineistan maze may well turn out to be Central Asian anyway and a substantial part could be Iranian, if the Obama administration ever normalizes relations with Iran.

That, then, is the current state of play in the European wing of Pipelineistan. Russia seems to have virtually guaranteed its status as the top gas supplier to Europe for the foreseeable future. But that brings us to Turkey, a key regional power for both the U.S. and the E.U. As President Obama has recognized, Turkey is both a real and a metaphorical bridge between the Christian and Muslim worlds. It is also an ideal transit country for carrying non-Russian gas to Europe and is now playing its own suitably complex Pipelineistan game.

Chances are that, like Ukhta in far off Siberia, you've never heard of Yumurtalik either. It's a fishing port squeezed between the Mediterranean Sea and the Taurus mountains, very close to Ceyhan, the terminal for two key nodes of Pipelineistan: the Kirkuk-Ceyhan pipeline from Iraq and the monster BTC pipeline. Turkey wants to turn Yumurtalik-Ceyhan into nothing less than the Rotterdam of the Mediterranean.

Even as it dreams of future E.U. membership, however, Turkey worries about antagonizing Moscow. And yet, being aboard the Nabucco Express and already fully committed to the functioning BTC pipeline puts the country on a potential collision course with Russia, its largest trading partner. Of course, this does not displease Washington.

On the other hand, the Turkish leadership draws ever closer to Iran, which provides 38 percent of Turkey's oil and 25 percent of its natural gas. Ankara and Tehran also have geopolitical affinities (especially in fighting Kurdish separatism). Together, they offer the best alternative to the Caucasus (Azerbaijan, Georgia) in terms of supplying Europe with Iranian natural gas. All this, of course, drives Washington nuts.

Needless to say, the Nabucco consortium itself would kill to have Iran as a gas supplier for the pipeline. They are also familiar with realpolitik: this could happen only with a Washington-blessed solution to the Iranian nuclear dossier. Iran, for its part, knows well how to seduce Europe. Mohammad-Reza Nematzadeh, managing director of the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), has insisted Iran is Europe's "sole option" for the success of Nabucco.

Is Russia just watching all this gas go by? Of course not. In October 2007, Putin signed a key agreement with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: If Iran cannot sell its gas to Nabucco -- a likelihood given the turbulence of American domestic politics and its foreign policy -- Russia will buy it. Translation: Iranian gas could end up, like Central Asian gas, heading for Europe as more "Russian" gas. With its European and Iranian policies at cross-purposes, Washington will not be amused.

When Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan threatened to "rethink Nabucco" if the tricky negotiations for Turkey to enter the E.U. drag on forever, E.U. leaders got the message (as much as France and Germany may be against a "Europe without borders"). Pragmatically, most E.U. leaders know very well that they need excellent relations with Turkey to one day have access to the Big Prize, Iranian gas; and that puts Europe's energy and E.U. membership inclinations at loggerheads.

Last July in Ankara, Nabucco was formally launched by an inter-governmental agreement. The representatives of Turkey, Austria, Bulgaria, Romania, and Hungary were there. Obama's special Eurasian envoy, Richard Morningstar (a veteran of the BTC adventure), was there as well. The Central Asian stans were not there.

But crucially, Gurbanguly, ever the showman, finally made an entrance without ever leaving Turkmenistan, (almost) uttering the magic words in a meeting with his ministers in the capital, Ashgabat, on July 10: "Turkmenistan, staying committed to the principles of diversification of supply of its energy resources to the world markets, is going to use all available opportunities to participate in major international projects -- such as, for example, [the] Nabucco project."

At the Vienna headquarters of Nabucco the mantra remains: this is "no anti-Russian project." Still, everyone knows that Russia's leaders are eager to kill it, and not a soul from Brussels to Vienna, Washington to Ashgabat, knows how to link Central Asia to Europe via a non-Russian pipeline, at the cost of more than $10 billion, without some assurance that Turkmeni, Kazakh, Azerbaijani, and/or Iranian natural gas will be fully (or even partially) on board. Who would be foolish enough to invest that kind of money without some guarantee that hundreds of miles of aluminum tubes won't remain empty? You don't need Verdi to tell you this is one hell of a quirky plot for a global opera.

Related Links:

Feed-in tariffs—the new school of thought

Europe places outcome of Copenhagen squarely on Obama

Why developing countries cannot afford failure in Copenhagen

Here is the third and final collection of tidbits, factoids, and insights from the Energy Efficiency Global Forum. These are drawn from the final plenary session, which was two hours long and absolutely packed with interesting speakers and info.

•  Nobuo Tanaka, executive director of the International Energy Agency, pointed out that efficiency improvements have slowed markedly. Between 1973-1990 energy use rose 0.5% while efficiency rose 2%; between 1990-2005, use rose 0.9% while efficiency rose just 0.8%. Time to get going again!

•  Tanaka: by a wide margin, the biggest chunk of projected increases in CO2 emissions come from non-OECD countries' use of coal. Either we solve the China/India coal problem or we don't solve the climate problem.

•  Tanaka: the IEA has constructed a scenario whereby the world can reduce emissions enough to hit the 450 ppm target. In it, energy efficiency is responsible for 54% of the total emission reductions -- the largest source, by a wide margin. (By way of contrast, renewables are responsible for 23%.)

•  Jean-Pierre Benqué, senior VP of enormous (and heavily nuke-based) utility EDF, laid out his three part strategy to reduce emissions:

•  Benqué, pointedly: we need a global price on carbon, but even if we get one, it will be many years before it's high enough to really drive large-scale efficiency. We need strong regulations and incentives now.

•  Jaana Remes, a senior fellow at the McKinsey Global Institute (and a hero to all mankind!), said that we need to increase carbon productivity -- the amount of GDP we get per ton of CO2 emitted -- tenfold if we want to meet the world's shared target of holding temperatures under 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels while also growing the world's economies.

•  Remes: there is precedent for this kind of productivity growth -- labor productivity increased tenfold during the Industrial Revolution. Thing is, that took 100 years and we have to do it in 20 40.

•  Remes' to-do list:

•  Remes' crucial, crucial point: the more we wait, the more the low-cost options disappear (a building, once built, lasts at least 30 years) and the more expensive the overall enterprise becomes. To minimize costs it's crucial to begin now and act quickly. (So suck it, Lomborg.) (She didn't say suck it Lomborg. That was me.)

•  Dr. Douglas Howe of Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) noted Europe's 20-20-20 program (20% more power, 20% more efficiency, 20% reductions in CO2 by 2020) and said CERA had been commissioned to do a comprehensive, bottom-up study of the efficiency target (which is, for now, still nonbinding). They were tasked with finding out if it's possible. The result? No. It's not. But EU can do it by 2030.

•  Howe: on electricity, efficiency can go up 8% by 2020, 20% by 2030, basically flattening growth. Residential end-use accounts for 50% of that.

• Howe: Interestingly, the addition of smart meters only adds about another 1% to electric efficiency. They might be great for other reasons, but smart meters can't be expected to produce big efficiency gains. (Of course, smart meters are supposed to be components in larger systems -- I wonder if they modeled grid, appliance/car, and management software improvements as well, to capture system-of-system benefits.)

•  Howe: natural gas is where the really big gains come -- 13% by 2020 and 26% by 2030, reversing demand to 1992 levels, mainly thanks to improvements in the humble residential boiler.

•  Howe: What's the cost? Around $500-$700 billion out to 2030. The benefit? Break even to slightly positive.

•  Howe: This is not a laissez faire kind of thing. It will require strong, early, forceful gov't action.

•  Björn Stigson, president of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), discussed a fantastic new study they just put out: the Energy Efficiency in Buildings Project, or EEBP. It's a comprehensive, four-year study of the potential for efficiency in the built sector, created with consultation and review from dozens of experts and trade organizations. Just top-notch. I'll probably do a separate post on it.

Related Links:

Making buildings more efficient: rationalizing retrofit markets

Making buildings more efficient: looking beyond price

Merkley wants Senate jobs bill to help finance building efficiency retrofits

I have a couple of overview-type posts in mind re: the Energy Efficiency Global Forum, but first a couple more Tidbit Posts, sharing factoids and insights that otherwise won't find a home. Here's the second of three, drawn from the "executive dialogs" that took place alongside the main plenary sessions.

• Lena Ek, member of EU Parliament from Sweden, pointed out a rather startling fact about the success of the EU's appliance labeling program, which assigns appliances letter grades from A-G based on their efficiency: after 15 years, 98% of refrigerators and washing machines sold in Europe are grade A. Consumer information alone can drive markets, even absent regulations.

• U.S. Rep. Michael C. Burgess (R-Texas) wanted to make it very clear that he believes in climate change. He's just not sure humans are causing it. Upon saying this, Burgess was heckled from the crowd. "You don't believe in science!?" shouted several times. And this was not the heckling kind of crowd. You just can't get away with that kind of BS overseas -- they don't feel the need to pretend like it's a respectable position.

• Niels B. Christiansen, President & CEO of Danfoss, pointed out that adding a district heating system to a power plant can raise its efficiency from 60% to over 90% -- and the EU counts that as renewable energy under the ETS.

• John Fielder, president of Southern California Edison, pointed out that California's plan is very specific about its utilities' "loading order": energy efficiency and demand response, renewable energy, distributed generation, and fossil fuels. Sounds about right.

• Fielder also noted that getting to 10% electric vehicles in his service area would reduce more GHGs than going from 20 to 33% renewables per California's target. (For regions that already have high renewable penetration, transportation is the big efficiency get.)

• Peter Rathje from Denmark gave a fascinating talk about Project Zero, the effort to turn Sonderborg into a zero-carbon city by 2029, while generating jobs and sustainable growth. Check out the website for the (amazingly comprehensive) details. Nice to see some ambition!

• Dr. Richard Bradley, head of the Energy Efficiency and Environment Division of the International Energy Agency, pointed out that efficiency has delivered -- according to IEA data starting in 1973 and running through the present, the world is using 58% less energy than it would have if efficiency improvements hadn't been made. Nonetheless, efficiency persistently fails to provide the truly large-scale payoffs that studies have been saying are possible ever since the '70s.

• Bradley: one big and underappreciated problem is compliance. Studies show that enforcement efforts tend to be feeble and anemically funded and that non-compliance rates on efficiency mandates run about 50%.

• Bradley: since the '70s, government research money has gone overwhelmingly to nuclear power, with everything else (including efficiency) getting peanuts. That needs to change.

• Jackalyne Pfannenstiel, former chair of the California Energy Commission, said something in passing that jumped out at me. I didn't entirely catch the context, but I'm fairly sure she said: efficiency results via utility-run programs are ten times more expensive than efficiency results achieved via standards. If that's so, I'd sure like to know why and hear more about it.

• David Rodgers from the DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) showed a chart of projected energy demand: in terms of demand destruction, the economic downturn and investments from Obama's stimulus bill are projected to have roughly the same effect. Whether that shows the remarkable power of the bill (as Rogers said) or the remarkable impact of the downturn is in the eye of the beholder, I guess.

• Rogers' list of reasons people don't take advantage of available efficiencies:

• Peter Smith, an environmental strategist for 1E, pointed out that IT accounts for between 2-4% of global energy demand -- equal to aviation -- and that PCs represent 40% of IT demand. So managing PC power consumption is quite a big deal, but it's done poorly, because IT managers don't get any of the rewards for saving power. (Smith stumped for a product he was involved in called Night Watchman which allegedly saves Dell $1.8 million a year -- a 40% reduction in the company's energy costs.)

Related Links:

Making buildings more efficient: rationalizing retrofit markets

Making buildings more efficient: looking beyond price

Merkley wants Senate jobs bill to help finance building efficiency retrofits

The problem with conferences like this is that interesting tidbits -- factoids and insights -- come flying at you continuously. An Official Journalist is supposed to weave these tidbits into a narrative story, but in my experiences those stories tend to be fairly boring -- the only reason to read them is to pull out the tidbits. So why waste time burying the tidbits in the first place?

That, at least, is my rationalization for offering you this unordered, chaotic list of interesting things I've heard so far here at EE Global:

• Jean-Pascal Tricoire, President & CEO of Schneider Electric, said that global electricity use is projected to double by 2030, which means there will be more investment in electricity in the next 20 years than there has been in all of prior history. If we are to have any hope, that doubling of electricity must be accompanied by a halving of energy intensity -- thus the central role of efficiency.

• Tricoire: electricity must be safe, efficient, reliable, and green, and those requirements pull in contradictory directions. Increasing the challenge is the fact that very few people are being trained to address electricity in this comprehensive fashion.

• Tricoire's reasons to hope: legislative requirements are being implemented in many countries; the U.S. and China are finally getting underway in earnest; and above all, the technology exists to do it -- new materials and systems, new architectural designs, new means of energy storage, and new intelligent energy systems, both passive and active, that account for the full electricity lifecycle.

• Hon. Suresh Prabhu, Member of Parliament and Former Union Minister for Power, India: India will remain overwhelmingly reliant on fossil fuels through 2050. (He said this almost defiantly.)

• Dr. Johannes Milde, CEO of Siemens Building Technologies Divisions, Industry Sector, offered the following two lists.

Drivers of energy efficiency:

Restraints on energy efficiency:

• Milde also made a point about building technologies that several other speakers made in different contexts: one of the most important areas of R&D is making sure that systems are not just efficient in isolation, but that they operate together as an efficient whole. He said standards for communication among building systems are still lacking.

• Hon. Claude Turmes, Member of European Parliament from Luxembourg and very active, longtime campaigner for EU climate action: "climate change" is too abstract to drive political action -- instead we need green industrial policy.

• Turmes: EU's 20-20-20 plan -- 20% more energy supply, 20% greater efficiency, and 20% CO2 reductions by 2020 -- means that the use of coal and nuclear will decline by more than 50% in the EU. (At least I think that's what he said -- seems remarkable if true.)

• Turmes: big challenges to efficiency in EU: no financing in economic recovery (stimulus) bills; shortage of people trained in this stuff; and in terms of lobbying, supply dominates demand.

• Turmes' to-do list for efficiency champions:

• Turmes: biofuels and electric cars don't replace proper planning -- we need to move from car ownership to car usership and better public transportation.

• Turmes: "low-carbon" is far too vague. It doesn't prioritize; it allows the most muscular lobbies to dominate. Public planning must prioritize, and efficiency must come first.

• Turmes' list of Big Changes We Need:

UPDATE: For one of those long narrative accounts I mentioned earlier, covering the first plenary session, see the EE Global blog.

Related Links:

Making buildings more efficient: rationalizing retrofit markets

Making buildings more efficient: looking beyond price

Merkley wants Senate jobs bill to help finance building efficiency retrofits

The "Countdown to Copenhagen" clock was front and center at the Bonn climate talks last month.Courtesy UNFCC

I suppose what happened to the ticking clock says all we need to know about the state of the make-or-break international negotiations on combating climate change.

The bright red digital timepiece was affixed to the podium for the first round of the talks so far this year, held in Bonn during the two weeks running up to Easter. Boldly labelled "Countdown to Copenhagen," it ticked off the days, hours, minutes and seconds to the start of the vital meeting in the Danish capital, widely billed as the last chance to strike a deal to stop global warming from running out of control.

It was supposed to bring a sense of urgency to the talks, which over the last years have progressed at a pace that would make a snail resemble Speedy Gonzales. And not convinced that the sight of the changing numbers alone would be enough to impress the delegates from more than 190 nations, the NGOs at the meeting persuaded the conference secretariat to add an audible "tick-tock." The sound had to be turned off when the speeches began, but it was there at the beginning of every session -- making the point that time was running out.

Well, it was for the first few days anyway, at the stage when things were going relatively well, such as when Todd Stern, the new U.S. climate change envoy told the meeting that the Obama administration was "seized with the urgency of the task before us." But the talks soon returned to their normal torpor, and delegates insisted that the clock's ticking be turned off. It was "irritating," they complained, and no doubt they did indeed find it annoying to be reminded that time was flying by in the real world outside the conference hall.

In a sense, they succeeded not merely in silencing the clock, but in stopping it altogether. True, the red digits went on flickering downwards, but after the ten days of talks things were no further forward than they had been at the end of last year when George W. Bush's team was still representing the United States. The only substantial agreement was to draw up negotiating texts to be discussed during the next round, again in Bonn, at the beginning of July. In other words, enough was done to stop the talks from collapsing, but not nearly enough to move them in any way forward.

Rich and poor countries ended as far apart as ever on targets for cutting emissions. Developing countries said they wanted industrialized ones to slash them by 40 percent from 1990 levels by 2020, with the poorest nations and small island states pushing for 45 percent. But nothing like this is on the horizon. The United States has only expressed an aspiration to get back to 1990 levels by then; Canada expects them to be 24 percent higher.

Only Europe is anywhere near being on the same page as the developing countries. EU nation agreed two years ago on a 20 percent cut, rising to 30 percent if other industrialized countries took strong enough action. But that was two years ago and -- though the commitment remains -- Europe's enthusiasm for deep cuts in emissions has since distinctly cooled, even as increasing evidence of accelerating climate change demonstrates that much tougher measures will actually be needed.

In fact, it was Europe that effectively condemned the Bonn talks to futility when its leaders decided, just a week before the meeting began, not to say how much money they were prepared to provide to help developing countries cut their emissions. They have long accepted, as increasingly does the United States, that large sums will be needed and have promised in principle to provide them. But the EU decided to sit on its hands until other nations revealed what they would commit.

The problem is that the money is the key to breaking the climate deadlock. Until rich nations start delivering on their promises to provide serious funds, developing ones will not start talking about what they will do to restrain their emissions and, in turn, industrialized ones will not consider tougher targets. The EU leaders are not due reconsider their position on financial commitments until June 18, six days after the next Bonn talks conclude, suggesting that the next international negotiating session will get nowhere either.

The best hopes of a breakthrough now rest with a special climate summit to be held alongside the G8 summit on the island of La Maddalena, Italy, in July. There will be a preparatory meeting in Washington, D.C., in two weeks time, but it will take a top-level breakthrough at the summit to provide the impetus to get serious talks under way.

But by then another three months will have passed, and the countdown, audible or not, will be getting closer and closer to Copenhagen.

Related Links:

China, India, U.S. commit to seal Copenhagen deal

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

It is now widely acknowledged that Europe's carbon trading program -- the ETS -- made several key mistakes in its initial trial period. The system covered a narrow slice of the EU economy, yielding a relatively small market wherein price fluctuations could not be effectively smoothed out. The data on baseline emissions was poor and industries self-reported wildly exaggerated numbers, leading to overallocation of pollution credits. Worse yet, the credits were given away for free rather than auctioned, resulting in windfall profits. The combination of overallocation and large profits yielded little incentive to change in the program's early years.

None of these flaws, however, is intrinsic to cap-and-trade systems. European regulators are in the process of correcting them, and legislators developing a cap-and-trade system for the U.S. are keenly aware of the lessons learned. The entire economy can be covered; permits can be auctioned; price fluctuations can be evened out with banking and borrowing of permits. It can be done right.

The ETS trial period represented the first fumbling steps toward a global effort to reduce emissions; it was bound to be a trial-and-error process. Despite its missteps, Europe has implemented a declining cap on emissions and created a market-based carbon trading system that is guiding long-term investment decisions -- with little to no negative impact on the economy. The U.S. should be so lucky. (For more, see this Pew Center report.)

Related Links:

What to make of the new climate poll

Carol Browner strongly backs bipartisan cap-and-trade bill

Hot planet to Obama: What’s your Plan B?

G8 officials don't want Silvio Berlusconi to play a leading role in any climate talks that may occur this summer during the July summit in Italy. (Photo Livio Anticoli, Courtesy Prime Minister of Italy's Office)

Barack Obama has a problem, one he shares with Gordon Brown. And, for that matter, with Nicolas Sarkozy, Angela Merkel, Stephen Harper, and even Lula da Silva.

The problem these A-list world leaders are dealing with is bald, perma-tanned, and once worked as a cruise ship crooner. Oh yes, and he just happens to be prime minister of Italy, one of the most colorful (and that's not just his tan) and controversial figures ever to have lead a major western country.

A media tycoon and one of Italy's richest men, Silvio Berlusconi has a knack for hitting the headlines, most recently for appointing Mara Carafagna -- a former topless model who celebrates Sarah Palin as one of her political heroes -- as his spokeswoman. And he has a talent, too, for giving rise to embarrassment.

Last summer, in an infamous incident, the red face belonged to George W. Bush, whose staff had to apologize for "an unfortunate mistake" after they issued a press kit for the G8 summit that described the Italian premier as "one of the most controversial leaders in the history of a country known for government corruption and vice."

Berlusconi, it went on, "was hated by many, but respected by all at least for his personal style" and was "regarded by many as a political dilettante who gained his high office only through use of his considerable influence on the national media." And all this just a month after Bush had warmly hailed Berlusconi as "a good friend."

But to get to the point, the Italian leader poses a threat to President Obama's latest attempt to galvanize the glacially slow international negotiations on a new climate treaty, which is the topic for an ongoing international gathering in Bonn. At Obama's suggestion, the leaders of the world's 16 most important economies - both developed and developing - are to hold a special summit designed to inject high level political will into the process.

The question was where and when they could meet soon enough to have an early enough impact on the talks leading up to the make-or-break negotiating session in Copenhagen this December. The obvious answer was to meet immediately before or after July's G8 summit, when most of them would be together anyway, either as leaders of the eight major industrialized economies that meet each year or as the heads of the big developing countries that have recently been regularly invited to join them.

The venue of the meeting rotates each year around the G8 countries. This summer it is to be held on a rocky granite island renowned for its beaches -- La Maddalena off of Sardinia. Which means, as you will have guessed, that the summit will be held in Italy and that Mr Berlusconi, as host, would normally chair it.

The trouble is that the irrepressible Italian leader seems to be far from keen on urgently combatting climate change. Five years ago, during an earlier spell as premier, he failed altogether to turn up to a meeting of European environment ministers in Milan to make a crucial speech backing the Kyoto Protocol. And since the outbreak of the financial crisis this autumn, he has led attempts to persuade the European Union countries to water down measures to tackle global warming. In December he told journalists that it was "absurd to speak of emissions when there is a crisis going on", adding: "It's like someone with pneumonia thinking about having a perm."

He is, admittedly, not alone. Coal-dependent Poland's premier, Donald Tusk, has joined Berlusconi in trying to obstruct European action ("We think that the simplistic 'polluter pays' principle is unacceptable," he says.) And the Czech president, Vaclav Klaus, is an out and out global warming naysayer, telling a conference of 600 climate change 'deniers' in Washington last month that those advocating action want "to stop economic growth and return mankind several centuries back."

But Berlusconi is a much bigger fish than either and so could step into the chief climate villain spot -- a position only recently vacated by Bush. All this means that his fellow G8 leaders do not want him in charge for any climate negotiations that occur at La Maddalena this summer. "He will be the host of the meeting, but not the chair," one well-placed source tells me. But they have yet to decide who will take his place.

The G8 countries need to sort it out soon. The meeting will be all the more important because the leaders attending the G20 meeting in London this week will do no more than issue warm words on the need for a climate deal in Copenhagen and to build a low carbon economy. They will instead address the struggling global economy and leave the real talking on climate to La Maddalena -- but not, it is to be hoped, to Mr. Berlusconi.

Related Links:

On “climategate”

China, India, U.S. commit to seal Copenhagen deal

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

New Year's Day is not, I suppose, everyone's idea of the best time to receive a sobering message. But like it or not, this year it happened to me.

The message that popped into my inbox, unannounced and unexpected, would have brought even the most hungover dreamer smartly back to reality. "Today," it opened uncompromisingly, "is arguably the first day of the most important year in human history."

That "arguably" signaled the author's nationality. And being a Brit like me, he could not leave it at that, adding immediately: "I dislike the grandiose, so the previous sentence was written reluctantly." But he was not deterred for long, explaining that the international conference to set a new treaty to combat climate change, set for December in Copenhagen, "will do more to shape human destiny for longer" than any previous meeting in the history of the world.

The authorship commanded attention. Prof. Tom Burke served as one of the closest advisers to three successive British environment ministers in the 1990s, and remains one of Europe's most respected green commentators. Once perhaps Friends of the Earth UK's most effective leader, he now advises Rio Tinto -- a nice irony, since his first big campaign was against plans by the company to strip mine in a Welsh national park. But it's fair to say that the mining multinational has changed much more than he has.

I digress... The point is that Tom sat down bright and early on New Year's morning to share his evaluation of the year with a few friends. The other addressees included: John Podesta, at that time the head of Barack Obama's transition team; John Ashton, Britain's Climate ambassador; Sir Jeremy Greenstock, a former U.K. ambassador to the United Nations; and a host of senior government officials in Europe and the United States.

The reason for 2009's unique importance, he explained, is that "climate change is forever. Terrible though the consequences of war and recession are, they pass. But the nature of the climate is such that the future cannot redeem today's mistakes."

He added; "We have one chance to reach a political agreement to reduce carbon emissions in time to stay safe. This is the year in which we take that chance."

Tom urged us to pass on his e-mail. I was so impressed that I persuaded the editor of the Independent on Sunday, for which I work as environment editor, to run an op-ed article adapted from it. It struck quite a chord with our readers.

In a sense, though, Tom's year truly started at the weekend, for on Sunday the countdown to Copenhagen began in earnest. Representatives of the world's nations are in Bonn to try to hammer out the shape of the deal to be put on the table in Copenhagen late this year. They will have to cover a lot of ground in their two weeks' talks, because under the rules of the negotiations, a draft treaty has to be ready to go out to governments by the beginning of June.

Yvo de Boer, the phlegmatic Dutchman in charge of the negotiations, is already concerned that time is running out. "Worrying", he replied the other day when asked to describe the state of play. "I'm not concerned about willingness to get the job done, I'm concerned by the amount of time left."

That willingness has, of course, been transformed by the arrival of Barack Obama in the White House and by what -- on this side of the Atlantic at least -- is the new administration's unexpected degree of commitment. Even de Boer remarks on the Obama team's "huge enthusiasm to get moving on the issue."

But that's part of the problem. Europe has been waiting -- waiting for Obama. And while the continent's leaders have been treading water, the current has been carrying them steadily backwards. Europe may still have the world's most ambitious targets for reducing emissions by the crucial date of 2020 -- 20 percent of 1990 levels, rising to 30 percent if other rich nations join in -- but it has been steadily watering down its commitment since the global financial crisis took hold. Having been out in front for so long, Europe seems to be preparing to cede the leadership to the United States, instead of vying with it to take the action so urgently needed.

Tom Burke -- who feared even at the beginning of the year that success at Copenhagen would be "elusive" -- is even more concerned nearly three months later. But he feels that the most important moment will come later this week, at the G-20 summit in London. The key will be, he says, whether the G-20 leaders will take "the unique opportunity" of the unprecedented economic stimulus packages their nations have enacted to tackle climate change and build green economies.

And he fears that if they fail to devote at least half of the money to the task "we will be on a downward slope for the rest of the year".

Related Links:

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

A scientific hack job that won’t cripple climate talks

Copenhagen, U.S.A. December 7

WASHINGTON—European ministers are flocking to Washington drawn by the new administration’s pledge to help lead the fight against climate change, an issue largely put on ice for eight years here.

Ministers from across Europe as well as Canada are taking part in a whirl of meetings here this week to gauge prospects of Congress adopting key climate-change legislation ahead of a major U.N. climate conference in December.

U.S. President Barack Obama has called on Congress to draw up legislation setting out a carbon cap-and-trade system to limit greenhouse gas emissions and pump billions of dollars into renewable energy programs.

A European-style mechanism which penalizes pollutants and rewards green industry should, in concert with the development of new sources of clean energy, reduce U.S. gas emissions by 14 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, according to the Obama administration.

British and Danish ministers of climate and energy Ed Miliband and Connie Hedegaard expressed optimism Tuesday that a deal could be concluded on reducing emissions at the U.N. conference in Copenhagen. They said a commitment from the U.S. administration could inspire other countries.

“President Obama’s commitment is a very significant and very welcome advance on previous U.S. policy and will in that sense have a positive effect on others’ willingness to come forward,” Miliband said.

“I think it’s right to say that in Europe there is a real ... sense of new American leadership on these issues of climate change shown by President Obama and a very welcome sense of movement forward,” he added.

Hedegaard said it was “extremely exciting” to sit down with new U.S. officials keen on taking on global warming with international partners.

“Tackling global challenges like ... climate, we can not do it without the U.S., and for too long others have been hiding behind the American position,” the Danish minister said, referring to countries that have refused to institute changes until the world’s largest energy consumer takes the lead.

“So we need the U.S. to engage,” he added. “As soon as the U.S. administration and this House (of Representatives) and Senate can sort of come up with the American position, the more strong the pressure will be on all of us” at the U.N. conference.

The European Union sees the arrival of Obama as a boost for the chances of agreeing a global deal on a replacement to the Kyoto protocol in Copenhagen.

Obama’s predecessor George W. Bush refused to ratify the Kyoto protocol which expires in 2012.

Also in Washington this week was Canada’s Environment Minister Jim Prentice, following up on talks between Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Obama last month on clean energy.

Prentice and the Europeans met with members of the House energy and commerce committee, including its powerful chairman Henry Waxman, who despite swirling economic crises insisted that U.S. climate legislation could still be passed by December.

“What we need to do here in the U.S. is complete a bill this year, passed into law, and I would hope we will do it before Copenhagen,” Waxman told reporters. “The U.S. has to catch up and become a leader once again on these environmental issues.”

Some U.S. experts have said that while action on a bill looks likely in the House, getting it through the Senate before Copenhagen would be difficult, especially with the lukewarm reception some energy initiatives are getting from lawmakers.

French Minister for Sustainable Development Jean-Louis Borloo was to meet Wednesday with U.S. officials in charge of climate and energy issues, while former British Prime Minister Tony Blair was a guest Tuesday at a Senate panel on global warming.

Related Links:

Europe places outcome of Copenhagen squarely on Obama

Why developing countries cannot afford failure in Copenhagen

E.U. agrees on helping poor nations fight climate change

BRUSSELS—The E.U. presidency is confident that the United States under President Barack Obama “will follow the leadership of the European Union”, by setting ambitious mid-term goals for cutting greenhouse gases.

The 27 E.U. nations in December committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent by 2020 but have also agreed to increase the cut if the rest of the developed world gets on board with the plan.

“We know that the U.S. wants to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050, we don’t know what their mid-term target is,” Czech Environment Minister Martin Bursik told reporters after a meeting with his E.U. counterparts.

“We understand that the United States will follow the leadership of the European Union,” said Bursik, whose country holds the rotating E.U. presidency.

The ministers see the arrival of Obama as a great boost for the chances of agreeing a far-reaching global deal for climate change at talks in Copenhagen in December.

Obama’s predecessor George W. Bush refused to ratify the Kyoto protocol which the Copenhagen meeting will seek to replace.

E.U. Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas echoed the Czech optimism.

If Obama is promising such sweeping greenhouse gas cuts by 2050 “that means they have to put on the table a mid-term target also. They can’t do it all in the last year.”

Bursik and Dimas announced that they would visit Washington on March 14-15 to sound out the intentions of the U.S. administration.

And “climate change will be one of the first things we will discuss with President Obama when he visits Prague on April 5,” said Bursik.

Obama is to meet with European leaders at an E.U.-U.S. summit in the Czech capital, Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek announced Sunday.

The E.U. leaders hailed Obama’s plan for a landmark carbon gas cap-and-trade system to both fight climate change and pump billions into the Treasury purse to fund renewable energy programs.

The innovative program—similar to one already in place in Europe—would rev up U.S. efforts against global warming by reducing the output of carbon dioxide and other polluting gases, while raising direly-needed revenue.

The administration’s proposed program was part of a 3.55-trillion-dollar budget unveiled by the president last month, which outlines a cap-and-trade system which would limit emissions of greenhouse gases by manufacturers, and permit companies to trade the right to pollute to other manufacturers.

Dimas stressed that the 30 percent emissions reduction target would be an average for developed nations and “the United States could do more or less”.

The objectives will be achieved he assured, asserting that “leadership without an ambitious mid-term target” is useless.

Related Links:

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

Make the kids pay: The economic effects of climate change on future generations

Europe places outcome of Copenhagen squarely on Obama

Related Links:

Climate Denial Crock of the Week: The big mist take

The U.S. Chamber needs to get its story straight

Feed the world sustainably by 2050? Yes, we can!

BRUSSELS—The European Commission was foiled Monday in its bid to force France and Greece to allow genetically modified maize from U.S. biotech giant Monsanto to be grown in their fields.

Food chain experts from the E.U. member states, meeting in Brussels, could not reach agreement on whether to back or oppose the French and Greek refusal to allow the maize, which has been given the green light to be grown in Europe.

The standing committee on food chain and animal health “failed to reach a qualified majority in favour or against,” the commission said in a statement.

Nine of the 27 E.U. nations supported the commission call for the ban to be lifted while 16 opposed it or abstained. Germany and Malta did not take part, a source at the meeting said.

Monsanto’s MON810 strain is the only genetically modified crop approved in the European Union but last year France suspended its cultivation, invoking a “safeguard clause.”

Greece used the same legal provision in 2006 and has extended it since then.

The European Food Safety Authority has said the maize is safe and there is no scientific evidence to justify the bans.

Without a solid mandate the European Commission, the E.U.‘s executive arm, will refer the matter to E.U. ministers to decide whether France and Greece should fall into line and allow the GM crop to be sown.

Monica Frassoni,  co-leader of the Green group in the European parliament, urged vigilance against the commission’s attempt to make member states allow GM crops to be grown.

“We must remain vigilant because it is not the first time that the commission has tried to force the hand of those member states that are most resistant to the growing of genetically modified maize,” she said.

“The challenge now is to secure a majority big enough to reject the commission’s proposal.”

Last week,  France’s food watchdog also concluded that the genetically modified Monsanto maize was safe, contradicting an earlier report that led to a ban on the maize.

The earlier expert report had said evidence had emerged that MON810 had an effect on insects, a species of earthworm and micro-organisms.

There was also concern that wind-borne pollen from MON810 could travel much further than previously thought, perhaps as much as hundreds of kilometres.

But the report was controversial: 12 of the 15 scientists who compiled it issued a statement complaining that their findings had been misrepresented.

E.U. environment ministers will on March 2 vote on whether to ask Austria and Hungary to lift a similar GM ban.

Divided over the GMO issue, the European Union in December adopted a series of measures aimed at overcoming their differences and reaching unified decisions.

The member states notably recommended that the EFSA should be Europe’s final arbiter on the safety of GM crops, but with input from national bodies.

They also agreed that decisions should take into account the medium- and long-term environmental impact of any decision, not just the health aspects.

Related Links:

City preps and countries posture ahead of Copenhagen talks

Europe places outcome of Copenhagen squarely on Obama

Why developing countries cannot afford failure in Copenhagen

Related Links:

Climate Denial Crock of the Week: The big mist take

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

Make the kids pay: The economic effects of climate change on future generations

BRUSSELS—The European Union will offer almost 100 environmental projects from developing countries around the world in an auction to try to attract donors to back them, the European Commission said Tuesday.

The “Auction Floor,” to be held in Brussels on March 13, will allow developing projects to meet potential donors such as local authorities, representatives of E.U. member states and private sector foundations.

“We are trying to find funding partners for some of the project proposals that were carefully selected under the European Commission’s evaluation process but that have not, despite their high scores, obtained an EC grant simply due to budget limitations,” E.U. External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner said.

In December 2007, the commission launched a call for projects in the area of the environment, sustainable development and natural resources, including energy.

It received more than 1,000 proposals worth 1.5 billion euros ($1.94 billion).

In the end, around 50 projects were financed for 60 million euros, while almost 100 others were selected for the auction.

Donors will be able to choose whether to finance the fight against desertification in Afghanistan and Egypt, combat climate change in Peru or Bolivia, or fund renewable energy projects in Ethiopia.

Related Links:

Europe places outcome of Copenhagen squarely on Obama

Why developing countries cannot afford failure in Copenhagen

E.U. agrees on helping poor nations fight climate change

Related Links:

Fair, Ambitious & Binding: Essentials for a Successful Climate Deal

City preps and countries posture ahead of Copenhagen talks

Is Bill McKibben right to be angry with Obama?

GENEVA—Icy conditions that have claimed dozens of lives across Europe since November are partly due to La Nina, an upsurge of cooler water to the Pacific Ocean surface, the UN’s weather agency said Friday.

“The cold snap currently being experienced can be partly attributed to the La Nina phenomenon, which is a cooling of the sea surface in the central and eastern Equatorial Pacific,” the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said.

“However, it should be recalled that weather conditions are the result of extremely complex interactions, and, therefore, one particular event cannot be attributed to one specific cause,” the statement added.

Michel Jarraud, secretary-general of the Geneva-based agency, urged people not to believe that the extreme cold weather Europe was experiencing was in any way evidence against global warming.

“The harsh winter in Europe should not hide the fact that the study of global temperatures registered since 1850, which is when reliable meteorological records began, undoubtedly shows global warming,” the WMO said.

The UN agency pointed out that although 2008 was cooler than 2007, it was still the 10th warmest on record.

Extreme conditions in recent days have seen: heavy snow in Marseille in southern France for the first time in 20 years; Madrid’s airport forced to close due to rare snowfalls; and more than 80 deaths from the cold in Poland alone.

Related Links:

Climate Denial Crock of the Week: The big mist take

The U.S. Chamber needs to get its story straight

U.N. deputy says Copenhagen deal may take two stage approach