The top climate lieutenant to U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said Thursday that a major — though perhaps preliminary — international agreement to curb global warming is still possible in Copenhagen. One leading option is to set low targets for emissions reductions initially and to boost them if global warming gets worse.

Janos Pasztor, director of the climate change support team under Ban, told reporters that the Copenhagen global warming conference could yield a breakthrough on greenhouse gas reduction targets and financial aid to poor countries. A binding agreement would be written in 2010, he said….

Ban visited Washington last week to meet with Obama officials and with senators, and said he was optimistic about the chances for a bill to pass the Senate sometime next year. Two of the three senators working to build a bipartisan coalition for the legislation — John Kerry, D-Mass. and Joe Lieberman, I-Conn. — said after the meeting they would try to release an outline of their proposal before the Copenhagen conference.

That’s the news today from The Washington Times Washington Insight/Energy (sub. req’d).

It is no surprise to CP readers that “administration officials have stressed that it will not agree to a global treaty that cannot win approval in the Senate.”  For a related story, see the WashPost’s “U.S. weighs backing interim international climate agreement.”  And this is similar to the “Statement by Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen at the GLOBE Copenhagen Legislators Forum on 24 October 2009,” which I’ll excerpt below.

First, more from the Insight story:

A potential agreement could set modest requirements in the early years, he said, but mandate more aggressive actions if the planet gets warmer faster than expected. “It’s extremely important to get this system going, in all countries, even if the immediate numbers, the mitigation targets are not as high as you’d like them to be,” Pasztor said. “We just have to find a way to ratchet those numbers up later, to respond to what science tells us.”

“The fact that we cannot come to a conclusion on the legally binding treaty at Copenhagen doesn’t mean we are lowering the bar, that we’re lowering our ambition. It’s actually the opposite,” he added. “It’s actually the time to increase the level of ambition as much as possible, to get the best deal we can possibly get.”

He said countries can still agree on emissions targets, mitigation aid to poor nations and reporting requirements, while leaving leaving the details for later. “It is possible and we expect that it will be done,” Pasztor said.

Pasztor’s comments were more optimistic than the consensus of many observers. Despite extensive negotiations over the last two years, disagreements have persisted among nations over the level and pace of greenhouse gas reductions needed to halt global warming at an additional 2 degrees Celsius, a level that environmental scientist say will head off massive climate changes.

Here are excerpts from the recent speech by the Danish Prime Minister:

I suggest that we lock in the determination to act already by Copenhagen and seek political commitments for immediate implementation.
I believe that all the key components of the deal can be achieved in Copenhagen.

In order to achieve this, the Copenhagen Agreement should be ambitious; it should binding and it should be concrete.

It should build on the principles established by the existing legal framework, most notably the principle of a common but differentiated responsibility.

It should capture and encourage the contributions individual countries are willing to undertake within all areas of the Bali Road Map, including specific and binding commitments on mitigation and finance. In the context of immediate action, significant up front finance for both early mitigation and adaptation efforts of the poorest and most vulnerable countries will be of particular importance.

In order to ensure transparency and that the individual countries are standing behind their commitments and deliver on their promises, we shall also need a system of measurement, reporting and verification.

This is the agreement we must reach. It will both provide guidance for our lawyers to finalize the details of the internationally legal binding agreement and for world leaders to commit to specific immediate action, starting January 2010.

In this way, Copenhagen could provide for immediate action based on a comprehensive set of binding, political commitments from world leaders.

The Copenhagen Agreement would thus serve two purposes:

Political commitment to immediate action will also serve to focus and strengthen the negotiations on the legal agreement. It is important that these two purposes will merge in one decision at COP15.

The devil, as always, will be in those “outstanding details.”  Stay tuned.

Related Links:

China, India, US Commit to Seal Copenhagen Deal

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

African negotiators at the U.N. climate talks in Barcelona refused to continue formal discussions about all other issues until wealthy countries live up to their legal and moral responsibility to commit to deep emissions reductions. Rich countries (also called “Annex 1 countries”) have ground negotiations to a halt by failing to agree to their new targets under the Kyoto Protocol, driving developing countries to put their feet down. This walkout is significant and opens up political space -- it means many of the countries in Africa just stopped one half of the U.N. climate negotiation process until rich countries say how much they will reduce their carbon.

We’re down to the wire: just four negotiating days left before the big agreement in Copenhagen is supposed to go down. We've now seen a taste of the breakdowns to come. While rich countries continue to undermine commitments for the Kyoto Protocol (one of two negotiating tracks for Copenhagen, it's supposed to be renewed for a second commitment period of Annex 1 targets), the spin has already taken hold: they’re blaming Africa for their own delay-mongering. Oy vey.

In response, movement and civil-society organizations held a demonstration at the U.N. building in support of African delegates' insistence that developed countries commit to new, strong, binding targets. Delegates and observers were invited to join a human shield against the killing of Kyoto targets (complete with an Annex 1 grim reaper) and urged to promote at least 40 percent emission reductions with no offsets by 2020.

Kamese Geoffrey of NAPE/Friends of the Earth Uganda warned, "Rich countries are attempting to dodge their legal and moral responsibilities to reduce emissions. Developing countries and communities have historically had practically no fault in the creation of climate change, yet they will be the first to face the devastating impacts of climate change."

Many of us have longstanding criticisms of the Kyoto Protocol, particularly its market mechanisms. But here’s why Kyoto is important: It contains a few core provisions and basic justice frameworks that the U.S. and other Annex 1 countries are trying to avoid.

1) Compliance. This means the international community evaluates whether or not you’ve come through on your commitments, set to a specific time period.

2) Overall targets (AKA top-down target setting). This means the international community decides what the targets for CO2 reduction are, and then divides up responsibilities accordingly. Equity and science decide. The U.S. wants the opposite -- each country consulting with industry to see what it thinks it can muster, and then we just see where we land.

3) “Common but differentiated responsibilities.” This is the most important framework to save. It means that the industrialized countries caused the problem of global warming, and the Global South is dealing with the worst of the impacts first (droughts, floods, famines, hurricanes, etc. are all hitting the equator now in ways that will only come to the rest of the world later). In order for the Global South to reduce emissions, they need finance and technology from industrialized countries or else we are robbing them of their right to develop -- there just isn’t space for everyone to follow the North’s dirty development path. “Ecological debt” is one way to think about it. This is the most basic framework of justice, which is what people mean when they say “the North must lead,” and why the idea that both Annex 1 and G77 countries “need to act together” is actually a deeply corrupt and unjust framework.

The idea that we can somehow replace a legally binding instrument with a voluntary pledge system is insanity. In 1997, when the Kyoto Protocol was first ratified, it had been watered down tremendously in the hopes of getting the U.S. to sign. The U.S. didn’t sign (though it remains party to the convention). Yet under the Bali Action Plan, agreed to in December 2007, the U.S. is required to take on comparable efforts to other Annex 1 countries under Kyoto -- which means that in theory, the rest of the world could continue the Kyoto Protocol, and the U.S. would have to come along whether it signs or not. Instead, we’ve seen a race to the bottom -- other Annex 1 countries hiding behind U.S. inaction and refusal to sign, claiming the world cannot make an agreement without the U.S. on board.

So the shit is hitting the fan. And Africa isn’t taking it. We should applaud their courage, and be skeptical anytime the media tries to shift the blame for the breakdown of negotiations onto G77 countries. Make no mistake, these talks have been polluted by self-interested corporations and governments, and all roads lead back to Annex 1 (and the U.S. in particular).

It’s a myth that Kyoto expires in 2012 -- only the first commitment period of Annex 1 greenhouse-gas emission reductions ends. We need to support the basic frameworks of a legally binding treaty, and need to ensure there is a second Kyoto commitment period. Period.

Related Links:

China, India, US Commit to Seal Copenhagen Deal

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’

PARIS -- Leaders from nine major faiths meet at Windsor Castle on Tuesday in an exceptional initiative that supporters predict will harness the power of religion in the fight against climate change.

The ecumenical gathering at the home of Queen Elizabeth II, 22 miles west of London, is being co-staged by the United Nations and Prince Philip's Alliance of Religions and Conservation (ARC).

Representatives from Baha'ism, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Shintoism, Sikhism, and Taoism will unveil programs that "could motivate the largest civil society movement the world has ever seen," said U.N. Assistant Secretary General Olav Kjorven.

U.N. Chief Ban Ki-moon will launch the event under the banner "Faith Commitments for a Living Planet."

"We expect to send a strong signal from religion to governments that we are extremely committed. It's about religions mobilizing their followers to act against climate change," Kjorven told AFP in an interview.

Eighty-five percent of humanity follow a religion, a figure that shows the power of faith to move billions, he pointed out.

In addition, faith-based groups own nearly 8 percent of habitable land on Earth, operate dozens of media groups and more than half the world's schools, and control 7 percent of financial investments worth trillions, according to ARC.

"But the problem is deeper than economics and money, it's much more about the moral idea [of] 'Nature is God's Nature, so we have to be kind to it,'" said Victoria Finlay, ARC's director of communication.

"Global warming and its impacts cannot be looked at just as a material problem. The root causes are spiritual," agreed Stuart Scott, whose Interfaith Declaration on Climate Change -- calling for the "stewardship and reverence for creation" -- has been endorsed by dozens of major religious organizations.

In July, some 200 Muslim leaders gathered in Istanbul to forge a seven-year climate change action plan.

One of the measures adopted was the creation of a "Muslim eco-label" for goods and services ranging from printings of the Koran to organized pilgrimages.

"We don't want to distance ourselves from governments, we are all in the same boat," said Mahmoud Akef, who led the initiative. "If we devastate the planet, we'll have no place else to live."

Sikhs who feed some 30 million people in need every day in their temples in India are poised to revamp their kitchens to make them "eco-friendly," and China's Taoist temples are going solar.

"Religions cross boundaries and don't have to deal with issues of finance, of sovereignty, of intellectual property on technology" -- all issues bedeviling U.N. climate talks, said Jessica Haller, director of the Jewish Climate Campaign.

American environmentalist Bill McKibben, the founder of grassroots climate group 350.org, has identified two wellsprings for the worldwide tsunami of support for his web-based cause: educated youth and faith-based groups.

350.org organized a day of "global action" on Saturday, Oct. 24 of more than 5,000 mainly small-scale climate-awareness events around the world.

"If Earth is in some way a museum of divine intent, it's pretty horrible to be defacing all that creation," McKibben, an author who is active in the Methodist Church, said.

"And if, in Christianity and other faiths, we are called upon above all else to love God and love our neighbors, drowning your neighbor in Bangladesh is a pretty bad way to go about it," he added.

Scientists warn that unabated global warming will likely cause ocean levels to rise at least 3.25 feet by century's end, enough to wreak havoc in high-populated low-lying deltas, especially in South, Southeast and East Asia.

For Peter Newell, a professor at the University of East Anglia in England who had tracked climate activism for more than a decade, religion has the traction to haul a truly global movement.

"It would be a huge mobilizing force if people started to frame the issue of climate change in religious terms," noted Newell.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

Learning how to count to 350

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon at a press conference in Seattle (Oct. 26, 2009).Jon Hiskes / GristAs the U.S. Senate begins work on a climate and energy bill this week, senators shouldn't be surprised if they get a phone call from the guy who counts every person on Earth as a member of his constituency. Ban Ki-moon, Secretary General of the United Nations, said Monday that he plans to contact senators to urge them to pass a bill before December.

“I’m going to engage myself with not only government leaders but with senators of the United States,” Ban said at a press conference in Seattle.

He didn’t elaborate on who, or how, or what strategy he would employ to jumpstart the world’s most deliberative deliberative body. But his pledge illustrates how heavily the American legislative process weighs on the minds of those preparing for the UN climate conference in December.

China, India, Brazil, South Africa, and Mexico are all “ready to make some political compromises only if and only when the United States is ready to [pass a bill],” Ban said. “Leadership and initiative from the United States will be crucially important at this time. We have only six weeks to go. We don’t have much time.”

Ban maintained that reaching a treaty in December was still his goal, even as prospects for that diminish. He acknowledged that work toward a treaty would likely continue after the Copenhagen conference concludes, though he added, “I’m sure we will have an agreement there.”

Ban was in Seattle to accept an honorary degree from the University of Washington. He also stopped by the home of Bill and Melinda Gates to discuss ways to address maternal death rates and child health.

I asked him what benchmarks would make an effective U.S. climate bill, and Ban said it wasn’t his role to become involved in a domestic bill.

“Even with this domestic legislation, it may not be sufficient, but it can have a huge political impact with other negotiators, other countries,” he said.

Ban did sketch (in broad terms) what he considers the most crucial elements of an international climate treaty, largely echoing his op-ed in Monday’s New York Times. First, it must have ambitious mid-term targets for emissions. (He mentioned goals for 2020, as opposed to, say, 2050.). They must be backed by binding commitments. And wealthier countries must supply “substantial” financial aid to help poor countries adapt to the impacts of climate change.

Related Links:

China, India, US Commit to Seal Copenhagen Deal

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Today marked one of the final days of the Bangkok U.N. Climate Negotiations. With the end of this intersessional in sight, the International Youth Delegation (IYD) has officially declared “No Confidence” in the road to Copenhagen.

With youth delegates from over 30 countries engaging in the Bangkok process, the IYD cited pathetically weak targets from the North, alarm that a second commitment period in the Kyoto Protocol will not be secured, and a lack of guarantees for protection of indigenous peoples’ rights and interests in its declaration. The current text of the draft climate deal is so weak and so full of “false solutions” (measures like offsetting that actually make the problem worse) it is unacceptable.

Youth delegates representing each continent addressed the U.N. today, detailing the urgency of the crisis as it affects their communities currently, telling stories of their hope and organizing alongside their denunciation of the state of play in the U.N. Negotiations.

This week the Annex 1 (rich countries), attempted to kill the Kyoto Protocol (KP). We are nearing upon the end of the current KP term, and a lack of renewing it means that the world would lose the few legally binding international climate agreements it has (as insufficient as they are). The US in particular has deliberately undermined the KP by trying to merge it with the Convention Processes (the other track). Other Annex 1 countires are hiding behind the US to avoid their responsibility. The excuse is that the United States will not sign, and therefore the whole thing should be scrapped and an entirely new deal can be struck on its own. It is lunacy to think that this will yield a stronger outcome, and the G77 (the rest of the world) countries are furious.

We have always known the U.S. won't sign the KP; the world cannot continue to wait for the U.S. to get on board. In Bali, the U.S. already committed to setting comparable targets to other Annex 1 countries, so the world could deal with the U.S. in the AWG-LCA (Ad-Hoc Working Group on Long Term Cooperative Action). This all amounts to a shell game: more dirty delaying tactics from self-interested countries who are content to strip away basic attempts at an international agreement (for example "compliance" -- meaning that the U.S. would have international oversight of its targets, or "top-down target setting" -- meaning the international community sets carbon targets together based on science, rather than each countries independently setting their targets based on what their fossil fuel extraction industries dictate).

Allowing the U.S. to drag the world out of existing legal obligations is disgraceful. These negotiations are going backwards. Make no mistake: our future is being held hostage to interests that have consistently thumbed their noses at the international community and their obligations to the rest of the world. This process has been polluted by self-interested corporations and nations looking to profit off of our crisis. They have been pushing false solutions that exacerbate rather than fix the problem. Not only are the targets set by rich countries weak, but they are deceptive. Rather than representing actual emissions reductions, they contain unacceptable proportions of offsets, which do not reduce emissions, and displace the burden back onto the developing countries of the world.

In the meantime, the roadmap developed in Bali has been betrayed, as Annex 1 countries are putting forward the perverse idea that somehow developing countries should (or can) act first. Further language on indigenous rights is being removed and diluted from the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD) text. "Rights" are being defined as "right to participate," as opposed to "rights over land and communities", and existing U.N. language (such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples or UNDRIP, and the principles of Free Prior and Informed Consent or FPIC) is far from being adopted. This has led to major protests all week and this morning youth supported the Indigenous Caucus in a large "No Rights?? No REDD!!" demonstration on the front steps of the U.N.

The youth will not accept a dirty deal.

Rights-based language in the text (including UNDRIP and FPIC), no offsets, limiting global temperatures to 1.5 degrees C and 350 ppm of c02, unconditional legally binding targets for Annex 1 countries of at least 40% reductions by 2020, and a LOT of money for adaptation and technology transfer are just some of the baseline components that must be in the text to even begin to sensibly move forward. Regardless of what governments decide, youth across the world are continuing to organize social movements to build meaningful solutions in their own communities, working on local, national, and international levels. Our hope for the future is in the power of civil society to reshape what is perceived as politically possible.

See the video of the press conference here:

Bangkok: International Youth Delegation declares "No Confidence" in road to Copenhagen from CYD To Copenhagen on Vimeo.

Related Links:

China, India, US Commit to Seal Copenhagen Deal

Climate Denial Crock of the Week: The big mist take

What Do Coal and Dirty Dorm Rooms Have in Common?

Remember when the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, and International Monetary Fund were constantly making global headlines for their fierce opposition from people's movements around the world?

Well, international Finance Institutions (including the World Bank) are rearing their ugly heads again -- this time with the U.N. as their vehicle.

Today, more than 50 social movements, trade unions, environmental groups, and NGOs from 17 countries issued a statement at the United Nations in Bangkok, where UNFCCC climate negotiations move into their fifth day.

The groups, which include several large international networks, said that rich countries should acknowledge their historical responsibility and the “ecological and climate debts” they owe to the Global South countries. “Deep, drastic cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, through domestic measures is part of reparations,” the statement said. “They took much more than their fair share of atmospheric space, and in the process denied the people of developing countries -- the people of the South -- their rightful share. They must give it back.”

And they're right. As colleagues here in Bangkok talk about their newly-homeless families from the floods earlier this week in the Philippines, it is undeniable that the economic prosperity of the North is the gift-that-keeps-on-giving to the South -- this time around in the form of devastating climate change. Tom Pickens from Friends of the Earth described it like having a fancy four course meal in an expensive restaurant -- and then forcing someone walking by on the street outside to pay.

Reparations for these debts, according to Fabrina Furtado from Jubilee South, also include the “complete restoration of territories and ecosystems, reconstruction of basic infrastructure, recovery of social rights, and the restoration of the well being of the peoples of the South.”

Reparations must come from public sources.

The groups decried alleged attempts by Annex 1 (Northern) countries to “avoid taking full responsibility” for the consequences of their excessive emissions. In their statement, groups expressed strong opposition to giving any role in climate finance or climate programs to the World Bank, regional development banks and other international financial institutions – and emphasized the need for “a new global fund.”

These views are similar to those of the G77 plus China group, a bloc of more than 130 developing countries in the climate negotiations that considers the World Bank inappropriate for channeling developed countries’ financial obligations under the Convention -- largely because of its undemocratic and unaccountable governance structure.

The group’s critique of the World Bank and related financial institutions goes even further. Elena Gerebizza of the Italian NGO Campaign for the Reform of the World Bank said, “The World Bank and other international financial institutions are in large part responsible for the current economic, financial and climate crises. We cannot expect them to play a positive role nor to contribute to real solutions.” “On the contrary,” she added, “these institutions have been pushing false solutions, such as the expansion of the carbon market, which increase financial instability and take away space for serious thinking about real solutions for the climate crisis.”

Whew. United States, ready to listen yet?

Related Links:

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

A scientific hack job that won’t cripple climate talks

AP: Since 1997 “climate change has worsened and accelerated”

Coming right off the heels of the U.N. General Assembly in New York and the G20 in Pittsburgh, the world has taken its next step on the road to Copenhagen: the Bangkok round of negotiations for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

This morning the Thai Prime Minister opened the session by saying “There is no plan B, if we do not realize plan A, we go straight to plan F, which stands for failure.”

So, no pressure. 

With an invigorated sense of skepticism, civil society, governments, and of course business interests are here to try to hammer through obtuse and contradictory text to create something that can be of some use on the table at the Copenhagen meetings this December.

The U.N. press office was quick to hand me a defensive-sounding media release stating ‘Negotiations set to pick up in Bangkok as a result of New York Climate Change Summit’ – hoping to put a positive spin on the process. Sure, the New York summit yielded lots of big talk about Climate – unfortunately very little in the way of meaningful targets and commitments, as pointed out (to much applause) by a Sudanese delegate this morning.

The reality of the U.S. being able to meaningfully commit is grim, as illustrated by the statement released by John Podesta and Rajendra Pachauri, this Friday. Despite Obama talking a good game (which in itself is a welcome departure from the Bush years), he still failed to put forward any details. Hopes previously pinned on Obama have been deflated by stalled domestic legislation that NASA’s Dr. James Hansen said if implemented, “would do more harm to the environment than nothing at all.”

On the flip side, many people here in Bangkok have been encouraged by China’s announcement at the NY summit that it is increasing commitments on carbon reduction. We all know though, that responsibility to lead with these negotiations lies on the global North to make bolder and serious commitments. India and China are moving, and the classic U.S. approach trying to pin blame on them is increasingly seen as excuse-mongering even to those who may have bought the line before.

From where we stand now, it looks like Copenhagen will be a greenwash. But civil society here in Bangkok is not taking this as a moment to despair but as a higher call to action for just and equitable ways to meet meaningful targets. Peoples movements and activist networks from across the globe are taking this opportunity to build and organize, invigorating local solutions back home, regardless of what ends up on the negotiating table. And so we keep pushing. If we temper our ambition along with our expectations, governments will feel more emboldened to backslide and allow the treaty to be an industry giveaway. Lets keep pressure up.

Here's an inspiring quickie of organizers in the United States working for community based solutions to the climate crisis:

Related Links:

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

Copenhagen talks ready for take off: 5, 4, 3…

City preps and countries posture ahead of Copenhagen talks

Clock block.This week saw heated multitudes descend on NYC
Their passions were aflame, though some were acting quite icy.
A human countdown filled the park with cries of Tck, Tck, Tck
And Indy told his corporate pals this problem they could lick.
Obama wowed the world by saying nothing much, and how!
He met his match in vagueness in our old friend Hu Jintao.

Hugh Jackman, Heather Graham, and other pretties lent their heft.
(Without celebs we might be feeling much, much more bereft!)
And then there were the Yes Men, those wry stunters we love most
Who tizzied up the city with that version of the Post.
Now Climate Week is over, but its vibe we must remember
As we plod e’er onward toward That Meeting in December.

Related Links:

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Djimon Hounsou at the U.N. Climate SummitPhoto: United NationsActor Djimon Hounsou is just as snacky in real life as he was on the big screen in Blood Diamond, The Island, and Gladiator.  Better yet, he’s also a climate activist and humanitarian.

As a global ambassador for the aid and development group Oxfam, Hounsou has traveled in sub-Saharan Africa and seen the direct links between climate change and human suffering.  “I’ve witnessed firsthand devastation with drought,” the Benin-born actor told reporters after he helped to kick off the U.N. Summit on Climate Change.  “Year after year, [local farmers are] still expecting the rain to come pretty much as it used to.  It’s not coming.  So they have to adapt, with their crops and plantings.” 

Not an easy proposition in a country like Mali, which Hounsou visited on a humanitarian mission.  The average income in this Western African nation is about $3.29 a day.

Often the communities Hounsou travels to know that something has gone wrong, says Oxfam America President Ray Offenheiser.  “We held a climate hearing in Ethiopia a week or so ago.  One comment was ... ‘For many many years, there were all varieties of birds here.  And now the birds are gone.’”

Signs like this are signals of a “profound change” for these communities, Offenheiser says, even if “they don’t have all the information about what’s happening, why it’s happening, and what it means.” 

“This is where the climate change story and the adaptation story become the human story,” he continued. “It’s about people, their lives, their livelihoods, and how they are going to change.”

One of the major points of gridlock in this year’s international climate-treaty negotiations is how the rich, industrialized nations are going to help the poorer developing nations adapt to and mitigate climate change—while also continuing to send over the aid and development dollars they already provide for a host of other reasons. 

It is widely accepted now that the wealthy countries bear this responsibility; after all, they got fat and happy by creating the greenhouse-gas pollution that’s now slow-cooking the Earth. But how much help should developed nations offer?  This is just one of the many contentious open questions to be addressed at December’s climate-treaty talks in Copenhagen.

Oxfam estimates that wealthy nations need to come up with around $50 billion a year to help poorer nations adapt to global warming, and about another $100 billion a year to finance low-carbon development, so that these countries can ameliorate poverty without taking a coal-and-oil-fueled path to prosperity.

Hounsou hopes that if the citizens of wealthy nations better grasp the human costs of climate change, they will pressure their leaders to ante up. 

“We haven’t engaged the world population into this issue yet,” Hounsou says, noting that Western media in particular have not paid attention to the human component of global warming. 

Still, “no matter how you look at it, developing nations have to initiate the discussion at Copenhagen,” he said.

Watch Hounsou at the U.N. Climate Summit: 

Related Links:

China, India, US Commit to Seal Copenhagen Deal

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

U.N. headquarters: Site of all the inaction.Photo: United NationsThe U.S. was given a starring role at the United Nations Climate Summit on Tuesday, but China stole the show.

President Barack Obama had pride of place on the agenda, as the first head of state to speak to the gathered world leaders, ministers, and climate negotiators.  His speech, which was warmly received, offered rhetorically forceful yet wholly general commentary about the huge risks posed by climate change and the need for action.  Obama said nothing specific about what his nation was prepared to commit to in order to slash its emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases.  Most of the speeches by other heads of state charted the same safe territory.

Chinese President Hu Jintao, on the other hand, vowed that China would curb the growth of its greenhouse-gas emissions by a “notable margin” from 2005 levels by 2020.  He said his nation would generate 15 percent of its power from renewables and nuclear by 2020, and plant 150,000 square miles of new forest over that same period.  He also committed to improving energy efficiency and integrating climate action into domestic economic development plans. 

While Hu avoided talk of specific emissions reductions and stressed that developed countries should do more than their developing counterparts, his statements were the most definitive to date about what China is prepared to do to cut and compensate for its carbon emissions.

Al Gore hailed Hu’s speech.  “I think that China has provided impressive leadership,” Gore said.

Humberto Rosa, Portugal’s secretary of state for environment, echoed that sentiment.  “China has today given a little bit of leadership” among the developing nations “by giving solid numbers,” Rosa said.

Gore, Rosa, and others had similar praise for Japan’s new prime minister, Yukio Hatoyama, who has pledged that his nation will cut emissions 25 percent from 1990 levels by 2020.

These new commitments from Asia’s powerhouses are putting real pressure on the U.S., as is the European Union’s willingness to commit to cuts of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 if the U.S. will follow suit.

Meanwhile, small island nations—some of whose very existence is threatened by climate change—are also putting on all the pressure they can. 

This past summer, the world’s major economies announced a goal of keeping overall surface warming of the Earth by 2100 to less than 2 degrees Celsius (3.8 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial temperatures.  The Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) has challenged the global community [PDF] to keep overall surface warming well below 1.5 degrees C, which would mean even greater cuts than the most ambitious treaty proposals made so far.

A treaty that settles for anything less would spell disaster for island nations, in the view of Dean Bialek, U.N. representative for the nonprofit group Independent Diplomat, who is advising and assisting the AOSIS nations in the climate treaty negotiations. “[It] would mean complete inundation and statelessness,” says Bialek.  “That’s a morally repugnant outcome, and totally unacceptable.”

But despite China, despite Japan, despite the European Union, most observers agree that it will all come down to what the U.S. is prepared to do.  “A firm commitment from the U.S. would make the dominoes fall into place,” Bialek says. 

“With the change in administration in the U.S., everyone believed that a strong deal was forthcoming,” Bialek continued. “Hopes have dimmed a bit due to the mixed signals coming from Washington.”

Portugal’s Rosa says the E.U. still trusts that President Obama wants to fight global warming, but worries that America’s domestic political process could derail this year’s international treaty talks. 

“The American people and the Senate are the real actors now,” Rosa says.  “We’re sure the United States will get there, but we’ll be sorry if it’s not in time for Copenhagen.”

Related Links:

China, India, US Commit to Seal Copenhagen Deal

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’

Was the U.N. Climate Summit held in a marble bathroom?Photo: U.N./Marco Castro It was no barnburner of a speech, but President Obama’s address at the U.N. Climate Summit Tuesday morning amounted to the boldest climate change speech of his presidency. That's because it was essentially the only climate change speech of his presidency.

Until now, President Obama's message about energy has been all clean-tech innovation, green jobs, and economic growth, with just passing mentions of climate change. Candidate Obama, to be clear, had plenty to say about climate (example: his interview with Grist in July 2007). On Tuesday he finally returned to the topic.

“No nation, however large or small, wealthy or poor, can escape the impact of climate change,” he said in the address to world leaders. “Rising sea levels threaten every coastline.  More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent.  More frequent drought and crop failures breed hunger and conflict in places where hunger and conflict already thrive.  On shrinking islands, families are already being forced to flee their homes as climate refugees.  The security and stability of each nation and all peoples—our prosperity, our health, our safety—are in jeopardy.  And the time we have to reverse this tide is running out.”

By comparison, Obama’s Earth Day speech in April was all about the economic potential of clean energy:

Now Obama may have just been telling leaders at the U.N. what they wanted to hear, making the right gestures without committing to much. As my editor points out, the only hard number in the speech was G20—Obama didn’t pressure Congress to commit to specific emissions cuts. And he hasn’t yet given a climate-focused speech like this directly to Americans. But he still spoke about the underlying reason for an energy revolution, and that’s significant.

In green circles, there are endless discussions about what messages play best—the green jobs stuff, the think-of-our-children appeals, the moral reminders that the Third World poor will bear the brunt of our pollution’s impact. There is room for all of them, of course, but conventional wisdom is that jobs and prosperity talking points are much safer than the buzz-kills about suffering. Tuesday’s speech was a tentative departure from that script.

Full text of the speech.

Related Links:

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

President Barack Obama spoke to the U.N. General Assembly on the morning of Sept. 22, as part of the U.N. Summit on Climate Change. Here are his remarks (and video is embedded below):

President Obama addresses the U.N. on climate.U.N. WebcastGood morning.  I want to thank the Secretary-General for organizing this summit, and all the leaders who are participating.  That so many of us are here today is a recognition that the threat from climate change is serious, it is urgent, and it is growing.  Our generation’s response to this challenge will be judged by history, for if we fail to meet it—boldly, swiftly, and together—we risk consigning future generations to an irreversible catastrophe.

No nation, however large or small, wealthy or poor, can escape the impact of climate change.  Rising sea levels threaten every coastline.  More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent.  More frequent drought and crop failures breed hunger and conflict in places where hunger and conflict already thrive.  On shrinking islands, families are already being forced to flee their homes as climate refugees.  The security and stability of each nation and all peoples—our prosperity, our health, our safety—are in jeopardy.  And the time we have to reverse this tide is running out.

And yet, we can reverse it.  John F. Kennedy once observed that, “Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man.”  It is true that for too many years, mankind has been slow to respond to or even recognize the magnitude of the climate threat.  It is true of my own country as well.  We recognize that.  But this is a new day.  It is a new era.  And I am proud to say that the United States has done more to promote clean energy and reduce carbon pollution in the last eight months than at any other time in our history.

We’re making our government’s largest ever investment in renewable energy—an investment aimed at doubling the generating capacity from wind and other renewable resources in three years.  Across America, entrepreneurs are constructing wind turbines and solar panels and batteries for hybrid cars with the help of loan guarantees and tax credits—projects that are creating new jobs and new industries.  We’re investing billions to cut energy waste in our homes, buildings, and appliances—helping American families save money on energy bills in the process.  We’ve proposed the very first national policy aimed at both increasing fuel economy and reducing greenhouse gas pollution for all new cars and trucks—a standard that will also save consumers money and our nation oil.  We’re moving forward with our nation’s first offshore wind energy projects.  We’re investing billions to capture carbon pollution so that we can clean up our coal plants.  Just this week, we announced that for the first time ever, we’ll begin tracking how much greenhouse gas pollution is being emitted throughout the country.  Later this week, I will work with my colleagues at the G20 to phase out fossil fuel subsidies so that we can better address our climate challenge.  And already, we know that the recent drop in overall U.S. emissions is due in part to steps that promote greater efficiency and greater use of renewable energy.

Most importantly, the House of Representatives passed an energy and climate bill in June that would finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy for American businesses and dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  One committee has already acted on this bill in the Senate and I look forward to engaging with others as we move forward.

Because no one nation can meet this challenge alone, the United States has also engaged more allies and partners in finding a solution than ever before.  In April, we convened the first of what have now been six meetings of the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate here in the United States.  In Trinidad, I proposed an Energy and Climate Partnership for the Americas.  We’ve worked through the World Bank to promote renewable energy projects and technologies in the developing world.  And we have put climate at the top of our diplomatic agenda when it comes to our relationships with countries from China to Brazil; India to Mexico; Africa to Europe.

Taken together, these steps represent an historic recognition on behalf of the American people and their government.  We understand the gravity of the climate threat.  We are determined to act.  And we will meet our responsibility to future generations.

But though many of our nations have taken bold actions and share in this determination, we did not come here today to celebrate progress.  We came because there is so much more progress to be made.  We came because there is so much more work to be done.

It is work that will not be easy.  As we head towards Copenhagen, there should be no illusions that the hardest part of our journey is in front of us.  We seek sweeping but necessary change in the midst of a global recession, where every nation’s most immediate priority is reviving their economy and putting their people back to work.  And so all of us will face doubts and difficulties in our own capitals as we try to reach a lasting solution to the climate challenge.

But difficulty is no excuse for complacency.  Unease is no excuse for inaction.  And we must not allow the perfect to become the enemy of progress.  Each of us must do what we can when we can to grow our economies without endangering our planet—and we must all do it together.  We must seize the opportunity to make Copenhagen a significant step forward in the global fight against climate change.

We also cannot allow the old divisions that have characterized the climate debate for so many years to block our progress.  Yes, the developed nations that caused much of the damage to our climate over the last century still have a responsibility to lead.  And we will continue to do so—by investing in renewable energy, promoting greater efficiency, and slashing our emissions to reach the targets we set for 2020 and our long-term goal for 2050.

But those rapidly-growing developing nations that will produce nearly all the growth in global carbon emissions in the decades ahead must do their part as well.  Some of these nations have already made great strides with the development and deployment of clean energy.  Still, they will need to commit to strong measures at home and agree to stand behind those commitments just as the developed nations must stand behind their own.  We cannot meet this challenge unless all the largest emitters of greenhouse gas pollution act together.  There is no other way.

We must also energize our efforts to put other developing nations—especially the poorest and most vulnerable—on a path to sustainable growth.  These nations do not have the same resources to combat climate change as countries like the United States or China do, but they have the most immediate stake in a solution.  For these are the nations that are already living with the unfolding effects of a warming planet—famine and drought; disappearing coastal villages and the conflict that arises from scarce resources.  Their future is no longer a choice between a growing economy and a cleaner planet, because their survival depends on both.  It will do little good to alleviate poverty if you can no longer harvest your crops or find drinkable water.

That is why we have a responsibility to provide the financial and technical assistance needed to help these nations adapt to the impacts of climate change and pursue low-carbon development.

What we are seeking, after all, is not simply an agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions.  We seek an agreement that will allow all nations to grow and raise living standards without endangering the planet.  By developing and disseminating clean technology and sharing our know-how, we can help developing nations leap-frog dirty energy technologies and reduce dangerous emissions.

As we meet here today, the good news is that after too many years of inaction and denial, there is finally widespread recognition of the urgency of the challenge before us.  We know what needs to be done.  We know that our planet’s future depends on a global commitment to permanently reduce greenhouse gas pollution.  We know that if we put the right rules and incentives in place, we will unleash the creative power of our best scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs to build a better world.  And so many nations have already taken the first steps on the journey towards that goal.

But the journey is long.  The journey is hard.  And we don’t have much time left to make it.  It is a journey that will require each of us to persevere through setback, and fight for every inch of progress, even when it comes in fits and starts.  So let us begin.  For if we are flexible and pragmatic; if we can resolve to work tirelessly in common effort, then we will achieve our common purpose:  a world that is safer, cleaner, and healthier than the one we found; and a future that is worthy of our children.  Thank you.

Watch the video:

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

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

2009: The year so many met so often to talk so much about the perilous state of the climate—and as of September, accomplished so little.  Will this week be the charm?

During several different international meetings this year, nations have been getting into position for this December’s international climate treaty talks in Copenhagen.

This week, they’re all gathering again.  On Tuesday, the U.N. is holding a day-long Climate Summit (alongside its annual, two-week General Assembly) in New York City.  And on Thursday and Friday, the Group of 20 (G20) leading world economies is gathering in Pittsburgh, its third meeting of the year to deal with the global economic meltdown.

While climate is not formally on the G20’s agenda, some are hoping that President Obama will come off his speech at the New York event ready to signal to other world leaders that the U.S. will lead on forging a strong replacement to the Kyoto Protocol treaty to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, which expires in 2013.  Its successor is supposed to be largely finalized at December’s global-warming talks.

New York City is playing host to climate week.How likely is Obama to do that?  As the Magic 8-Ball might say, “Reply hazy; try again.”

Candidate Obama made strong climate action a central plank of his election platform.  President Obama has taken some pragmatic steps to make good on those promises, such as naming a climate-savvy team to key environment- and energy-related posts.  Obama also backed the massive funding within the stimulus bill for home-weatherization programs, clean energy research and development, expansion of rail transit, and other on-the-ground moves toward a low-carbon energy economy.  And he spent a smidge of political capital to help get the House climate and energy bill passed in June.

On the international negotiating front, however, the Obama administration may be hamstrung by sluggish Senate progress on passing climate legislation.  Senate leaders keep pushing back the timetable for action on a bill, with Majority Leader Harry Reid suggesting last week that it could be bumped all the way to next year.  Republicans are almost universally opposed to a cap-and-trade system for cutting greenhouse-gas emissions, and many moderate Democrats aren’t enthusiastic about cap-and-trade either.

If the Senate doesn’t pass a climate bill by early December, U.S. influence in Copenhagen may well be diminished, though if the EPA takes action to regulate greenhouse gases with its existing authority, that could give the Obama administration something to take the table.

Meanwhile, the administration is working toward a bilateral climate agreement, which could circumvent the Kyoto treaty framework.  Where the world’s two greatest greenhouse-gas polluters lead, the rest of the world will probably have to follow, no matter how strong or weak the results may be.

Climate activists are not going to let this week’s gatherings of nations pass without a demonstration—or even several thousand demonstrations, all around the world—to show global public demand for a strong international climate treaty.  So there’s a heavy schedule of (hoped-for) flash mobs, protests, call-to-arms film screenings, and other events in both New York City and Pittsburgh.

Through its Voices Project, the international aid group Oxfam and allies are helping a number of non-mainstream-media reporters and bloggers (including this reporter-blogger) to attend the Climate Summit; get face time with big names in climate policy, politics, and activism; and cover the G20 from a perspective that puts global warming front and center, instead of off to the side of the recession or global trade policy.

So, let’s set the scene:  Coming into this week’s meetings, the U.S. and 16 other of the world’s largest emitters have already made a commitment (at July’s Major Economies Forum in Italy) to hold global temperature increases to less than 2 degrees Celsius (3.8 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100.  They also reiterated a goal from last year of “achieving at least a 50 percent reduction in global emissions by 2050,” with industrialized nations slashing their greenhouse-gas pollution by 80 percent.  But as of yet, the 17 nations have made no formal plan for how to get to any of these milestones.

Will this week’s events help break through the logjam?  Stay tuned as we find out.

Related Links:

China, India, US Commit to Seal Copenhagen Deal

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’

“I don’t think there is a hope in hell that people will agree to 350 in Copenhagen. I think we’ll get 2 degrees.”

-- Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, speaking at a recent meeting with NGO officials.

"350" refers to the goal of reducing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to 350 parts per million, while "2 degrees" refers to the goal of keeping the global temperature rise to no more than two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Both have been discussed as potential targets for a new international climate treaty that will be negotiated in December in Copenhagen.

Related Links:

China, India, US Commit to Seal Copenhagen Deal

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Bruce Bueno de Mesquita uses game theory to predict all sorts of geopolitical and business outcomes. Don't ask him about global warming...Courtesy NYUCancel your plans for flying to Denmark this December. Send the polar bear suits back to the costume shop, and quit boning up on all those U.N. acronyms (IPCC ... UNFCCC ... AWG-LCA ...).

The COP-15 climate talks in Copenhagen will fail. Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, "one of the world's most prominent applied game theorists," has already gamed out the talks, according to the New York Times Magazine:

Or maybe not. The NYT was good enough to note that Bueno de Mesquita also predicted Bill Clinton's health reform plan would pass back in the 1990s ...

See also: GOOD Magazine's profile from October 2007.

Related Links:

China, India, US Commit to Seal Copenhagen Deal

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon (right) greets Germany's Angela Merkel and France's Nicolas Sarkozy at the G8 summit in L'Aquila, Italy.UN Photo/Mark GartenUnlike some of his predecessors, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon seems to be a brave man, for he has had the courage to chide his most powerful paymasters for failing to do enough to combat climate change.

What's more, he did so last week just as the leaders were congratulating themselves for what they had achieved when they met in L'Aquila, Italy. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown called it an "historic agreement." German Chancellor Angela Merkel said it was a "clear step forwards," and President Barack Obama reported: "We have made a good start."

But the UN chief was unimpressed. "The policies they have stated so far are not enough," he said. "We must work according to the science. This is politically and morally imperative."

Others were more outspoken. "A massive opportunity has been missed here," said Paul Cook, director of the British aid charity, Tearfund. And Guruswamy Ananthapadmanabhan, Greenpeace International's Program Director, denounced "a disgusting abdication of leadership and responsibility."

Most of the media followed suit. Reuters reported "disappointments." The Christian Science Monitor spoke of a "a failure to find common ground." And the New York Times said "things fell apart."

Yet another interpretation is possible. There is an argument to be made that, while the leaders failed to take action commensurate with the scale and speed of the climate crisis, they still achieved more than had been expected, established some common ground and made a meaningful deal at December's vital negotiating meeting in Copenhagen more possible, not less.

L'Aquila, in fact, got two summits for the (admittedly expensive) price of one. The first was the annual G8 summit of the world's most powerful countries; the second a special climate summit of major industrialized and developing countries, convened by President Obama under the aegis of the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate.

Both meetings -- in identical words -- endorsed a maximum permissible global temperature rise of two degrees centigrade above pre-industrial levels. This may not seem much -- after all, scientists have been saying for years that the world should not heat up beyond this to give it a fighting chance of avoiding catastrophic climate change. But the United States was resisting that level until a few weeks ago, as were the leading developing countries just days before.

This is a genuine, if long overdue, advance, and it sets an important vital benchmark needed for setting meaningful targets. There was some progress in this area too, with G8 countries accepting, again for the first time, that their emissions should be cut by 80 percent by 2050, a precondition to developing countries agreeing a global 50 percent by then.

The developing country leaders refused to endorse that global target, but they did accept that they should do more than merely reduce the rate of growth of their emissions, agreeing that they should "peak" (and so start coming down in absolute terms) "as soon as possible." Yet again, this is the first time this has happened, and represents a significant shift in attitudes.

There were also some signs of movement on the thorniest issue of all -- funds to help developing countries fight climate change and adapt to its consequences. President Obama, who chaired the climate summit (participants were keen to avoid it being led by the prime minister of the host country, the climate-skeptical Silvio Berlusconi) gave the floor to Gordon Brown to outline his proposal for a $100 billion a year fund. The leaders agreed to instruct their finance ministers to study the idea and report back the G20 summit in Pittsburgh in late September, just what Britain's leader wanted.

Of course, there is much to criticize. The financial proposal remains just that, even though it is the first to be put on the table. The 80 percent reduction target did not have a firm base year, vaguely stipulating "1990 or more recent years" in deference to the United States and Japan. It would have been much better to have achieved a global target. And above all, there was no target for 2020; so far, rich countries have only offered about a third of the 25-40 percent cuts needed.

Ban Ki-Moon was right than what was agreed was far from enough. But the summits were not the disaster some have depicted. Yvo de Boer, the blunt head of the climate treaty secretariat, said the outcome "hasn't given me a huge rush of adrenalin," but represented "a careful, but useful step towards Copenhagen." That seems about right.

A senior source added that the meetings also "established a new sense of collective purpose and momentum among the leaders about reaching agreement in Copenhagen." If so, that could be the most important result of all. But it needs to lead to greater action -- and do so fast.

Related Links:

China, India, US Commit to Seal Copenhagen Deal

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

At the Bonn climate talks, environmental groups showed their displeasure with Japan's proposed carbon emissions cuts by comparing Prime Minister Aso with former U.S. president George W. Bush.Climate Action Factory via Flickr
Even the skies wept last week when the latest cold front slammed into the ongoing effort to draft a new international climate treaty. The weather had been generally fine and sunny in Bonn during the early part of the two-week gathering, and participants in the talks had taken to sitting out on the terrace of the Maritim hotel and conference center to escape the atmosphere inside.

Then, towards the end of Wednesday morning, the rain fell, sending everyone scurrying indoors, washing out their abandoned coffee cups and stopping suddenly soggy bumblebees from getting airborne.

The cold shower on the terrace was matched by a figurative one inside, as news broke of Japan's emissions target for 2020 -- a declaration that makes it even harder for an effective agreement to get off the ground in time for December's crucial climate conference in Copenhagen.

Japan's prime minister, Taro Aso, announced what he claimed to be an "ambitious" pledge to cut emissions by 15 percent from 2005 levels. That might not have seemed too bad as an opening bid, except for the unfortunate fact that Japan's emissions have risen significantly since 1990, the base year used for reductions under the Kyoto Protocol.

When measured by that yardstick, the target amounts to a cut of just eight percent. That's only slightly higher than the target the country was supposed -- but is comprehensively failing -- to meet under Kyoto, a paltry bit of progress despite 12 years of steadily amassing evidence that climate change is happening much faster and much more seriously than anyone expected when the treaty was agreed to in 1997.

Asked for his reaction at a press conference, Yvo de Boer -- who, as executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, is in charge of the negotiations -- paused dramatically. Then he spoke: "For the first time in two and a half years on this job", he told us, "I don't know what to say."

Others were not so reticent. Climate campaigners rushed out a poster carrying a composite picture of the prime minister and the last U.S. president, emblazoned "George W. Aso." Yu Qingtai, China's climate envoy, said the target was not close "to what Japan needs to do," while WWF said Japan's target set "the wrong tone for the negotiations" and "makes reaching a good deal even harder."

Indeed, this was just the worst example of a general failure by the world's richest nations to come anywhere near the 25-40 percent cuts on 1990 levels demanded by scientists, which they themselves endorsed in principle just 18 months ago at end of a negotiating session in Bali. The Bonn talks, which ended on Friday, were supposed to finalize an "aggregate target" in this range for all of them.

No such aggregate target was agreed to. Worse, adding up all the individual goals so far announced by developed countries showed they so far amount to a cut in emissions of between 8 and 14 percent, which would give the world virtually no chance of keeping its temperature increase below two degrees centigrade, and thus avoid dangerous climate change.

And that was not the only failure in Bonn. Rich countries did even less on the crucial issue of providing money to help poor ones control their own emissions and adapt to the ill-effects of climate change. Not only did they fail to come up with a figure of what would be needed, but they did not produce any concrete suggestions on how the funds would be raised, managed or disbursed. (And, while the conference was going on, EU finance ministers for a second time postponed a decision on how much they would offer.)

Just about all that was achieved was to add some 200 pages to the 68-page negotiating text that was put on the table at the start of the meetings as countries attached their amendments to it. They will all now come back to Bonn in August to try to start whittling it down.

The atmosphere at the talks was friendly, but the United States, which had been warmly welcomed back into the fold at the last talks in March, began coming under heavy fire again. Karen Orenstein of Friends of the Earth US, said that after initially arousing "tremendous hope" worldwide, "the Obama administration's position at these negotiations sounds frighteningly similar to that of George Bush."

More generally, Shyam Saran, India's special envoy, lamented: "There has been hardly any progress on achieving the key objective of our negotiations...which must be equal to the scale we face from global climate change."

As Jennifer Morgan of E3G -- a London-based group that works on sustainability issues -- put it: "We have advanced perhaps a couple of miles towards Copenhagen. We still have thousands to go."

Indeed. And there will doubtless be many more cold showers on the way.

Related Links:

China, India, US Commit to Seal Copenhagen Deal

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

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

If the earth was a car, it would come with an operating instructions not to drive faster than 350 parts per million of carbon in the atmosphere. Unfortunately, like an unruly teenager, humanity – with the United States in the drivers seat – has already revved up the engine and broken all speed limits – we’re speeding at 387 ppm and our tires are already smoking. Unless we start breaking, we’re full speed ahead towards engine meltdown in the scarily near future.

The final plenary session today at the Bonn climate talks drove this point home. As the draft “shared vision” language was discussed (the language that will eventually form the preamble to the agreement) various country delegations put their positions on the table. While the Alliance of Small Island States pleaded for immediate action to keep their nations from sinking into the ocean by adopting clear targets to keep the world below 2 degrees of warming by enshrining science-based targets in the text: a 45 percent reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and more than 90 percent by 2050 (from 1990 levels). The EU is halfway there, suggesting a goal of 50 percent (from 1990 levels) by 2050. The United States, however, gave a disappointingly Bush-esque statement calling for a purely aspirational vision containing no clear target for reductions.

The negotiations here are the world’s best hope to prevent total climate meltdown in our lifetimes. The science is clear – and millions of people around the world are asking for action. With the conclusion of this round of talks, negotiators have succeeded in creating a legal draft text that will be refined at the next round of talks in Bonn in August – now up to 200 pages from the original 50 created in Poznan ­- but we still are missing the critical fuel that we will need to continue the process all the way to Copenhagen: the political will to actually achieve emissions reductions, particularly on the part of the United States. We’re also missing adequate traffic rules – the safeguards that will ensure that whatever else we do, we will make sure that we don’t sacrifice biodiversity or indigenous cultures on the way to saving the climate.

As we move towards Copenhagen, the world needs to hear President Obama clearly commit, “the level of our ambition must rise to match the urgency of the challenge that is facing the world,” and give the U.S. delegation the mandate it needs for a successful deal in Copenhagen. It’s clear that if the United States chooses to lead, other recalcitrant countries like Australia and Saudi Arabia will be more likely to follow.   

In many ways, the U.S. is in the drivers seat. If we aren’t going to drive the world off a cliff, we have to learn to drive more carefully.  We’ve already gotten so many speeding tickets – from the financial meltdown to the food crisis.  Obama has been doing a good job patching up some of our reckless driving injuries, but climate change is and will be different. Mother Nature is one car that we can’t afford to total.   

Related Links:

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

Treat energy efficiency like a utility

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

At the climate negotiations here in Bonn, the main discussions on adaptation have come to a close after a “second reading” of the draft negotiating text. Ecosystem-based adaptation, which we blogged about last week, has gained strong support from country delegations and is included in the text that is coming out of these meetings. But with six months to go to before a climate deal will be finalized in Copenhagen, there are plenty of details and potential obstacles to be addressed inside and outside these negotiations before nations will be able to make use of any adaptation agreement.

The talks here have pooled suggestions and ideas from across the globe about what ecosystem-based adaptation is. They have also marked some differences, reservations and many areas of agreement. But they are based in the very principles of the climate treaty (the UNFCCC) that provides the basis for these negotiations: that adverse effects on the environment can have significant impacts on socio-economic systems and human health and welfare.

What will be necessary in the months ahead is to make sure that these principles are not undermined as the political and financial terms of the deal are negotiated. How can we do this?

For The Nature Conservancy, our focus will be on efforts that bring developing and developed countries together to show what ecosystem-based adaptation is in practice. To show how we can build upon years of traditional and modern conservation experience to help people and natural systems fact the impacts of climate change. To show that efforts that add to the sustainability and long-term survivability of people and nature are a good return-on-investment.

But we also need the political and financial will of developed nations.

Developed countries – with their  long history of emissions and significant financial resources --  are being called to help the world’s most vulnerable developing countries, who’ve had limited emissions but are facing the hardest impacts.

There are many different estimates about how much it will cost to help developing countries adapt to climate change. Estimates by the UNFCCC are in the range between US$28 to 67 billion per year by 2030. Other estimates (e.g. World Bank and Stern Report) indicate that current needs in developing countries could range from $4 to 41 billion annually.   But one thing all estimates have in common is they call for substantially larger sums of money than we’ve seen for any climate assistance to date.

Securing adaptation funding was already an issue, even before these negotiations for a new climate agreement began. In the Kyoto Protocol, developed countries made legally-binding commitments to finance actions on mitigation, adaptation and technology.  Yet much of that has not been delivered, making developing countries skeptical about what developed countries will deliver in the future. The negotiations here have included discussions around ensuring this financing will be available, but there is a long way to go before countries come to agreement on how.

The United States has the opportunity to dispel some of those concerns by including significant funding for adaptation in legislation now moving through the House of Representatives.  Unfortunately, that bill’s funding for adaptation is well below what is needed to bring countries together or give developing countries – who will be hardest hit by climate change – the support they need to survive the impacts.

As the negotiations here come to a close, it’s clear that the international community must forge ahead quickly to ensure that local communities are equipped for the future that lies ahead. 

Related Links:

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

City preps and countries posture ahead of Copenhagen talks

A Gristy guide to the COP15 climate talks