Today I'll be liveblogging a debate on how the world should respond to climate change. Arguing for a vigorous response will be Elizabeth May, head of Canada's Green Party, and noted author/thinker George Monbiot. Arguing for giving climate change a low priority, or no priority at all, will be Bjorn Lomborg (who needs no introduction) and former Thatcher government official Lord Nigel Lawson.

The debate is the latest in the Munk Debates series, sponsored by Canada's Aurea Foundation.

Now, here's the cool part. You can watch the debate, and track the concurrent liveblogging (from me and several others) in the boxes below. So tune in at 6:45PM Eastern time and watch the action!

<a href="http://www.coveritlive.com/mobile.php?option=com_mobile&task=viewaltca st&altcast_code=6f3b23ead5" mce_href="http://www.coveritlive.com/mobile.php?option=com_mobile&task=viewaltca st&altcast_code=6f3b23ead5" >Munk Debates: Climate Change</a>

Related Links:

Annie Leonard misses the mark in her new video, “The Story of Cap-and-Trade”

On ‘climategate’

What to make of the new climate poll

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:

Optimistic or pessimistic about the Copenhagen climate talks?

Copen-talkin’: Smarties offer their takes on COP15 climate talks

December 19—the day after COP15

Halliburton's custom-designed SurvivaBall.The world's most upstanding corporate citizens, like Halliburton, Monsanto, and ExxonMobil, take climate change seriously.  It's a serious opportunity for profit.  That's why, in addition to spending millions to perpetuate the energy, environmental, and subsidy policies that sustain their ongoing operations, they've created this "gated community for one" -- the SurvivaBall.

Specially designed to enable its wearer to withstand months of drought, fierce hurricanes, and catastrophic floods (it floats on water!), the SurvivaBall makes it unnecessary to transition to a low-carbon economy or finance adaptation for the world's poor.

You can even dance in it!  As for procreation between SurvivaBallists ... well, the technology's not quite there yet.  But failure to enact a strong, effective climate treaty would create the market conditions needed to drive just that sort of innovation.

How can we ensure that SurvivaBall will be the solution the G20 focuses on for climate change?  Encourage world leaders to think only of their nations' narrow, short-term interests, leave firm commitments on emissions or humanitarian aid unspoken, and continue to support business-as-usual behavior in the energy, manufacturing, and transport sectors.

Buy yours today!

Related Links:

Lomborg v. Monbiot: liveblogging the Munk debate on climate change

It’s Getting Ha! in Here: Featuring Wyatt Cenac

Newtongate: the final nail in the coffin of Enlightenment thinking

Related Links:

Annie Leonard misses the mark in her new video, “The Story of Cap-and-Trade”

Lomborg v. Monbiot: liveblogging the Munk debate on climate change

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Just three months from now, in the final days before Christmas, we will know -- for better or worse -- what happened at Copenhagen. Looking back at a year that was described to me, as it opened, as "arguably the most important in human history", we will know whether the world has matched up to it.

So now, as the world enters the end game with a chain of summits this week, experts are beginning to work out what an agreement deal might look like, and whether that would be sufficient.

First up is a report from a well regarded Anglo-Indian team from the HSBC bank, based at its Climate Change Centre of Excellence in Bangalore. The HSBC team has little time for the so far ineffectual U.N. negotiations -- the report quotes a description of them as "an aquarium full of hamsters connected to rudimentary motors" producing "a lot of frantic running, a lot of sweat and heat but, in the end, very little light."

And, recalling how the negotiations at Kyoto almost failed twelve years ago, the document cheerfully stresses that "Copenhagen should be much more difficult ... as far more countries are involved and much more is at stake."

Yet, perhaps surprisingly, the report -- entitled The Emperor, the Nightingale and the Phoenix (all will be explained later) -- concludes that "a framework deal will be done." The authors base their "cautious optimism" on two factors, both of which have some validity.

One is that almost all governments sincerely want a deal, however much they may disagree on the details. And the other is that the build up to the conference has already created "significant policy momentum" and "accelerating political, business and social action." Together, the authors say, these have led to "significant convergence" which is taking the world "close to a reasonable deal in Copenhagen that could be deepened later."

What could that look like? First, says the report, there should be agreement to limit global warming to 2 degrees centigrade, with a long-term commitment by industrialized countries to reduce emissions by at least 80 percent by 2050. That much is already virtually secured: agreement along those lines was reached at the G8 and Major Economies Forum summits in Italy last July.

Somewhat harder, but still relatively straightforward, would be its insistence on an agreement that total global emissions should be cut by 50 percent by mid century -- implying, as it does, that developing countries will, in time, have to reduce their emissions. They refused to endorse the figure in L'Aquila but did, nevertheless, agree that their pollution should "peak as soon as possible."

Next, the report recommends that all countries should commit to "low-carbon growth paths", with developing countries agreeing to a framework of the cumbersomely entitled Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs). Again that should be possible: the main question would be whether the NAMAs are to be voluntary or compulsory.

There are also recommendations about protecting forests, aiding technology transfer, establishing carbon markets, and addressing emissions from aviation and shipping and trade. But the really controversial stuff concerns the mid-term targets that rich countries should adopt and the amount of finance they will provide for developing ones.

The report suggests that a realistic target would be a reduction of 15-20 percent on 1990 emission levels by 2020, which falls far short of the 25-40 percent the scientific consensus says will be necessary. And it suggests starting with an $8-12 billion package for 2010-2012, much less than developing countries want.

Current targets, it explains, work out on average at an 11 percent reduction in emissions, and it believes that the 15-20 percent level "could be achieved with an injection of political will." And the financial figure represents roughly a doubling of present commitments, though the report believes that it will end up towards the lower end of its forecast range.

The big question, the team admits, is whether developing countries will accept such relatively unambitious undertakings from industrialized ones "on the basis that something is better than nothing."

And that is where the emperor, the nightingale and the phoenix come in, all appropriately taken from the writings of Copenhagen's favorite author, Hans Christian Andersen. The emperor, as in the one that has no clothes, represents failure in Kyoto, with global warming heading towards an apocalyptic five degree centigrade rise. The nightingale, from the story of one that saves the life of another emperor, envisages complete disaster being averted through implementing present best practices -- but still likely resulting in a destructive temperature increase of around three degrees.

Only the phoenix scenario, where the world is reborn as leaders and citizens agree to take climate change seriously and implement "the toughest scientific recommendations," offers a good chance of meeting the vital two degree target.

The HSBC team reckons that its proposed deal would put the world into a "nightingale" scenario, providing the opportunity to move on to tougher measures. "It is important" it says "to be realistic about what the negotiations can deliver."

In just three months we will know how prescient, or otherwise, it has been.

Related Links:

Optimistic or pessimistic about the Copenhagen climate talks?

Copen-talkin’: Smarties offer their takes on COP15 climate talks

December 19—the day after COP15

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:

Annie Leonard misses the mark in her new video, “The Story of Cap-and-Trade”

Lomborg v. Monbiot: liveblogging the Munk debate on climate change

Prelude to COP15: Climate justice actions sweep the U.S. before Copenhagen talks

Yvo de BoerThe global community should be investing $300 billion annually to combat global warming, according to U.N. climate chief Yvo de Boer. De Boer, the executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, says the world needs to be spending $100 billion annually to help vulnerable communities adapt to the impacts of climate change, and another $200 billion each year to shift the global energy mix away from fossil fuels.

"The world will need a phenomenal amount of money to change its energy supply from fossil fuels to cleaner sources and to adapt to climate change," de Boer said Friday.

According to a U.N. Environment Program news update:

De Boer estimates the annual cost of climate change adaptation at US$100 billion per year. This is the amount needed to cope with natural disasters such as flooding and drought that will result from increased warming. Meanwhile, he pegs the cost of cutting global emissions at US$200 billion annually.

Currently, the draft text contains 200 brackets indicating points of disagreement between negotiators, who differ on who should bear the financial burden of the climate change challenge.

Nevertheless, De Boer stressed that a U.N. climate pact to be agreed upon in Copenhagen should set up a fair mechanism for raising long-term funds, rather than compel countries to contribute specific amount. "A robust burden-sharing formula is the most important thing."

De Boer also recommended that countries participating in the Copenhagen Conference, open negotiations with some cash on the table, perhaps US$10 billion.

At the G8 Summit in July, UNEP Executive Director, Achim Steiner noted that a successful Copenhagen Summit depended on the political will of world leaders to make good on their Green Economy pledges which entails investing heavily in renewable energies and energy efficiency.

A fair and "robust burden-sharing formula" would presumably imply that as the world's richest nation and the world's largest contributor to cumulative global greenhouse gas emissions, the United States, would contribute something like 1/4 to 1/3 of the total global investments required to adapt to and mitigate the climate threat. That would imply $50-66 billion annually to invest in clean energy and energy efficiency and a contribution of $25-33 billion annually to global adaptation efforts, for a total of $75-99 billion per year.

Where exactly is that money going to come from? An excellent question, and one that seems neglected by the Waxman-Markey climate and energy bill now winding it's way through Congress. After political concessions to (attempt to) silence industry opposition, that bill would invest just about $10 billion annually in clean energy and efficiency and devote just about $1.6 billion to domestic adaptation efforts and $1.9 billion to international technology transfer efforts (all values assuming a $15/ton CO2 price, and scaled proportionately at other CO2 prices).

The clean energy and efficiency investments in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the stimulus bill) put us in the right ballpark -- at least on the mitigation front -- investing over $60 billion annually in America's efforts to build a new clean energy economy. But those short-term investments will expire by the end of 2010, and without an effort to build on and extend this critical clean energy spending, the U.S. will be left without sufficient funding to fulfill our fair share of global climate investments.

With the climate advocacy community primarily focused to date on establishing (and protecting already compromised) emissions reduction targets and "caps," the Waxman-Markey bill looks poised to leave the United States a long way from the level of commitment to clean energy and adaptation investments called for the UNFCC secretariat. We're running out of time to change that picture ...

Related Links:

How to make 1.7 million new clean energy jobs permanent

Optimistic or pessimistic about the Copenhagen climate talks?

Copen-talkin’: Smarties offer their takes on COP15 climate talks

Wanted: Experienced couples therapist, preferably also with degrees in theology and law, for fractious, passionate pair riddled with apocalyptic anxiety, burdened with love for their children (all of them), acutely conscious of the finitude of time and resources, and fearful that the world has gone mad. Must take insurance.

Everyone told us that building a house could wreck a relationship. And we knew it was true. The rehab of a beautiful old house in Hull had been one of the final blows to Ken's marriage. I spent part of my childhood living in one room with my family of five, with our kitchen in the garage, while our house was torn down and rebuilt around us; fun for us, less so for our parents. But Ken felt that we needed to undertake something together. It was his insistence that the relationship be something more than just a safe place to retreat from the mad world. He was not wrong. Despite all the ups and downs this past year has brought, I have never regretted throwing my energy and resources into the JP Green House.

When I met Ken, he had thrown away almost everything he owned in the process of dissolving a marriage and selling the house he had rebuilt by the sea, a place he'd thought he would be forever. Ken had moved back to Jamaica Plain and was living in two rooms in the home of my friends Ginger and Susan. He spent his days writing about climate, puttering in the workshop he created in the garage, and shuttling Eli back and forth to his mother's. He appeared in the living room when I was taking my guitar lessons with Ginger once a week, a scruffy, handsome presence with a banjo or mandolin to add to the mix. He is the best finger-picker I have ever met.

I was in a more subtle crisis, raising my kids without much help from their father in a bubble of my own fear, which came out of my growing acquaintance with the writings of James Hansen, Elizabeth Kolbert, and Bill McKibben. And also out of my close observations of the weather.

Ken can't pay bills on time, keep his car registration current, or manage the location of his wallet and keys from hour to hour. He can quickly and accurately spin out a logo, a story, and an angle for a campaign. He can carve an ax-handle, mow a lawn with a scythe, and make sense of the Old Testament, cast aluminum in the backyard, and play anything with strings. He's a visionary, a man with vast talents, and deficits to match.

I am a humble and boringly rational person by contrast, but very reliable. I tend to know what's meant to happen, who is expecting us, what state the kids are in, and whether there is anything in the fridge for dinner.

Ken collects wonderful objects from the trash, planning always to create more wonderful objects from them ... at some point. I get into moods where I will throw away anything in my path. I clean when I'm frustrated; I shove things into closets. Ken spins in a complex arena of objects, projects, plans, and visions. I insist on a realistic vision of things that will actually happen. We are both idealists, and we are both uncompromising.

You might say we complement each other, but domestic life can be difficult around here: full of sturm and drang, and testosterone-ridden, as I grumble on bad days. We play subtle games of chicken, seeing how long we can each hold out before someone caves and does the shopping or the cleaning, resentfully, or steps up to the task of shutting down the video-game casino in the boys' room to toss them outside for a taste of real childhood, or waters the garden or cooks a meal ... heck, we can bicker over who should write the next piece for Grist!

At worst, you might say we are held together by sheer curmudgeonly self-righteousness (like some of the great homesteaders: Helen and Scott Nearing come to mind). At best this is a relationship of great passion: intellectual, emotional, spiritual, physical. Add to this the large, untamed personalities of our three children and the complexities of our household become apparent. We bring this into the story of the JP Green House because it is fundamental: we aim for transparency, to convey the inherent messiness of the great transitions we are all making.

This is a meeting of two raw souls, living in dark times: love in a time of cataclysm. To be continued ...

Related Links:

Lomborg v. Monbiot: liveblogging the Munk debate on climate change

BPA Babies and Cash Registers

Why buying cheap energy certificates worsens climate change

Below is the energy and climate section of the official G8 statement released on July 8, 2009.  The full statement is online here (PDF).

Sustainable use of natural resources: climate change, clean energy and technology

60. The interlinked challenges of climate change, energy security and the sustainable and efficient use of natural resources are amongst the most important issues to be tackled in the strategic perspective of ensuring global sustainability. A shift towards green growth will provide an important contribution to the economic and financial crisis recovery. We must seize the opportunity to build on synergies between actions to combat climate change and economic recovery initiatives, and encourage growth and sustainable development worldwide.

61. Science clearly shows that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions – mainly produced by the use of fossil fuels - are provoking dangerous climate change, putting at risk not only the environment and ecosystem services but the very basis of our present and future prosperity. The costs of inaction far outweigh the costs of moving towards low-carbon societies. At the same time, stable and secure energy availability is indispensable for social and economic development; it is essential to ensure global energy security and energy access in developing countries, particularly the most vulnerable. Immediate and resolute action is needed by all countries to build on existing and new technologies and to design and deliver innovative economic, environmental and energy policies.

62. We emphasise the paramount importance of technology development and diffusion on a global scale in meeting these challenges and accelerating the economic recovery, while moving towards a low-carbon society. It is indispensable to encourage efficient markets, competitive frameworks and consistent public policies, to enhance investments in energy efficiency, clean technologies and renewable energies, which will in turn create opportunities for businesses worldwide. We will take the lead in accelerating the transition towards a low-carbon economy based on green, sustainable growth, reflecting the need to lower dependence on traditional energy sources. We reiterate the commitment made at the London Summit to make the best possible use of our fiscal stimulus programmes, also in light of the deliberations of the G8 Environment Ministerial in Siracusa and the G8 Energy Ministerial in Rome, and will ensure that such packages will contribute substantially towards building new, cleaner economies that will create new jobs and bring about a green and sustainable recovery. We call upon other countries to join us in this endeavour.

Climate change and environment

Fighting climate change 63. This is a crucial year for taking rapid and effective global action to combat climate change. We welcome the decision taken within the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Poznan to enter full negotiating mode, in order to shape a global and comprehensive post-2012 agreement by the end of 2009 in Copenhagen, as mandated by the Bali Conference in 2007. We must seize this decisive opportunity to achieve a truly ambitious global consensus.

64. We reconfirm our strong commitment to the UNFCCC negotiations and to the successful conclusion of a global, wide-ranging and ambitious post-2012 agreement in Copenhagen, involving all countries, consistent with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. In this context we also welcome the constructive contribution of the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate to support a successful outcome in Copenhagen. We call upon all Parties to the UNFCCC and to its Kyoto Protocol to ensure that the negotiations under both the Convention and the Protocol result in a coherent and environmentally effective global agreement.

65. We reaffirm the importance of the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and notably of its Fourth Assessment Report, which constitutes the most comprehensive assessment of the science. We recognise the broad scientific view that the increase in global average temperature above pre-industrial levels ought not to exceed 2°C. Because this global challenge can only be met by a global response, we reiterate our willingness to share with all countries the goal of achieving at least a 50% reduction of global emissions by 2050, recognising that this implies that global emissions need to peak as soon as possible and decline thereafter. As part of this, we also support a goal of developed countries reducing emissions of greenhouse gases in aggregate by 80% or more by 2050 compared to 1990 or more recent years. Consistent with this ambitious long-term objective, we will undertake robust aggregate and individual mid-term reductions, taking into account that baselines may vary and that efforts need to be comparable. Similarly, major emerging economies need to undertake quantifiable actions to collectively reduce emissions significantly below business-as-usual by a specified year.

66. We recognize that the accelerated phase-out of HCFCs mandated under the Montreal Protocol is leading to a rapid increase in the use of HFCs, many of which are very potent GHGs. Therefore we will work with our partners to ensure that HFC emissions reductions are achieved under the appropriate framework. We are also committed to taking rapid action to address other significant climate forcing agents, such as black carbon. These efforts, however, must not draw away attention from ambitious and urgent cuts in emissions from other, more long-lasting, greenhouse gases, which should remain the priority.

Promoting the role of markets to reduce emissions

67. We believe that efficient markets, including carbon markets, supported by stable and predictable regulatory frameworks, are central to achieving these objectives. A wide range of competitive instruments and mechanisms, such as emissions trading schemes and performance-based regulation, constitute some of the most flexible and cost-effective means to foster economically sound investments in energy efficiency, renewable energy, clean and innovative technologies. Other measures, including, where appropriate, incentives, fees, emission and other taxes, progressive reduction of fossil fuel subsidies, consumer labelling, innovative financing mechanisms and public-private partnerships, designed and applied consistently with our international obligations, can also be useful in the context of policies that promote green and sustainable development models and accelerate the transition towards a low carbon society.

68. The elimination or reduction of tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade in environmental goods and services is essential to promote the dissemination of cleaner low-carbon energy technologies and associated services worldwide. Efforts should be intensified to ensure a successful outcome of the ongoing WTO negotiations on the liberalisation of environmental goods and services. Carbon leakage is an important issue to tackle. It must be addressed in a WTO compatible way. We support the aim of a comprehensive global agreement at Copenhagen, which we believe to be the most appropriate way to deal with any carbon leakage issues that may arise.

69. We support flexible, economically sound market-based approaches to emission reductions. In particular, cap & trade schemes, where implemented, have proved largely successful and improved understanding of the potential advantages, critical issues and indicators. The use of market mechanisms, including those under the Kyoto Protocol, provides opportunities to reduce emissions cost-effectively, while facilitating technology diffusion, low-carbon development and the involvement of emerging and developing countries. With a view to building on these experiences and to facilitate action under the global post 2012 agreement, we commit to:

a) further explore, taking into account national circumstances, the potential of carbon trading systems and their possible linkages;

b) cooperate among us and with other countries to expand carbon markets to the extent possible and reduce costs and align emission allowance trading schemes, with a view to developing transparent carbon markets which would expand to involve emerging and developing countries, including on a sectoral basis;

c) support the development, reform and enhancement of project, programmatic and policy-based offset mechanisms, including the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), in order to encourage their use, enhance their effectiveness and environmental integrity, and facilitate actions from developing countries under the global, post-2012 agreement;

d) work with others to further develop market mechanisms under the Copenhagen agreement to possibly include sectoral trading and sectoral crediting mechanisms, to enhance the participation of emerging economies and developing countries in the market ensuring environmental integrity.

70. The private sector will continue to be an essential player in the efforts to address climate change. To trigger a change in direction and mobilise investments we will engage the private sector more actively, in order to bring its expertise into the international framework and enhance information exchange and partnerships between Governments and businesses.

71. Sectoral approaches can be useful tools to facilitate progressive involvement by emerging economies and reinforce economy-wide mitigation policies of developed countries. Analysis has highlighted the potential to curtail emissions by focusing on specific sectors and we welcome the ongoing work of the International Energy Agency (IEA) and others in this respect. 72. Attention should also be devoted to sectors, such as international aviation and maritime transport, that represent a significant and growing source of emissions and are characterised by a predominantly international dimension. We will use our participation in ICAO, IMO and UNFCCC processes to reach an agreed outcome for the post-2012 period to rapidly advance towards accelerated emission reductions for the international aviation and maritime sectors.

Technology development and research

73. The development and deployment of technologies and know-how in developed and developing countries will play a crucial role both in mitigation and adaptation to climate change and in moving towards low-carbon growth models. It is essential to substantially improve energy and resource efficiency in key sectors, as well as to develop and disseminate low-carbon technologies, in particular renewable energy. In this context, we stress the critical role of an efficient system of intellectual property rights (IPR) to foster innovation. Capitalizing on new technologies will require a major scientific effort and policy initiatives. Building on our existing commitments to urgently advance the development and deployment of clean energy technologies, consistent with existing international obligations, we will:

a) encourage and facilitate the development, deployment and diffusion, particularly through the engagement and leveraging of critical private sector investment, of advanced appropriate technologies in emerging and developing economies, which permit a technological leap and avoid lock-in;

b) further promote international participation and cooperation in R&D activities and to this end we invite the IEA to further define its proposal for an international low-carbon energy technology platform;

c) promote technology roadmaps, such as those being prepared by the IEA, to further the development and demonstration of innovative technologies;

d) work with developing countries to build capacity to support the deployment, diffusion, demonstration and transfer of climate friendly technologies.

74. Recognising the importance of research and development, we committed in Toyako to increase investment in basic and applied clean technology research and development. We will intensify such efforts and explore options to enhance global technology cooperation. We ask our experts to assess progress in meeting these commitments, and report back by our meeting in Canada in 2010. We will promote further national and international fundamental research on the earth’s climate. We believe that provisions on financing technology research, development, deployment and diffusion should form an integral part of the post-2012 agreement.

Financing

75. Financing is central to achieving an agreement at Copenhagen and requires mobilisation of significant financial resources, both public and private. Given its capacity to innovate, the private sector should play a pivotal role in financing investments in new technologies. Public resources should therefore seek to leverage private-sector financing, to support research, development and demonstration of low carbon technologies in order to accelerate the development and deployment of early stage technologies, and to aid implementation of adaptation and mitigation strategies in developing countries. To promote concerted efforts on technology and financing, we:

a) strive for greater predictability of international support and affirm our intention to contribute our fair share, in the context of an ambitious deal in Copenhagen;

b) affirm that all countries, except Least Developed Countries (LDCs), should participate in the financial effort to tackle climate change, according to criteria to be agreed, and we support consideration of the proposal by Mexico;

c) call for the elaboration and implementation of an effective financial arrangement to support the post-2012 regime. We underline that mobilizing financing for developing countries, through a broad range of financial sources, including financial assistance, is required for adaptation and mitigation, and to facilitate the transition to low-carbon economies. Financial support needs to be efficient, effective and equitable and therefore linked to results in terms of emission reductions and adaptation actions;

d) will work to ensure that the governance of mechanisms disbursing funds is transparent, fair, effective, efficient, and of balanced representation among developed and developing countries. We stress the importance of building on existing instruments and institutions, such as the Global Environment Facility (GEF), multilateral development banks, adaptation funds and bilateral assistance agencies and the Climate Investment Funds (Strategic Climate Fund and Clean Technology Fund);

e) promote public-private partnerships, in order to facilitate targeted and efficient investments in research, development, deployment and diffusion of clean technologies, while mobilising additional resources from the private sector.

Adaptation

76. Recognising that even implementing ambitious mitigation steps will not avoid further climate impacts, we will define and implement effective adaptation and capacity building policies. We are deeply concerned about the consequences of climate change on development, ecosystem services, water and food security, agricultural output, forests, health and sanitation, particularly for LDCs and SIDS, but also for the poor and most vulnerable in all countries. We underline the possible security implications of the adverse impact of climate change and the potential for increased conflicts over scarcer resources. We will address these issues in a spirit of partnership between developed and developing countries and confirm our commitment to effectively address adaptation in the Copenhagen agreement. We will, in addition:

a) mainstream effective adaptation strategies and risk assessments into international cooperation programmes and assist developing States in integrating adaptation efforts into national development plans and policies;

b) significantly increase consideration of the role of ecosystems in adaptation measures, with a view to improving resilience of ecosystems, reducing vulnerability and underpinning new and sustainable growth models;

c) strengthen knowledge networks for adaptation and support for research and capacity building related to vulnerability and impact assessments as well as planning and implementation of adaptation measures;

d) address the need for financing for adaptation through appropriate bilateral and multilateral mechanisms.

Natural disasters

77. To address the increased threats of natural disasters and extreme weather phenomena caused by climate change, such as increased flooding, storm surges, droughts and forest fires, we will act to improve risk preparedness, prevention, monitoring and response times, particularly in developing countries, by:

a) defining common guidelines for disaster prevention and management to be used in developing national plans, in collaboration with the UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) and the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), building on the Hyogo Framework for Action and on national experiences, as well as improving management of risks, awareness raising and training of the population and civil protection real-time response, such as logistical support for emergency situations;

b) supporting the ongoing work on the development of the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS).

Forests and land degradation

78. Aware that deforestation accounts for approximately 20% of annual CO2 emissions, and that forests are an essential repository of biological diversity and key to the livelihoods and rights of many people, we remain engaged in seeking the reduction of emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and in further promoting sustainable forest management globally. We will:

a) support the development of positive incentives in particular for developing countries to promote emission reductions through actions to reduce deforestation and forest degradation. Considering that these measures will provide tangible results only in the medium term, it is also crucial to undertake early action initiatives to urgently tackle drivers of deforestation, and we will cooperate to identify innovative instruments in this respect, including through initiatives such as UN programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation, Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) and the Informal Working Group on Interim Finance for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (IWG-IFR);

b) continue to support efforts to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, including the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks, as set out in the Bali Action Plan. We continue to support REDD and will consider the inclusion of financial mechanisms within the future global agreement on climate change;

c) encourage cooperation and the use of synergies between the UNFCCC and other international forest-related processes, and promote national strategies developed in collaboration with relevant players, including governments, indigenous peoples and local communities, civil society groups and the private sector;

d) enhance cooperation with partner countries to combat illegal logging and trade in illegally-harvested timber, in accordance with our obligations under international agreements and building on our previous commitments and actions, including those under the Forest Law Enforcement and Governance (FLEG) processes. We reaffirm our intention to promote transparent timber markets and trade in legal and sustainably produced timber. In that regard, we will follow up, where appropriate, with concrete actions on the preliminary list of options presented in 2008 by the G8 Forest Experts Report on Illegal Logging;

e) reinforce international cooperation and information sharing for sustainable forest management, including use of forest resources, prevention and management of forest fires and monitoring of pests and diseases.

79. We are deeply concerned about desertification and land degradation in drylands, as both causes and consequences of climate change. Acknowledging the substantial impacts of these phenomena on human well-being, poverty, food security and the environment, we recognise the efforts of the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) and call upon the Parties and existing funding mechanisms to strengthen synergies among the Rio Conventions in the implementation of selected projects. Furthermore, we will work with developing country partners to integrate effective Sustainable Land Management (SLM) into relevant cooperation programmes and assist them in integrating SLM into national development plans policies and national climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies.

Biodiversity

80. Recognising the intrinsic value of biodiversity and its essential contribution to economic and social well-being and the fundamental role of ecosystem services in poverty reduction, in the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), we:

a) will reinforce our efforts to meet the 2010 Biodiversity Target to significantly reduce the current rate of biodiversity loss at the global, regional and national level;

b) underline the necessity to establish a vision and an ambitious and achievable common framework for biodiversity beyond 2010, making use of the synergies between climate change and biodiversity policies. To this end, we endorse the “Carta di Siracusa” on Biodiversity as an effective means to promote a long-term strategy to enhance the conservation of biodiversity.

81. We also acknowledge that, despite international efforts to date, including within the framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the rate of biodiversity loss is increasing, exacerbated by climate change and impacts of human activities. In order to reduce the negative effects related to ecosystem degradation, including water and food scarcity and on carbon sinks and to strengthen the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, we will: a) strive to ensure that sustainable development policies take into account the benefits of ecosystem goods and services, integrating the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity into all relevant sectors; b) work towards the completion of the negotiation on the international regime on access to and benefit sharing of genetic resources by 2010;

c) strengthen and broaden international, regional, national and local activities to conserve biodiversity;

d) continue to support the Potsdam Initiative launched in 2007 and in particular the ongoing global initiative, “The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity”;

e) further encourage the engagement of civil society, the business community and other relevant stakeholders for biodiversity conservation activities.

82. Recognising the need for robust scientific assessment, and in order to improve the science-policy interface for biodiversity and ecosystem services, we encourage the ongoing intergovernmental process under the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) on the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), striving to complete this process at the earliest possible time.

Education for Sustainable Development

83. We appreciate and encourage accelerating the ongoing international efforts, in particular by the UNESCO and other organizations, in promoting Education for Sustainable Development, as a life-long learning process enabling communities to find new solutions to emerging social, economic and environmental challenges.

Clean and accessible energy

84. Together with climate change, long term sustainable development models for all countries must also address the fundamental issues of energy availability - particularly through clean energy - and energy poverty. Fostering investments in energy infrastructures, energy efficiency, diversification of the energy mix and technological innovation is key to ensuring secure, clean and affordable energy to long term world needs, while substantially curbing carbon emissions.

85. We will support and improve international predictable legal and regulatory frameworks as an essential prerequisite for well functioning energy markets and for reducing investment risks and uncertainties in producing, transit and consuming countries.

Energy efficiency, diversification of the energy mix and technology

86. We recognise the need to scale up investments in energy infrastructures and technological innovation, and to adapt regulatory and institutional frameworks where necessary, to increase energy diversification and improve energy efficiency, as the most cost-effective means of reducing emissions and driving a green recovery while substantially improving energy security. We reaffirm the significance of energy saving and efficiency programmes. To this end we:

a) commit to design and implement effective policies to improve energy efficiency in all the main sectors of our economies, and to actively promote conservation and energy efficiency among consumers;

b) support the IEA’s ongoing work on identification and dissemination of best practices, standards and recommendations for increasing energy efficiency.

87. We welcome the operational launch of the International Partnership for Energy Efficiency Cooperation (IPEEC), with a substantive agenda for promoting energy efficiency, and:

a) look forward to activities as envisaged in the IPEEC work plan to help countries implement energy efficiency policies and to further information on a Global Energy Efficiency Action Initiative, taking into account the 25 recommendations of the IEA, and ask IPEEC to report back to the G8 Summit in France in 2011;

b) ask IPEEC to incorporate the Sustainable Buildings Network, successfully developed as an important result under the energy pillar of the Heiligendamm Dialogue Process to exploit the potential of energy efficiency in residential, commercial and industrial buildings, and with a view to present its findings to the G8 Summit in France in 2011.

88. A comprehensive strategy to ensure sustainable development and long-term energy security must envisage a portfolio of different energy sources. In the context of diversification of the energy mix, renewable energies will play an essential role, as these meet the dual challenge of reducing emissions and lowering fossil-fuel consumption and dependence. We will:

a) improve policy and regulatory frameworks in order to boost investments in renewable energies, and promote their deployment and diffusion also in emerging and developing countries;

b) continue to support international cooperation and partnerships on renewable energies. We note with interest the launch of the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) which we invite to cooperate with other international organisations to actively promote the deployment of renewable energies;

c) promote research and development of and investment in smart grids, as a means to accelerate efficient and secure integration of renewable energy sources and distributed generation into the electricity system and enhance energy efficiency;

d) support regional initiatives aiming at promoting renewable energy and low carbon technologies, such as the Mediterranean Solar Plan and the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate;

e) considering the importance of further developing sustainable bioenergies and alternative fuels we welcome the work of the Global Bioenergy Partnership (GBEP) in developing a common methodological framework to measure greenhouse gas emissions from biofuels and invite GBEP to accelerate its work in developing science-based benchmarks and indicators for sustainable biofuel production and to boost technological cooperation and innovation in bioenergy.

89. We witness that a growing number of countries have expressed interest in nuclear power programmes as a means to address climate change and energy security concerns. In the opinion of these countries, nuclear energy can play an essential role, as it meets the dual challenge of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and lowering fossil-fuel consumption. We reaffirm that the fundamental prerequisite for the peaceful use of nuclear energy is the international commitment to safeguards/non proliferation, safety and security (3S). In close collaboration with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), we will continue to promote the development and implementation of robust international treaties, standards, recommendations, and monitoring procedures both at international and national levels. In this context, we promote international collaboration at all levels, including cost-benefit analysis, research, infrastructure and human resources development, plant construction, operation, decommissioning and waste management, in order to ensure the highest technically available safety and security standards and accelerate further development and deployment of innovative technologies. We stress the key role played by the IAEA in promoting the highest standards of non proliferation, safety and security. We call on all countries interested in the civil use of nuclear energy to engage in constructive international cooperation.

90. Considering the above mentioned challenges, the G8 Nuclear Safety and Security Group (NSSG) will continue in its work to consider nuclear safety and security issues. We welcome the initiative launched by the NSSG on nuclear safety and security Education and Training, aimed at building capacity in countries embarking on or expanding nuclear programmes.

91. We are aware that despite effective diversification strategies, fossil fuels will continue to be an essential component of the energy mix in many countries, at least in the medium term. The development and deployment of innovative technologies such as Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is therefore expected to contribute substantially to reducing emissions. Reaffirming the commitment made in Tokyoo for the launch of 20 large-scale Carbon Capture and Storage demonstration projects globally by 2010, we will:

a) accelerate the design of policies, regulatory frameworks and incentive schemes focused on the development and deployment of CCS technology;

b) encourage greater involvement of developing countries by promoting collaboration and knowledge diffusion, also through IEA regional roundtables;

c) work to identify sources of financing for CCS demonstration projects;

d) invite the IEA, together with the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum (CSLF), to report on and further develop technology roadmaps and to work with the private sector to accelerate the construction and operation of demonstration projects. To this end, we welcome the work on criteria by the IEA to facilitate tracking of global progress on these projects in view of an update to be presented at our Summit in 2010;

e) following the launch of the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute (GCCSI) we invite it to actively cooperate with the ongoing activities of the IEA and the CSLF to ensure that these efforts are mutually reinforcing;

f) identify investment needs and overcome obstacles, including the potential development of innovative partnerships with multilateral financial institutions.

Combating energy poverty

92. Access to modern energy services is essential for human and social development, and for the achievement of the MDGs. Energy access and availability are tightly interlinked with the improvement of living conditions, both in rural and urban areas, providing for cleaner water, more effective sanitation and health services, better education systems and other essential services. Moreover, energy input for productive uses is crucial for job creation and income generation.

93. Noting that energy poverty remains widespread in many areas, most notably in Africa and Asia, we support the launch, together with interested countries, of the Expert-Level Working Group on Energy Poverty following the proposal made at the G8 Energy Ministers Meeting in Rome, and encourage it to submit a report before the 2010 Muskoka Summit. We are committed to take swift, resolute action, with developing country governments, international financial institutions, local communities and the private sector. Building upon previous commitments, we will:

a) promote the development of transparent national policies able to effectively use public resources and attract and stimulate private sector investments in rural electrification and the deployment of renewable energy systems and alternative cooking technologies and fuels;

b) encourage active involvement of local communities in rural electrification programmes, through the deployment of appropriate technologies and the development of skills and capabilities in cooperation with the private sector;

c) ensure that work to improve energy access contributes to put developing countries on the path to low-carbon development, by reducing high carbon lock-in, as well as supporting exploitation of new technologies, improved energy security and off-grid access in remote areas;

d) enhance capacity building initiatives, aimed at increasing energy efficiency, diffusion of renewable energies and efficient use of natural resources;

e) enhance capacity building initiatives for the sustainable development and deployment of oil, natural gas and electricity regional energy networks;

f) stimulate the mobilisation of increased financing for energy access, including through the improvement of investment conditions.

From the international economy section of the G8 statement:

Green recovery

39. The emergency response to the economic crisis should not overlook the opportunity to facilitate a global green recovery putting our economies on a path towards more sustainable and resilient growth. Our fiscal stimulus packages are increasingly investing in measures encouraging the creation of green jobs and low-carbon, energy efficient and sustainable growth. These include energy efficiency measures, investment in public transportation infrastructure, incentives for fuel-efficient vehicles, research in alternative sources of energy, support for renewable energy technologies, as well as in enhanced CO2 reduction, recycling and disposal such as Carbon Capture and Storage. We remain committed to enhance the environmental dimension of budgetary measures and to reinforce efforts to promote clean energy and energy efficiency. Along with the ongoing WTO negotiations on the liberalization of environmental goods and services, we will intensify efforts to make progress on the reduction or elimination of trade barriers on a voluntary basis on goods and services directly linked to addressing climate change, as agreed at the Toyako Summit. At the same time, we will ensure proper regulatory and other frameworks facilitating transition towards low-carbon and resource efficient growth. In this light, we call for a reduction of subsidies that artificially encourage carbon-intensive energy consumption.

Energy security, global energy markets and investment climate in the energy sector

40. The current financial and economic crisis should not delay cost-effective investments or programmed energy projects that would create jobs, enhance energy security and help limit greenhouse gas emissions in the short and medium term. We urge all countries and the private sector to adopt a long-term view in planning their investments. We are committed to promoting economic recovery together with a significant change in investment patterns that will accelerate the transition towards low-carbon, energy efficient growth models. We especially encourage more rapid application of the many cost-effective technologies already available to improve the energy efficiency of power generation facilities, buildings, industry and transport. Accelerated investment in low-carbon technologies is needed to minimize the existing and potential carbon lock-in represented by capital stock in buildings, factories, vehicles and electric power generating facilities.

41. In this context, we reaffirm our strong commitment to implement the St Petersburg Principles on Global Energy Security in our countries and call on others to join us in this effort. We invite the major international energy organisations to review and update their programmes and promote them in light of the changing energy challenges.

42. Unpredictable energy markets and highly volatile prices put at risk the ability of the industry to plan and implement investments in new infrastructures, consistently with long term demand dynamics. It is in the interest of both producers and consumers to enhance transparency and to strengthen their dialogue towards reducing excessive volatility in the market. Fossil fuel producing, transit and consuming countries must work together to increase stability and predictability of supply and demand patterns and promote investments in the energy sector, including by supporting and developing further predictable legal and regulatory frameworks. We welcome the progress made and the follow up initiatives of the Jeddah and London Energy Meetings in identifying obstacles to efficient energy markets. We call for better coordination among the international institutions and for the acceleration and strengthening of the existing initiatives towards a more structured dialogue, based on the outcome of the London Energy Meeting, between producing, transit and consuming countries, focused on improving the investment climate, discussing ways to reduce excessive volatility of prices and promoting energy security. To this effect we support the important work undertaken by the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the International Energy Forum (IEF), including the activities of the High Level Steering Group of the IEF. We ask experts within the IEF to assess different options to reduce excessive volatility in oil prices.

43. Besides stable and predictable regulatory frameworks, transparent and well-functioning energy markets are essential prerequisites for reducing investment risks and uncertainties both in producing and consuming countries. We therefore emphasise the need for timely and reliable data on demand, supply, stocks, spare capacity and investment plans. To this end, we continue to strongly support the Joint Oil Data Initiative (JODI), managed by the IEF, and call for all countries to cooperate in improving quality, completeness and timeliness of data. We also strongly support the IEF’s work on initiating the collection of annual data on investment plans. We believe that greater transparency in gas markets is required. We therefore call upon the IEF to examine the possibility of extending JODI-type activities to natural gas.

44. We encourage international initiatives to improve market transparency and functioning and to address excessive price volatility in commodities markets. In particular, we welcome recommendations by the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) on regulation and supervision of financial derivative markets, and underline the importance of accelerating their implementation by national authorities and further cooperation between them and ask all countries to implement IOSCO’s recommendations. We ask the IOSCO Task Force on Commodity Markets to consider further possible specific improvements to the transparency and market supervision of oil futures markets and make specific recommendations.

Related Links:

Optimistic or pessimistic about the Copenhagen climate talks?

Copen-talkin’: Smarties offer their takes on COP15 climate talks

December 19—the day after COP15

At home he is almost universally seen as a politician running out of time, but Prime Minister Gordon Brown continues to stride onto the international stage as if he were guaranteed many more years in power. He may have lost his rapport with the British public, chalked up blunder after blunder, and already faced two attempted coups by fellow Labourites in Parliament, but he continues to try to "save the world."

Nicolas Sarkozy and Gordon Brown talk Monday during a pre-G8 summit in Evian, France. Both leaders support a new international accord on greenhouse gases, but Brown has gone further than other G8 leaders, advocating that rich nations spend billions to support climate adaptation and clean energy programs in poor countries.Courtesy Elysee.frWe know that is what Brown thinks he's doing, because he used that very phrase when under pressure recently in the House of Commons. In Britain's rather puerile political discourse, this was enough to condemn him to instant and recurrent mockery. But there is every sign that this somewhat serious son of a Church of Scotland minister really believes it.

Brown made the boast in a reference to his attempts to lead the global response to the international financial crisis. And it is true that, whatever his role in helping to cause the credit meltdown in the first place, he did react decisively. Now he is extending his self-imposed mission to combatting global warming, launching a campaign that he somewhat immodestly says "will effectively change the world."

Brown claimed this when answering questions after a speech on climate change he made recently in the unlikely surroundings of London Zoo. The speech received almost no media attention because he had the misfortune to deliver it on the morning after the death of Michael Jackson. But it did contain an important proposal, deliberately put on the table in time for this week's climate gathering in Italy, with just might break the deadlock in the international negotiations leading up to December's vital climate conference in Copenhagen.

The talks are deadlocked because, even though time is rapidly ticking away, no one has been prepared to make the first significant move. Emissions cuts so far offered by rich nations amount in total to a reduction of about 8 to 14 percent in 1990 levels by 2020, a third of the 25-40 percent they agreed to make in principle 18 months ago in Bali.

Developing countries, for their part, are refusing to make pledges on reducing the rate of growth of their emissions -- an essential part of any deal -- because industrialized nations are neither doing enough at home nor offering funds to help them fight, and adapt to, climate change. Serious money was promised, and the EU undertook to specify what it should be by last spring. But EU finance ministers have so far refused to name a sum, fearing that they will just be asked for more.

The result has not just ensured that the already sclerotic UN negotiations made no real progress, but blighted President Obama's attempt to inject some energy into the process through this week's meeting, held alongside the annual G8 summit. So Gordon Brown's proposal, which was discussed and agreed in depth in his cabinet, was both targeted and timed to try to break the impasse.

Brown suggested a financial package to be worth around $100 billion a year by 2020 for funding low carbon technologies to reduce emissions, strategies to prevent deforestation, and adaptation measures in developing countries. He proposed that the money should be raised from an expanded and reformed carbon market, a limited amount of official overseas aid, and new mechanisms which could include funds from reducing emissions from aviation and shipping.

And he did not stop there. Over the next week he rang both Obama and Wen Jiabao of China to canvass their support, and is working his way around most of the other leaders at the summit before they actually meet. He does not expect agreement on the idea in Italy, but hopes that governments will work on it over the next two months in time for the next climate summit, called by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, in New York in September.

Brown made a bold move, for it meant breaking ranks with the rest of the industrialized world, and defying countries like France that had explicitly pressed him not to do so. And no one knows if it will work, though there has been some public support on Denmark (host of the the December meeting) and the vulnerable, low-lying countries of Bangladesh and the Maldives.

But something is desperately needed to provide a focus for serious, specific negotiations to begin as Copenhagen comes ever closer. And experience shows that there is rarely a breakthrough unless one leader and his or her government shows enough commitment to drive it.

If Gordon Brown can provide it -- and follows through until agreement on a new treaty is finally reached -- history will regard him much better than do today's commentators. And it may even judge that he did, indeed, "save the world."

--

Below, watch Brown's speech laying out his "road to Copenhagen" proposal:

Related Links:

Optimistic or pessimistic about the Copenhagen climate talks?

Copen-talkin’: Smarties offer their takes on COP15 climate talks

December 19—the day after COP15

This past Wednesday (June 17, 2009) the Appropriations Subcommittee of the House of Representatives that has jurisdiction over the international global warming pieces of President Obama's budget passed a bill that supported increasing US commitments to these needed efforts. The funding will make a "down payment" in helping developing countries deploy clean energy, reduce global warming pollution from tropical deforestation, and support adaptation in the most vulnerable populations around the world.

Funding this "down payment" is critical as it provides a bridge to the significant source of funding that could come for these activities through the US clean energy and climate bill. For example, the American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act, which passed out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and is poised for action on the House floor provides funding in the future for these needed investments (as I've discussed here):

In response to the House Appropriations Subcommittee vote NRDC, Environmental Defense Fund, National Wildlife Federation, Union of Concerned Scientists, and Sierra Club released the following statement.

"Today's action is an important sign of commitment by the Obama Administration, supported by leaders in Congress, to reasserting US leadership in tackling global warming. The funding in the legislation will help support efforts in developing countries to drive clean energy solutions, reduce tropical deforestation, and aid the most vulnerable in adapting to climate change. Such funding represents a concrete step to address the international dimension of global warming while strengthening the US position leading up to negotiations on an international climate agreement in Copenhagen this December.

While it is a first step, however, much work remains to be done to ensure that the funding is used exclusively to finance truly strong clean technology investment that will advance the effort to avert catastrophic global warming, rather than undermining it. In approving this funding, Congress should direct the Treasury to (i) ensure that no funding from the World Bank's Clean Technology Fund be used to finance coal-fired power plants without carbon capture and sequestration technology, and (ii) ensure that the World Bank employ comprehensive carbon accounting for all of its relevant projects that reflects the global economic, social, and environmental cost of carbon emissions.

In addition, we urge President Obama and Secretary Geithner to take a stronger and more proactive role in ensuring that the broader funding carried out by multilateral development banks and export-import banks, including the World Bank as well as the Overseas Private Investment Corporation and the Export-Import Bank, pursue their objective of promoting economic growth in developing countries in a way that supports international efforts to address climate change.

We look forward to working with Members of Congress and the Administration to achieve these goals as the legislation moves through Congress."

-----------------

This action by the House Subcommittee and the signals emerging from the US climate bill are a good start. Of course, the "check isn't written" on either until they are passed out of both the House and Senate and signed by President Obama so we still have some work before these investments will actually help solve these challenges.

And the US will have to increase its investment if we are going to secure a strong agreement in Copenhagen and one that encourages significant reductions in developing country global warming pollution and addresses the impacts of global warming on the most vulnerable.

So some work to still to be done, but some steps in the right direction.

Related Links:

How to make 1.7 million new clean energy jobs permanent

Lomborg v. Monbiot: liveblogging the Munk debate on climate change

Prelude to COP15: Climate justice actions sweep the U.S. before Copenhagen talks

This here is a cinquain! My seventh-grade teacher would be so proud. Check out the growing collection of weekly climate-news poems.

Report:
We’re in trouble.
Frost, blight, drought, pests, high seas.
We should move to safer ground now!
But where?

NOAA chief Jane Lubchenco and Obama science adviser John Holdren unveiled the government’s new, massive report on climate change impacts.Kate Sheppard / Grist

Related Links:

Annie Leonard misses the mark in her new video, “The Story of Cap-and-Trade”

Lomborg v. Monbiot: liveblogging the Munk debate on climate change

It’s Getting Ha! in Here: Featuring Wyatt Cenac

James Lovelock speaking at the World Nuclear Association Symposium in 2007Courtesy Jon and Lu via FlickrWhat is it with Preeminent Thinkers and intensely bleak public lectures? Two weeks ago Earth Institute economist Jeffrey Sachs, in an address at the Asia Society in New York, argued that climate change cannot be averted without massive use of unproven carbon-capture and sequestration technology and that China will provide little to no political help in curbing emissions.

On Monday night at Seattle’s Town Hall, British scientist James Lovelock gave a prediction of the effects of climate change that was even more dire. Efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions are just fine, he said. They just won’t amount to much.

“Our main task, should the earth continue to heat, is to adapt and learn how to survive,” he said. “We’re unlikely to become extinct by global heating, but we may be cut back to one billion people or less.”

That’s approximately a seventh the world’s current population.

Lovelock, who turns 90 next month, made his name in the early 1970s by putting forth the Gaia Hypothesis that the Earth’s physical and biological processes are self-regulating and sustaining, not sentient but in some sense a cohesive “being.” I’m not up-to-speed on Gaia’s complex influence on the scientific establishment, but it’s been ridiculed and dismissed as more metaphysics than science, yet also influential among biologists and ecologists.

In more recent books—The Revenge of Gaia and The Vanishing Face of Gaia—Lovelock has turned his attention to “global heating,” his preferred term because “warming” sounds too benign. He alluded to what Gaia has to say about global heating, though he never really spelled it out.

“The Earth does not just accept climate change passively,” he said. “It responds to what we’re doing to it, and that response is far more frightening than what we’re doing.”

Despite the futility of trying to avoid all of the effects of global heating, Lovelock recommended a few measures. He said nuclear and solar thermal power were the only sensible clean energy responses, and that the U.S. might learn from France about safe handling and disposal of nuclear waste. That rankled a number of audience members who pointed out the problem-riddled waste handling project at the Hanford Nuclear Site in eastern Washington.

Lovelock also seemed open to trying a number of geoengineering climate fixes. One man asked him about injecting aerosols into the upper atmosphere to reflect solar heat away from the Earth.

Lovelock compared such approaches to dialysis for failing kidneys. “It will buy you time, but it’s not a cure,” he said. “Then again, if your kidneys fail, you never refuse dialysis.”

Related Links:

Lomborg v. Monbiot: liveblogging the Munk debate on climate change

E.U. pushes China further after pledge to slow carbon intensity

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

I've discussed in part 1 -- shared vision and developed country emissions reduction commitments -- and part 2 -- developing country emissions reductions and the incentives to encourage them to go further -- key proposals that have now been produced in a new draft negotiating text for the Copenhagen agreement.

I'll now discuss the last 2 of the six key elements of the Copenhagen Agreement contained in these texts -- deforestation emissions reduction efforts and adaptation assistance.

Deforestation Emissions Reduction Efforts

Providing incentives to slow the loss of the world's tropical deforestation is an essential component of the world's efforts to solve global warming (as I've discussed here and here).  So not surprisingly, incentives to reduce deforestation emissions will be an important part of the agreement in Copenhagen (as NRDC has identified here).  And that is reflected in the draft negotiating text (reminder there are a number of options and {brackets} which implies that there isn't exactly agreement on these pieces yet).

Incentives for forestry and {other land-use emissions}.  Since the Bali Roadmap was agreed there has been a push from some countries to ensure that forest degradation, increased forest cover, {forest management}, and {other land-use emissions} are also eligible to directly receive incentives for their emissions reductions or increased sequestration (I put in the brackets, partly to reflect avenues that I believe have a “proof of concept” internationally before they are ready for a full blown set of incentives).  Not that these bracketed pieces aren't important, but rather that these actions have some work ahead on their methodologies, data, etc. before these activities are ready for large incentives.  This is why people now talk about Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) Plus (or REDD+).

This difference of vision on the land-use activities that should receive which type of incentives and when those incentives should be available still exists as the negotiating text proposes several options:

The American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) act that just passed out of the House Energy and Commerce committee directly approves incentives for deforestation and some elements of forest degradation through both the set aside of allowances and the offset provisions (as I discussed here and here).  Protection of existing forest cover (e.g., leakage avoidance) is available for incentives under the set aside of allowances.  If recommended by the Offset Integrity Advisory Board (as I discussed here) and if approved by key government agencies, other emissions sources and sequestration activities would be eligible for offset generation.

Need for Market and Non-Market Based Funding Sources.  There has been a debate about whether or not emissions reductions from deforestation and forest degradation should be supported through market incentives (i.e., as offsets) or through a non-market approach (e.g., through setting aside a portion of the allowance value under a cap-and-trade program).  Different countries have aligned themselves with different positions on this (as was witnessed at one negotiating session last year and is witnessed in the European Union proposal which largely called for a non-market approach).  This difference is reflected in the negotiating text.

The ACES bill includes both types of incentives through the set aside of allowance value and the eligibility of credible reductions for offsets (as I discussed here).  Both of these incentives are critical as outlined by a new coalition that NRDC is involved with.

What does a country receiving incentives have to do?  The text includes some elements that a country would have to implement in order to receive incentives:

The ACES bill (as I discussed here) provides more detail on a number of these elements including the need for a land-use plan, development of a declining baseline to zero emissions, and accounting for all significant sources of emissions.

Incentives for National Reductions or Subnational Reductions.  For deforestation and forest degradation emissions, countries have proposed that market incentives should be eligible only for national level reductions or subnational level reductions under an interim phase.  There is general agreement that non-market incentives should be available for both subnational and national reductions.

The ACES bill contains provisions for high-quality forest carbon offsets at several scales: national, state and province, and program and project.  State/province and program/project level programs are phased out over time for countries with different sizes of deforestation emissions.

Strong monitoring, reporting, and verification provisions.  All incentive mechanisms should undergo some level of monitoring and verification, but there is some emerging consensus that activities that receive market incentives through offsets must meet a higher level of requirement.

This is reflected in the ACES bill and the consensus on deforestation that NRDC just joined as carbon offsets from deforestation must meet a rigorous set of rules.  Of course many of the rules have to be written, but the bill sets up a strong framework towards this end.

Adaptation Support

Some levels of impact are already occurring or will likely occur as a result of existing global warming pollution.  And many of these impacts will increase in the future.  So there is a need to support developing countries (especially the most vulnerable) in addressing the impacts of global warming pollution.  This is reflected in the negotiating text and has been a strong emphasis in the international negotiations.

The ACES bill recognizes this need and sets aside a dedicated source of allowances (funding) for the most vulnerable by supporting bilateral and multilateral adaptation assistance (as I discussed here and as a powerful coalition of religious and military leaders is calling for).

Supporting the Most Vulnerable.  There has been a general agreement that the majority of developing country adaptation assistance should go to the most vulnerable countries and populations.  However, actually getting agreement on who qualifies as the most vulnerable has been complicated.  The text begins down this path by outlining a set of “criteria” for the most vulnerable including: least developed countries, small island developing states, countries in Africa experiencing certain impacts, and particularly vulnerable populations.

Implementation, implementation, implementation.  While it is important to develop adaptation plans to focus funding on the most important needs, the developing countries have been arguing for years that what they really need is support for implementation of adaptation actions.  After all, many of them are feeling the impacts now.  So the text contains a number of elements that identify implementation actions that would be supported in an effort to expedite the deployment of actions on-the-ground.

Financial support.  The key piece of the adaptation discussion often boils down how much money is provided to support adaptation actions, where this funding is sourced from, and how is it structured.  This text proposes a variety of sources, but still contains a number of options as there isn't agreement on any of these aspects at this stage.

--

So a blueprint for Copenhagen is beginning to emerge (as I've discussed in part 1, part 2, and now part 3.  A draft negotiating text has emerged and this will encourage countries to begin to focus on what they really want, how much they are willing to move from their current negotiating position, and how all the pieces will fit together into a coherent international strategy to solve global warming.

The text of that agreement is beginning to emerge.  But now we need to turn it into a working engine that drives solutions to global warming pollution.  That engine won't get started without being fueled by real political commitments from leaders around the world.

I'm sure it looks like a lot of pieces that need to come together in a short amount of time -- less than 6 months.  But I'm still confident it can be done if countries decide to “move past rhetoric” and to agreement.  The fate of the planet and our future depends on countries committing to a strong set of actions that put the world solidly on the path to solving global warming.

So let's get texting...a strong international solution to global warming!

Related Links:

Optimistic or pessimistic about the Copenhagen climate talks?

Copen-talkin’: Smarties offer their takes on COP15 climate talks

December 19—the day after COP15

Check out last week’s lines.

The climate news of this week started rolling fast and hot
The papers said a memo showed the White House just was not
On board with EPA now putting carbon in its pot.

But it was just a spin, one on which you could not bank
The sole objection really came from one Bush-era crank*
So whew, glad that’s all cleared up—EPA, you go pull rank.

Escape from Maldives.nattu via flickrIn other news, a plea came from the country of Maldives:
“If climate chaos gets much worse, then each one of us leaves!”
To which the world said, “Um, that’s in Europe, we believes?”

Some posturing on climate had the power to dishearten:
We’re cracking down on marathons, according to Joe Barton.
(Good lord, that fella’s brain power is really kind of spartan.)

A promising thing happened as the week drew to a close:
The Waxman-Markey advocates had sweet-talked many foes
So they might pass the bill without a shout of “I oppose!”

Just where that leads us next, we’ll have to wait and see.
Meanwhile, check out this webcam shot of an Old Faithful pee.
Think there’s no climate link to that? Oh, how could you doubt me.

Leave ideas for future verse—or pen your own odes—in the comments section below.

Related Links:

Annie Leonard misses the mark in her new video, “The Story of Cap-and-Trade”

Lomborg v. Monbiot: liveblogging the Munk debate on climate change

It’s Getting Ha! in Here: Featuring Wyatt Cenac

The New York Times Magazine has a pretty good piece on the Maldives, “Wanted: A New Home for My Country“:

… ever since Nasheed declared on the eve of his inauguration last November that, because of global warming, he would try to find a new homeland for Maldivians somewhere else in the world, on higher ground, local reporters didn’t miss the chance to see their unpredictable (“erratic” and “crazy” were other adjectives I heard used) president.

The citizens of the Maldives would not be the first islanders to evacuate because of global warming.  That “honor” appears to belong to the Carteret Islands, as noted on CP Friday.

But the Maldives have 100 times as many people on their low-lyng islands:

The Maldives is an archipelago of 1,190 islands in the Indian Ocean, with an average elevation of four feet. Even a slight rise in global sea levels, which many scientists predict will occur by the end of this century, could submerge most of the Maldives.

Exactly how much sea levels will rise this century can’t be known for certain — especially since it depends on the greenhouse gas emissions, which humanity still has the power to control.

The Maldives will have a very good idea over the next decade or two whether or not the world is going to take enough action to provide high confidence that we will avert catastrophic sea level rise.  And it will take a decade or two of planning to do the necessary planning for moving that many people.

THE PLANNING CASE

Nicholas Schmidle interviewed me for this piece:

Joe Romm, the author of the blog Climate Progress, told me: “There is no saving the Maldives. They are wise to find a new place.”

I probably put in some caveat such as “on our current emissions path, there is no saving the Maldives.”  The interview was a couple of months ago.

But from the perspective of the Maldives, such caveats are largely meaningless.  For existential threats, which will warming clearly presents to the country, they need to strategize on the basis of what I would call the planning case.

In general, there are two important “cases” that governments, policymakers, and the public should focus on. The planning case is what those who are focused on adaptation should incorporate into their designs, such as the rebuilding of New Orleans.  The plausible worst-case is what should drive government energy policies aimed at prevention, since it represents a catastrophic loss of future health and well-being, which government is supposed to preserve — see Harvard economist: Climate cost-benefit analyses are “unusually misleading,” warns colleagues “we may be deluding ourselves and others.”

The plausible worst-case scenario for SLR by 2100 on the business-as-usual emissions path (which takes us to some total warming from preindustrial levels of 4.5°C to 5.5°C [8°F to 10°F]) is a staggering 2 meters (see here) or even higher — see Nature sea level rise shocker: Coral fossils suggest “catastrophic increase of more than 5 centimetres per year over a 50-year stretch is possible.” Lead author warns, “This could happen again.”

It typically doesn’t make sense to do all of your adaptation planning for the worst-case scenario, since even the richest countries don’t have an unlimited amount of money.  On the other hand, it certainly doesn’t make any sense to do your adaptation planning for the best case scenario, since then you are left with New Orleans, post-Katrina.

[And yes, the word "adaptation" is a mostly a euphemism for what humanity will be doing if we keep emissions anywhere near business as usual.  A better word is "suffering" or "misery" as science advisor John Holdren used to say in his talks.]

Nasheed understands you don’t do your adaptation planning for the best case:

“When we talk about climate change . . . you aren’t talking about gradual things, sea-level rises of a millimeter a year,” Nasheed said to me, using storm surges, strong winds and tsunamis as examples of the kind of cataclysms he expects. “You are talking about the force of things that can go wrong.”

What is the planning case for SLR in 2100?  I’d put it at 1.2 to 1.5 meters — 4 to 5 feet.  I sent Schmidle a bunch of links to the latest post-IPCC studies on SLR, and he wrote:

In 2007, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimated that by 2100, sea levels could rise by anywhere between 7 and 23 inches. The I.P.C.C. represents the closest thing the scientific community has to a consensus, but nearly every scientist I spoke with placed his or her estimates slightly higher. “Is this an underestimate?” Thompson says. “No real way to tell. It is a conservative estimate. When you are trying to provide guidance to global governments, you don’t want to be alarmist.” Since the I.P.C.C. study, the journals Science, Nature Geoscience and Nature have all published articles featuring estimates that exceed two feet, some saying that rises could be as much as five feet by the end of the century. “The rise to 2100 is just the beginning of a much higher sea-level rise,” says Stefan Rahmstorf, a professor of ocean physics at the University of Potsdam. “This is a real long-term effect that we are setting into motion. It will continue.” Rahmstorf says he believes the increase could be as great as 1.4 meters, or four and a half feet, by 2100.

The problem for the Maldives is stark:

Twenty-two years ago, Nasheed’s predecessor traveled to New York with a mission. Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, then only 9 years into his 30-year reign, stood before the United Nations and warned the world that rising sea levels would eventually erase his country from the map: “With a mere one-meter rise,” he said, “a storm surge would be catastrophic and possibly fatal to the nation.”

So any prudent leader of the Maldives would start planning on relocation.  Especially since, SLR isn’t going to stop at 4 to 5 feet in 2100.  It is probably going to continue at a rate of some 1 to 2 inches a year for centuries.

But relocation imposes immense challenges, not the least of which is where the heck to go?

Last November, when Nasheed proposed moving all 300,000 Maldivians to safer territory, he named India, Sri Lanka and Australia as possible destinations and described a plan that would use tourism revenues from the present to establish a sovereign wealth fund with which he could buy a new country — or at least part of one — in the future.

Hmm.  Not sure those countries have much spare arable land (or fresh water) — especially in a globally warmed world (see, for instance “Australia faces collapse as climate change kicks in”).  Nasheed understands this, too

“They would rather die here,” Nasheed said when I asked how he would persuade people to leave their homes. “You can’t ask them to leave. This is almost an impossible task, unless and until you have doomsday on them. . . . Moving would have to be the very bottom line. If you think about it, in certain eventualities, there wouldn’t be a place to move. Everyone would be running around. I mean, you mention a country that wouldn’t have all sorts of problems — even India or Sri Lanka, all of these countries would have millions of people moving from place to place. We would be lost. Three hundred thousand Maldivians? Who would care about them?”

The Maldives has no good options.

And the world has only one — get off of the BAU emissions path ASAP and keep atmospheric concentrations as close to 350 to 450 ppm as possible.

Related Links:

Lomborg v. Monbiot: liveblogging the Munk debate on climate change

E.U. pushes China further after pledge to slow carbon intensity

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Don’t miss last week’s dubious bit of doggerel.

Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso with Obama earlier this year.White HouseMonday seemed so hopeful, when Aso came out strong:
Japan and other powers must act before too long.
“Hear, hear!” cried U.S. leaders, “We put it in this draft!
To mumblemouth on climate would really be quite daft.”
But things went downhill quickly: for lost without Kathleen,
Kansas gave the nod to coal that claims it’s super-clean.
Foes of “cash for clunkers” could not be undersold,
And the poor, threatened polar bear was left out in the cold.
Still, as climate battles rage, the really good news is,
There’s one policy bound to work—and that, of course, is His.

We hope your experience was satisfactory. Please leave ideas for future climate-related poems below!

Related Links:

Annie Leonard misses the mark in her new video, “The Story of Cap-and-Trade”

Lomborg v. Monbiot: liveblogging the Munk debate on climate change

It’s Getting Ha! in Here: Featuring Wyatt Cenac

President Evo Morales of Bolivia never shies away from a scuffle. He was elected as Bolivia's first indigenous president after toppling the previous government with massive street protests, and he has since legalized the coca leaf, nationalized the mines, and tossed out the U.S. ambassador.

Bolivian President Evo Morales makes an offering to the "Pachamama" (The Mother Earth) during a ritual at the sacred Aymara site of Tiwanaku, Bolivia. Morales has called for rich nations to take on the problem of global warming, noting that the worst effects fall on poor nations.Photo: Noah Friedman-RudovskyThe one-time coca farmer and llama herder is now wading into the ring of global climate negotiations to embark on his grandest crusade to date. His twenty-point list of demands on international climate policy represents the toughest line taken by any national leader, including a call for developed countries to contribute one percent of GDP -- close to $700 billion per year -- to a compensatory adaptation fund for poor and vulnerable nations.

"Western development has created a deathly wound to our Pachamama," says Bolivian Foreign Minister David Choquehuanca, using the Aymara term for Mother Earth. "Industrialized countries need to assume their responsibilities."

If the United States agreed to finance Bolivia's proposal based on its 2008 GDP, it would owe roughly $146 billion -- over 11,000 times more than America spent on international adaptation in the 2008 fiscal year.

It's just the kind of uphill battle that the Bolivian government likes best.

"We think even this figure is small," says Juan Pablo Ramos, Vice-Minister of the Environment, "when we consider the $700 billion bailout for the U.S. financial crisis."

Bolivia's case rests on an argument that is rapidly gaining ground in poor countries -- that climate change must be addressed as a fundamental threat to development. Economic losses that can ultimately be traced back to industrialized nations' carbon emissions, they maintain, must be compensated with the same urgency that these countries have discovered in confronting their own financial crises.

Instead of talking about the ecological footprint of Bolivian development, Ramos is concerned with "the ecological footprint on our development" -- and worries that his country is getting squashed.

Gisela Ulloa, coordinator of Bolivia's Clean Development Office, says that the nation has "lost a large percentage of GDP in the last couple of years from climatic events" that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has linked to global warming, including flooding disasters in its Amazonian lowlands and the melting of Andean glaciers critical to water supply. Adaptation funding, in Bolivia's view, should address both the costs of these present-day damages and the opportunity costs of foregoing Western style industrialization.

This North-South perception gap about the nature of the threat posed by climate change is widely unrecognized by government and environmental leaders in developed nations.

"In the industrialized countries, climate change is seen as an environmental issue and not a development issue," says Adil Najam, lead author of the sustainable development section of the 2007 IPCC assessment. "For most of the people of the world, it is and will remain a development challenge."

The Bolivian government believes that it can shift the very framework of the global debate on climate change. The nation's "fundamental strategy," says Ramos, is to develop third-world block positions at Copenhagen and beyond to redefine the world's approach to climate policy. At treaty negotiations this April in Bonn, Bolivia had gathered a trio of leftist Latin American allies to demand compensation for the "climate debt" -- Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Honduras.

Global environmental institutions, he argues, should see their primary obligation as serving the world's poorest nations, who contributed least to the problem and whose chances for development face profound environmental barriers.

The international approach that Bolivia envisions would start with a greater emphasis on adaptation, which they say is the primary challenge facing third-world states. It would reject market mechanisms, which Bolivia claims reward polluters rather than victims of climate change, in favor of aid to developing countries. Governments could access these funds through streamlined procedures instead of submitting formal proposals to the Global Environment Facility, a process that often takes years.

For their part, industrialized nations would cut carbon emissions by 40 percent by 2020 and 90 percent by 2050. They would eliminate all subsidies for fossil fuels, end patents on green technologies, and directly finance avoided deforestation in the poor world.

"Radical measures are needed to produce massive results," says Vice-Minister Ramos.

Bolivia is facing long odds. The climate adaptation financing proposals Bolivia's leaders want are not only exponentially greater than what Western governments are currently paying, they're well beyond the range of what Western NGOs are recommending. Oxfam, for example, has issued an influential report calling for rich countries to spend $50 billion per year on adaptation - almost fourteen times less than the Bolivian proposal.

Heavy rains caused major flooding in Bolivia in 2007 and 2008, where large portions of the country, like the Beni region, were under water for months. President Evo Morales has called on wealthy nations to shoulder the burden for global warming.Photo by Noah Friedman-RudovskyBolivia's emphasis on the poorest nations, exemplified by its demand to restructure the Clean Development Mechanism to serve least developed states rather than industrializing giants, is also unlikely to be taken kindly by developing world heavyweights such as China, India and Brazil.

All told, Adil Najam isn't holding his breath for a third-world climate policy revolution.

"Part of me wishes that was going to happen, but it ain't going to," he says. "Wake me up when it does."

Nevertheless, the gridlock on adaptation financing has recently given signs of easing. Industrialized nations have pledged to include adaptation assistance in the Copenhagen climate treaty, and U.S. climate envoy Todd Stern has called for "substantial funds" for adaptation in the developing world to be incorporated in a U.S. cap-and-trade bill. Two of the leading climate proposals in the last Congress, the Lieberman-Warner and Markey bills, called for roughly $1 billion and $2-2.5 billion per year, respectively, for adaptation assistance.

This range would represent an increase on the order of a hundredfold in U.S. support for adaptation -- though still about ten times less than Oxfam recommends, and a hundred times less than Bolivia demands.

Adele Morris, an expert on climate change economics at the Brookings Institution, is concerned that a radical stand on financing on could endanger the prospects of a new treaty.

"The challenge will be getting a consensus in Copenhagen that's also ratifiable in Congress," she says. "You would hate to see the U.S.' ability to reach agreement torpedoed by overly ambitious demands from Bolivia."

An official in Bolivia's National Climate Change Program indicates that the country is likely to sign any agreement that emerges from Copenhagen. But the government insists that the current debate on adaptation funding amounts to shifting deck chairs on the Titanic. At the Poznan negotiations last December, delegates from rich and poor nations stalked out unable to reach agreement over a single percentage point in the rate of proceeds from global carbon markets that would be dedicated to adaptation.

"We were fighting for around $80 million for so many countries, but that's not going to save Tuvalu," says Gisela Ulloa, who represented Bolivia as a delegate. "It was a disaster. It was almost a waste of time."

Bolivia is convinced that this can only be resolved when developed nations fundamentally change their understanding of the role of adaptation. And until this occurs, Bolivian officials promise that we'll be hearing a whole lot more from them.

Bolivian officials says they will form a coalition of underdogs, including indigenous groups, social movements, and the world's most vulnerable states, into a pack so large that their case can no longer be denied.

"We are going to make our point more forcefully in the coming months," says Juan Pablo Ramos. "So that it is not an isolated voice, but a global demand of various nations and various peoples that eventually becomes a requirement."

Related Links:

Optimistic or pessimistic about the Copenhagen climate talks?

Copen-talkin’: Smarties offer their takes on COP15 climate talks

December 19—the day after COP15

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:

Annie Leonard misses the mark in her new video, “The Story of Cap-and-Trade”

Optimistic or pessimistic about the Copenhagen climate talks?

Copen-talkin’: Smarties offer their takes on COP15 climate talks

I don't think most people appreciate the level of stupidity that people in Congress consume and pass on every day. Witness this, the opening statement of Joe Barton (R-Tx.) at a hearing today on climate adaptation. It begins with the immortal tautology: "Adapting is a common way for people to adapt to their environment."

Related Links:

Lomborg v. Monbiot: liveblogging the Munk debate on climate change

On ‘climategate’

What to make of the new climate poll