The IPCC’s prediction for average sea-level rise this century is 13 inches (if global warming continues unchecked). Today’s report from a group of climatologist ups the prediction to 33 inches. This is what the difference looks like on a pair of identical twins. Photo Illustration courtesy Greg Ceo.The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- the world’s foremost body for weighing and assessing climate science -- received a kick in the pants today from members who say the climate situation is much worse than the IPCC has so far reported.

Twenty-six climatologists -- including 14 IPCC members -- have released a startling update to the panel’s work, reporting that sea levels could rise and methane-laden arctic permafrost could melt much sooner than the panel had anticipated.

“The Copenhagen Diagnosis: Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science” is not an official IPCC report; it’s a summary of the hundreds of peer-reviewed research papers that have been published since the IPCC’s last assessment. It was released now to fill the long gap in between official IPCC reports -- the last was released in 2007, but the drafting text is more than three years old, and the next isn't scheduled until 2013. It was also timed to the Copenhagen climate talks, of course.

The essence of the new report is that things are grimmer than the IPCC has reported. And it’s not like the panel has been painting a rosy picture -- its 2007 report concluded that the warming-induced melting of the Greenland ice sheet could create significant sea-level rise in this century. IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri said at the time, “If there's no action before 2012, that's too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment."

The new diagnosis finds that arctic sea ice is melting 40 percent faster than the panel estimated just a few years ago. Another startling finding: Satellites have found that the global average for rising sea levels was 3.4 millimeters per year from 1993-2008. The IPCC estimated it would be 1.9 mm for that period -- short by 80 percent.

The report’s authors (who include the preeminent Stephen Schneider) write that “if global warming is to be limited to a maximum of 2°C above pre-industrial values, global emissions need to peak between 2015 and 2020 and then decline rapidly." If you're keeping score, 2015 is just over five years away -- somewhat less comforting than the distant "2050" you used to hear so much about.

In a time when the correspondence of scientists is hacked and stolen and as a matter of political strategy, some will no doubt dismiss the group’s research entirely. And even IPCC fans may question whether its decision-making process is swift enough to remain relevant. It certainly seems that events are outpacing the political system's ability to deal with them.

Below are the key findings from the report:

Surging greenhouse gas emissions: Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels in 2008 were nearly 40 percent higher than those in 1990. Even if global emission rates are stabilized at present-day levels, just 20 more years of emissions would give a 25 percent probability that warming exceeds 2°C, even with zero emissions after 2030. Every year of delayed action increases the chances of exceeding 2°C warming.

Recent global temperatures demonstrate human-induced warming: Over the past 25 years temperatures have increased at a rate of 0.19°C per decade, in very good agreement with predictions based on greenhouse gas increases. Even over the past ten years, despite a decrease in solar forcing, the trend continues to be one of warming. Natural, short-term fluctuations are occurring as usual, but there have been no significant changes in the underlying warming trend.

Acceleration of melting of ice-sheets, glaciers and ice-caps: A wide array of satellite and ice measurements now demonstrate beyond doubt that both the Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheets are losing mass at an increasing rate. Melting of glaciers and ice-caps in other parts of the world has also accelerated since 1990.

Rapid Arctic sea-ice decline: Summer-time melting of Arctic sea-ice has accelerated far beyond the expectations of climate models. The area of sea-ice melt during 2007-2009 was about 40 percent greater than the average prediction from IPCC AR4 climate models.

Current sea-level rise underestimated: Satellites show recent global average sea-level rise (3.4 mm/yr over the past 15 years) to be ~80 percent above past IPCC predictions. This acceleration in sea-level rise is consistent with a doubling in contribution from melting of glaciers, ice caps, and the Greenland and West-Antarctic ice-sheets

Sea-level predictions revised: By 2100, global sea-level is likely to rise at least twice as much as projected by Working Group 1 of the IPCC AR4; for unmitigated emissions it may well exceed 1 meter. The upper limit has been estimated as ~ 2 meters sea level rise by 2100. Sea level will continue to rise for centuries after global temperatures have been stabilized, and several meters of sea level rise must be expected over the next few centuries.

Delay in action risks irreversible damage: Several vulnerable elements in the climate system (e.g. continental icesheets, Amazon rainforest, West African monsoon and others) could be pushed towards abrupt or irreversible change if warming continues in a business-as-usual way throughout this century. The risk of transgressing critical thresholds (“tipping points”) increases strongly with ongoing climate change. Thus waiting for higher levels of scientific certainty could mean that some tipping points will be crossed before they are recognized.

The turning point must come soon: If global warming is to be limited to a maximum of 2 °C above pre-industrial values, global emissions need to peak between 2015 and 2020 and then decline rapidly. To stabilize climate, a decarbonized global society -- with near-zero emissions of CO2 and other long-lived greenhouse gases -- needs to be reached well within this century. More specifically, the average annual per-capita emissions will have to shrink to well under 1 metric ton CO2 by 2050. This is 80-95% below the per-capita emissions in developed nations in 2000.

Related Links:

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

Obama administration may (finally) offer greenhouse-gas targets

John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles

Will world leaders rocket at Copenhagen?Photo: jurvetson via Flickr Creative CommonsSuddenly -- and just in the nick of time -- next month's Copenhagen conference is starting to gain momentum. National leaders have rushed to say they are going, elevating it to the status of a major summit. More and more commitments to action are coming in, from both developed and developing countries. And there are signs that even the United States may put an, albeit provisional, offer on the table.

It has all been enough to cheer up the phlegmatic Yvo de Boer, who -- as  Executive Director of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change -- is in charge of the talks. Last month he was sounding downbeat, but now he says: "There is no doubt in my mind that (the meeting) will yield a success."

"Almost every day now we see new commitments and pledges from both industrialized and developing countries," he added. "I am confident that the President of the United States can come to Copenhagen with targets and a financial commitment."

Maybe de Boer is now erring on the optimistic side, but there is no doubt that there is, at present at least, a new mood in the air. It is reflected in -- and partly caused by -- a stampede of heads of governments promising to come.

By the weekend, just a week after the Danish Government had sent out the formal invitations, 65 leaders had committed themselves to attend. They included such heavyweights as British Prime Minister Gordon Brown,  German Chancellor Angela Merkel, President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, Prime Ministers Yuki Hatoyama and Kevin Rudd of Japan and Australia, and Presidents Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono of Indonesia.

Several key leaders have yet to reply -- including President Hu Jintao of China, India's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, South African president Jacob Zuma and, of course, Barack Obama. But so far the Danes have not had a single refusal, and expect many more acceptances.

The promised turn-out is a big vindication for Gordon Brown, who was the first leader to commit to going -- as long ago as September. Brown insisted that only heads of governments would have the authority to negotiate and strike a deal. He has since spent much time telephoning and talking to other leaders face-to-face to persuade them to attend.

He will be at it again this weekend at the summit of leaders of the former colonial countries that belong to the British Commonwealth in Trinidad. Manmohan Singh and Jacob Zuma can expect to come under particular pressure if they have not accepted by then.

Meanwhile offers of emission reductions continue to come in. Russia has agreed at a summit with the E.U. last week to accept a 25 percent cut on 1990 levels by 2020, doubling its previous target. This is hardly ambitious because the collapse of its economy in the 1990s means its emissions are now much lower than they were at the start of that decade -- but it is important because it represents another developed country coming into the range which will trigger the big cuts promised by the E.U., Japan, and Australia if others followed suit.

South Korea offered a four percent reduction from 2005 levels by 2020. Again, this may appear paltry, but is psychologically important because the country is (somewhat anomalously) classified as a developing one, making South Korea the first developing country to announce an absolute cut in emissions as opposed to just reducing its rate of growth.

Even more importantly, Brazilian officials made clear last week that the ambitious target of at least a 36.1 reduction in projected 2020 emissions, would involve an absolute cut of at least 10 percent from current levels.

The big questions are what the U.S. and China will offer. President Hu has promised a "notable" reduction in expected 2020 emissions, and is expected to attach a figure on it in Copenhagen. And Todd Stern, the chief U.S. negotiator indicated that  President Obama was considering going with a provisional number for emissions reduction even if the Senate had not voted on it by then.

There is also a growing consensus on the even more important -- and difficult -- issue of providing finance to the world's poorest countries to help them tackle their own pollution and adapt to the devastating impacts of climate change. This is settling out at an acceptance that about $100 billion a year will be needed by 2020 (a figure originally proposed by Gordon Brown last summer), that 22-50 billion euros of this would come from international aid, and that "fast-track finance" of 5-7 billion euros should be provided to finance immediate action.

Of course there will be many stomach-turning ups and downs before the leaders leave the Danish capital, and it could well all come unstuck. But the very fact that leaders are going makes that more unlikely, because the one thing that unites them is a determination to avoid being associated with failure.

Related Links:

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

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

Obama administration may (finally) offer greenhouse-gas targets

Todd SternAs Dave lamented last week, most of the predicting and posturing preceding the Copenhagen climate talks amounts to little more than Some Person Guessing. You might consider the weekend news from the UK Observer -- which reported the Obama administration's intention to set a provisional target for U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions -- to be more of the same, though it at least relies on the head of Obama’s climate negotiation team.

From the Observer:

President Barack Obama is considering setting a provisional target for cutting America's huge greenhouse gas emissions, removing the greatest single obstacle to a landmark global agreement to fight climate change.

The Observer has learnt that administration officials have been consulting international negotiators and key players on Capitol Hill about signing up to a provisional target at the UN global warming summit in Copenhagen, now less than three weeks away.

Todd Stern, the state department climate change envoy, said the administration recognised that America had to come forward with a target for cutting its emissions. The US, which with China is responsible for 40% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, is the only major developed nation yet to table an offer.

"What we are looking at is to see whether we could put down essentially a provisional number that would be contingent on our legislation," Stern said from Copenhagen, where he was meeting Danish officials.

By doing so, the administration would get out ahead of Congress—pledging something that 67 senators may not be willing to ratify. It has so far refused to do that in its climate work, to the detriment of its international popularity. But this is what European Union countries do all the time, Rob Bradley, the World Resources Institute’s director of international climate policy, said on Friday. They make agreements at the international level, then pass national legislation to make good on their promises. And, said Bradley, they’ve grown tired of hearing why this doesn’t work in the United States.

Stern’s suggestion—a U.S. commitment contingent on Congress passing legislation—could help the administration work around that dilemma.

Finally, a bit more from Agence France-Presse:

The United States will present an emissions target at upcoming UN climate change talks in Copenhagen, a senior official said Monday, as President Barack Obama mulled whether to attend the conference.

The official refused to be drawn on what that target would be but indicated that Obama would announce it in the next few days along with a decision on whether he will fly to the Danish capital to give added impetus to proceedings.

Added impetus to proceedings--let's hope our inspirer-in-chief finds a more inspiring way to put it.

Related Links:

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

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

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

You could make a pretty simple argument that the fate of the world rests with the United States Senate Republicans:

1. It takes 60 votes to pass a climate bill in the U.S. Senate (assuming it won’t be done through budget reconciliation). Getting the votes of all 58 Democrats and two Independents will be just plain tough, as they might say in the Blue Dog states.

2. It takes 67 Senate votes to ratify an international climate treaty. That requires Republican votes.

3. The international community isn’t likely to pass a climate treaty without the cooperation of the United States.

4. The world needs the Senate Republicans.

The hope is that enough of the most (relatively) independent-minded ones can be peeled away from the obstructionist line and cajoled into supporting a first-step climate bill. That’s why it’s problematic that John McCain (R-Arizona) is acting like anything but a maverick on the issue.

There’s been some interesting reporting on the McCain front today.

Before his most recent presidential run, McCain had long been a leader on taking climate change seriously and doing something about it. He and Joe Lieberman authored the first major climate bill in the Senate in 2003 and introduced new versions in 2005 and 2007. 

POLITICO summarizes his about-face:

Now the Arizona Republican is more likely to repeat GOP talking points on cap and trade than to help usher the bill through the thorny politics of the Senate.

McCain refers to the bill as “cap and tax,” calls the climate legislation that passed the House in June “a 1,400-page monstrosity” and dismisses a cap-and-trade proposal included in the White House budget as “a government slush fund.”

The shift even has former McCain aids “mystified.” Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.), the only Senate Republican who’s shown real interest this fall in working with Democrats to craft a climate bill, tells POLITICO, “I wouldn’t be here on this issue without him … He’s the guy that introduced me to the climate problem.”

More bad news: McCain is vulnerable to a primary challenge from the right, according to a new Rasmussen poll. Matt Yglesias concludes:

This seems like pretty much terrible news for the world. The most likely path between Point A and Senate passage of a reasonable climate bill is for McCain to rediscover his interest in the issue. But that’s not the sort of thing a Senator worried about a right-wing primary challenge is likely to do.

For more on the way it used to be: Grist’s interview and overview of McCain’s environmental record from last year’s campaign show how he’s changed his position on a climate plan.

And don’t expect the Republican dynamic to change soon, according to Greenwire. Reporter Alex Kaplun takes a look at upcoming primaries and finds candidates courting the Republican base by taking hard-line positions against a climate bill. His sources say “the general trajectory of the Republican Party as whole for the foreseeable future will be toward opposition of the climate bill.”

All this still amounts to reading tea leaves on where McCain will be if the Senate ever gets around to voting on a climate bill. Maybe he’s still working through some post-election blues. Maybe, over time, he’ll be drawn to playing a constructive role again.

Related Links:

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

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

Obama administration may (finally) offer greenhouse-gas targets

Shucks, we shoulda known!Photo courtesy Andrew Ciscel via Flickr With the Copenhagen climate talks upon us we learn that hackers recently broke into thousands of emails and internal documents from a leading climate research center and dumped them onto an anonymous Russian server. The hacked emails (160 MB worth, unzipped) came from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU). They allegedly include 20-year's worth of exchanges between top U.S. and British climate scientists who were debating the latest developments in climate research. Global warming skeptics, the internet over, are using the (illegal) hacking to claim that global warming is a hoax, full of fudged data and dishonest, conspiratorial scientists. It's "the global warming scandal of the century," claim conservative bloggers.

A CRU spokesperson confirmed that their server was hacked; however, the spokesperson told the BBC that "Because of the volume of this information we cannot currently confirm that all of this material is genuine."

The exchanges reportedly include discussions about climate data and how to respond to climate skeptics, a few blunt comments about the most fervent deniers, and one doctored photo of climate skeptics stranded on an ice floe. But the most controversial comments, plucked out of context, come from a private correspondence between CRU researcher Phil Jones and Pennsylvania State University's Michael Mann (author of the infamous "hocky stick graph" of rising global average temperatures):

"I’ve just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards), and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline," wrote Jones.

I'll save you from the science wonkery and allusions here (check out RealClimate for a more detailed explanation), but noisy climate skeptics are jumping on two parts of that sentence. Guess which ones? Yup, "trick" and "hide the decline."

Jones was referencing two sets of data on temperature change during the last decade. One used changes in tree rings; the other used thermometers. Both showed a rise in temperature until the 1960s, when the thermometers continud to record a rise and the tree rings did not. When other independent temperature measures confirmed the thermometer readings, scientists abandoned the tree rings data. 

The legitimate climate scientists over at RealClimate have an indepth response to the allegations being made against the CRU folks, some of whom are RealClimate contributors. While conceding that "hide" was a poor choice of words, they translate the science slang at work here: "Scientists often use the term 'trick' to refer to 'a good way to deal with a problem,' rather than something that is 'secret."

"It sounds incriminating," Michael Mann told Andrew Revkin of The New York Times about his email exchange with Phil Jones. "But when you look at what you're talking about, there's nothing there."

RealClimate's level-headed response to the event is worth reading, along with its active and excellently moderated discussion thread. Another point they make which is worth emphasizing in light of blog posts calling this "a scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science":

It appears that the original Russian FTP server, which held the illegally obtained files, has been shut down, although the files have now been uploaded elsewhere on the web.

A few things to keep in mind throughout this entire "scandal":

As implicated researcher Michael Mann notes to the respected international scientific journal Nature: "The deniers will probably do anything they can to distract the public from the reality of the problem [of climate change], and the threat that it poses. Cherry-picked, out-of-context quotes, stolen from private e-mails, is the best they've got."

Related Links:

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

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

Obama administration may (finally) offer greenhouse-gas targets

The climate problem is incredibly complex. Heck, it’s unfathomably complex to most folks, as it involves chemistry, computer models, economic development, and, of course, the weather.

This complexity demands strong, explanatory journalism—the kind of fact gathering and storytelling that too many news organizations are ignoring in an era of declining budgets and celebrity infatuations.

There are exceptions, thankfully. The good people at the Earth Journalism Awards have singled out 15 journalistic approaches to the climate problem (or aspects of it) that they believe did the best job at exploring the issue and breaking it down for their readers.

The 15 finalists for the 2009 awards include a Scientific American series on carbon sequestration and a report from the Business Daily of Nairobi on how Kenya’s companies are losing out in the global carbon trading scheme.

You, dear reader, have a voice in selecting the winner of the Earth Journalism Global Public Award.  Go to the site, read the stories, and vote on the one you think is the best.

You’ll be doing two important things—informing yourself, and supporting journalists who are doing their best to gather facts about the most consequential threat facing humanity.

The winning story will be presented at the Earth Journalism Awards ceremony to an audience of negotiators, climate change experts, activists and media representatives in Copenhagen on December 14 on the eve of the negotiations.”

Follow the Earth Journalism Awards on Facebook.

Related Links:

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

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

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

PARIS -- Braking the rise in Earth's population would be a major help in the fight against global warming, according to an unprecedented U.N. report published Wednesday that draws a link between demographic pressure and climate change.

"Slower population growth ... would help build social resilience to climate change's impacts and would contribute to a reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions in the future," the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA) says.

Its 104-page document emphasises that population policies be driven by support for women, access to family planning, reproductive health, and other voluntary measures.

"It really is the first time that a United Nations agency has looked hard at the connections between population and climate change," lead researcher Bob Engelman, vice president for programs at the green group Worldwatch Institute, told AFP.

"People are at the root of the problem and at the solution of it, and empowerment of women is the key."

The report, the 2009 State of World Population, paints a grim tableau of the peril of climate change and the likely impact on humans, in terms of floods, drought, storms, and homelessness.

But it notably puts distance between a decades-long tradition in the U.N. arena whereby population growth and its part in environmental destruction were rarely -- if ever -- evoked.

"Fear of appearing supportive of population control has until recently held back any mention of 'population' in the climate debate," the document admits.

Things, though, are starting to change. More than three dozen developing countries have already included population issues in national plans on climate, it says.

Negotiators, including the European Union, have tentatively suggested that the question be considered in talks, designed to culminate in Copenhagen next month, for a 192-nation post-2012 global climate pact.

Today, the world's population stands at around 6.8 billion. By mid-century, it will range between 7.959 billion to 10.461 billion, with a mid-estimate of 9.15 billion, according to U.N. calculations.

The difference between 8 billion and 9 billion is between one and two billion tons of carbon per year, according to research cited in the report.

That would be comparable to savings in emissions by 2050 if all new buildings were constructed to the highest energy-efficiency standards and if two million one-gigawatt wind turbines were built to replace today's coal-fired power plants.

"[P]opulation growth is among the factors influencing total emissions in industrialized as well as developing countries," it says.

"Each person in a population will consume food and require housing, and ideally most will take advantage of transportation, which consumes energy, and may use fuel to heat homes and have access to electricity."

Mitigating population rise would have a double benefit, it says.

It reduces greenhouse-gas output, especially if the decline occurs in developed countries, whose per-capita emissions are up to 10 times those of poor countries.

And it also helps countries -- especially poor nations with high population growth -- adapt to the impacts of climate change.

"The growth of population can contribute to freshwater scarcity or degradation of cropland, which may in turn exacerbate the impacts of climate change," says the report. "So too can climate change make it more difficult for governments to alleviate poverty and achieve the Millennium Development Goals."

The report says taking demographics into account can help national policies and the quest for a U.N. climate agreement.

Women are not only more vulnerable than men to the effects of climate change but also hold the key to helping resolve it through fertility control and involvement in the economy, it adds.

Thus helping women will entail access to reproductive health care, education, and gender equality.

Related Links:

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

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

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

WASHINGTON - Two senators unveiled legislation Monday to double U.S. nuclear energy output in 20 years and foster clean energy options with "mini-Manhattan Projects" named for the original U.S. atomic bomb push.

Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) and Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), noting they cannot support the cap-and-trade climate bill now churning through the Senate, said their plan could cost $20 billion over 10 years.  It would include $100 billion for carbon-free electricity loan guarantees, expected to chiefly benefit the U.S. nuclear industry.

It would also offer $750 million per year for 10 years to fund carbon-capture-and-storage technology -- sometimes known as "clean coal" -- as well as biofuels made from non-food crops, advanced batteries for electric cars and trucks, solar power, and recycling of used nuclear fuel.

The senators dubbed those initiatives "mini-Manhattan projects," a reference to the World War II-era effort to develop the atomic bomb.

The bill also includes $100 million per year for 10 years to train and educate nuclear engineers, operators, and related skilled workers, at a time when U.S. unemployment is soaring at 10.2 percent, a 26-year high.

Alexander, a fervent foe of White House-backed cap-and-trade legislation, noted that boosting nuclear energy enjoys the support of members of both major U.S. parties as well as President Barack Obama's administration.

Webb, who said he could not vote for the cap-and-trade bill "in its current form," said increasing U.S. nuclear capability was among "things we know we can do" to reduce carbon emissions blamed for global warming.

Related Links:

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

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

Obama administration may (finally) offer greenhouse-gas targets

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Senate will act in early 2010 on legislation to battle climate change, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Tuesday, ending hopes of a breakthrough by next month's global talks.

"We are going to try to do that sometime in the spring," Reid told reporters, with a White House-backed push to remake U.S. health care still dominating the Senate agenda just weeks before the congressional session ends.

The decision confirms that the U.S. Congress will not adopt legislation to combat climate change before the Dec. 7-18 global climate change talks in Denmark's capital Copenhagen.

It also pushes what is likely to be a bitter debate to a midterm-election year, potentially making it harder to corral some of the swing-vote senators needed to ensure passage of the bill.

The Grassley isn't greener

Meanwhile, a key U.S. senator on Tuesday rejected any attempt to pin a lack of breakthroughs at next month's global climate change talks in Denmark on a lack of U.S. leadership on the issue.

"You mean it's not the failure of the People's Assembly in China or the Parliament of India to pass laws cutting down on CO2, it's only America's fault, blame America first?" said Charles Grassley (R-Iowa).

Grassley, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, criticized unnamed countries that "accept our leadership on CO2, but ignore our leadership on Iran, our leadership on North Korea, ignore our leadership on Afghanistan."

"You know, you can't have it both ways. Other countries can't have it both ways," he said in a regular conference call with media from his home state of Iowa, according to a transcript of the discussion.

Grassley also said he "would not be satisfied" with any climate-change agreement that treats the United States differently from China or India.

"China's putting more CO2 into the air, and I wouldn't be satisfied if China's not treated like the United States because what good does it do for the United States to clean up CO2? It's not going to make an impact unless China and India [are] involved as well," he said.

Grassley also had tough words for lawmakers and President Barack Obama who have called for the U.S. Congress to pass sweeping legislation to battle climate change in order to build momentum ahead of the Dec. 7-18 global talks.

"If the rest of the world doesn't follow along, then we're going to ruin our economy," he said. "Maybe they don't care."

At the same time, he said, "there seems to be no feeling that anything solid's going to come out of Copenhagen, except a political statement" broadly recommitting to a "worldwide agreement" on cutting carbon emissions.

Related Links:

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

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

Bill McKibben says time is running out on climate delays

Photo: Max xx via FlickrSPAIN -- With the Copenhagen climate change summit looming, the world of wine convened on Spain's Rioja region for a conference in which global warming emerged as the industry's top concern.

"All over the world, alcohol levels are going up," said British wine critic Jancis Robinson at the WineFuture conference, citing just one problem producers are facing as a result of rising temperatures.

"Champagne alcohol levels are becoming embarrassingly high," she added, meaning that the heat which is raising the alcohol content changes both the texture and personality of a wine.

Robinson said there were some "benevolent effects" of climate change -- the slight increases in temperature currently benefiting certain wine-producing regions like California or Germany, as well as more ominous global implications.

"Even in England, the grapes are ripening more," she said. "Someone even planted a vineyard in Norway. Can you believe that?"

Less benevolent effects, added Robinson, are being seen in warmer wine producing regions around the world such as Australia where water shortages are contributing to the demise of many wineries.

"Farmers in Spain don't have nearly enough water," she continued, "Spanish wine has always been pretty dry and concentrated, but the last few vintages have reached a crisis point."

In the short to medium term, however, what might drive producers to go green has nothing to do with conscience or desire to save the world. For many, it's about money and marketing.

"I want to find new markets, particularly for export. I want to be the first winemaker who eliminates direct CO2 emissions. Nobody does that," said Manuel Garcia of Rioja's Bodegas Regalia de Ollauri. "As a commercial argument, it's very important."

Potentially, there's also money to be saved by going green. At Garcia's new vineyard, he installed a geothermal system that takes advantage of the constant temperature underground to cool his cellars in the summertime and heat them in the winter, a game changer for wineries whose power bills are often referred to as "astronomical."

"My summertime cooling no cuesta nada (doesn't cost anything)," he said, making a "0" in the air with his thumb and index finger. "We paid 250,000 euros to install the system, but we'll recuperate our investment in four or five years."

"You might not get vineyard owners to want to save the Earth, but they'll want to save money," concludes Garcia.

Winemakers are also being encouraged to rethink how they ship their wines and how they make their bottles.

At the WineFuture conference last week, speaker Nicola Jenkins, drinks category expert for the Britain-based environmental agency WRAP cited a Chilean winery which used a "lightweighting" process on its bottles, reducing their weight from 485g to 425g (17 to 15 oz.) and encouraging others to ship overseas in bulk using giant vats known as 'flexitanks' -- both processes that result in CO2 emissions reductions and shipping cost savings.

But it's still a slow process getting winemakers on board.

"People go to a climate conference and get all excited then go back to their company and say, 'Let's buy solar panels!' and their boss says 'What?!?!'" said Miguel Torres, president of Bodegas Miguel Torres.

Yet Torres, who heads up a generations-old wine company has become something of an Al Gore for the wine industry, traveling the world with a climate change PowerPoint presentation, showing what his company is doing to go green and why he's trying to lead by example.

At the new Torres winery in the Rioja town of Labastida, the facility is built into the earth, has a fleet of electric vehicles, and special water collecting reservoirs.

"We won't be able to make the same quality of wines if we don't do anything," he said, addressing the particular sensitivity of grapes and the winemaking process to temperature changes other crops could endure.

Some producers who want to continue to produce the wines they've made historically are adapting by simply changing physical location.

"You can work with latitude or altitude, or switch grapes," he said. The latter has particular consequences in Europe, as a switch to grapes that are better adapted to higher temperatures could signal the end of the appellation system as a whole. "It's going to change the map."

"In 10, 15, or 20 years there's going to be a frightening change with consequences," he concluded. "If temperatures in Europe go up by five degrees, we won't be able to grow grapes and I don't want to have to explain to my grandchildren why we did nothing."

Related Links:

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

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

Obama administration may (finally) offer greenhouse-gas targets

Waking up on a dreary Sunday morning this weekend in Copenhagen (where I've recently moved to prepare for the upcoming climate talks in December), I was met with a barrage of headlines, mostly from U.S. media, telling me that Copenhagen is doomed to total failure and I might as well head off to Mexico City where next year's summit will be held. The New York Times cried out: World Leaders Agree to Delay a Deal on Climate Change. The Washington Post bellowed: Copenhagen talks unlikely to yield climate accord, leaders told. Not the best way to start a Sunday morning.

Is Copenhagen really over before it begins? Had I moved to this dark, rainy (but beautiful!) city for no reason? Should we all just pack it up and hope that political declarations will solve it all?

The answer, thankfully, quickly became a resounding "no." As Grist's own David Roberts is often the first to point out, the mainstream media clearly got it wrong. There's still hope -- a lot of it, at that.

Let's start with those headlines. Who are these "world leaders" who agreed to delay? Well, the plural may be accurate, but just barely.

In the 48 hours since initial reports, as Ministers and other government representatives have trickled into Copenhagen for the "pre-COP" preparatory meeting, it's become clear that while the media reported that all 19 APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation) leaders were in agreement on the so-called "one agreement, two steps" approach, that's not at all the case.

The real story occurred at a hastily arranged APEC breakfast. Danish Prime Minister Lars Loekke Rasmussen made a last-minute visit and surprised the room with a speech that was only vetted by a few of the so-called "leaders." One can only imagine a room full of bleary-eyed Heads of State sitting around a big table sipping their coffee and politely nodding at Rasmussen's climate change speech without really understanding how their nods would be translated by the media.

Rasmussen began his speech by saying:

...I would like to share with you how I believe a Copenhagen Agreement could be constructed to serve the dual purpose of providing for continued negotiations on a legal agreement and for immediate action...

And later towards the end of the speech he says:

Some of you might have wished for a different format or for a different legal structure. Still, I believe you will agree with me on one fundamental point: What matters at the end of the day is the ability of the Copenhagen Agreement to capture and reinforce global commitment to real actions.

Doesn't sound like consensus to me; it sounds like a man trying to convince an audience to go along with him. It's not entirely clear who actually did agree with the Prime Minister, but what is clear is that there is nowhere near consensus on such a delay approach; in fact, dozens of countries oppose it and are still wishing--and fighting--for more.

Now, what about the actual plan itself -- the "one agreement, two steps" plan? Two steps to an agreement doesn't sounds so bad, right?

As NRDC's Jake Schmidt wrote, the strategy might not be so bad if you actually thought that the second step would ever be taken. Unfortunately, what Rasmussen has put forward is a cynical approach. It's becoming clear that all he cares about is getting a "positive" result in Copenhagen, and that the second step could just be for show.

If you look closely at Rasmussen's APEC breakfast speech, there's very little incentive to actually finish the job in 2010 (as in, to take the "second step"). Rasmussen explains his vision thusly:

The Copenhagen Agreement should capture progress already achieved in the negotiations and at the same time provide for immediate action already from next year.

The Copenhagen Agreement should be political by nature, yet precise on specific commitments and binding on countries committing to reach certain targets and to undertake certain actions or provide agreed finance.

The Copenhagen Agreement should be global, comprehensive and substantial, yet flexible enough to accommodate countries with very different national circumstances.

The Copenhagen Agreement should finally mandate continued legal negotiations and set a deadline for their conclusion.

Why would any developed country with high emissions want to go back to the table and flesh out a legally binding deal after the pressure of Copenhagen has passed and there is no real obligation to do so? Despite his lip service to "continued legal negotiations", there's no clarity nor firm deadline. Rasmussen's invention of "politically binding"--a term no one seems willing or able to define--is also repeated here.

Furthermore, there is only a passing mention of the Kyoto Protocol later in the speech. Despite what some would have you think, however, the Kyoto Protocol does not expire in 2012. In fact, in 2005, the parties to the Kyoto Protocol agreed to negotiate a second commitment period (2013-2017) and further committed in Bali in 2007 to reaching a conclusion on what that second commitment period would look like. In Rasmussen's vision, this goal seems to disappear in favor of a "politically binding" outcome.

Indeed, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper--one of the leading climate negotiation blockers now that George W. Bush is out of the picture--has been positively beaming in the press about this announcement. Not a sign of a positive development.

Luckily, there's still time to push for more. The Alliance of Small Island States, the African Group of nations, and other vulnerable and least developed countries will surely be pushing back on this plan during the prep meetings in Copenhagen this week. In fact, 11 Pacific Island States already have. Some European nations are also likely to stand up to this plan.

The planet and its people need a fair, ambitious, and binding outcome from this process. Countries should be working on such a document in Copenhagen and they can and should finish it there. After all, it's what they committed to in Bali just two years ago.

Related Links:

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

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

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

There were plenty of hints over the past month that world leaders would down-shift expectations for drafting a new, international climate treaty in Copenhagen next month. Still, when news broke over the weekend that key nations, including the United States, were planning to push a final treaty into 2010, it came as shock to climate activists and commentators world wide.

Grist editors will be compiling various reactions below.  Drop links and your own thoughts into the comments box at the bottom of the page.

More Copenhagen Climate Talks Links

Related Links:

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

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

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

BERLIN -- German Chancellor Angela Merkel has decided to attend the Copenhagen climate conference after leaders including President Obama buried hopes of a binding deal, her spokesman said Monday.

"I don't have to beat around the bush, of course yesterday's outcome did not exactly spark great euphoria," spokesman Christoph Steegmans told reporters in Berlin.

"This is partly why the chancellor decided to play an active role in ensuring that the bar is not set too low in Copenhagen, and that we try to make the most of it and not to let anyone off their responsibilities," he said.

Asia-Pacific leaders including Obama and China's Hu Jintao on Sunday shot down any remaining hopes that the Dec. 7-18 Copenhagen meeting would result in a binding international pact to combat climate change.

Instead they backed a face-saving proposal from Danish Prime Minister Lars Loekke Rasmussen, who jetted in for hastily arranged talks in Singapore, aimed at forging a political statement.

Complex negotiations towards a legally enforceable successor to the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, which expires in 2012, would then continue to work out differences between rich nations and developing countries including China.

In a final declaration, the 21-member Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) also dropped a proposal included in earlier drafts to slash their greenhouse gas emissions to half their 1990 levels by 2050.

World Wildlife Fund said the leaders had "missed a great opportunity to move the world closer to a fair, ambitious and binding agreement" and that "this does not look like a smart strategy" to battle climate change.

"The bar must not be set too low at Copenhagen. Copenhagen has to be an important milestone, and also of course a first step towards a binding agreement next year," Merkel's spokesman said.

"What the German government expects from the Copenhagen summit is an important step along the way to a binding agreement in the framework of the United Nations.

"The chancellor, together with her partners in the European Union, wants to make sure that the maximum possible is achieved there (in Copenhagen) towards this," Steegmans said.

Merkel would arrive on the evening of Dec. 17, Steegmans added.

Environment ministers from 44 key countries gathered Monday in Copenhagen for a two-day closed-door meeting to prepare for the conference.

The delegations taking part were from the United States, China, India, and Brazil as well as several island nations and African states that are among the poorest in the world.

Related Links:

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

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

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

COPENHAGEN -- Environment ministers from 44 key countries gathered in Copenhagen on Monday for a two-day closed-door meeting aimed at preventing embarrassing failure at next month's U.N. conference on global warming.

Delegations included major greenhouse gas-emitters, including China, the United States, India and Brazil, as well as several island nations and African states that are among the poorest in the world and most vulnerable to climate change.

The Dec. 7-18 talks aim at reaching a post-2012 deal for slashing greenhouse-gas emissions and easing the impact of likely droughts, floods, storms, and rising seas unleashed by disrupted weather systems.

But after two years of haggling, the 192 members of the U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) remain badly deadlocked.

"We are going to discuss the difficult subjects that remain, such as financing and the goals to be reached," Danish Climate Minister Connie Hedegaard told AFP last week.

The meeting is "the chance to really get to the heart of the discussions, including the really difficult issues because we don't have much time left," she added in a statement.

Developing nations have called for wealthy economies to cut their emissions by at least 40 percent by 2020 compared with 1990 levels, and to provide around one percent of their gross domestic product (GDP) per year, or around 400 billion dollars, in finance.

So far, no rich country has come anywhere close to meeting such a demand.

They, in turn, are pressing emerging giants such as China, India, and Brazil to strengthen promises to tackle their own greenhouse-gas output.

According to a diplomatic source, Hedegaard will present a proposal for a "binding political agreement" next month.

The "five-to-eight-page" draft document establishes pledges that would be fleshed out in 2010, the source said.

It would notably spell out ways of sharing curbs on greenhouse gases.

Rich countries would identify their commitments for reductions "over the medium term," a timeframe usually meaning 2020.

Developing countries would also be urged to spell out their own intended roster of actions to tackle greenhouse gases.

Brazil on Friday became the first emerging giant to make a nonbinding promise of this kind, saying it would make a voluntary pledge to reduce its emissions by between 36 and 39 percent by 2020 as compared to anticipated trends.

Underpinning all commitments would be agreement that actions have to be transparent, measurable, and verifiable.

The deal would give the green light to "fast-start" funding to help poor countries switch to a low-carbon economy and fight the impacts of climate change. This would be the first step to a much larger inflow of funds.

Hedegaard met Sunday with her Chinese counterpart Xie Zhenhua and said the two held "constructive" talks.

China, she said, was "very interested in obtaining results in Copenhagen on all the important issues."

Forty heads of state and government have indicated their intention to attend the end of the Copenhagen showdown. They will include German Chancellor Angela Merkel, her spokesman said in Berlin on Monday.

"I think there's a lot of pressure on world leaders ... (especially) key countries, which know they can't come empty-handed to Copenhagen," Hedegaard said.

Facing green groups' criticism over the postponement of a legally binding deal, Hedegaard insisted the political agreement would be "substantial."

A legally binding accord would be in place in time for the expiry of the current roster of pledges under the Kyoto Protocol, she said.

Related Links:

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

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

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

LIMA -- Many of Peru's grittiest slums can only dream of access to water. But thanks to a German NGO, simple technology, and hard work, some humble homes are the first to use plastic netting to harvest water from the fog cloaking the night sky.

In sprawling settlements like Bellavista del Paraiso -- a dusty clutch of streets on Lima's south end named "Beautiful View of Paradise" with some eye-popping optimism -- there is no running water.

There is no well.

Buying water, trucked in by resellers, costs nine times what it does in richer urban areas, precisely in places where no one can afford it.

And Bellavista's more than 200 residents are used to making do without water; they are among the stunning 1.3 million of Lima's eight million people who have no access to water.

"Really, it just seemed like it would be impossible to catch fog with plastic netting, and that it would turn into drops of water," said Noe Neira Tocto, the mayor of the slum which lies just inland from the Pacific.

"We are the very first to have fog-catchers in Lima's poor neighborhoods," he said, proudly showing off a system that works with a net that looks a lot like volleyball netting.

"We have five panels that are eight meters by four meters (26 by 13 feet)," perched on the mountaintop above, he explained. "With them we are able to collect up to 60 liters (16 gallons) per night in wintertime."

Each single panel costs the equivalent of $800, added the 37-year-old Neira.

When the netting traps the fog, water droplets run down it into a small aluminum gutter on the panel's edge. Water keeps collecting until it runs -- aided by gravity and drain canals -- down to cement storage tanks that lie halfway down the local hill.

The benefits are huge and multifaceted.

Part of the water is channeled to a vegetable garden where vegetables and spices are grown.

Most, though, is kept in ground-level storage tanks for residents to use at home for cooking, cleaning, and bathing.

Local Olga Arce is in charge of popping water-purifying pills into the tanks mainly to keep out mosquitos because they can spread dengue fever.

The idea stems back to German biologists Anne Lummerich and Kai Tiedemann, with the German NGO Alimon, recalled Neira. When the two arrived in Bellavista in 2006, they were surprised how dense the fog was and encouraged locals to see if they might be able to tap the fog to improve their lives.

They helped with the system's construction and installation and stayed a few months teaching locals how to run it before heading home.

They called it a Green Desert experiment, and even after one day running, it looked like a success. Some were disappointed at having to use purifying tablets, though.

And it is not all simple going: locals have to trudge up the mountain at least twice a week to check on the state of the nets.

It is a steep and slippery path. At 5:00 a.m., time for one recent outing, visibility was near zero at the hilltop, 600 meters (almost 2,000 feet) above sea-level.

But it's worth the work, said Olga Cajahuaman. She said she grows radishes, greens, and spices "with the fog water." The water and food supplies are heaven sent for families earning under $200 a month.

French hydrologist Alain Gioda said the fog-catching actually recalls an ancient Inca technique in which plants and trees -- not nets -- were used to gather water here, collected at the base of the tree or plant.

"But what was possible with those techniques and an (Inca) empire of eight million is not possible on a current scale of a country of 28 million people," he added.

Related Links:

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

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

Obama administration may (finally) offer greenhouse-gas targets

Photo courtesy aaron.bihari via Flickr GENEVA -- The World Council of Churches on Thursday called on churches around the world to ring their bells 350 times during the Copenhagen climate change summit on Dec. 13 as a call to action on global warming.

The leading council of Christian and Orthodox churches also invited places of worship for other faiths to join a symbolic "chain of chimes and prayers" stretching around the world from the international date line in the South Pacific.

"On that Sunday, midway through the U.N. summit, the WCC invites churches around the world to use their bells, drums, gongs, or whatever their tradition offers to call people to prayer and action in the face of climate change," the council said in a statement.

"By sounding their bells or other instruments 350 times, participating churches will symbolize the 350 parts per million that mark the safe upper limit for CO2 (carbon dioxide) in the atmosphere according to many scientists," it added.

The chimes are meant to start at 3:00 p.m. local time in each location.

The WCC brings together 348 Protestant, Orthodox, and Anglican churches representing about 560 million Christians in 110 countries.

The Council of European Bishops Conferences, which gathers Roman Catholic bishops and archbishops, is also supporting the campaign, according to a letter released by the WCC.

The U.N. summit in the Danish capital on Dec. 7 to 18 is meant to produce a new global treaty to broaden cuts in emissions of greenhouse gases blamed for climate change, but the negotiations are still riven by disagreements.

The WCC acknowledged that plans for a bell ringing campaign have stirred controversy.

"In some countries, the question has been raised whether churches have the right to use their bells for what may be considered to be a political campaign," said Guillermo Kerber, WCC program executive on climate change.

"Those who support the campaign see the care of creation and of people's lives and livelihoods threatened by climate change more as an ethical and spiritual issue that, of course, has political implications, not in a partisan sense but referring to the common good," he explained.

Related Links:

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

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

Obama administration may (finally) offer greenhouse-gas targets

SINGAPORE -- The United States called Wednesday for a compromise at next month's global climate talks in Copenhagen and vowed to support a fund to help developing countries cope with emissions cuts.

"We cannot let the pursuit of perfection get in the way of progress," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told a news conference in Singapore ahead of a weekend Pacific Rim summit to be attended by President Obama.

Photo courtesy US Mission Canada via Flickr Clinton said she had "fruitful discussions" on climate issues earlier Wednesday with counterparts from the 21-member Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum, which includes China, Russia, and Japan.

The Dec. 7-18 Copenhagen talks are aimed at achieving a global deal to slash greenhouse gas emissions and ease the impact of climate change before the 2012 expiry of the Kyoto Protocol, which excludes the United States.

Obama has brought the United States back into the climate discussions after his predecessor George W. Bush refused to sign the Kyoto pact.

"If we all exert maximum effort and embrace the right blend of pragmatism and principle, I believe we can secure a strong outcome at Copenhagen," Clinton told the news conference.

Beyond Copenhagen, "we are committed to reaching the goal of a global, legally binding climate agreement, and will continue working vigorously with the international community towards that end."

Earlier, in prepared remarks to a closed-door gathering of APEC foreign ministers, Clinton said the group's members account for 60 percent of global emissions and their efforts to cut them can have a "transformative impact".

She called for a trade-off between raising global living standards and strong action on climate change, and acknowledged the United States' "historical responsibility" for climate change, according to the official text.

Clinton reiterated U.S. support for a fund aimed at helping developing countries reduce emissions, but gave no details.

"We are prepared to support a Global Climate Fund that will support adaptation and mitigation efforts and a matching entity to help developing countries match needs with available resources," she said.

European Union leaders agreed last month that developing nations will need 100 billion euros ($150 billion) by 2020 to tackle climate change but failed to nail down the group's share.

Finance ministers from the G20, which includes the United States and E.U., were also unable to make headway on how to finance the climate fund when they met in Scotland last week.

There has been a long-running dispute between industrialized and developing countries over their role in the fight to slash global emissions.

Countries like China and India blame western nations for producing most of the emissions in their drive to industrialization and feel that drastic emission caps would hamper their own development.

Obama, Chinese President Hu Jintao, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, and 18 other APEC leaders are expected to call for sharp cuts in global emissions at the end of their summit on Sunday.

"We believe that global emissions will need to peak over the next few years and be reduced to 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, recognizing that the time frame for peaking will be longer in developing countries," a draft declaration said.

Related Links:

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

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

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

Is that the sun we see?The mood was markedly improved on the final day of the Barcelona climate talks, as delegates, observers, and non-governmental organizations all brushed off the pessimism that dominated much of this week and announced that there is still hope for a global deal at the Copenhagen COP15 summit.

News that the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee had advanced the Kerry-Boxer climate bill forward -- coupled with revelations that some progress was made in Spain on several key issues during the closed-door meetings between nations -- offered a ray of hope for a binding agreement to emerge in December.

Representatives from the United Nations, European Union, G-77, and even the laggard United States all confirmed that a fair, ambitious, and legally binding global agreement is still absolutely possible to achieve next month.

However, all agreed that the United States must come to Copenhagen with specific answers about how it will join the global fight against climate change. The major obstacle remains America’s unwillingness to put specific numbers on the table on an emissions reduction target and a dollar figure for its contribution to global financing to help poor nations adapt to climate-change impacts and build low-carbon economies.

U.N. climate chief Yvo de Boer confirmed Friday that he believes “the United States can commit” to a specific emissions reduction target in Copenhagen.

“There was a number in President Obama’s election pledge, there is a number in the legislation that passed through the House of Representatives, there is a number in the draft legislation that the U.S. Senate will be considering early next year,” de Boer said.

Even without a finalized bill from Congress, Obama could deliver “a number which would not be alien” to what the Senate and House have in mind, de Boer noted.  That would pave the way for all parties to put numbers on the table and potentially reach a global deal in Copenhagen.

However, Alf Wills, lead negotiator for South Africa and spokesman for the G-77 group of developing nations, warned Friday that major industrialized countries must not greenwash such a deal if negotiators fail to produce a strong, binding agreement based on the science.

“We look forward to Copenhagen with optimism, but we will not accept a weak, greenwash deal,” Wills said.

“Without sound and deep emissions reductions, it doesn’t matter how much money is made available. Our lives, our economies, our lands and forests will be devastated," said Sudanese negotiator Lumumba Stanislaus-Kaw Di-Aping, who heads the G-77-plus-China group.

“It would be a failure unforgivable and unforgettable,” he said.

Speaking of failures, at the U.S. delegation press conference this afternoon, I asked U.S. deputy climate change envoy Jonathan Pershing what effect, if any, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Denial) might have on the process in Copenhagen, and whether GOP intransigence is hurting Obama’s ability to come up with a firm number on U.S. emissions reductions.

Pershing responded that the U.S. delegation traveling to Denmark will include “a wide variety of members of Congress as well as their staff,” from both parties, as is the tradition in international negotiations.  

“They are engaged with us in discussions about what they think will be effective, but U.S. policymaking on the international arena and negotiations is in the purview of the executive branch, and will remain that way,” Pershing told me.

It is promising to hear Pershing confirm that the Obama administration isn’t going to let GOP shenanigans control the U.S. position on international climate policy. But there is no doubt in the minds of the delegates wrapping up the Barcelona talks today that the continued momentum of the Kerry-Boxer Senate bill over the coming weeks could mean the difference between failure and success in Copenhagen. 

While finding agreement between 192 countries is admittedly not an easy task, there is no more important issue for world leaders to address this century. Climate change does not recognize national borders, and will threaten the national security and economies of all nations if left unchecked.

President Obama and other world leaders must now use every remaining minute this month to work toward a successful outcome in Copenhagen. Adios, Barcelona, thanks for the hospitality.

Related Links:

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

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

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

This post was co-written by Mary Anne Hitt, deputy director of the Sierra Club Beyond Coal Campaign.

We’re celebrating great news out of Minnesota and South Dakota this week:

After almost five years of planning and permitting efforts, the participating utilities in the proposed Big Stone II Project announced ... Monday that they will end their quest to build the project’s large coal-fired power plant and associated transmission facilities.

We echo our own Cesia Kearns, a Sierra Club staffer from Minnesota, in what the halting of Big Stone II means for the region.

The failure of this enormous proposed coal plant expansion unravels the myth that the Midwest is starving for more electricity, and that coal is the only way to adequately meet that perceived need. This victory demonstrates that even when we may lose the battles -- consistent pressure, engaged citizens, and strong partnerships can win the war. It's a strong example of how even though the regulators may be on the side of a developer, the public is not.

We salute our tough band of local residents in South Dakota and Minnesota (the plant was proposed for northeastern South Dakota, near the border with Minnesota), who spent the last five years fighting this dirty coal plant. The Sierra Club also partnered with grassroots, state, and regional organizations during this long and difficult campaign. They knew how bad the air pollution and global warming contributions this plant would spew forth would be, they wanted clean energy for their region, and even when the going got tough, they never gave up.

Stopping the Big Stone II project prevented about 4.7 million tons of CO2, or the equivalent of the pollution from roughly 670,000 cars (substantially more than all the cars in South Dakota) from entering the atmosphere every year.

The residents so entrenched in this fight against Big Stone II helped lead a long fight against the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission for its issuance of an air pollution permit for the plant and, equally important, an enforcement action targeting the existing coal-fired unit at the Big Stone facility for past violations of the Clean Air Act.   We also challenged the state of South Dakota's Clean Air Act plan for failure to comply with federal law.

Kearns added that one noteworthy example of the grassroots push for clean energy was the mention of Sierra Club's "footprint petition" in the administrative law judge's written recommendation to the Minn. Public Utilities Commission to deny the certificate of need for Big Stone II’s transmission lines.

“The footprint petition was a long swath of fabric with the signatures and outlines of the footprints of over 2,000 Minnesotans who wanted to see global warming solutions in Minnesota,” explained Kearns. “It was presented to the administrative law judge during a public hearing in Ortonville, Minn. -- the town closest to the location of the proposed plant.”

This plant’s demise is also a sign of impending climate legislation. Otter Tail Power had pulled out of this plant back in September, citing, among other reasons, “a high level of uncertainty associated with proposed federal climate legislation and existing federal environmental regulation.”

No other utilities stepped in to take over the Big Stone II expansion themselves -- because the companies all know that this legislation is coming.

Coal power is not the future of U.S. energy.The public is speaking up for more clean energy. And from coast to coast, that voice is getting louder every day.

Related Links:

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

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

Obama administration may (finally) offer greenhouse-gas targets

As climate talks wrapped up in Barcelona, the picture wasn't nearly this pretty.Photo: MorBCNIt's been 30 years since scientists gained a clear understanding of the dangerous consequences of continuously adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. This week during five days of negotiations in Barcelona, the world learned again that the formula for solving global warming is a diplomatic chemistry problem that still defies a solution. 

The problem is self-evident. The regulatory and financial ingredients of a successful climate treaty formula are as complex and formidable as any ever developed in human history.  Plus the climate talks are buffeted by raw ideological differences, national rivalries, and even competing human emotions. Urgency and frustration marked the Barcelona talks.

At the center of this swirl of detail and conflicting sentiment is the United States, whose strategy for collaborating on a global treaty centers on a decision not to publicly announce commitments on two critical factors that the rest of the world sees as essential to reaching a final agreement. The first is how much carbon the U.S. is ready to order its industries to take out of the atmosphere. And the second is how much it will invest in developing nations to lower emissions and accelerate clean energy development.

The Obama administration has its reasons for not divulging either detail. What much of the world still doesn't really recognize is the administration is engaged in a ferocious ideological war with Republicans over the need for climate action and the value of making the transition from fossil fuels to clean energy.

The White House also has the ghost of Kyoto sitting on its shoulder. Mindful of the Clinton administration's inability to ratify the climate treaty that the U.S. signed in Kyoto in 1997, it doesn't want to repeat that embarrassing chapter in American environmental and foreign policy. As president, Barack Obama has repeated pledges he made during last year's campaign to take action on global warming.  But he's also made it clear that the administration prefers to wait for Congress to conclude its work on a new climate and energy bill before it makes specific commitments on the global treaty.

The House approved a climate and energy bill in June that proposed cutting carbon emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, and more in the years after. It also proposed investing about $5 billion annually to help developing nations adjust to climate change.

But right in the middle of the Barcelona negotiations, the political risks of the White House strategy became clearer. Progress on a Senate bill similar to the House proposal has been beset by a focused attack from Obama's opponents. On the second day of the Barcelona negotiations, Republican members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee did not show up for committee action on the bill in a move to kill it.  The committee pressed forward and voted on Thursday to approve the measure, but its influence as a signal of American intentions for the Copenhagen meeting was muted. That's because Sen. Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat and Senate majority leader, had already agreed on Wednesday to Republican demands and approved another in a series of federal studies on the costs of the bill, a process that will take at least five weeks to complete.

In Barcelona, leaders of the climate negotiations both worried and anticipated just this sort of scenario in Washington and appealed directly to the Obama administration to take strong action separate from the congressional process. "Copenhagen has to include clarity and targets that industrialized countries, including the U.S., are willing to take in 2020 or 2030 horizon," said Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, who is leading the negotiations.

He added: "I do not think the international community will accept an instrument that lacks clarity from what the U.S. will do on its emissions."

In diplomatic terms, that is pretty strong stuff. And most other negotiators felt de Boer's statement was justified.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the premier scientific body studying the issue, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have increased nearly 40 percent in the last century, from 278 parts million to more than 380. Average global temperatures have risen 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit. Scientists say this is the largest and fastest warming trend that they have been able to discern in the history of the Earth. And evidence of the consequences is mounting.  Sea levels are rising. The Himalayan glaciers, which supply snowmelt to the headwaters of Asian rivers used by 750 million people, are melting. Severe droughts are gripping important food-growing regions, including the American Southwest and Australia's Murray-Darling Basin. Extreme weather events -- more powerful hurricanes and deadlier heat waves -- are occurring.  

A great deal of the carbon that floats around in the atmosphere was produced by the U.S. So in the eyes of much of the world, America has a responsibility to lead the way in preventing disaster. The United States, after all, is still the world's largest economy and until very recently the largest carbon polluter.

For eight years under President George W. Bush, the United States dithered. Meanwhile, other nations, most importantly the European Union, took a leadership position. In Barcelona, the E.U. made it clear that it would cut carbon pollution 30 percent by 2020 if other nations make substantial commitments, and 85 percent by 2050.

The E.U. also said it would cost $150 billion annually by 2020 to help developing nations make the transition to clean energy. E.U. leaders estimated that roughly half would come from public sources, and signaled it was ready to contribute $5 billion a year immediately and maybe as much as $35 billion annually over time.

China, India, Brazil, Indonesia, and several more countries also are stepping to the front of the climate action crusade.  According to Ailun Yang, a policy specialist with Greenpeace, China has promised to cut the growth of its carbon emissions by what authorities termed a "notable margin" by 2020, and which Yang said would amount to a 15 to 30 percent reduction from what emissions would have been had the country done nothing. Brazil has signaled its readiness to reduce timber cutting in the Amazon by 80 percent by 2020. Indonesia has announced a 26 percent carbon reduction by 2020. 

The implication, said Yang, is that the United States can no longer hide behind the argument -- as it's done in the past -- that developing nations are not bearing a share of the burden of solving climate change.  "What we need to see is these efforts echoed by developed countries," said Yang, whose rhetorical finger was pointed directly at Washington.

Even in the face of the mounting global pressure, the United States is still departing from Barcelona and headed to the Copenhagen meeting next month without divulging the two targets the world is waiting to see. But its strategy shifted.

Jonathan Pershing, the deputy special envoy for climate change and the chief American negotiator, sought in public and during private meetings with national and regional delegations to assure the world that "the U.S. is committed to an ambitious global climate change agreement in Copenhagen. Meeting the climate and clean energy challenge is a top priority in the U.S. and with President Obama."

How will the United States achieve that objective? In the short term, by asking the world for more time and for a deeper trust. Instead of completing the treaty in December, as delegates hoped, the White House is asking the world to turn the results of the Copenhagen meeting into what President Obama this week called a "framework for progress." Angela Merkel, the German chancellor who met with Obama in Washington on Wednesday, used almost precisely the same phrase in describing what looks to be the new goal of the Copenhagen meeting.

In effect, the U.S. is leveraging the storehouse of global good will for the new American president. In exchange for providing more time, President Obama is essentially telling the participating countries that he can deliver new climate and energy legislation in Washington early next year, and following that follow through on the strong U.S. commitments to the new climate treaty.

How much longer the world will wait for U.S. action is unclear, as is the stability of the global negotiations. The Barcelona conference closed with delegates and climate advocates vigorously debating the risks and benefits of the U.S. strategy. Meanwhile in Washington, one bipartisan group of senators said they would push to accelerate work on the climate bill, while another senator said the measure is so controversial it could be put off indefinitely.

By week's end, the most significant result of the Barcelona meeting emerged out of this storm of uncertainty. Delegates and the nations they represent decided to continue their work and meet in Copenhagen with the conference's leaders predicting that session will be a "turning point" that will result in a commitment by nations to a legally binding treaty, with more work to follow. 

De Boer told reporters on Friday that progress was made in Barcelona on provisions of the climate treaty that focused on helping poor nations adapt to the warming planet, reducing deforestation in developing countries, and providing aid to developing nations.

But de Boer acknowledged that the talks were stymied by the U.S. position of not announcing targets for reducing carbon pollution or for financing that would allow developing countries to thrive in a new and warmer era. "Without these two pieces of the puzzle in place, we will not have a deal in Copenhagen," said de Boer. "So leadership at the highest level is required to unlock the pieces."

The new global bet is that Washington will indeed pass legislation next year, probably by spring, to limit carbon emissions. Then 192 participating nations will finish an effective treaty that utterly changes how the world is powered, introduces a new way for the richer and poorer nations to share financial resources, and requires levels of cooperation and trust that world leaders have never before achieved.

What we really learned this past week in Barcelona is that progress on such momentous changes is taking more time.

Related Links:

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

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

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