Saturday, December 20, 2008

Money and Trees – the green stuff


Money and Trees – the green stuff

I watched a repeat of this show today (so I thought I would put up the links).

Well worth watching !!

It aired on the ABC on Thursday, 31 July 2008.

Joining Q&A this week were:
.
Penny Wong (the Minister for Climate Change and Water)
.
Malcolm Turnbull (Shadow Treasurer)
.
Tim Flannery (scientist and global warming activist)
.
Catherine Harris (businesswoman)
.
Tim Wilson (Director of the IP and Free Trade Unit at the Institute of Public Affairs)
.
The first questioner in the audience wanted to know whether early implementation of an emissions trading scheme would harm our economy, particularly if the big international emitters were not on board. Tim Flannery argued that most Europeans didn’t notice a change in their quality of life after emissions trading started, but Tim Wilson took the opposite view. He argued that we were better off waiting to see the outcomes of the 2009 climate conference in Copenhagen before taking definitive action. This view was shared by Malcolm who further argued that Labor’s proposed date of implementation, 2010, was not achievable and 2011-12 was far more realistic. Penny Wong said that taking action was the morally responsible thing to do while Catherine Harris wanted to see businesses take a leading edge.
.
Also check out:
.
.

Sustainability 2.0 - Does sustainability need an update?


To celebrate Earthscan's 20th year in sustainable publishing a panel discussion was held at the the Royal Society of Arts to answer the question 'does sustainability need an update?'.
.
Click the links below for podcasts of the talks:
.
Speakers
.
Jonathan Sinclair Wilson, Managing Director, Earthscan Ltd
.
Caroline Lucas, Leader of the Green Party, UK
.
Bill Adams, Moran Professor, Cambridge University
.
Tim Lang, Professor, City University
.
Brenda Boardman, Senior Research Fellow, Oxford University
.
Nick Robins, Climate Change Centre of Excellence at HSBC
.
Paul Ekins, Professor, King's College London
.
Also check out:
.
.
.
.

Friday, December 19, 2008

Garnaut on the CPRS


In today's SMH, Ross Garnaut writes his response to the Government's CPRS. Worth a read !!


20th December 2008

In the course of the work on climate change, members of the Garnaut climate change review team would sometimes ask how we would judge whether our efforts had been successful. Would the main indicator be the extent to which the Australian Government accepted the recommendations of our final report?

"No," I would respond.

"Policy decisions will reflect a range of pressures and constraints which we are not in a position now to assess and about which the Government is elected to form judgments. We will have done our job if the Australian community and Australian governments understand the implications of decisions that are taken."
.
.
See also:
.
.
.
Other topics include:
.

'Catastrophic' rise in temperature possible says the Met Office


Here is what Dr Vicky Pope (who is the Head of Climate Change Advice at the Met Office’s Hadley Centre) had to say recently about the possible dangerous impacts of a 'catastrophic' rise in temperature due to climate change.
.
She suggests that it is much better to act now, otherwise the "risks will multiply" and at temperature rise of 5°C would be possible under the worst-case senario (rather than a rise of less than 3 °C under the worst-case senario if rapid and early decline in emissions are achieved). Given we are trying to keep the increased at less than 2°C - 'we' (individuals, businesses and governments) really do need to act now if we are going to avoid the worst of climate change!!
.
"The risks for worst-case outcomes amplify much more quickly than the risks for most likely outcomes. For an early and rapid decline in emissions, the worst-case outcome is around 0.7 °C higher than the most likely temperature rise. With much slower action taken much later, the difference between the most likely and worst-case outcome is almost twice as wide, at 1.2 °C. This takes a worst-case temperature rise of less than 3 °C to one just above 5 °C by the end of this century, bringing with it significant risk of dangerous impacts to our environment, society and economy.This would be catastrophic for the environment and for humanity."
.
"A major reason for this amplification is the so-called 'carbon cycle effect'. Plants, soils and oceans currently absorb about half of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activities, limiting rises in atmospheric CO2 and slowing global warming. As temperatures increase, this absorption is very likely to decrease. For example, plant matter in the soil breaks down more quickly at higher temperatures, releasing carbon more quickly, and amplifying the warming trend. Methane released from the thawing of permafrost will add to the warming. This methane release is currently not included in the calculations, and becomes more of a risk for larger temperature rises."
.
"Hence, the risks of dangerous climate change will not increase slowly as greenhouse gases increase. Rather, the risks will multiply if we do not reduce emissions fast enough."
.
For a good explaination of the science of climate change by Dr Pope click here
.
Other topics include:
.

Climate Change Game


Just found this fun climate change game called Climate Challenge (made by the BBC). Here is a description of the game (from the makers of it):

The producers' primary goal was to make a fun, challenging game. At times it was necessary to strike a compromise between strict scientific accuracy and playability. For this reason, Climate Challenge should not be taken as a serious climate change prediction.

Wherever possible, real research has been incorporated into the game. This document describes the scientific sources used to create Climate Challenge and some of the compromises made by the producers. These sources are a good starting point for someone interested in learning more about climate change. This document also describes some of the compromises the producers made for the sake of playability.

Game focus and aims

Apart from the primary goal of creating a fun game, Climate Challenge's producers aimed to:
  • give an understanding of some of the causes of climate change, particularly those related to carbon dioxide emissions.
  • give players an awareness of some of the policy options available to governments.
  • give a sense of the challenges facing international climate change negotiators.
Players must respond to catastrophic events caused by climate change as well as natural and manmade events, which may or may not be linked to climate change. This aspect of the game is meant to give some idea of what could happen as the Earth's climate changes and also introduce the unpredictable nature of some natural events.
.
Other topics include:
.

Garnaut unhappy about Australia's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme

Here is a story from the Age about an unhappy Ross Garnaut (from the Garnaut Report). Ross was asked by the Federal Government to advise them what was needed in a climate change scheme, but he is unhappy that the Rudd Government didn't take his advice.
.
Kevin Rudd when announcing the scheme said he was "balancing the need to make a strong contribution to international efforts with ensuring a balanced and measured start to the Scheme." However, Garnaut believes that because of "unprecedented lobbying from vested interests" the Rudd Government has weakened its targets and given away too many free permits (often to heavy polluting industries such as the coal industry and also to 'trade exposed' industries such as the aluminium industry).
.
Remember, he argued in the Garnaut Report that "we must make sure that there is also a strong and independent voice for the public interest in the policy-making process that can keep sectoral claims in perspective" (page xxii). It seems that the public interest has been drowned out by heavy lobbying from business interests.
.
I would argue that the Government should have set a higher target if it wanted to make a "strong contribution to international efforts" and show "strong" leadership on the world stage.
.
How can you make a "strong contribution" by suggesting only a 5% change from business-as-usual? A minimum of 15% would be a "stronger contribution", but the Federal Government really should have listened to their own scientists (see Top scientists urge Govt to remain focused on climate change) and set a target between 20 and 25%. Some scientists (and green groups) would suggest even MORE of a reduction is needed (40% - 50% by 2020).
.
Garnaut suggested limiting the number of free permits given to heavy polluting and/or trade exposed industries because the less free permits given away, the fairer the system overall. After all, it should be a polluter pays system, rather than a reward the polluter system! I believe that the scheme has been pushed towards 'business-as-usual' for heavy or 'dirty' industries.
.
This is simply not good enough. Future Australian generations will wonder why we failed to stand up at Poznan. Why wait until after the climate change conference has concluded and then announce a 'weak' target and a scheme that fails to listen to the science and the majority of scientists and many people and even many businesses that want more done? Spending big on climate change (e.g. green infrastructure and green jobs) could have helped solve both the problem of climate change and also the economic 'crisis' we all face. Anyway, here is the story:
.
Federal Government's climate adviser, Ross Garnaut savages climate change plan
.
December 19, 2008
AAP

.
THE Federal Government's own climate adviser has savaged parts of its climate change plan, describing the assistance to big business as "over the top".
.
Professor Ross Garnaut says a massive lobbying exercise by vested interests, unprecedented in the history of Australian public policy, has secured an overly generous deal for business.
.
He also thinks the Government should not have ruled out a deep, 25 per cent cut in emissions by 2020.
.
The Government went for a five to 15 per cent cut in its plan for climate change and emissions trading released earlier this week.
.
Professor Garnaut, who was hired by the Federal and state governments to advise on what Australia should do about climate change, said the scheme gave too much assistance to industry.
.
"I think it's over the top," he said.
.
There had been "unprecedented lobbying from vested interests ... unprecedented in Australian policy-making, the extent of it".
.
"There's no doubt that the rate of return in lobbying has been very high," Prof Garnaut said.
.
The final result - in which there are more free permits for more businesses, plus generous compensation - concerned the professor.
.
"Because it's not based on clear principle, I think that everyone will start to wonder about the wisdom of how far it's gone."
.
"I think there are some budget problems ahead." Prof Garnaut said that in general, the white paper was a positive step forward because Australia would now start to cut its emissions.
.
But in some key areas the white paper did not follow the advice Prof Garnaut set out in his own report on climate change, issued in September.
.
Also check out:
.
.
.

Thursday, December 18, 2008

Press Conference by Executive Director of United Nations Global Compact Office


17th December 2008
.
Businesses around the world were increasingly warming to the idea that social, environmental, human rights and governance issues were essential components for long-range corporate profitability, the Executive Director of the United Nations Global Compact Office said this afternoon.
.
As the global financial meltdown wreaked havoc worldwide, companies were realizing that short-term profits would not necessarily sustain them over the long-term -- a message that the Compact hoped to build on. “What we used to preach -- that non-financial issues are important to manage risks and opportunities in an interdependent world -- because of the crisis is now much better understood,” George Kell said during a Headquarters press conference.
.
“We are convinced -- as we have been for many years -- that engagement on non-financial issues is a way to restore and rebuild trust, and we do believe that the Compact can be at least a part of the answer by challenging companies, now in particular, to demonstrate responsibility.”
.
Through the Compact, more than 5,000 chief executives worldwide had pledged to align business operations and strategies with 10 universally accepted principles in human rights, labour, the environment and anti-corruption. Many of those leaders, according to Mr. Kell, were more closely embracing sustainability based on those principles as a new business strategy.
.
“This kind of thinking now needs to develop much faster because the necessity for doing so is clearly out there,” he said.
.
More than 1 billion people worldwide had no access to potable water, he said. And the international community faced the daunting task of cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 80 per cent to avoid environmental catastrophe. But no one was clear on how to achieve those goals.
.
Fundamental socioeconomic change was needed and that required the full engagement of the private sector, he said, noting the merits of a “green deal” combining stimulus packages with environmental conservation.
.
“We strongly believe that next year will be the year of sustainability, where the sustainability of markets will be intimately linked with climate change, water and related issues,” Mr. Kell said.
.
Launched in 2000, the Compact had grown from a broad policy platform to engage businesses in support of the United Nations goals to a practical framework for companies to manage their activities on specific issues. He said the Compact’s working group on labour addressed workplace violations, while the working group on anti-corruption looked at transparency as an organizational tool.
.
The more than 300 members of the “Caring for Climate” initiative focused on business solutions to climate change in a post-Kyoto policy framework. Mr. Kell added that more than 450 businesses, representing $18 trillion in assets, had signed the Principles for Responsible Investment, while 200 business schools had endorsed the Principles for Responsible Management education.
.
The Compact had removed 800 companies for failing to publicly disclose on an annual basis their progress in reaching the Compact’s goals, Mr. Kell said. More than 200 would likely be de-listed in the future.
.
.
** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:
.
New Green Jobs ??
.
Communicating Climate Change
.
Splitting: 'jobs' versus 'the environment'
.
Combating Climate Change and Boosting Growth Are Natural Allies
.
COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!
.
So please, tell us what you think.

Another perspective on Poznań


Here is a story from The Hindu News giving a developing nation's perspective on what happened at the Poznan climate change conference. It seems (from this story) that India and China (and a few other developing nations such as Colombia and the Maldives) were not happy that the Industrialised nations wouldn't 'do more' to help developing nations to mitigate and adapt to climate change.
.
They argue that they didn't create the problem (developed countries mainly did and therefore are mainly responsible for the mess). They suggest they need more help (in the form of finance, technology and green infrastructure) if they are going to be able to reduce their growing greenhouse emissions. Anyway, here it is below.
.
India, China showed rare unity at climate change summit
.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
.
Poznan (Poland), (IANS): The climate change summit may have ended in failure, but it showed rare unity of purpose between India and China which took on the industrialised world together at the closing moments of the climate summit here. The Indian position also received support from Pakistan.
.
Knowing that developing countries had failed to get the industrialised world to part with even one extra percent of their profits from carbon trade, India started the note of dissent at the final session of the Dec 1-12 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
.
Industrialised countries led by the European Union, Japan, Canada, Australia and Russia had refused to part with the money sought by developing countries to help them cope with climate change effects. That had happened behind closed doors. Then the Indian delegation chose to make the matter public in a dramatic finale.
.
"In the 12 CoPs I have been privileged to attend so far, this is one of the saddest moments I have witnessed" said Prodipto Ghosh from the Indian delegation.
.
"Even now, millions of poor people in developing countries are losing their homes, their livelihoods, and their lives from impacts of climate change. Most live in extreme privation at the best of times; climate change takes away their pitiable homes, hearths and bread." he said.
.
more here
.
Other topics include:
.

Monday, December 15, 2008

A Brief Analysis of COP 14 & COP/MOP 4



Here is an analysis from the Poznan climate change conference (that has just wound up) from the latest Earth Negotiations Bulletin released by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD). Seems it was a bit disappointing overall, but this is not surprising given that Obama wasn't there and most countries will wait and see what the US does before they act. I have highlighted the good bits for easy reading.
.
POZNAŃ AND THE (LONG) ROAD TO COPENHAGEN
.
A year after the historic Bali Climate Change Conference, negotiators are now at the halfway point on the Bali Roadmap, which launched a two-year process to strengthen international climate change cooperation. Looking back, progress has been achieved in 2008 through four sessions and discussions on the key elements of the future regime. However, pressure is mounting for the remaining 12 months: serious negotiations must begin as soon as possible in 2009 to secure an agreement in Copenhagen next December.
.
(POLITICAL) CLIMATE AT THE END OF 2008
.
The political context for the Poznań Conference was somewhat different from the Bali negotiations in 2007. In Bali, the atmosphere was characterized by the strong international reaction to the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and a sense of urgency about climate change. In Poznań, by contrast, the negotiations took place against the backdrop of a rapidly worsening global financial situation. Many were concerned about climate policy falling victim to the crisis – and even the most optimistic were expecting the financial crisis to have some impact on the process.
.
The European Union and others at the Conference tried to stress their ongoing commitment to combating climate change, arguing that a transition to a low carbon society entails not only costs but also important economic opportunities. However, at the same time as the Poznań Conference, protracted negotiations were taking place on the EU’s climate and energy policy package to implement a 20% emission reduction target by 2020, causing some to question whether the EU’s leadership on climate policy is faltering. On the last day of the Poznań Conference, delegates were pleased to hear news that agreement had been reached in Brussels on the EU package, even though some NGOs criticized the concessions made to secure the compromise. The package, covering the period from 2013 to 2020, lays down rules for the third phase of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), details individual emission targets for EU Member States in sectors not covered by the ETS, and contains a 20% target for renewable energy, a 10% target for biofuels and a 20% target for increasing energy efficiency by 2020.

.
At the same time, Barack Obama’s victory in the US Presidential elections was a reason for optimism in Poznań. Obama has promised to make climate change a high priority and highlighted a green energy economy as a remedy for the ongoing economic crisis. In Poznań, the US was still represented by the Bush administration and remained relatively subdued during the official negotiations. Some felt that uncertainty about the US position in 2009 caused other countries to refrain from making significant political advances in Poznań, and few expect developing countries to make significant moves before developed countries have clarified their positions on emission reductions and financing. Overall, most felt that the political circumstances surrounding the Poznań Conference were not ideal for major political breakthroughs, which could justify its modest results. “One of those less exciting in-between COPs,” was how some veterans characterized the meeting.
.
(VARIED) EXPECTATIONS AND OUTCOMES
.
The agenda in Poznań was exceptionally full, with six bodies considering more than 90 agenda items and sub-items. This put a strain on many delegations and highlighted the importance of prioritizing work. This meant that some of the less urgent agenda items were not given as much attention as usual, leading to a focus on issues related to the Bali Roadmap: the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action (AWG-LCA), Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments by Annex I Countries under the Protocol (AWG-KP) and the second review of the Kyoto Protocol under Article 9. Delegates also focused on a few other agenda items included the operationalization of the Adaptation Fund and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).
.
AWG-LCA: At its fourth meeting, the AWG-LCA spent a lot of time considering “a shared vision for long-term cooperative action,” which was the subject of an in-session workshop, contact group and a ministerial round table. According to the Bali Action Plan, “a shared vision” includes a global goal for emission reductions. While some optimists had hoped for an agreement in Poznań on a long-term global emission goal to guide the negotiations in 2009, there were no serious attempts to achieve such an outcome. Instead, many veterans are predicting that this question will not be resolved until Copenhagen, since it seems likely to be a key part of whatever package deal is reached. They took it as a positive sign, however, that a common understanding seemed to be emerging in Poznań that “a shared vision” covers all the key building blocks of the Action Plan, namely mitigation, adaptation, technology and finance. Many also felt that progress was made on the concept of monitoring, reporting and verifying (MRV) and the idea of a registry for nationally appropriate mitigation actions in developing countries.
.
In contrast, suggestions for differentiation among developing countries were firmly rejected by some groups within the G-77/China – while being endorsed by many industrialized countries. Some proposals on adaptation were also made more concrete, including the insurance mechanism proposed by AOSIS. These and many other ideas were incorporated in the “assembly document,” a collection of submissions and proposals, which was one of the key outcomes of AWG-LCA 4 and is expected to evolve into a formal negotiating text during the first half of 2009.
. .
AWG-KP: For the AWG-KP, the focus was on a strategic discussion of all the key items on its agenda and on the work programme for 2009, with a view to agreeing on further actions required to finalize Annex I countries’ post-2012 commitments in Copenhagen. Some observers and developing countries were hoping for a clear decision on the aggregate range of mid-term emission reductions by industrialized countries. However, while the 25-40% range by 2020 from the AR4 once again appears in the AWG-KP’s conclusions, the language is similar to that used in previous conclusions and falls short of a definitive commitment.
.
According to some negotiators, this was mostly due to the reluctance of some Umbrella Group countries to commit to a mid-term range at this point. However, many also noted the lack of serious attempts to reach an agreement on this issue in Poznań, possibly because delegates realized the political climate was not yet ripe for such discussions. Overall, most felt that the outcomes from the AWG-KP were modest, limited to the 2009 work programme and to agreement that Annex I countries’ further commitments should “principally” take the form of quantified emission limitation and reduction objectives (QELROs). Those with lower expectations for the meeting noted that little more than this might have been expected, as parties wait for the bottom of the market downturn and the arrival of the new US administration.
.
ADAPTATION FUND: Along with the Poznań work programme on technology transfer, the only concrete outcome of the Poznań conference was the operationalization of the Adaptation Fund. The COP/MOP adopted several decisions to make the Fund operational, including on arrangements with the Global Environment Facility and World Bank. Importantly, all three tracks to access funds – through implementing entities, accredited national entities, and direct access by parties – have been enabled. The Fund is, therefore, expected to start financing adaptation projects and programmes in developing countries in the next year.
.
The success on the Adaptation Fund was tempered by the inability to secure additional resources for the Fund due to lack of agreement on extending the share of proceeds (or “adaptation levy”) to Joint Implementation and emissions trading under the second review of the Protocol under Article 9. As many had predicted, these consultations were difficult and were unable to produce an agreement, leading COP/MOP 4 to conclude the second review of the Protocol without any substantive outcome. Most developing countries expressed deep disappointment at the failure to increase adaptation funding.
.
While many parties and private sector representatives had also hoped for improvements to the CDM under the Article 9 review, the lack of outcome on the review meant that the improvements negotiated in Poznań were not adopted. The AWG-KP, however, agreed to further consider issues related to the mechanisms in the post-2012 period in its March/April session.
.
FROM POZNAŃ TO COPENHAGEN: KEY TASKS FOR THE YEAR AHEAD
.
Leaving Poznań, there was little doubt in participants’ minds that plenty of critical work remains for 2009 under the Bali Roadmap. For both the AWG-KP and AWG-LCA, one of the first key tasks is generating formal negotiating texts that must be communicated to the parties at least six months before Copenhagen to comply with legal formalities. The Poznań Conference was widely seen as a successful step in that direction as the Chairs of both AWGs were mandated to prepare documents for the March/April meeting in Bonn.
.
The task of the AWG-LCA for 2009 will not be easy. The group will have to finalize an agreement on all four building blocks and a shared vision. It is the only body where all countries, including the US and developing countries, participate in discussions on mitigation. Thus, negotiations on a global long-term goal, comparability of mitigation efforts by developed countries and MRV in the context of nationally appropriate developing country mitigation actions are expected to be central. Importantly, MRV also applies to developed country support to developing countries through technology, finance and capacity-building, so ways of doing this will have to be identified. With regard to financing and technology, the AWG-LCA faces the challenge of reaching agreement on the architecture to both finance mitigation and adaptation actions, and facilitate technology development and transfer. Evaluation of proposals contained in the assembly document will be part of this task.
.
The AWG-KP has a clear objective for 2009: to agree on further commitments for Annex I countries in the post-2012 period. Some developing countries were therefore somewhat disappointed at the lack of clear sequencing of tasks in the AWG-KP’s 2009 work programme. Many developed countries were, however, pleased with text reaffirming the programme’s iterative nature and agreement to “maintain a coherent approach” between the Convention and the Protocol in relation to Annex I parties’ commitments.
.
Based on some signals in Poznań, some are predicting that the relationship between the Convention and Protocol tracks could become increasingly relevant in 2009. Many developed countries maintain that the work of the two AWGs should be coordinated given that both, for instance, address mitigation by developed countries. In Poznań, Norway, the EU and others also alluded to a “package” and “comprehensive agreement” in Copenhagen, and New Zealand proposed forming a Committee of the Whole and proceeding on the basis of a single negotiating text in June 2009. However, many developing countries and the US have sternly opposed attempts to link the Convention and Protocol tracks, with many developing countries concerned that this could take focus away from new emission reduction targets for industrialized countries under the Protocol, and the US seeking to avoid any proposals that would draw it into discussions related to the Protocol. It therefore remains to be decided in 2009 how to avoid duplication of work under the different tracks of the Bali Roadmap and what the legal outcome of the negotiations will ultimately be. Important as the legal and procedural questions are for the negotiators gathering in Copenhagen, most predict that it will be political will that determines the outcome.
.
ALL ROAD(MAPS) LEAD TO COPENHAGEN
.
While many agreed that the Poznań meeting resulted in some progress and positive steps forward, the general feeling was that negotiators had not achieved any major breakthroughs. Those who had hoped for decisive action blamed a lack of political leadership and determination they think would have signaled impending success in the coming year. Instead, many predict that agreement on the most critical issues, including mid- and long-term emission goals and finance, will not be reached before Copenhagen. This has led some to reconsider their expectations of what would constitute success in Copenhagen, and how many details of the new climate regime will need to be finalized after 2009.
.
Understandably, some participants left Poznań somewhat worried, feeling that while scientific evidence on climate change is strengthening, the “spirit of Bali” is weakening along with countries’ determination to fight climate change in light of the serious economic crisis.
.
Others, though, were not willing to abandon their optimism just yet. They referred to statements from both the EU and the US on measures to tackle the economic crisis that would also contribute to climate change mitigation and transition to a low carbon economy.
.
Some veterans who are more used to the ups-and-downs of international negotiating processes also suggested that Poznań’s modest outcome could be a positive thing in the larger scheme of things. In the words of one observer, “delegates needed to be reminded that success is not inevitable, and that without strong political will it is quite possible that they will fail to make the historic breakthrough needed in Copenhagen.”
.
Other topics include:
.

Summary of Poznań Climate Change Conference


The United Nations Climate Change Conference in Poznań, Poland, was held from 1-12 December 2008. The conference involved a series of events, including the fourteenth Conference of the Parties (COP 14) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and fourth Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (COP/MOP 4).



These events drew over 9250 participants, including almost 4000 government officials, 4500 representatives of UN bodies and agencies, intergovernmental organizations and non-governmental organizations, and more than 800 accredited members of the media.


These meetings resulted in the adoption of COP decisions, COP/MOP decisions and a number of conclusions by the subsidiary bodies. These outcomes covered a wide range of topics, including the Adaptation Fund under the Kyoto Protocol, the 2009 work programmes of the AWG-LCA and AWG-KP, and outcomes on technology transfer, the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), capacity building, national communications, financial and administrative matters, and various methodological issues.


The main focus in Poznań, however, was on long-term cooperation and the post-2012 period, when the Kyoto Protocol’s first commitment period expires. In December 2007, negotiators meeting in Bali had approved the Bali Action Plan and Roadmap setting COP 15 in December 2009 as the deadline for agreeing on a framework for action after 2012. Poznań therefore marked the halfway mark towards the December 2009 deadline. While the Poznań negotiations did result in some progress, there were no significant breakthroughs, and negotiators face a hectic 12 months of talks leading up to the critical deadline of December 2009 in Copenhagen, Denmark.


This report summarizes the discussions, decisions and conclusions based on the agendas of the COP, COP/MOP and the subsidiary bodies. It includes sections on the COP and COP/MOP, also covering the reports of the SBI and SBSTA (which contribute to the COP and COP/MOP’s work). It also includes separate sections on the AWG-KP and the AWG-LCA, which focused on work under the Bali Roadmap and Action Plan.


The full report is available at:



Other topics include:
.

Random Man throws shoe at Kevin Rudd over his weak 2020 GHG target


Mr Kevin Rudd received the taste of local resentment as he released Australia's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in Canberra (at the Press Club).
.
During the release, the Random Man took off his shoes and threw them at Mr Rudd, one after the other. Throwing a shoe at someone is a grave insult and is meant to show extreme disrespect and contempt -- it means that the 'emissions' target is even lower than the shoe, which is always on the ground and dirty.
.
When asked why he threw the shoe, he replied that it was a WEAK TARGET that condemmed the Great Barrier Reef and the Murray-Darling River to extinction. He was also unhappy that free permits had been given to the heaviest polluters (e.g. the aluminium industry and the coal industry).
.
"Why don't they listen to the scientists who say we need 25-40% reduction" he screamed as they dragged him away.
.
"Climate change is accelerating more rapidly and dangerously than expected and extreme urgent action is what is needed" he also said.
.
"Check it all out on Random Man on Planet Earth" he said.
.
Also check out:
.
Splitting: 'jobs' versus 'the environment'
.
Combating Climate Change and Boosting Growth Are Natural Allies
.
Nine Meals from Anarchy
.
Polar Bear Begs

Australia just not good enough on Climate Change !!


WWF says 5-15% pitiful !!

Here is the reaction from WWF on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.
Australia's carbon emissions target of 5-15% 'pitiful': WWF
15 Dec 2008

WWF said the abject emissions reduction target announced today came as a result of the Australian Government pandering to lazy and short-sighted polluting businesses.

The organisation slammed the target of 5-15 per cent by 2020, saying heavy industry was being let off the hook despite having known for more than a decade they would have to reduce emissions.

"This target is completely unacceptable," said Paul Toni, WWF-Australia Program Leader Sustainable Development.
"Australia's big polluters have forced the Government to sacrifice ordinary Australians' future prosperity for their short term profits today. We are glad to see that Scheme is scheduled to commence in 2010, however, we need a cut of at least 25 per cent to stand any chance of avoiding the catastrophic impacts of climate change."

"The Australian Treasury's economic modelling has shown that cuts of 25 per cent are affordable and achievable if part of an international agreement. This should be the government's aim."

Mr Toni said the pain Australian families were experiencing due to the global financial crisis would only worsen in the future if the Government was not ambitious with its pollution reduction target now.

EU climate package explained


Here is a story from the BBC about Europe's climate change package.
.
EU climate package explained
.
The original package presented by the European Commission in January 2008 is expected to be watered down to some extent, because the financial crisis has amplified concern about the economic cost of green energy. EU countries are divided over how to share out that burden and limit the economic pain.
.

EU 20-20-20 TARGETS
.
20% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020
20% increase in use of renewable energy by 2020
20% cut in energy consumption through improved energy efficiency by 2020
.
Source

Sunday, December 14, 2008

Carbon Reduction Pollution Scheme

.
Kevin Rudd has released Australia's Carbon Reduction Pollution Scheme
.
.
On the 2020 target:
.
"The Government has decided on a medium-term target range to reduce emissions by between 5 and 15 per cent below 2000 levels by 2020, balancing the need to make a strong contribution to international efforts with ensuring a balanced and measured start to the Scheme."
.
The 2020 target is very disappointing (like getting a Coogee Bay Hotel desert).
.
Shame on Kevin Rudd and shame on Penny Wong for setting such a weak 2020 target!!
.
The European Commission and EU governments decided upon a 2020 target of cutting greenhouse gases by at least 20%, compared with 1990 levels. Their target will rise to 30% if an international agreement is reached committing other developed countries and the more advanced developing nations to comparable emission reductions.
.

20% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020
20% increase in use of renewable energy by 2020
20% cut in energy consumption through improved energy efficiency by 2020

.
Check out what the Climate Institute has to say on the CRPS:
.
A briefing paper that outlines key tests that Monday's White Paper should meet
.
.
.
.
.
.

Target 25 % reduction (minimum) by 2020

Here are a couple of news items (from the SMH) on the eve of the introduction of Australia's emission trading scheme by Penny Wong. The first is by Bob Brown (Leader of the Australian Greens) and the second is by Kerry-Anne Walsh (Political Correspondent).
.
Lead on environment, PM
.
by Bob Brown (Leader of the Australian Greens)
SMH
.
THE Rudd Government's decision on carbon-emissions targets, due to be released tomorrow, is the most important it has yet had to make - and among the most important it will ever make.
.
This decision will echo through the generations, directly affecting the wellbeing of Australia's grandchildren.
.
Australia's decision on how much, and how quickly, it will reduce pollution of the atmosphere will have a major impact on global negotiations.
.
If Rudd is weak, he will give cover to bigger polluting nations to also fail the world's future.
.
.
.
Rudd put on notice over emissions
.
by Kerry-Anne Walsh
SMH
.
THE Government's emissions trading scheme could be in strife in the Senate if a target cut of less than 15 per cent in greenhouse gases by 2020 is announced tomorrow.
.
Climate Change Minister Penny Wong is tipped to announce a modest cut of between 5 and 10 per cent in carbon emissions by 2020, in a white paper that has taken a year to craft.
.

Friday, December 12, 2008

President of Bolivia and Climate Change


Here is a letter written by Evo Morales Ayma (President of Bolivia) on climate change.


The title "Climate Change: Save the Planet from Capitalism" gives some suggestion as to what he thinks the problem is. This is not really a suprise (after all, he is the leader of a political party called the Movement towards Socialism). Anyway, here is what he had to say about Capitalism:


Competition and the thirst for profit without limits of the capitalist system are destroying the planet. Under Capitalism we are not human beings but consumers. Under Capitalism Mother Earth does not exist, instead there are raw materials. Capitalism is the source of the asymmetries and imbalances in the world. It generates luxury, ostentation and waste for a few, while millions in the world die from hunger in the world. In the hands of capitalism everything becomes a commodity: the water, the soil, the human genome, the ancestral cultures, justice, ethics, death … and life itself. Everything, absolutely everything, can be bought and sold and under capitalism. And even “climate change” itself has become a business.


What do people think??


Comments most welcome !!

Please check out:

The Poznań Communiqué

Combating Climate Change and Boosting Growth Are Natural Allies

Nine Meals from Anarchy


CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND CLIMATE CHANGE

A new report issued today by Ceres analyzes climate change governance practices at 63 of the world's largest retail, pharmaceutical, technology, apparel and other consumer-facing companies.
.
The report finds that select companies in various consumer and technology sectors are responding to the risks and opportunities presented by climate change, primarily by setting GHG emissions reduction targets, boosting energy efficiency efforts, expanding renewable energy purchases and integrating climate factors into product design.
.
But the report found that many other companies are still largely ignoring climate change, especially at the board and CEO level. For example, only 11 of the 63 companies have their boards receive climate-specific updates from management, only seven of the CEOs among these firms have taken leadership roles on climate change initiatives and none of the companies have linked C-suite executive compensation directly to climate-related performance.
.
The report concludes that more action is needed to align company strategies with GHG reductions that scientists say are needed to avoid dangerous impacts from climate change.
.
In this regard, the report recommends that companies:
.
* elevate climate change as a governance priority for board members and CEOs
* link the company's largest compensation packages – those of the CEO and other senior executives – to GHG reduction targets or other climate performance measures
* set company-wide energy efficiency goals and mandate energy efficiency evaluations for all major capital investments
* boost attention to supply chain management by including supply chain GHG emissions – emissions that result from raw material extraction, production, transport and packaging – in emissions inventories and setting emission standards for suppliers
* set renewable energy purchase targets
* expand programs to educate, empower and reward employees for climate-related initiatives.
.
Report available here

Wednesday, December 10, 2008

Climate Safety: In case of emergency . . .

The Public Interest Research Centre has published its "Climate Safety" Report which examines recent climate change science. Climate change is "accelerating more rapidly and dangerously than expected" and the "imperative for extreme urgent action on both a national and global scale is now paramount" says Sir John Houghton in the forward (see below). The summary is easy to read and highlights the trouble we are facing. A rapid change towards a low carbon society is suggested as the answer to this complex global problem.

Forward

"Climate Safety in presenting this examination of recent climate science brings two important messages. The first is that climate change is accelerating more rapidly and dangerously that most of us in the scientific community had expected or that the IPCC in its 2007 Report presented. The second is that, because politial inaction has delayed progress for so long, the imperative for extreme urgent action on both national and global scales is now paramount."

by Sir John Houghton (former Co-Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on climate change and the former Director General of the UK Met Office)

Contents:

Summary

The summary is easy to read and highlights the latest scientific research (shows the trouble we are facing with regards to climate change).

Science

This section looks at the loss of Artic ice, which some scientists predict will be an ice-free Artic summer by 2010-2015 (some 80 years ahead of the prediction made only 1 year ago in the 2007 IPCC Report). It also suggests "contrary to what the media's coverage may suggest, the Artic melt is not simply a matter of displaced polar bears, new shipping routes, or easier access for oil and gas companies" and then goes on to explain the consequences of early Artic sea ice loss.
.
Loss of Arctic ice will cause:
  • Increased heat because less heat is reflected dark surfaces such as the sea than from ice, the Earth will be heated more;
  • Additional greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere caused by melting permafrost which releases methane (which is 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide; and
  • Additional sea level rise (above IPCC projections).
These are all major problems and highlight the need for "extreme urgent action" by governments at the local, national, regional and global level need to act NOW.

If you are thinking that a bit of permafrost melt can't be too bad, have a look at the following graph (which shows the volume of total carbon content in billion tonnes). Notice the MASSIVE amount of carbon contained in permafrost!!



The other interesting graph contained in the report (shown below) highlights the different model predictions of the IPPC's scientific panel, while the black line is the actual satellite observations (notice how it drops well below ALL of the IPPC's predictions). The dotted red line is the revised projected ice melt (a range from 2010 to 2015 has been suggested by some scientists).



It concludes that "the observed impacts of climate change have raced ahead of the predictions of the IPCC's 2007 Report, even in the short amount of time since it was published".

Targets

This section examines the difficulties of predicting a certain temperature rise from a particular reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. This is because "any analysis that connects CO2 emissions to temerature increase must address a complex causal chain in which the key elements, while now well understood qualitatively, are subject to substantial quantitative uncertainty" (Paul Baer, EcoEquity).


Solutions

This is a great read as it contains lots of information on renewable energy, low carbon transport options, better agricultural methods, energy efficient buildings, saving global sinks (e.g. forests) and other ways to quickly become a low carbon society.

Action

This section sums up and highlights the need for "extreme urgent action" because science is telling us that climate change is "accelerating more rapidly and dangerously than expected".
.
This is obviously very worrying, however they do suggest that "the prospects for ambitious action in the UK are more promising than they have been at any point in time".
.
I would suggest that this is also true in Australia and I hope Penny Wong is thinking along these lines. Although, early suggestion of a weak 2020 target are not sounding promising.
.
Anyway, this report is well worth a read !!!
.
If you enjoyed this post please also check out:
.
.
.
.
.

Tuesday, December 09, 2008

Policy Quarterly: the problem of international ‘burden sharing’

Here are some links (see below) to interesting articles on the problem of international burden sharing from Policy Quarterly including one from Ross Garnaut (of Garnaut Report fame).

.

Here is the editor (Jonathon Boston) of Policy Quarterly explaining the articles from the current issue where he provides "a brief account of the central problem that the contributors all seek to address".

.

"Negotiations are currently underway to secure a new international agreement on climate change to take effect when the first commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol expires at the end of 2012. Undoubtedly, the biggest stumbling block for any new multilateral agreement is the sharp disagreement over how to share the costs of mitigation and adaptation. The difficulties are multiple, complex and overlapping.

First, policy measures to reduce emissions will almost certainly impose short-term economic costs on those nations taking them, but the benefits that accrue will be enjoyed by all countries regardless of their contribution. There is thus an incentive for each country to minimize its cost-bearing obligations while relying on others to do more.

Second, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), negotiated in 1992, embraces the principle that countries should contribute to the challenges posed by climate change ‘in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities’. But the precise meaning of this principle is unclear. Indeed, many different (and competing) principles of justice can be advanced to inform the issue of how responsibilities should be fairly differentiated. And this means that what constitutes a fair or just sharing of the burden (or ‘effort’) of mitigating and/or adapting to climate change will depend on which of the suggested principles is embraced and how they are weighted. Unfortunately, therefore, all burden sharing formulas are open to the accusation that they are unfair in some important respect.

Third, under the UNFCCC, countries are divided into two main categories – Annex 1 (i.e. industrialized countries) and non-Annex 1 (i.e. developing countries). Annex 1 countries, understandably, are expected to take the lead in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But in recent years, the emissions of some large emerging economies, like China and India, have grown rapidly. Moreover, it has become increasingly clear that if substantial temperature increases are to be avoided later this century and beyond, global emissions will need to be cut by at least 50% by 2050 (i.e. compared with levels in 1990). This will require massive reductions by most Annex 1 countries (e.g. 80% or more), but also significant cuts by some developing countries.
.
Unsurprisingly, few countries are yet willing to face this prospect.

Fourth, aside from principles of justice, there are various other considerations which impinge on the question of how the burdens of mitigation and adaptation should be shared. These include the availability of technologies to reduce particular types of emissions, the rate of population growth, the imperative of poverty eradication, and the limited capacity of many developing countries at present to quantify their emissions in a reliable and verifiable manner. Again, any conclusions about burden sharing will depend on which of these considerations is taken into account and what weighting they are given.
.
Fifth, and related to this, there is a natural incentive for each of the key participants (and groups of participants with common interests) to emphasize those principles and considerations that minimize their expected contribution to the global mitigation effort. Many countries are also likely to claim that they face unique, or at least special, circumstances which make it particularly costly or inappropriate for them to take strenuous action to curb their emissions. And while it might be preferable for matters of principle to prevail over narrow conceptions of national self-interest, considerations of realpolitik cannot be eliminated from the equation – as highlighted by the outcome of the negotiations over the Kyoto Protocol, and the effort-sharing arrangements agreed to within the European Union in recent years. Inevitably, all this will complicate efforts to reach an international consensus.

Given these various disagreements and constraints, will it be possible to cut a post-2012 deal?
.
Maybe. But informed observers doubt that a fully-fledged agreement will be negotiated by the end of 2009 – the current target date set by the UN. That said, many are hopeful that a workable deal will be struck during 2010.

In all likelihood, much will depend on the negotiating position adopted by the US, and this in turn will be influenced by the outcome of the presidential and congressional elections in November.
The current global financial crisis may also play a role – but probably not a helpful one.

Yet for the sake of future generations of humanity and our planet’s many and varied species, every effort must be made to find a satisfactory way forward – one that is environmentally effective, economically efficient and acceptably fair."

Jonathan Boston
.
Links:
.
.
.
.
.
If you enjoyed this post, please also check out:
.
.
.