The idea that humans have the potential to shape the world around them is nothing new. People alter their surroundings directly to suit their perceived needs and those actions have indirect effects on still other environmental systems. Look up from the computer and gaze around you right now. What do you see? Our species is remarkably effective at creating new spaces, new worlds, to suit our purposes. We have known this for a long time.
Geographers familiar with the work of George Perkins Marsh would recognize this as one of the oldest refrains echoing throughout the history of the discipline. In the middle of the nineteenth century he warned of the dangerous ways in which people altered the physical environment around them.
“...man is everywhere a disturbing agent. Wherever he plants his foot, the harmonies of nature are turned to discords. The proportions and accommodations which insured the stability of existing arrangements are overthrown... These intentional changes and substitutions constitute, indeed, great revolutions; but vast as is their magnitude and importance, they are, as we shall see, insignificant in comparison with the contingent and unsought results which have flowed from them.”
The historian Felipe Fernandez-Armesto echoes this idea of humans as environmental forces by describing civilization itself as a process whereby societies shape the environment around them to suit their real or perceived needs. In short, the drive to shape the environment is civilizing. There is no moral imperative associated with this, it is not necessarily good or bad, it just is.
Cities accordingly, represent the pinnacle of civilization in that they are the locations where the most intense and complete modification of the surrounding environment has taken place to serve its inhabitants. Not only do cities rearrange the metropolis itself but this civilizing impulse has far-reaching effects into the spaces beyond. Montgomery also looks at relationships between the physical environment and civilization, only he focuses on the downside of intensive settlement, the degradation of soils, and the resulting impacts on society.
Back in 1873 Antonio Stoppani suggested the creation of a new geologic era called the anthropozoic recognizing human activities as having enormous power and universality compared to the physical and chemical forces exerted by environmental processes. In the view of Nobel laurate chemist Paul Crutzen, these historical ideas have matured into something he refers to as the Anthropocene Era. What is the difference between the 1873 version and the 2000 version? Climate.
For a century and half, we have understood the power people have to alter vegetation, ecosystems, hydrology, and land cover. Until recently, this human control has not been extended to the atmosphere. Crutzen points to the growing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and methane beginning in the mid-18th century and corresponding environmental changes in atmospheric composition and heat retention we are just now beginning to confront.
Climate changes the game. Long-term changes in temperature and precipitation will indirectly affect vegetation, ecosystems, hydrology, and land cover to an extent we have not seen previously. Our intentional reshaping of the world has caused "great revolutions" in the physical environment around us. But these effects will seem insignificant compared to the indirect effects of these changes. Marsh recognized this in 1864.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
An unstable world
In 1915, an astronomer/meteorologist named Alfred Wegener suggested that the very ground people stood on was unstable. Whole continents had drifted over geologic time to their present-day positions but the map as we knew it was not always the map as we knew it. Though the idea made sense of a great deal of circumstantial data collected about past histories of the world, continental drift was a radical idea that many in the public and scientific community alike scoffed at. Wegener died before his ideas were catalyzed into the theory of Plate Tectonics and became widely accepted in scientific circles.
Why was the concept so radical and roundly criticized during his lifetime? One of many reasons was that it fundamentally challenged our understanding of the structure of the world around us. Continental drift started from the assumption that Earth's crust was dynamic and changing, not stable.
In many ways, the same sorts of critiques are being leveled at the concept of global warming. Among the so-called skeptics, there is a consistent incredulity that people have the capability to change something so large, so complicated, so fundamental as the atmosphere. How can people possibly alter something as vast as the atmosphere or the oceans?
Humans tend to have a problem with our ability to comprehend the abstract end to perceived abundance and understand that we play a role in changing the world around us. At one time, passenger pigeons were so abundant in the US that single flocks were estimated at a billion birds each. Audubon noted in 1813:
"…the light of noon-day was obscured as by an eclipse; the dung fell in spots, not unlike melting flakes of snow; and the continued buzz of wings had a tendency to lull my senses to repose.
Before sunset I reached Louisville, Kentucky. The pigeons passed in undiminished number, and continued to do so for three days in succession. The people were all in arms. The banks of the Ohio were crowded with men and boys, incessantly shooting at the pilgrims, which flew lower as they passed over the river. Multitudes were thus destroyed. For a week or more, the population fed on no flesh other that of pigeons, and talked of nothing but pigeons."
Similar stories can be told of American bison, boundless forests, and endless expanses of tallgrass prairie that was once a terrifying barrier. But the passenger pigeon is now extinct, the bison a novelty, forests fragmented, and tallgrass prairie confined to reserves. Is it so hard to imagine that people have fundamentally reshaped the world? It's what we do.
Why was the concept so radical and roundly criticized during his lifetime? One of many reasons was that it fundamentally challenged our understanding of the structure of the world around us. Continental drift started from the assumption that Earth's crust was dynamic and changing, not stable.
In many ways, the same sorts of critiques are being leveled at the concept of global warming. Among the so-called skeptics, there is a consistent incredulity that people have the capability to change something so large, so complicated, so fundamental as the atmosphere. How can people possibly alter something as vast as the atmosphere or the oceans?
Humans tend to have a problem with our ability to comprehend the abstract end to perceived abundance and understand that we play a role in changing the world around us. At one time, passenger pigeons were so abundant in the US that single flocks were estimated at a billion birds each. Audubon noted in 1813:
"…the light of noon-day was obscured as by an eclipse; the dung fell in spots, not unlike melting flakes of snow; and the continued buzz of wings had a tendency to lull my senses to repose.
Before sunset I reached Louisville, Kentucky. The pigeons passed in undiminished number, and continued to do so for three days in succession. The people were all in arms. The banks of the Ohio were crowded with men and boys, incessantly shooting at the pilgrims, which flew lower as they passed over the river. Multitudes were thus destroyed. For a week or more, the population fed on no flesh other that of pigeons, and talked of nothing but pigeons."
Similar stories can be told of American bison, boundless forests, and endless expanses of tallgrass prairie that was once a terrifying barrier. But the passenger pigeon is now extinct, the bison a novelty, forests fragmented, and tallgrass prairie confined to reserves. Is it so hard to imagine that people have fundamentally reshaped the world? It's what we do.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Skepticism
Mark's recent entry highlighted the Republican press conference held in the closing days of the Copenhagen Climate talks. Framed in the context of the UN conference that had been ongoing for two weeks, their out and out dismissal of the concept of climate change was a little bizarre and surreal. Among the 192 nations present at the Copenhagen talks, the only hint of doubt I heard from any of them about the inevitability of changing climatic conditions was from small segments of the U.S. and the UK. I never once heard climategate mentioned in the halls of the Bella Center. It is indeed ironic that the best science being published on this issue is from individuals and labs in the U.S. and the UK.
However, in light of the public opinion polls that I discussed in my last post, I think it would be a mistake to ignore the presence of these so-called climate skeptics. They seem to have too much of an impact on public opinion to completely dismiss them as irrelevant fringe outliers. They may be fringe but they have not unfortunately been irrelevant. Let's examine their claims.
One of the Congressmen speaking at the press conference pointedly stated that there has been no independent scientific assessment outside of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that has indicated that warming is actually occurring or that any warming can be linked to people and human actions. This is patently false. In fact, one has to give the Congressman an awful lot of latitude to call this statement anything but a lie.
For example, a few weeks ago on the eve of the Copenhagen summit, eighteen independent scientific organizations wrote an open letter to the US Senate reiterating their formally stated positions on the existence, reality, and seriousness of Climate Change. The IPCC was not one of them. See a full copy of the letter sent to Senators here. The letter was timed so that it would reach Senators one week before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works was set to begin a series of hearings on climate change legislation, the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (S. 1733). In simple language most people could understand, they state:
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver."
Not only is this the consensus of scientific bodies today, these conclusions have been consensus for years. Back in 2004, an article actually entitled "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" published in the journal Science points to the dissonance between the uncertainty indicated by policy-makers and the media and the certainty expressed by scientists and scientific organizations. The author states: "such statements [by policy-makers] suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case."
While these conclusions are indeed supported by the work of the IPCC, the article also documents support for these conclusions from the US National Academy of Sciences, The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), and the scientific literature. In an examination of 928 articles published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 (remember this article was published in 2004) not a single article was found disputing the claim that climate change was occurring and that it is being generated by human action.
The word skeptic comes from a Greek verb meaning “to examine carefully”. Ancient Greek skeptics grounded their philosophy on an opposition to any claims made to truth. This was a radical idea concluding that we cannot know what the truth of any situation is, that absolute knowledge itself is impossible. But this bears little resemblance to the kind of skepticism employed by those who deny the existence of climate change as it results in a relativistic view of the world (anybody might be right, everybody could be wrong). Instead, climate skeptics are rigidly confident that climate change cannot be happening.
Skepticism in science is a critical mechanism whereby ideas are rigorously tested and proven instead of being accepted based on false premises or flimsy data. It is a virtue central to the advancement of science itself. Science would not be able to function free of bias and dogma without skeptically demanding adequate proof for claims made.
So-called "climate skeptics" are neither skeptical in a philosophical or scientific sense. By refusing to carefully examine the data and evidence presented and closing themselves off from any possibility that they may be wrong violates the usage of the term "skeptic". Skepticism is a virtue. Lying and contradicting evidence for some as yet undefined political purpose is not.
However, in light of the public opinion polls that I discussed in my last post, I think it would be a mistake to ignore the presence of these so-called climate skeptics. They seem to have too much of an impact on public opinion to completely dismiss them as irrelevant fringe outliers. They may be fringe but they have not unfortunately been irrelevant. Let's examine their claims.
One of the Congressmen speaking at the press conference pointedly stated that there has been no independent scientific assessment outside of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that has indicated that warming is actually occurring or that any warming can be linked to people and human actions. This is patently false. In fact, one has to give the Congressman an awful lot of latitude to call this statement anything but a lie.
For example, a few weeks ago on the eve of the Copenhagen summit, eighteen independent scientific organizations wrote an open letter to the US Senate reiterating their formally stated positions on the existence, reality, and seriousness of Climate Change. The IPCC was not one of them. See a full copy of the letter sent to Senators here. The letter was timed so that it would reach Senators one week before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works was set to begin a series of hearings on climate change legislation, the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (S. 1733). In simple language most people could understand, they state:
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver."
Not only is this the consensus of scientific bodies today, these conclusions have been consensus for years. Back in 2004, an article actually entitled "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" published in the journal Science points to the dissonance between the uncertainty indicated by policy-makers and the media and the certainty expressed by scientists and scientific organizations. The author states: "such statements [by policy-makers] suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case."
While these conclusions are indeed supported by the work of the IPCC, the article also documents support for these conclusions from the US National Academy of Sciences, The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), and the scientific literature. In an examination of 928 articles published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 (remember this article was published in 2004) not a single article was found disputing the claim that climate change was occurring and that it is being generated by human action.
The word skeptic comes from a Greek verb meaning “to examine carefully”. Ancient Greek skeptics grounded their philosophy on an opposition to any claims made to truth. This was a radical idea concluding that we cannot know what the truth of any situation is, that absolute knowledge itself is impossible. But this bears little resemblance to the kind of skepticism employed by those who deny the existence of climate change as it results in a relativistic view of the world (anybody might be right, everybody could be wrong). Instead, climate skeptics are rigidly confident that climate change cannot be happening.
Skepticism in science is a critical mechanism whereby ideas are rigorously tested and proven instead of being accepted based on false premises or flimsy data. It is a virtue central to the advancement of science itself. Science would not be able to function free of bias and dogma without skeptically demanding adequate proof for claims made.
So-called "climate skeptics" are neither skeptical in a philosophical or scientific sense. By refusing to carefully examine the data and evidence presented and closing themselves off from any possibility that they may be wrong violates the usage of the term "skeptic". Skepticism is a virtue. Lying and contradicting evidence for some as yet undefined political purpose is not.
It's your fault...
As Obama rightly predicted in his speech on the floor of the Bella Center, the Copenhagen Accord has disappointed many of the party nations involved, to say nothing of the civil society organizations that were shut out of the Bella Center and feel as though their voices were marginalized when it mattered the most. It did not take long for the blame game to find willing participants. So let's play: Who is to blame?
The British climate minister Ed Miliband asserts that negotiations were essentially hijacked by parties who constantly were stalling talks by using "procedural games" as cover for fundamental disagreements over substantive issues that remain unresolved. He was in effect, challenging the notion that the existing UN Framework is capable of resolving this deadlock without major reform.
Aside from the structure of the UN talks themselves, Milibrand lays the majority of the blame for the failure of the talks to produce a legally binding agreement squarely at the feet of China and the G77. They were unwilling in the end to accept the notion that all countries should share in legally binding commitments outlining a timetable for cutting greenhouse gas emissions. This was the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities" that arose over and over again as a chasm separating the positions of the developing world from industrialized countries.
While this principle is present in the Kyoto Protocol and is seen in the developing world as a simple expression of fairness, many parties including the U.S., believe that it is unrealistic to believe that any international agreement would succeed at capping CO2 concentrations below 450 ppm without the binding participation of "major economies" such as China and India. As the default leader of the developing world and the 800 lb economic gorilla in the room, China took a hard line on compromising this position.
The U.S. has also received their fair share of blame for the weak, abstract accord that was finalized in Copenhagen. Developing countries in the G77 and the African Group accused the U.S. of trying to forge a deal independent of the existing documents negotiated in the working groups that would be favorable to industrialized countries at the expense of the worlds poorest economies. Perhaps frustrated by the tension and lack of movement in the meetings last Friday when Pres. Obama arrived in Copenhagen, he appeared combative and impatient when speaking to the other heads of state.
The most damning criticism of the U.S. throughout Copenhagen was their unwillingness to set ambitious goals in cutting greenhouse gas emissions and take the lead in forging some final agreement that everyone could be proud of. We have written before in this blog about the fact that it was perhaps unrealistic for the U.S. to take on such a leadership role while there is so much domestic opposition and we remain the only country in the room that has failed to commit to the emission reductions laid out in Kyoto. In many ways, there was no practical way that Obama and the U.S. could have truly lived up to worldwide expectations in Copenhagen. They were doomed to disappoint.
But these are all symptoms of a larger problem. The most legitimate and compelling argument I have heard explaining the failure of Copenhagen to arrive at a legally-binding treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and catastrophic climate change involves neither the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Chinese or American governments.
It's your fault. And mine. Collectively, we are all to blame. In describing the agreement last Friday, Polly Toynbee of the Guardian newspaper in the UK stated, "Gutless, yes. But the planet's future is no priority of ours."
Her argument is simple. The negotiators and heads of state that met in Copenhagen to forge an agreement were faced with a Sisyphean task. They "are out ahead of their people. Most understand the crisis better than those they represent, promising more sacrifice than their citizens are yet ready to accept - while no doubt praying for some miraculous technological escape. "
This is borne out by any number of polls on the issue taken here in the U.S. A Pew Center poll taken in October of this year shows that Americans are remarkably confused about whether climate change is a political or scientific issue. A Washington Post poll released just a few days ago confirms the politicization of the issue among Americans. But the cynicism of Americans transcends policy-makers and the government, "four in 10 Americans are now saying that they place little or no trust in what scientists have to say about the environment." Among registered Republicans it rises to 58%. These numbers leave me speechless.
Is it any wonder then that politicians were unable to move beyond their positions of safety and aggressively forge a binding agreement to address climate change? Toynbee warns, "there is a limit to how far ahead of their people any leader can go, elected or not...The question is whether governments have the power and consent to do the draconian things required [without the consent and support of the people]."
It is easy for us to blame China, a longstanding scapegoat, for their intransigence. It is easy for the rest of the world to blame the U.S., the richest country in the world that is unwilling to shoulder any discomfort to solve problems we have created. But at some point we need to look in the mirror and see the real culprit. It is our own complacency, ignorance, distrust, and cynicism that doomed this process.
The British climate minister Ed Miliband asserts that negotiations were essentially hijacked by parties who constantly were stalling talks by using "procedural games" as cover for fundamental disagreements over substantive issues that remain unresolved. He was in effect, challenging the notion that the existing UN Framework is capable of resolving this deadlock without major reform.
Aside from the structure of the UN talks themselves, Milibrand lays the majority of the blame for the failure of the talks to produce a legally binding agreement squarely at the feet of China and the G77. They were unwilling in the end to accept the notion that all countries should share in legally binding commitments outlining a timetable for cutting greenhouse gas emissions. This was the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities" that arose over and over again as a chasm separating the positions of the developing world from industrialized countries.
While this principle is present in the Kyoto Protocol and is seen in the developing world as a simple expression of fairness, many parties including the U.S., believe that it is unrealistic to believe that any international agreement would succeed at capping CO2 concentrations below 450 ppm without the binding participation of "major economies" such as China and India. As the default leader of the developing world and the 800 lb economic gorilla in the room, China took a hard line on compromising this position.
The U.S. has also received their fair share of blame for the weak, abstract accord that was finalized in Copenhagen. Developing countries in the G77 and the African Group accused the U.S. of trying to forge a deal independent of the existing documents negotiated in the working groups that would be favorable to industrialized countries at the expense of the worlds poorest economies. Perhaps frustrated by the tension and lack of movement in the meetings last Friday when Pres. Obama arrived in Copenhagen, he appeared combative and impatient when speaking to the other heads of state.
The most damning criticism of the U.S. throughout Copenhagen was their unwillingness to set ambitious goals in cutting greenhouse gas emissions and take the lead in forging some final agreement that everyone could be proud of. We have written before in this blog about the fact that it was perhaps unrealistic for the U.S. to take on such a leadership role while there is so much domestic opposition and we remain the only country in the room that has failed to commit to the emission reductions laid out in Kyoto. In many ways, there was no practical way that Obama and the U.S. could have truly lived up to worldwide expectations in Copenhagen. They were doomed to disappoint.
But these are all symptoms of a larger problem. The most legitimate and compelling argument I have heard explaining the failure of Copenhagen to arrive at a legally-binding treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and catastrophic climate change involves neither the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Chinese or American governments.
It's your fault. And mine. Collectively, we are all to blame. In describing the agreement last Friday, Polly Toynbee of the Guardian newspaper in the UK stated, "Gutless, yes. But the planet's future is no priority of ours."
Her argument is simple. The negotiators and heads of state that met in Copenhagen to forge an agreement were faced with a Sisyphean task. They "are out ahead of their people. Most understand the crisis better than those they represent, promising more sacrifice than their citizens are yet ready to accept - while no doubt praying for some miraculous technological escape. "
This is borne out by any number of polls on the issue taken here in the U.S. A Pew Center poll taken in October of this year shows that Americans are remarkably confused about whether climate change is a political or scientific issue. A Washington Post poll released just a few days ago confirms the politicization of the issue among Americans. But the cynicism of Americans transcends policy-makers and the government, "four in 10 Americans are now saying that they place little or no trust in what scientists have to say about the environment." Among registered Republicans it rises to 58%. These numbers leave me speechless.
Is it any wonder then that politicians were unable to move beyond their positions of safety and aggressively forge a binding agreement to address climate change? Toynbee warns, "there is a limit to how far ahead of their people any leader can go, elected or not...The question is whether governments have the power and consent to do the draconian things required [without the consent and support of the people]."
It is easy for us to blame China, a longstanding scapegoat, for their intransigence. It is easy for the rest of the world to blame the U.S., the richest country in the world that is unwilling to shoulder any discomfort to solve problems we have created. But at some point we need to look in the mirror and see the real culprit. It is our own complacency, ignorance, distrust, and cynicism that doomed this process.
climate illiteracy
Several Republican delegates from the US House of Representatives came to Copenhagen on the last day of the conference, mainly to hold a press conference that spelled out their problems with what was being negotiated and make clear that climate legislation (such as cap & trade) in the US is far from a done deal - countering John Kerry's speech from two days prior.
Among the chief complaints are that such a bill is a "job killer" and that they feared the intellectual property rights implications for corporations. A significant component of the UN climate deal would transfer low-carbon technologies to less developed countries with the intent that they work toward overcoming poverty without fossil fuels. This is much the same intellectual property rights argument that makes it difficult for poor Africans to get AIDS treatment: the drug companies would be losing out on all their R&D investment if they just gave it away to people that really needed it.
One reporter asked whether these congressmen had spoken to any of the delegates at the Copenhagen conference from small island nations (such as Tuvalu and the Maldives, who have offered some of the most impassioned arguments for immediate action) - they each replied 'no.'
Most striking to me were the reps' explanations of their understanding of climate change science. Listen to a couple clips from Texas congressman Joe Barton:
Whether the lack of nuance to this analysis is real, or mainly for show with the regular folks back home - playing on their rising distrust for science, I can't say. It is clearly not an attempt to take the issue seriously and honestly. By feigning obliviousness about how the world works, other than 'it gets hot in Texas in the summer, cold in the winter, and beyond that, I don't know,' this view hopes that greenhouse gasses will somehow go away and not bother us. That is strong faith in scientific illiteracy. As long as you can't read the book, whatever it says can't hurt you.
Among the chief complaints are that such a bill is a "job killer" and that they feared the intellectual property rights implications for corporations. A significant component of the UN climate deal would transfer low-carbon technologies to less developed countries with the intent that they work toward overcoming poverty without fossil fuels. This is much the same intellectual property rights argument that makes it difficult for poor Africans to get AIDS treatment: the drug companies would be losing out on all their R&D investment if they just gave it away to people that really needed it.
One reporter asked whether these congressmen had spoken to any of the delegates at the Copenhagen conference from small island nations (such as Tuvalu and the Maldives, who have offered some of the most impassioned arguments for immediate action) - they each replied 'no.'
Most striking to me were the reps' explanations of their understanding of climate change science. Listen to a couple clips from Texas congressman Joe Barton:
Whether the lack of nuance to this analysis is real, or mainly for show with the regular folks back home - playing on their rising distrust for science, I can't say. It is clearly not an attempt to take the issue seriously and honestly. By feigning obliviousness about how the world works, other than 'it gets hot in Texas in the summer, cold in the winter, and beyond that, I don't know,' this view hopes that greenhouse gasses will somehow go away and not bother us. That is strong faith in scientific illiteracy. As long as you can't read the book, whatever it says can't hurt you.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Viewpoint of the Developing Countries
During my time in Copenhagen, I spoke to many delegates from developing country parties. The viewpoint from them is that the Developed country owes a debt to the developing country. They see any money from Copenhagen is part of a reparation and is not development or aid money. While the developed world is to blame for the situation that we find the globe in from the last 200 years of pollution, future growth in greenhouse gases will originate from the developing world. This issue has been the major fault line causing divisions and stopped major progress from happen in Copenhagen.
Copenhagen Wheel unvailed at COP15
http://senseable.mit.edu/copenhagenwheel/
During COP15 MIT unvailed a hybrid bike (Dec 15 2009) that takes the technologies of hybrid viechels and integrates them into a bike. This bike uses impressive engineering to make a compacted powerful enginee that produces zero emissions and charges itself from downhill movement.
Energy Map
http://www.energymap.dk/
EnergyMap.dk is a website where users can find information about the latest energy and climate related technologies, projects, solutions, cases and events in Denmark. This website uses neogeographic techniques to communicate and promote the green economy of Denmark. The company had a booth in the the Bella Center during COP15.
Hopenhagen
Hopenhagen is a play on the city's name used to represent the movement, energy, and hope within the people who gathered in Copenhagen for COP15. The city transformed the city plaza into the open air arena with concert stage and booths.
Use of Maps in COP15
Maps and geography were used throughout the COP15 to convey points, give global perspective, and to convey information. These are a few pictures from the conference:
Endgame
In many ways, the final hours of negotiations are coming down to the question of whether or not China and the US can come to terms on an agreement (most likely political) that will not only satisfy both of them but also the rest of the parties involved in the UN climate conference here in Copenhagen. Realistically, any deal that does not include both will be considered a political failure and perhaps the last best chance the international framework set up by the UN has of successfully combating climate change. Together, the US and China account for half the world's greenhouse gas emissions.
Methane and uncertainty
Another one of the feedback mechanisms that introduces a level of uncertainty into existing climate models is methane gas. If significant quantities of methane are added to the atmosphere as temperatures in the high latitudes increase, the amount of warming predicted by the models may in fact, be a serious underestimate of what actually occurs.
Methane is critical because it is a greenhouse gas like CO2 but it is much more efficient at trapping radiation and transforming it into heat energy than CO2. If a little goes a long way, a lot of methane...well, you get the picture.
Methane is critical because it is a greenhouse gas like CO2 but it is much more efficient at trapping radiation and transforming it into heat energy than CO2. If a little goes a long way, a lot of methane...well, you get the picture.
Going down in flames
The statements by heads of state this morning all staked out fairly hard line positions largely defending their own interests - positions that you would expect at the beginning of negotiations, but not at the conclusion of a successful meeting.
Here is a link to the video if you would like to listen to any of these speeches.
- Wen Jiabao (China) said that China is making great strides in developing toward a low carbon economy, but as a poor (Annex 2) country, does not have the same obligations as the industrialized nations
- Lula de Silva (Brazil) made the case that while climate change is critical, the goal of poor people having 3 meals a day is still in the future for many areas, and should not be sacrificed.
- Barack Obama (US) argued that the US is doing its part, but everyone else (read China) must also do their part before they commit to more stringent targets
- Pakalitha Mosisili (Lesotho) maintained the position of least developed countries that the Kyoto Protocol must remain as the foundation of a climate change agreement. He said that LDCs are willing to adapt, but developed countries must lead the effort at mitigation and financing
- Alvaro Uribe (Colombia) heralded their forest preservation efforts in the Amazon, spending a lot of his time linking drug trafficking to environmental change
- Manmohan Singh (India) held out hope that while the agreement likely to come out of Copenhagen will probably fall short of expectations, it may be a useful benchmark for future attempts to reconcile the widely divergent interests at stake. He said that differentiated responsibility must still be bedrock of agreement, following prior agreements to uphold Kyoto and Bali, and must respect the need for development to continue in poor regions
- Dmitry Medvedev (Russia) plugged climate justice and differentiated responsibility, and suggested that everyone must do more than what is on the table, with Russia is ready to take a leading role
- Myung-Bak Lee (Korea) said that they (& several others, like Mexico and Switzerland) are trying to bridge the gaps between rich and poor nations with new initiatives, and criticized the "me-first" attitudes of many of the parties
- Meles Zenawi (Ethiopia) argued that it's time to make the necessary decisions, and act accordingly, re-iterating the principles that have already been negotiated since Rio & Kyoto
- Jacob Zuma (South Africa) developed countries must sacrifice emissions so as not to further harm developing countries, while allowing LDCs to develop
- Yukio Hatoyama (Japan) chided that world leaders are falling short of their responsibilities, and must rise above their national interests to save the future
- Tillmann Thomas (Grenada), speaking for small island states, expressed disappointment at the inadequate level of ambition shown in the negotiations, urging full implementation of Kyoto-track actions
- Fredrik Reinfeldt (Sweden), for the EU, which he held up as an example of compromising in coming to their position to make strong emissions targets, saying that they have delivered - it is time for others, particularly the US and China, to similarly take responsibility.
- Nafie Ali Nafie (Sudan), for the G77, focused on extending the Kyoto Protocol as basis for agreement
- Jose Barroso (European Commission) summarized that it's "obvious that we would not get what we hoped for" but are making progress. A main step is toward funding agreements
- Evo Morales (Bolivia) decried the lack of action and transparency in the negotiations among the largest powers. We are debating whether we will live or die - if we can not depend on the presidents to agree, we should put this to the people to decide and take responsibility.
- Hugo Chavez (Venezuela) brought things to a colorful conclusion, making fun of Obama's appearance through the back door (and immediate departure through it after his few minutes of speaking) - 'that is how the Yankee empire is going to lead us - through this undignified back door.' He said a secret paper through the back door, produced by countries who feel they are superior to others, is fraudulent and lacks transparency. "If the climate system were a bank, it would be saved by now... Capitalism is the way to the destruction of the planet."
Here is a link to the video if you would like to listen to any of these speeches.
Document Leak
Andy Revkin of the NYTimes posted a copy of a leaked UN memo circulated among party nations here in Copenhagen that details the current commitments being offered by both Annex I and non-Annex I countries. The conclusions of the document highlight something John Kerry mentioned when he was here a few days ago, even if a binding agreement is reached here in Copenhagen it will not be ambitious enough to have greenhouse gas emissions peak by the year 2020. It is widely thought that in order to keep warming to a maximum of 2 degrees C, peak emissions have to occur by that time and then steadily tail off. According to Revkin, the UN does not dispute the existence of the document but declined to comment on it.
Obama Arrival to Bella Center: Danish News Coverage
Obama representing the last great hope for progress to be made in a substantive agreement in Copenhagen dominated the Danish news who followed his every move from landing to arrival at the Bella Center.
Alternative sites
It's our last day in the greater Copenhagen metroplex. The conference has been shut down to all but the highest level people, so the organizers have set up an alternative site in Copenhagen for NGO delegates. We went there ("The Forum") yesterday to see what was happening, and as you see below, not much.The Forum seems to be a venue for concerts (Pink, Rammstein and Riverdance are coming) and maybe hockey; it was largely vacant, with a few dozen people watching the large screen tvs of the conference plenaries. Travel around Copenhagen was very slow - trains going through the airport and to Sweden were frequently canceled and packed full.
A look inside the Bella Center: Picture Tour
This post will give you a peek inside the meeting spaces and setting of the conference meetings.Explore your World: Google Earth at COP15
One of the most popular booths at COP15 near the Main Conference room attracted world leaders, NGOs, and Party delegates alike. This booth show the fascination with knowing the geography of the world. The 300 Degree visualization booth gave delegates a virtual fly through the globe. Connected directly through the internet, the platform provided everything that would be seen in a typical Google Earth application would give. Missing from the application would be presentation of Climate Modeling data.
Green Energy and Dirty Energy Landscape of Copenhagen
While it is true that Denmark consumes less imported coal than it did in 1990 (Denmark has no domestic coal reserves), still 50% of Danish electricity, steam and heat supply still derives from the combustion of imported coal.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Cap and Trade: NGO Access to COP15
The last week of COP15 famously left NGOs delegates out in the cold. Long lines, overcapacity, and a disorganized UN response pushed out NGOs participation. This impacted all NGO delegates and even some of the parties involved.
Making tracks
Talks continue to sputter along here with (officially) one day left to go. I have heard from a number of sources that the expectation is that it will continue into Saturday even though it was only scheduled to last until Friday. Morale is pretty low among the delegates I have seen. The train ride home to Sweden last night (where many of the NGO delegates are staying) was full of downcast people from all over the world silently looking down at their feet throughout the 30 minutes it take to commute to Malmo. Getting kicked out of the Bella Center and negotiations, talks breaking down and the protests inside and out seems to be taking its toll.
There was little substantive news today. Things seem to be back on track and people are talking once more but there is little indication as to whether they will be successful. It is hard to really get a good gauge on where things are breaking down, there are so many fault lines between groups of countries it could be any number of issues, some of which we have talked about before. One of the things that seems to be a particular focal point as things come down to the wire is what people sometimes refer to tangentially as the "one-track solution" or "two-track solution".
There was little substantive news today. Things seem to be back on track and people are talking once more but there is little indication as to whether they will be successful. It is hard to really get a good gauge on where things are breaking down, there are so many fault lines between groups of countries it could be any number of issues, some of which we have talked about before. One of the things that seems to be a particular focal point as things come down to the wire is what people sometimes refer to tangentially as the "one-track solution" or "two-track solution".
A cautionary tale
Imagine 100 families owning property around a lake. Five of them are mega-rich and have enormous mansions and estates while the rest have very little and some have nothing but the land they live on. For years, the owners of the mansion had enormous gardens where they grew everything they needed and even enough to sell to others. The plants in the garden were difficult to grow and took years to establish themselves but once they were established they were amazingly productive.
The secret to their successful gardens was a rare fertilizer that was found on the land of one of the families. They quickly also became rich selling the fertilizer to the wealthy families. These gardens were so successful that all the families living around the lake wanted to grow one and be rich just like those living in the mansions. Some started their own while others were desperately trying to get the means to buy the seeds, clear the land, and of course buy the amazing fertilizer that had made gardens so successful.
The secret to their successful gardens was a rare fertilizer that was found on the land of one of the families. They quickly also became rich selling the fertilizer to the wealthy families. These gardens were so successful that all the families living around the lake wanted to grow one and be rich just like those living in the mansions. Some started their own while others were desperately trying to get the means to buy the seeds, clear the land, and of course buy the amazing fertilizer that had made gardens so successful.
Learning from Past Mistakes: Involving Congress in COP15
Map of Countries who ratified Kyoto Protocol (Green) as of June 2009
Looking at the map above the big Red Country shows as a major road block in the Kyoto becoming a viable solution to Climate Change. In most people's opinion the source of the road block back in 1997 was the lack of Congressional involvement in the negations. Today and yesterday we seen congressional participation in Copenhagen.Winnowing complete
Yesterday, the UN announced that today's attendance from NGO's would be limited to 1,000 people. Many of us took that to mean that no one was going to get in. Sure enough, this morning's programme announced that attendance would be limited to 300 people because of security concerns over there being 110+ heads of state in the Bella Center. Initially, I had tried to make the early train (5:48am) from Sweden to the Bella Center but was foiled by train cancellations due to ice and snow.
Plan B is to find the "alternate" site the Danish government has set up for NGO's off-site.
As Mark suggested late yesterday, if you are wondering about what is at stake here in Copenhagen and how people from around the world feel about it watch the impassioned speech given by the President of Maldives.
Plan B is to find the "alternate" site the Danish government has set up for NGO's off-site.
As Mark suggested late yesterday, if you are wondering about what is at stake here in Copenhagen and how people from around the world feel about it watch the impassioned speech given by the President of Maldives.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Laying it on the line
Amid a lot of presidential windbags, an eloquent speech by the President of the Maldives, summing up what's on the line now:
Note especially his comparison to President Kennedy's goal of reaching the moon.
Note especially his comparison to President Kennedy's goal of reaching the moon.
Alternative to Copenhagen?
Interesting idea proposed by an economist and greenhouse skeptic in today's NY Times: tie the penalties related to global warming directly to the observed temperature increase, rather than emissions. That way, if temperatures do go up a lot, the penalties are severe, if - like the skeptics expect - they don't go up much, the penalties will be minor.
Only problem is that with this kind of mechanism, by the time the temperatures have gone up, it's probably too late to do much about them. The feedback is way too slow.
You also have to question his sincerity when he advocates using temperature readings "at the equator, because climate models forecast pronounced warming there" - ok, but far more pronounced as you leave the equator and head to the poles.
Only problem is that with this kind of mechanism, by the time the temperatures have gone up, it's probably too late to do much about them. The feedback is way too slow.
You also have to question his sincerity when he advocates using temperature readings "at the equator, because climate models forecast pronounced warming there" - ok, but far more pronounced as you leave the equator and head to the poles.
Winnowing
There have been protests here at the Bella Center since the first days of the conference last week. At that time, they were harmless stunts that were funny to watch but didn't get in anyone's way and were only trying to make a point. As the days have progressed the volume and antagonism have grown steadily.
Outside there have been marches and periodic outbreaks of violence since Sunday. Inside, the impression is that the UN Security staff are very tense and worried about the number of heads of state that are arriving in the next couple of days. Rumor has it that some of the NGO's represented here have had their credentials taken away because of some of the protest actions they have been a part of.
At the same time, the UN seriously underestimated the people that were coming and staying at the conference. Every day since Monday they have announced new restrictions on who could get into the conference center itself. At first we had to get "secondary badges" to restrict the number of people allowed inside from each delegation. Some of the AAG group got caught in this crunch and had a very difficult time getting in for two days, others have been unable to get in at all. Today they restricted the total number of people from NGO's (we count as an NGO) to half of what they had been allowing in up to this point. Not coincidentally, all the NGO's have been kicked out of the Plenary Halls where the heads of state are making their speeches.
This morning the UN announced that tomorrow the total number of people from NGO's allowed inside the building will drop to a thousand (from a max of 14,000 on Monday). Some very big names indeed will be here tomorrow in the Plenary Hall but they will have a modest audience in the room itself. About an hour ago, a couple of people (unclear who they are) got up from their seats in the Plenary Hall just as Australia's Climate Change Minister was set to give a speech as representative of the "Umbrella Group," and informal group of non-European industrialized nations which includes the U.S. They stood up and started shouting "climate justice now," "stop green capitalism'' and "climate change is a disaster" bringing the proceedings to a crashing halt while alarms went off and security quickly wrestled them out of the room.
I suspect that one of the ancillary effects of today's protests both within and outside the Bella Center will ultimately have the effect of ensuring that UN security forces keep nearly everyone out of the Bella Center but dignitaries for the last two days of the conference. Throughout the two week conference we have heard time and time again speakers pronounce the words "the world is watching us". As pressure builds and time ticks away, the world watches and its leaders are in the spotlight - alone.
Outside there have been marches and periodic outbreaks of violence since Sunday. Inside, the impression is that the UN Security staff are very tense and worried about the number of heads of state that are arriving in the next couple of days. Rumor has it that some of the NGO's represented here have had their credentials taken away because of some of the protest actions they have been a part of.
At the same time, the UN seriously underestimated the people that were coming and staying at the conference. Every day since Monday they have announced new restrictions on who could get into the conference center itself. At first we had to get "secondary badges" to restrict the number of people allowed inside from each delegation. Some of the AAG group got caught in this crunch and had a very difficult time getting in for two days, others have been unable to get in at all. Today they restricted the total number of people from NGO's (we count as an NGO) to half of what they had been allowing in up to this point. Not coincidentally, all the NGO's have been kicked out of the Plenary Halls where the heads of state are making their speeches.
This morning the UN announced that tomorrow the total number of people from NGO's allowed inside the building will drop to a thousand (from a max of 14,000 on Monday). Some very big names indeed will be here tomorrow in the Plenary Hall but they will have a modest audience in the room itself. About an hour ago, a couple of people (unclear who they are) got up from their seats in the Plenary Hall just as Australia's Climate Change Minister was set to give a speech as representative of the "Umbrella Group," and informal group of non-European industrialized nations which includes the U.S. They stood up and started shouting "climate justice now," "stop green capitalism'' and "climate change is a disaster" bringing the proceedings to a crashing halt while alarms went off and security quickly wrestled them out of the room.
I suspect that one of the ancillary effects of today's protests both within and outside the Bella Center will ultimately have the effect of ensuring that UN security forces keep nearly everyone out of the Bella Center but dignitaries for the last two days of the conference. Throughout the two week conference we have heard time and time again speakers pronounce the words "the world is watching us". As pressure builds and time ticks away, the world watches and its leaders are in the spotlight - alone.
"No excuse for America not to act"
Senator John Kerry appeared in Copenhagen today, and delivered a strongly-worded speech stating that "the U.S. is here today to put America on the right side of history," and that the Senate is poised to act on comprehensive climate legislation.Kerry began with a critical denunciation of those that have treated climate change science as a 'cafeteria operation' where they could pick and choose the facts that suit their purpose - he said that this 'amateur hour' is over, and decried those that for the past 20 years have 'delayed, denied and divided' and prevented the US from playing a leadership role in dealing with climate change. Where, he asked, do those that reject the science, claim any shred of an alternative explanation for what putting all these greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere will do?
Very bad news...
Seconds ago, Connie Hedegaard, the President of the Climate Change conference here in Denmark resigned. Prior to her resignation, she also pulled the proposed documents from consideration that represented the binding agreements that could have been approved by the party nations.
It was as if a bomb dropped in the room - dead silence.
It was as if a bomb dropped in the room - dead silence.
Stalemate
With the rising sense of foreboding in the Bella Center about the possibility of a legally binding agreement coming out of the Copenhagen negotiations, I thought we should maybe update some of the specifics found in the U.S. proposal and some of the sticking points that remain to be solved. So please bear with me through some of the details.
This growing doubt about the inevitability of a deal being made is being fed by key negotiators (such as Todd Stern of the U.S. and Connie Hedegaard of the UN) publicly talking about the "great deal of work yet to be done" even though there is precious little time before the clock ticks down at the end of the conference on Friday. As Tuvalu stated a moment ago, there is the sense that "we are on the titanic and sinking fast".
This growing doubt about the inevitability of a deal being made is being fed by key negotiators (such as Todd Stern of the U.S. and Connie Hedegaard of the UN) publicly talking about the "great deal of work yet to be done" even though there is precious little time before the clock ticks down at the end of the conference on Friday. As Tuvalu stated a moment ago, there is the sense that "we are on the titanic and sinking fast".
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Agriculture and climate change
Like natural ecosystems, agriculture is tightly coupled with climatic conditions. Consequently climate change poses potentially severe threats to food security, but many discussions here are also pointing to agriculture as a potential part of a solution - especially when it comes to mitigating atmospheric carbon. This promise is seen with greater carbon sequestration in the agricultural landscape - particularly soils.
A common starting point for ag-related sessions at Copenhagen is the huge challenges facing agriculture in coming decades: the prospect of feeding as many as 3 billion more people globally (which agricultural policy has long anticipated) is now topped off with climate change impacts facing farmers, such as increased and new pests, water limitations, greater weather/climate variability (eg droughts), altered productivity/respiration, shifting stresses on livestock (eg greater summer heat mortality), and many more. These are on top of policies looking at agricultural land not only for food, but as a supplier of biofuels, not to mention finding space and time to conserve habitat and soil.
As one commentator here put it, it will be impossible to maximize food production, ecosystem services, biofuels - and now carbon sequestration, on the same acre. Improving on the current situation requires more optimal land use- driven mainly by better policies and institutions.
US Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack arrived in Copenhagen today to announce his department's policy response to climate change - and in light of the immense challenges, it was remarkably timid. He used the opportunity to announce an agreement with dairy producers to make greater use of "cow power" - turning manure-based methane into electricity. Vilsack and the industry rep he appeared with touted the benefits as mitigation of carbon, decreased dependence on fossil fuels, and increased spending in rural communities. The president of the National Corn Growers Association, who also appeared, pointed out that at least on his farm, per bushel energy use ("carbon intensity," rather than absolute amounts, since yields have gone up simultaneously) has decreased over the past few decades due to technological change, and expressed hope that this trend would continue. The panel also noted that carbon credits are becoming a new farm commodity, bought and sold on the Chicago exchange, and likely to becoming an increasing source of income for American farmers as cap & trade-type legislation pushes forward.
Perhaps this is not surprising, but despite the clear distinction that the US delegation has been making about the new American commitment to tackling climate change under President Obama, the discussion led by Vilsack placed all the attention on voluntary measures and market incentives, continuing the hallmark of Bush (and prior)-era reaction to the challenges of climate change.
Farmers are going to be at the front line of climate change - and the people they feed right behind them. A variety of recent critics, such as Michael Pollan and Eric Schlosser, have pointed out that the system of American agricultural policies and institutions that has developed over the past few decades on an industrial/business (rather than ecological) model has led in some very problematic directions for farmers, eaters, and society in general. The proposals presented by Vlisack and the agricultural industry today seem focused mainly on mitigating the impacts of climate change on that agricultural model, rather than mitigating carbon, or more importantly, addressing how farmers can begin to implement strategies to cope with the growing risks they will face.
A common starting point for ag-related sessions at Copenhagen is the huge challenges facing agriculture in coming decades: the prospect of feeding as many as 3 billion more people globally (which agricultural policy has long anticipated) is now topped off with climate change impacts facing farmers, such as increased and new pests, water limitations, greater weather/climate variability (eg droughts), altered productivity/respiration, shifting stresses on livestock (eg greater summer heat mortality), and many more. These are on top of policies looking at agricultural land not only for food, but as a supplier of biofuels, not to mention finding space and time to conserve habitat and soil.
As one commentator here put it, it will be impossible to maximize food production, ecosystem services, biofuels - and now carbon sequestration, on the same acre. Improving on the current situation requires more optimal land use- driven mainly by better policies and institutions.
US Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack arrived in Copenhagen today to announce his department's policy response to climate change - and in light of the immense challenges, it was remarkably timid. He used the opportunity to announce an agreement with dairy producers to make greater use of "cow power" - turning manure-based methane into electricity. Vilsack and the industry rep he appeared with touted the benefits as mitigation of carbon, decreased dependence on fossil fuels, and increased spending in rural communities. The president of the National Corn Growers Association, who also appeared, pointed out that at least on his farm, per bushel energy use ("carbon intensity," rather than absolute amounts, since yields have gone up simultaneously) has decreased over the past few decades due to technological change, and expressed hope that this trend would continue. The panel also noted that carbon credits are becoming a new farm commodity, bought and sold on the Chicago exchange, and likely to becoming an increasing source of income for American farmers as cap & trade-type legislation pushes forward.
Perhaps this is not surprising, but despite the clear distinction that the US delegation has been making about the new American commitment to tackling climate change under President Obama, the discussion led by Vilsack placed all the attention on voluntary measures and market incentives, continuing the hallmark of Bush (and prior)-era reaction to the challenges of climate change.
Farmers are going to be at the front line of climate change - and the people they feed right behind them. A variety of recent critics, such as Michael Pollan and Eric Schlosser, have pointed out that the system of American agricultural policies and institutions that has developed over the past few decades on an industrial/business (rather than ecological) model has led in some very problematic directions for farmers, eaters, and society in general. The proposals presented by Vlisack and the agricultural industry today seem focused mainly on mitigating the impacts of climate change on that agricultural model, rather than mitigating carbon, or more importantly, addressing how farmers can begin to implement strategies to cope with the growing risks they will face.
Q&A
Pretty good Q&A with Any Revkin, the NYTimes reporter who is here this week. Maybe if you all post good questions we can make Mark answer them.
Podcars
Jane Lubchenco gave a talk this morning in the U.S. Center about the interactions between atmospheric climate change and oceans. She is currently the director of NOAA but is essentially an academic researcher (Oregon State University) who has been successful at translating her research interests to public policy. So much so that she is now a key player in setting environmental policy related to the oceans and the atmosphere.
The story behind the scientific results she was presenting, while scary, is nothing new. The data she used to illustrate her points have appeared in print in peer-reviewed scientific journals for years. The pattern that has repeated itself over and over again throughout the course of these meetings is that the science behind these changes is known. We know what is happening. We have some of the most complex scientific monitoring instruments ever known watching environmental systems constantly. As Lubchenco put it, "some people have talked about climate change as a theory but it's not, it is a set of empirical observations."
Science underpins and informs how we model what will happen in the future based on current trends and patterns. It is a practice that can identify the consequences of what we do or what we fail to do. In this, the voices heard throughout the scientific literature and the discussions here in Copenhagen are clear. Global average temperatures are rising and we have done nothing substantial yet to stop them. We are simply watching them rise.
So if the world's experts are saying the same things, which frankly sound pretty frightening to me, why is it that Tiger Woods having an affair and losing a sponsor gets 5.5 minutes on the nightly news in the U.S. and international talks on a future international framework for mitigating and adapting to climate change gets about 60 seconds? There seems to be a fundamental disconnect between what an overwhelming landslide of evidence is telling us and our ability to care about it at a personal or governmental level.
To a certain extent, it does appear as though some in the current US administration understand what is at stake here. They have trotted out an impressive number of high level officials to give briefings here on the current state of the science in regards to climate change and to give the impression that the US is committed to work towards a solution. The heads of EPA, Interior, Agriculture, NOAA, Commerce, and Energy have all travelled to Copenhagen to speak in a room no larger than an ordinary classroom. So why doesn't the U.S. government do anything to lead an international agreement on addressing these problems?
The simple truth may just be - they can't. There is no public support for the painful solutions that would be required for us to change the ways in which we interact with the environment around us. What support does exist is fickle. Many people don't even acknowledge there is a problem in the first place and view it more as a political opinion than a scientific reality. We like to think that we are good stewards of the land, we have a self-image that is green, but Americans consume more resources, cause more environmental damage per person than any other single group of people in the world.
Every major piece of legislation designed to protect the environment that Congress has ever passed occurred during a flurry of activity that ended in 1974. The Nixon administration. The creation of the US Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the passage of the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Pesticide Control Act, Endangered Species Act, and Safe Drinking Water Act all passed with bipartisan majorities by 1974. Since that time, most have been weakened by additional legislation not strengthened.
We know that science has pointed out all sorts of threats to our health and safety in the years since 1974 so what explains this lack of action? Is this reflective of public disinterest, public ignorance, a misunderstanding of long-term risk, unwillingness to constrain economic interests for the public good, deep-seated distrust in governmental motivation, efficiency or effectiveness, deep-seated distrust in science? I think a case can be made for each one of these, or all of these factors playing some role in the unwillingness of Americans to do anything about curbing our self-destructive tendencies.
The so-called "Climategate" scandal provides a ready-made political solution for those who value political leverage over scientific reality. In the end, it reinforces the idea that science and scientists can not be trusted instead of seeing it for what it was - an example of poor judgment and bad practice. Government, academia, corporations, religious institutions, and scientific organizations are all human institutions populated by fallible people. Oversight would never be necessary if this were not so.
In 2007, a CBS News/New York Times Poll asked people to rate how serious a problem global warming poses. Over 52% claimed it should be one of the highest priorities for government leaders to solve. The same Poll was repeated two weeks ago. The number of respondents claiming it was one of the highest priorities dropped to 37%. Nearly as many, 23% said it is not a serious problem and we should worry about it later. When exactly would be a good time?
Mark and I ran into a group of people from Sweden this weekend that had traveled to Copenhagen from Stockholm to promote an idea they have for how to make the world a little better place - podcars. Small, personalized electric pods that would run on a rail system and automatically take you anywhere you wanted to go like a personalized version of public transit. While I am not proud of my initial reaction to their idea, meeting them made me think. They weren't interested in promoting this idea because they owned a podcar factory. As far as I could tell, they had no personal stake in the matter other than passion and interest.
Most Americans, me included, are so cynical that everything is perceived to be driven by personal interest, political motivation, or desire for power. Because of this we tend to distrust everyone and everything we hear unless it supports what we already think to be the case. What I finally saw was that these Swedes had an image of how they wanted to make the world a little bit better and they were working hard to see that something was done about it. It was a positive vision. They trusted that the future could be better than it is now. What do you want the world to look like when your kids and grandkids grow up? Can you see a positive picture of the future? What are you willing to do to make it happen?
The story behind the scientific results she was presenting, while scary, is nothing new. The data she used to illustrate her points have appeared in print in peer-reviewed scientific journals for years. The pattern that has repeated itself over and over again throughout the course of these meetings is that the science behind these changes is known. We know what is happening. We have some of the most complex scientific monitoring instruments ever known watching environmental systems constantly. As Lubchenco put it, "some people have talked about climate change as a theory but it's not, it is a set of empirical observations."
Science underpins and informs how we model what will happen in the future based on current trends and patterns. It is a practice that can identify the consequences of what we do or what we fail to do. In this, the voices heard throughout the scientific literature and the discussions here in Copenhagen are clear. Global average temperatures are rising and we have done nothing substantial yet to stop them. We are simply watching them rise.
So if the world's experts are saying the same things, which frankly sound pretty frightening to me, why is it that Tiger Woods having an affair and losing a sponsor gets 5.5 minutes on the nightly news in the U.S. and international talks on a future international framework for mitigating and adapting to climate change gets about 60 seconds? There seems to be a fundamental disconnect between what an overwhelming landslide of evidence is telling us and our ability to care about it at a personal or governmental level.
To a certain extent, it does appear as though some in the current US administration understand what is at stake here. They have trotted out an impressive number of high level officials to give briefings here on the current state of the science in regards to climate change and to give the impression that the US is committed to work towards a solution. The heads of EPA, Interior, Agriculture, NOAA, Commerce, and Energy have all travelled to Copenhagen to speak in a room no larger than an ordinary classroom. So why doesn't the U.S. government do anything to lead an international agreement on addressing these problems?
The simple truth may just be - they can't. There is no public support for the painful solutions that would be required for us to change the ways in which we interact with the environment around us. What support does exist is fickle. Many people don't even acknowledge there is a problem in the first place and view it more as a political opinion than a scientific reality. We like to think that we are good stewards of the land, we have a self-image that is green, but Americans consume more resources, cause more environmental damage per person than any other single group of people in the world.
Every major piece of legislation designed to protect the environment that Congress has ever passed occurred during a flurry of activity that ended in 1974. The Nixon administration. The creation of the US Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the passage of the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Pesticide Control Act, Endangered Species Act, and Safe Drinking Water Act all passed with bipartisan majorities by 1974. Since that time, most have been weakened by additional legislation not strengthened.
We know that science has pointed out all sorts of threats to our health and safety in the years since 1974 so what explains this lack of action? Is this reflective of public disinterest, public ignorance, a misunderstanding of long-term risk, unwillingness to constrain economic interests for the public good, deep-seated distrust in governmental motivation, efficiency or effectiveness, deep-seated distrust in science? I think a case can be made for each one of these, or all of these factors playing some role in the unwillingness of Americans to do anything about curbing our self-destructive tendencies.
The so-called "Climategate" scandal provides a ready-made political solution for those who value political leverage over scientific reality. In the end, it reinforces the idea that science and scientists can not be trusted instead of seeing it for what it was - an example of poor judgment and bad practice. Government, academia, corporations, religious institutions, and scientific organizations are all human institutions populated by fallible people. Oversight would never be necessary if this were not so.
In 2007, a CBS News/New York Times Poll asked people to rate how serious a problem global warming poses. Over 52% claimed it should be one of the highest priorities for government leaders to solve. The same Poll was repeated two weeks ago. The number of respondents claiming it was one of the highest priorities dropped to 37%. Nearly as many, 23% said it is not a serious problem and we should worry about it later. When exactly would be a good time?
Mark and I ran into a group of people from Sweden this weekend that had traveled to Copenhagen from Stockholm to promote an idea they have for how to make the world a little better place - podcars. Small, personalized electric pods that would run on a rail system and automatically take you anywhere you wanted to go like a personalized version of public transit. While I am not proud of my initial reaction to their idea, meeting them made me think. They weren't interested in promoting this idea because they owned a podcar factory. As far as I could tell, they had no personal stake in the matter other than passion and interest.
Most Americans, me included, are so cynical that everything is perceived to be driven by personal interest, political motivation, or desire for power. Because of this we tend to distrust everyone and everything we hear unless it supports what we already think to be the case. What I finally saw was that these Swedes had an image of how they wanted to make the world a little bit better and they were working hard to see that something was done about it. It was a positive vision. They trusted that the future could be better than it is now. What do you want the world to look like when your kids and grandkids grow up? Can you see a positive picture of the future? What are you willing to do to make it happen?
Environmental change happening faster than predicted
A consistent theme that has emerged in science-based presentations in Copenhagen US
Observations of oceans, for example - as described by head NOAA administrator Jane Lubchenco this morning, show that their heat content is accelerating. The annual appearance of hypoxic zones in the most productive parts of the oceans (such as off the California and South American coasts) has been unprecedented over the last 8 years – with as much as 2/3 of the water column depleted of oxygen, with severe impacts (mortality) propagating through the food web. Expansion of low productivity zones, especially in the western equatorial Pacific, has grown 15%. And ocean acidification (see earlier post) is rapidly emerging as a new “surprise” not considered much in understanding of greenhouse gas impacts just a few years ago. Conversely, the uptake of CO2 by the oceans has slowed over the past decade – bad news because up until now ¼ of carbon emissions have been removed from the atmosphere by the oceans (another ¼ by terrestrial ecosystems). This disrupts the assumptions the negotiators are working with when translating the quantity of emissions to atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
The evidence that Lubchenco and Scott Doney (Woods Hole) presented this morning point to fundamental changes in environmental processes – specifically the patterns of circulation of the atmosphere and ocean, that produce consequences like reduced upwelling in productive zones, or in the case of the accelerating circumpolar winds around Antarctica, drawing CO2 up from the deep ocean, and actually venting it to the atmosphere there.
The presentations by US scientists over the past week are clearly at the forefront of global understanding of environmental change – and most of them are alarming, with the alarms becoming even louder. It’s therefore extremely disheartening to seeLines Part 2
The registration attempt number three was finally successful for me. Arriving at 4:30 in the mourning I found the line already started with five people. The lines quickly grew by 6 AM. This was the lines at 6.
The press has also taken interest in this story sending reporter and new cameras to the site to document what is going on. Questions asked by reporters were " If you don't get registered today what will you do?"
News articles of the crowds forming in the local newspaper. Today they metro station has closed because the masses of people surrounding the area makes the station not able to be used.
The UN also sent out some reps explaining the policy changes of the secondary pass system which went into effect today. Basically each delegation received a set amount of secondary passes needed to enter the Bella Center. The number of passes are less then your total delegation, therefore each delegation has to choose who to send in. The passes can be shared, but only one person can use it at a time. They passed around this memo through the people in the lines.
Many people were unaware of the secondary pass and were turned away. To say they were disappointed is an understatement.
The lines were a hard part of this conference. When I finally made it inside to register, it was a happy moment for me. Spending all day in line for nothing yesterday, till today where I went at 4:30 am to start the line, was all worth it to get my pass into the center.
The UN however did not coordinate this conference well. I hope they learn from COP15 for the COP16. They should either limit number of delegates, or have proper center to host the number of people. The Bella Center is design to hold 15,000 people. On Monday the Center had 40,000 people in it. Today they limited it to 20,000 people cutting off people from entering when the limit is reached.
The Earth is Blue
“Mankinds footprint in the oceans is now clearly detectable - it is warmer, more acidic, and less diverse.” (Stein 2009)
There are people here from the Meteorological Office at the Hadley Center in Britain talking about what they do best - models. Theirs is one of a number of climate models that churns out results telling us how the atmosphere is likely to behave under different sets of circumstances. These are the famous/infamous GCM's we have heard a lot about.
These models are incredibly complicated because they are trying to replicate or mimic really complicated patterns in environmental systems. They do have their blind spots though and it is worth knowing what and where these are because they tell us something about the limitations of the model, and ultimately it is as important to know what the models do not tell us as it is to know what they do tell us. It is also helpful in knowing whether the models are likely to over-predict or under-predict warming trends looking into the future.
Let's start simple. There is a great deal of concern about Arctic sea ice (think of the plight of the Polar Bears). So much of it has melted back seasonally in recent years that shipping companies have started placing bets on new east-west routes being open in the Arctic Ocean. The great search for the Northwest Passage may finally be over. Even where the ice does not completely melt away, it is thinner than we have ever seen it before. It is expected that atmospheric warming in the high latitudes will result in an ice free Arctic Ocean during the summer months sometime between 2030-2060.
Once the Arctic goes ice free in summers, there are a number of feedbacks expected to occur. What is unknown is the rate at which these feedback mechanisms will kick in or the secondary effects these changes will likely have on other aspects of the environmental system.
As ice disappears, surface reflectance decreases tremendously resulting in an overall increase in the amount of sunlight which will be absorbed by the seawater and transformed into heat (where previously it would have been reflected back to space without ever being transformed into heat). Think of putting something reflective in your cars windshield in the summertime. The net effect is to keep the sunlight from entering your car and being transformed into heat. Now take away that reflector and imagine how hot that seat will feel when you sit down. In effect, this is what is happening in the Arctic as the ice melts back.
The melting icepack won't increase sea levels any because it is already floating over the Arctic Ocean in the same way that drinks don't overflow the glass when the ice melts. However, as water warms it expands slightly in volume. This means that worldwide warming of seawater will result in thermal expansion which will result in higher sea levels even if not one extra drop of glacial water enters the oceans.
As ice disappears, it is expected that the Arctic will quickly begin absorbing atmospheric CO2 at a rate higher than is occurring now in other areas of the world's oceans. This will, in turn, dramatically accelerate ocean acidification.
The oceans are capable of absorbing tremendous amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere, which is a good thing unless you reach conditions of saturation. That is because as saturation is reached, ocean water will literally become corrosive to exoskeletons and shells of ocean critters. Any animal that has a hard exoskeleton or shell (mussels, snails, shrimp, lobster, coral, clams, etc) is likely to be affected by this. Especially disturbing is this effect on phytoplankton and zooplankton. They don't sound very interesting but they are the base of the food chain for a tremendous number of things that swim.
We are already seeing hints of this occurring now. Many oyster larvae off the west coast of the U.S. no longer survive to maturity. Losing or even damaging such an important commercial fishery would be a huge economic blow to fishermen who have already taken severe hits because of local salmon populations declining.
Earlier in the week we heard a couple of NOAA researchers discuss ocean acidification and how this problem was different from the atmospheric complexities and uncertainties of global climate change. They made three essential points:
1) Ocean acidification is mechanistically simple. We know how it works. It is based on simple principles we understand and is no more complicated chemically than soda water. It is essentially the same process that causes water to have a corrosive effect on the subsurface and create caves.
In an interesting side note, one proposal floated recently by the authors of Superfreakonomics was to shoot large quantities of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere to increase reflectance and temporarily cool the atmosphere. One of the many problems with this proposal is that most of this material shot up into the stratosphere would eventually also be absorbed by the oceans. This in turn would make the ocean water absorb CO2 much more efficiently - it would speed it up. So the Superfreakonomics guys are advocating a simple solution to atmospheric warming that will sell a lot of books but will almost certainly kill the oceans, or at least kill them much, much faster.
2) There are fewer options for dealing with ocean acidification. Pretty much the only option for reducing the rate and extent of the problem is to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that the oceans can absorb. That's it. There are no quick fixes or other ways to forestall the inevitable absorption of CO2 by the oceans.
3) Lastly this issue of ocean acidification is more urgent than atmospheric warming. While the models predict very bad scenarios driven by atmospheric warming still a few decades away, acidification levels for most oceans around the world left the "safe" range back in the 1990's. Many waters are currently at a critical stage where they become corrosive at the surface for extended periods of time in the summer months. Hope you don't like oysters. If nothing is done quickly, NOAA describes acidification reaching catastrophic levels by 2040, way too soon for the development of complicated technologies such as carbon capture and storage (think "Clean Coal"). The good news is that by the time the Arctic sea ice melts back and causes a spike in ocean acidification, much of the wildlife with hard shells and exoskeletons may already be long gone as will the fish that depend on them for their survival. They won't have to endure that last indignity.
There are people here from the Meteorological Office at the Hadley Center in Britain talking about what they do best - models. Theirs is one of a number of climate models that churns out results telling us how the atmosphere is likely to behave under different sets of circumstances. These are the famous/infamous GCM's we have heard a lot about.
These models are incredibly complicated because they are trying to replicate or mimic really complicated patterns in environmental systems. They do have their blind spots though and it is worth knowing what and where these are because they tell us something about the limitations of the model, and ultimately it is as important to know what the models do not tell us as it is to know what they do tell us. It is also helpful in knowing whether the models are likely to over-predict or under-predict warming trends looking into the future.
Let's start simple. There is a great deal of concern about Arctic sea ice (think of the plight of the Polar Bears). So much of it has melted back seasonally in recent years that shipping companies have started placing bets on new east-west routes being open in the Arctic Ocean. The great search for the Northwest Passage may finally be over. Even where the ice does not completely melt away, it is thinner than we have ever seen it before. It is expected that atmospheric warming in the high latitudes will result in an ice free Arctic Ocean during the summer months sometime between 2030-2060.
Once the Arctic goes ice free in summers, there are a number of feedbacks expected to occur. What is unknown is the rate at which these feedback mechanisms will kick in or the secondary effects these changes will likely have on other aspects of the environmental system.
As ice disappears, surface reflectance decreases tremendously resulting in an overall increase in the amount of sunlight which will be absorbed by the seawater and transformed into heat (where previously it would have been reflected back to space without ever being transformed into heat). Think of putting something reflective in your cars windshield in the summertime. The net effect is to keep the sunlight from entering your car and being transformed into heat. Now take away that reflector and imagine how hot that seat will feel when you sit down. In effect, this is what is happening in the Arctic as the ice melts back.
The melting icepack won't increase sea levels any because it is already floating over the Arctic Ocean in the same way that drinks don't overflow the glass when the ice melts. However, as water warms it expands slightly in volume. This means that worldwide warming of seawater will result in thermal expansion which will result in higher sea levels even if not one extra drop of glacial water enters the oceans.
As ice disappears, it is expected that the Arctic will quickly begin absorbing atmospheric CO2 at a rate higher than is occurring now in other areas of the world's oceans. This will, in turn, dramatically accelerate ocean acidification.
The oceans are capable of absorbing tremendous amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere, which is a good thing unless you reach conditions of saturation. That is because as saturation is reached, ocean water will literally become corrosive to exoskeletons and shells of ocean critters. Any animal that has a hard exoskeleton or shell (mussels, snails, shrimp, lobster, coral, clams, etc) is likely to be affected by this. Especially disturbing is this effect on phytoplankton and zooplankton. They don't sound very interesting but they are the base of the food chain for a tremendous number of things that swim.
We are already seeing hints of this occurring now. Many oyster larvae off the west coast of the U.S. no longer survive to maturity. Losing or even damaging such an important commercial fishery would be a huge economic blow to fishermen who have already taken severe hits because of local salmon populations declining.
Earlier in the week we heard a couple of NOAA researchers discuss ocean acidification and how this problem was different from the atmospheric complexities and uncertainties of global climate change. They made three essential points:
1) Ocean acidification is mechanistically simple. We know how it works. It is based on simple principles we understand and is no more complicated chemically than soda water. It is essentially the same process that causes water to have a corrosive effect on the subsurface and create caves.
In an interesting side note, one proposal floated recently by the authors of Superfreakonomics was to shoot large quantities of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere to increase reflectance and temporarily cool the atmosphere. One of the many problems with this proposal is that most of this material shot up into the stratosphere would eventually also be absorbed by the oceans. This in turn would make the ocean water absorb CO2 much more efficiently - it would speed it up. So the Superfreakonomics guys are advocating a simple solution to atmospheric warming that will sell a lot of books but will almost certainly kill the oceans, or at least kill them much, much faster.
2) There are fewer options for dealing with ocean acidification. Pretty much the only option for reducing the rate and extent of the problem is to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that the oceans can absorb. That's it. There are no quick fixes or other ways to forestall the inevitable absorption of CO2 by the oceans.
3) Lastly this issue of ocean acidification is more urgent than atmospheric warming. While the models predict very bad scenarios driven by atmospheric warming still a few decades away, acidification levels for most oceans around the world left the "safe" range back in the 1990's. Many waters are currently at a critical stage where they become corrosive at the surface for extended periods of time in the summer months. Hope you don't like oysters. If nothing is done quickly, NOAA describes acidification reaching catastrophic levels by 2040, way too soon for the development of complicated technologies such as carbon capture and storage (think "Clean Coal"). The good news is that by the time the Arctic sea ice melts back and causes a spike in ocean acidification, much of the wildlife with hard shells and exoskeletons may already be long gone as will the fish that depend on them for their survival. They won't have to endure that last indignity.
Monday, December 14, 2009
UN Registration Lines reach capacity, people left out in the cold
Today I spent almost 8 hours in line for registration for the COP15. They day was cold at 1 degree C, and the line stretched outdoors for over 300 meter pass the gates of the Bella Center.
The UN really made a mistake underestimating the time needed to process delegates, observers, and NGOs. People around me grew frustrated, I seen many people approach the security staff in yellow jackets, displaying invitation letters. They would say "I am officially invited, why do I have to wait in this line", They would answer, "everyone in the line is invited."
As the night grew, the crowds grew impatient. The usually respectable people, became a protest mob chanting "Shame on you UN" and "We Want In".
They whole experience was a nightmare. The cold, hunger, and energy used to wait in line standing for hours was almost too much to bare. People who where scheduled to make presentations next to me in line were denied access and missed speeches to give. Reporters who registered for a press pass months ago still had to do the line, not making it in to report.
For me, this was my third attempt to register. Saturday I came too late to make registration. Sunday the registration was closed, and now today they were overwhelmed. Tomorrow I will try again and hope to get in. At least people in the lines were interesting to talk to.
The UN really made a mistake underestimating the time needed to process delegates, observers, and NGOs. People around me grew frustrated, I seen many people approach the security staff in yellow jackets, displaying invitation letters. They would say "I am officially invited, why do I have to wait in this line", They would answer, "everyone in the line is invited."
As the night grew, the crowds grew impatient. The usually respectable people, became a protest mob chanting "Shame on you UN" and "We Want In".
They whole experience was a nightmare. The cold, hunger, and energy used to wait in line standing for hours was almost too much to bare. People who where scheduled to make presentations next to me in line were denied access and missed speeches to give. Reporters who registered for a press pass months ago still had to do the line, not making it in to report.For me, this was my third attempt to register. Saturday I came too late to make registration. Sunday the registration was closed, and now today they were overwhelmed. Tomorrow I will try again and hope to get in. At least people in the lines were interesting to talk to.
politicians talk, leaders act
The Greenpeace ship Arctic Sunrise is in Copenhagen harbor with a sign reading "Politicians talk, leaders act." Many of the protesters this past weekend carried signs reading "blah blah blah." Today talks have broken down as developing countries walked out in protest of the lack of concessions made thusfar by developed ones.If there is success by the end of the week, immense credit will be due to the president of COP15, Connie Hedegaard, but she probably won't get much attention outside of Copenhagen. She just completed a question-answer session with NGO representatives, and forcefully stated that she is not putting up with the political tactics that are currently plaguing the talks, calls to delay action to future meetings, or attempts by certain heads of state to pull a new kind of agreement out of the air at the last minute. She urged NGOs to keep up the pressure that is bringing more than 120 heads of state here later this week, pressure that she credits with bringing climate change to the forefront of political leaders' attention, despite all sorts of other pressing issues - as she said (paraphrasing) 'recessions, mid-term elections, wars in Afghanistan, whatever.... Now is the window of opportunity, this pressure can only lessen, it cannot increase from what we have here in Copenhagen'
She concluded by saying "It’s not just the climate at stake…it is the growth possibilities of the future, the sustainable possibilities of the future."
Hedegaard is on the side of action, and is well regarded by many - including less developed countries and NGOs - for her clear thinking, her forceful positions, and because she is on the right side of the issues in what has to be an excruciatingly pressure-filled role. She is smart, articulate, funny - and the unsung leader of these negotiations.
REDI and waiting
I like Steven Chu. It's hard not to like a Nobel-winning academic who gets appointed to a cabinet-level post in any presidential administration. Dr. Chu is currently our Secretary of Energy and appeared today in the U.S. Center to talk about new DOE initiatives unveiled here in Copenhagen. Collectively, they are being referred to as Climate REDI, which stands for Renewables and Efficiency Deployment Initiative. He began his presentation with a quote from President Obama's address to the UN earlier this year when he stated, "the days when America dragged its feet on this issue are over."
Loyal readers may recall that we wrote earlier about the real structural problems the Obama administration is faced with in trying to ambitiously reconfigure the country from one fundamentally dependent on fossil fuels into an economy and society that has a sustainable energy footprint. To put it another way, we have developed ourselves into a box.
Our lives are structured around the automobile and long commutes, there is little to no public transportation anywhere but the biggest cities, and we subsidize the production and consumption of energy from sources such as coal, oil and natural gas. This is who we are. It has fundamentally restructured our geography which is now turning into a bit of a burden.
Our homes, stores, and jobs have all been built around the assumption that people will travel long distances. Thanks to savvy advertising in the post-war days of the 40's-50's, the car has grown into more than just a mode of transport, it is a symbol of our strength, individuality and independence. In reality, most of us could not be more dependent on the car than we are now. These are the problems the administration faces here in Copenhagen. They simply don't have the means to turn back the clock and reinvent America even if they realize that is the solution. Budget shortfalls, political anarchists mining the field of progress, and the complacency of the public all act to constrict the choices Obama has. Faced with monstrously high expectations from the rest of the world, the U.S. delegation in Copenhagen is bound to disappoint.
Climate REDI was announced with much fanfare and support from the environmental ministers of Italy, India and Australia. Chu went on to describe what the Department of Energy was prepared to do about climate change.
I should be clear here. The proposals that Sec. Chu rolled out today will undoubtedly improve the living conditions for many people around the world who will be able to access technologies that are now out of reach. It will also no doubt be very important in supporting the nascent renewable energy and construction industry here in the U.S. It may be the best the U.S. has to offer at this point but I'm not sure everyone will think it is good enough.
Dr. Chu closed with a quote from another Nobel Prize winner, Martin Luther King who stated: "We are now faced with the fact that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and history there is such a thing as being too late." Everyone here would agree with that sentiment and it is nice to hear this from the DOE Secretary. However, he should have included more of the quote. It would have made people think twice about what they should take away from the proposals being made and whether they go far enough to forestall catastrophic results.
King continues..."Procrastination is still the thief of time. Life often leaves us standing bare, naked and dejected with a lost opportunity."
Loyal readers may recall that we wrote earlier about the real structural problems the Obama administration is faced with in trying to ambitiously reconfigure the country from one fundamentally dependent on fossil fuels into an economy and society that has a sustainable energy footprint. To put it another way, we have developed ourselves into a box.
Our lives are structured around the automobile and long commutes, there is little to no public transportation anywhere but the biggest cities, and we subsidize the production and consumption of energy from sources such as coal, oil and natural gas. This is who we are. It has fundamentally restructured our geography which is now turning into a bit of a burden.
Our homes, stores, and jobs have all been built around the assumption that people will travel long distances. Thanks to savvy advertising in the post-war days of the 40's-50's, the car has grown into more than just a mode of transport, it is a symbol of our strength, individuality and independence. In reality, most of us could not be more dependent on the car than we are now. These are the problems the administration faces here in Copenhagen. They simply don't have the means to turn back the clock and reinvent America even if they realize that is the solution. Budget shortfalls, political anarchists mining the field of progress, and the complacency of the public all act to constrict the choices Obama has. Faced with monstrously high expectations from the rest of the world, the U.S. delegation in Copenhagen is bound to disappoint.
Climate REDI was announced with much fanfare and support from the environmental ministers of Italy, India and Australia. Chu went on to describe what the Department of Energy was prepared to do about climate change.
- Double the amount of U.S. renewable energy capacity by 2012 (shouldn't be hard since in 2008 less than 1% of the total energy consumed in the U.S. came from wind, solar and geothermal sources).
- Concentrate on increased energy efficiency, not only for cars but also buildings and appliances (he stated that buildings consume around 40% of the energy produced in the U.S. which leaves room for tremendous savings in efficiency).
- Develop new energy efficient technologies (referenced the DOE arpa-e program for funding new innovative technologies).
I should be clear here. The proposals that Sec. Chu rolled out today will undoubtedly improve the living conditions for many people around the world who will be able to access technologies that are now out of reach. It will also no doubt be very important in supporting the nascent renewable energy and construction industry here in the U.S. It may be the best the U.S. has to offer at this point but I'm not sure everyone will think it is good enough.
Dr. Chu closed with a quote from another Nobel Prize winner, Martin Luther King who stated: "We are now faced with the fact that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and history there is such a thing as being too late." Everyone here would agree with that sentiment and it is nice to hear this from the DOE Secretary. However, he should have included more of the quote. It would have made people think twice about what they should take away from the proposals being made and whether they go far enough to forestall catastrophic results.
King continues..."Procrastination is still the thief of time. Life often leaves us standing bare, naked and dejected with a lost opportunity."
tck tck tck
Many aid agencies, such as Oxfam, are here and are making climate change central to their poverty relief programs.
The Primacy of CO2
In a recent article in the journal EOS, three different ideas were floated about the role people play in changing environmental systems such as long-term climate trends. These are scientists speaking before the so-called “climategate” controversy on the origins of climate change, the main forcing mechanisms driving it, and what we can do to help mitigate the situation. This is important because unless we know what is causing climate change, we cannot effectively figure out ways to stop it. The effectiveness of mitigation policies such as those being debated right now in Copenhagen is contingent on the science being right. In summarizing the situation, they laid out the possible positions one could take on the issue.
Hypothesis 1:
“Human influence on climate variability is of minimal importance and will continue to be significantly less important than natural causes of climatic variation.”
Hypothesis 2a:
“Human influences on climate variability are significant and involve a number of causes (first order climate forcings) including but not limited to human emissions of CO2. These human influences will continue to generate changes in the coming decades.”
Hypothesis 2b:
“Human influences on climatic variability are significant and are dominated by the release of additional greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, the most important of which is CO2. The impact of these additional gases constitute the primary climate issue in the coming decades.”
The authors grouped the last two together (Hypotheses 2a and 2b) because in many ways, they are oppositional views to the first. They quickly conclude that based on the scientific literature, overwhelming evidence exists showing a significant human role in changing climate conditions worldwide. So we can cross off Hypothesis 1 from the list of reasonable answers.
As for the others, a great deal of evidence indicates that while CO2 is a critical factor in the warming of the atmosphere, it is not the sole way in which people have been effecting change to climate. The other factors they mention include the effects aerosols have on clouds and precipitation, soot changing reflectance and absorptive qualities, and changes in land use/land cover in influencing atmospheric and oceanic circulation. This would seem to tilt the scale in favor of Hypothesis 2a.
This should serve as a significant reminder as we wait for decisions to be finalized in Copenhagen that while emissions may be important, any agreement should not be only focused on reducing CO2. While the social and economic implications of reducing CO2 emissions have been well documented in the popular media, the social conditions driving these other forcing mechanisms (such as population growth, urbanization, land management, agricultural clearing, insect and disease vectors, etc) may not be as widely understood.
Many of the drivers of climate variability and their impacts will play out on a local or regional scale (more on this later). Any type of mitigation strategy should look to include elements beyond CO2 emissions. Any assessment of local vulnerability and risk should also acknowledge the uncertainty inherent in these interdependent forcing mechanisms.
In a way, looking beyond CO2 makes any proposed international agreement on climate change far more complicated. On the other hand, if negotiations on CO2 emission caps stalls during negotiations we should be heartened by the fact that there is still progress that could be made on topics not as inherently politicized.
Hypothesis 1:
“Human influence on climate variability is of minimal importance and will continue to be significantly less important than natural causes of climatic variation.”
Hypothesis 2a:
“Human influences on climate variability are significant and involve a number of causes (first order climate forcings) including but not limited to human emissions of CO2. These human influences will continue to generate changes in the coming decades.”
Hypothesis 2b:
“Human influences on climatic variability are significant and are dominated by the release of additional greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, the most important of which is CO2. The impact of these additional gases constitute the primary climate issue in the coming decades.”
The authors grouped the last two together (Hypotheses 2a and 2b) because in many ways, they are oppositional views to the first. They quickly conclude that based on the scientific literature, overwhelming evidence exists showing a significant human role in changing climate conditions worldwide. So we can cross off Hypothesis 1 from the list of reasonable answers.
As for the others, a great deal of evidence indicates that while CO2 is a critical factor in the warming of the atmosphere, it is not the sole way in which people have been effecting change to climate. The other factors they mention include the effects aerosols have on clouds and precipitation, soot changing reflectance and absorptive qualities, and changes in land use/land cover in influencing atmospheric and oceanic circulation. This would seem to tilt the scale in favor of Hypothesis 2a.
This should serve as a significant reminder as we wait for decisions to be finalized in Copenhagen that while emissions may be important, any agreement should not be only focused on reducing CO2. While the social and economic implications of reducing CO2 emissions have been well documented in the popular media, the social conditions driving these other forcing mechanisms (such as population growth, urbanization, land management, agricultural clearing, insect and disease vectors, etc) may not be as widely understood.
Many of the drivers of climate variability and their impacts will play out on a local or regional scale (more on this later). Any type of mitigation strategy should look to include elements beyond CO2 emissions. Any assessment of local vulnerability and risk should also acknowledge the uncertainty inherent in these interdependent forcing mechanisms.
In a way, looking beyond CO2 makes any proposed international agreement on climate change far more complicated. On the other hand, if negotiations on CO2 emission caps stalls during negotiations we should be heartened by the fact that there is still progress that could be made on topics not as inherently politicized.
Getting in this morning
This morning, Mark and I thought we would be getting a jump on things by leaving the hostel an hour earlier than we usually do to get to the conference at the Bella Center. We may have to rethink things further. Our commute this morning actually took an hour longer than normal because of train stops and then when we arrived at the Bella Center we saw these enormous lines which dwarf anything we experienced last week.
One description I read said it best, "where last week was bedlam, this week will be chaos." The video below is a snippet of the line we had to wait in to get inside. This is only the line for people with badges, new arrivals to the conference had to wait in another that never perceptibly moved the entire time we were in line. Sorry for the jumpy nature, I left my steadycam back in Sweden this morning...
One description I read said it best, "where last week was bedlam, this week will be chaos." The video below is a snippet of the line we had to wait in to get inside. This is only the line for people with badges, new arrivals to the conference had to wait in another that never perceptibly moved the entire time we were in line. Sorry for the jumpy nature, I left my steadycam back in Sweden this morning...
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Suspense halfway
Today was the first official break in the meetings since they officially began last Monday. Time enough for everyone to take a deep breath before the final climb to the summit. So where do things stand at the halfway point? It is difficult to say precisely.
Many of the plenary sessions and smaller meetings that are held are often the end result of a great deal of negotiations occurring in small groups. The meetings are used to determine the sticking points that need to be addressed or deliberated and formalize areas where parties agree. It's not so much that there are sneaky back room deals being struck, because that would cause party nations in the official meetings to blow up in indignation. There is certainly no shortage of rumors flowing in all directions throughout the hallways of the Bella Center. I have the impression that the officials in charge of the meetings, such as the President of the conference, Connie Hedegaard from Denmark, are running to and fro communicating with parties on what they are willing to do, what they are willing to cede, and what they can ultimately agree to.
In fact, it is amazing to me that some of the biggest players in the story unfolding before us are countries most Americans have never heard of. Size and strategic importance have no role in determining who voices significant positions here in Copenhagen. I have grown accustomed to hearing the voice of the delegate from Sudan speak first, often, and authoritatively. As the voice of G-77 Sudan wields tremendous power to speak for 130 of the worlds less developed countries.
The bow tie wearing delegate from Tuvalu (a country which has a whopping 26 square miles of land) has become something of a cause celebre here among the NGO community as the face of nations that may literally disappear if changing conditions lead to a significant sea level rise. The delegate from Lesotho is the designated spokesperson for the Least Developed Countries while Grenada speaks for the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS). Some smaller issues have been resolved, some postponed and kicked down the road to future meetings because no resolution between parties is possible (more on these later). The U.S. itself is rarely heard from.
At this point I am unclear of exactly what the U.S. is doing. They have certainly not conveyed the impression that they are interested in taking a leadership role in these talks. They mostly make their views known indirectly through the Australian representative for the "Umbrella group", an informal group of developed countries not part of the European Union. Even European countries have been grumbling on the side about the fact that the U.S. could make further commitments that would fall within the framework of pending legislation in the House and Senate. The Chief negotiators for the U.S. have, if anything, come across as fairly combative.
So where do things stand? Positions have been laid out, divisions between nations or groups of nations have been highlighted, and the stakes of failure have been repeatedly referred to. Perhaps the most often used phrase this past week has been "the world is watching". There are five days remaining for the negotiators furiously working behind closed doors to generate a deal that will be politically acceptable to all and aggressive and far-reaching enough to stem the tide that threatens to sweep us all into the deluge that awaits. The world is watching, and waiting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)