In the first part we pointed the issues concerning the new Copenhagen protocol -to replace Kyoto- once it will expire in 2012.
Regarding the new negotiating text in the Danish capital, however, the question is: Will be the results of the Copenhagen meeting next December as much impact as expected?
Everything depends on confirmation of the aspirations of the EU and what the ultimately commitments that the U.S. and the large emerging economies assume. Equally critical will be what happens with the planned protocol on Reducing Emissions by Deforestation and Forest Degradation. This protocol is intended to finance a number of countries to prevent logging and burning of tropical rain forests. Both for what it implies loss of biodiversity and natural resources, and the fact that the fires are so extensive that cause 20 percent of emissions of total greenhouse gases on the planet.
As mentioned above, US and China have make a move on the Copenhagen chessboard, as they are responsible for more than half of the problem. And that requires from both governments -even if they come with some delay- a conciliation of their interests with the general interests of the world -bearing in mind that without their contribution, nothing is possible.
Regarding to the environment in which the Copenhagen conference has to fit, Anthony Giddens [1] points in his recent book, The Politics of Climate Change, the new green development will require innovative approaches in policies. This will be easier if you come to understand that people change their spendthrift consumer habits more easily if a better future is offered to them -rather than exhibiting an alarmist, Dantesque panorama, as oftenly many old and young greeners, seem to take delight when they reveal their apocalyptic predictions.
In other words -according to the so-called Giddens paradox-, abstract and distant considerations about a large crisis -even if this one is dramatic- do not lead to bring on real changes in attitudes and behaviors. Unlike what happened with the optimistic slogan “Yes we can!” during the former Barak Obama’s campaign, that inspired the change to a better way of life, far more effective evocations of awful cataclysms.
Another specialist of that question, David MacKay, seems much concerned by the new protocol because of the excessive enthusiasm on alternative energies in view of the decarbonization of the economy. Taking the example of the United Kingdom, MacKay suggests that if one intends to supply alternative energies in excess, the entire country would be covered with wind turbines, although the wind does not blow everywhere! And finally one could not get more than 10 percent of the total energy demand. And if you seed the entire useful British farmland in order to obtain energy, not much would be achieved: the resulting bio fuels would not even cover 12 percent of energy needs. Preaching for nuclear energy from these premises is therefore, a step that some want to overcome cheerfully.
Faced to a so huge challenge, the key issue is to transform the current energy system in order to make it sustainable. With a significant increase in renewable energy, but at the same time improving efficiency in the generation and consumption, and without demonizing the nuclear -whose waste and stockings are obviously harmful- it is mandatory to establish a long term plan for its gradual but definitive revocation. The latter, contrary to what so often is done from official positions -as it happened in the greener times of Germany, Sweden, Spain and Italy.
In all these respects, the EU Commissioner for Environment Stavros Dimas, said in Bonn on 4 April, the Copenhagen summit will be the “last chance to fight climate change and while preventing to reach extremely hazardous levels, virtually irreversible.” And, in order to face up these difficulties with some time in advance, the Council of Environment Ministers of the EU adopted a directive in April 2009 stating a package of measures summarized in the 20-20-20 percent plan. That is, reaching 20 percent of energy consumption through renewable energies, improving by 20 per cent energy efficiency and cut another 20 in CO2 emissions.
The target of 20 on renewable energy could be achieved by setting binding targets (from 10 per cent for Malta to 49 per cent for Sweden) and with the fulfillment that at least 10 percent of transport fuel should be of bio fuel’s, hydrogen, green electricity, etc. In terms of efficiency and energy savings, the possibilities are immense, and that could be achieved with the current electricity supply to reach a GDP 30 percent lower than now. Just eradicating the abuses and misuses in public and private lighting, requiring better building insulation -in older as in recent buildings- and replace the most outdated equipment that run on electricity today. For that purpose, an ad hoc “trialogue” should be developed with the power generating companies and consumers.
Furthermore, in line of reducting the impact of fossil fuels, we must promote the use of technologies of capture and geological storage of carbon, in order to withdraw from the atmosphere most of the emissions from industry and the electricity generation. Additionally, the industrial CO2 emissions auctions are urged to become more expensive, with a gradual appreciation of them.
The EU directive above mentioned should be enforced as national law in all EU countries, within the next 18 months following the adoption. And the final decisions will be set depending on what ultimately happens in Copenhagen, where it is expected that all countries assume their obligations -avoiding the unscrupulous opportunism and other fallacious arguments used so far.
To put it briefly, it is necessary to recognize once again that we all live in one world and that the atmosphere has no boundaries.
Related Posts:
Climate Change: Preparing a New Protocol (I)
Climate Change: Upcoming meetings (III)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[1] Sir Anthony Giddens is the former director of the London School of Economics, and an eminent sociologist, famous for having stated the Third Way -a bit old fashioned concept now.
6 August 2009 at 22:25
[...] a look at Climate Change: Preparing a New Protocol (I) & Have a lo k a tooo Climate Change: Expectations for the New Protocol (II) Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Monday 8 December 2008EU teams up with MTV on [...]
11 July 2009 at 22:08
Some aspects of climate change are progressing faster than was expected a few years ago – such as rising sea levels, the increase of heat stored in the ocean and the shrinking Arctic sea ice.
10 July 2009 at 09:54
@ Walter
That doesn’t even make any sense. No one was aware of Alaska’s oil until they started building the first rigs in 1902 (i.e. 35 years later.) And not until the 1930s production was significant enough to make it an issue. Sorry you’re still sore about Bu$h’s gaffes and how he exposed you republicans for the semi-literate t.wits you are. You’re obviously desperate to try and find anything remotely similar President Obama said. It simply won’t happen.
Angela Steyn
10 July 2009 at 09:25
Referring to the long history of Russia-U.S. trade stretching back more than two centuries, Obama told an audience of business people in Moscow:
“Along the way, you gave us a pretty good deal on Alaska. Thank you.”
Czar Alexander II”s sale of Alaska to the United States in 1867 for $7.2 million in gold, around 1.9 cents per acre, was regarded by Russians as a national disgrace ” particularly once it became clear that the province was rich in oil.
7 July 2009 at 19:02
Here’s a greener road to travel
A typical car wash lasting 10 minutes uses approximately 100 gallons of water. What if we could conserve hundreds of gallons of water in one week. Go to a local car wash that uses recycled water or use an eco-friendly waterless car wash.
It takes only 15 minutes, is effective and uses no water
7 July 2009 at 21:44
Better yet, drive your car to the Red River Valley of Minnesota where Canada is attemting to sue the USA for sending them too much clear cold fresh water.
Here you can “waste water” all day long….turn the tap on and leave it on. maybe face a fine if you turn it off.
Seriously…water cannot be “wasted”. In someplaces it is scarce so its price should reflect the scarcity so that supplies are adequate.
Other places there is more than adequate water to meet all uses; even the most trivial uses. To speak of “wasting” it is like admonsishing inhabitants of the Sahara not to “waste” sand becuse ther is a shortage of it for making Concrete in Peoria
Sir Gareth
5 July 2009 at 19:07
It is cynical to use “Greenhouse Gases” as a reason to tax the citizenry. If one looks at the actual science, one can see that it is incredibly premature to tag “Greenhouse Gases” as the significant cause of “Climate Change.” Our current climate is entirely within the range of normal climate variability.
Senator Carrell has done an excellent job of describing the situation on his website. There are tens of thousands of scientists, perhaps even the majority of the world’s scientists are in agreement with him.
The “consensus” of the IPCC does not exist
4 July 2009 at 20:46
In his recent book called A Blueprint for a Safer Planet, Nicholas Stern argues that there is an urgent need for rapid emission cuts. The reason is simple: the more we wait, the harder the task – and the bigger the cost. According to Stern, we need a global deal which should tackle not only climate change but global poverty as well. As he shows, these two major political problems are interlinked and must be solved together. The international cooperation necessary for reaching a global deal is possible only if there are fair incentives for developing countries.
4 July 2009 at 21:10
In his economic analysis Stern pays little attention to politics. Fortunately there is Anthony Giddens and his new book called The Politics of Climate Change. His view is a bit more pessimistic (or perhaps a bit more sociological). Giddens suspects that a global deal is unlikely to occur and suggests that the biggest hope is that the rich countries start to lead by example. He too emphasizes that the time is running out.
Thus, the issue is urgent and needs quick action. We may well try to cooperate internationally or simply proceed nation by nation – in both cases this year and the Copenhagen Conference will mark a significant milestone in the politics of climate change. The most important point is, though, that whatever is done must be done now.
3 July 2009 at 22:36
I hope your little greenie idiots can keep you profitable, because one more article like this and I am not coming back. I am tired of the propaganda. We don’t have NEAR enough information to say that the globe will warm by X degrees. Period. Once you decide to quit pushing this crap let me know and I will come back and subscribe to your blog.
4 July 2009 at 09:22
Quite simply, Dan, you may pass by this blog. No place here for insults and gratuitous offences.
Your comments are quite unfair
3 July 2009 at 20:37
I hope our voices will be heard concerning global warming. Where I live, mountaintop removal is an issue. There are so many problems to address and we are going to have to be the change we voted for. Appalachia can’t stand anymore of the progress and prosperity thanks to the new and improved, green, clean, hybrid coal industry. http://www.wisecountyissues.com/?p=138
3 July 2009 at 18:06
There has been much talk about climate change, but not much about where we will see its first impact.–fresh water ..
Paulina
3 July 2009 at 16:48
If one can momentarily suspend any sense of empathy, I have to say that what we see is a fascinating example of a civilization choosing to commit suicide. The shocking truth is that we do not have any excuses. We have studied to death how we are doing ourselves in. I mean the Romans were drunk out of their gords, and had more lead in their bodies than a car battery. Other civilizations perished by the sword, or assumed that they had lost the mandate of heaven. But we know exactly what we are doing, and seem damned and determined to keep on doing it. Fascinating. Generations of future historians will build their careers marvelling at our stupidity.
Randy Cunningham Cleveland OH
3 July 2009 at 12:45
Too much political correctness, posing, delaying tactics and “business as usual”.
Too little intellectual dishonesty, moral courage and action by people who mean business when it comes to addressing the threat of climate destabilization.
The leaders of the family of humanity can do better and I trust all of us, leaders and followers alike, will choose necessary behavioral change rather than the profane maintenance of a morally disengaged and patently unsustainable socioeconomic status quo. Socioeconomic reasoning is feeble, fundamentally flawed reasoning, and suggests its inconsequentiality, because such “self-interested” reasoning is faulty; it has everything to do with what is economically expedient and socially suitable {as well as politically convenient, religiously tolerable and culturally prescribed} and nothing to do intellectual honesty, moral courage and an appreciation of the practical requirements of biophysical reality. What is often called socioeconomic reasonng is a kind of ‘reasoning’ that cannot lead the human community to meaningfully embrace sustainable lifestyles, to sensibly protect biodiversity and to recognize the necessity for preserving Earth and its environs.
For the past eight dark years economic powerbrokers, their bought-and-paid-for politicians and the absurdly enriched talking heads in the mass media have adamantly insisted that everyone live as they have, without regard either to human limits or Earth’s limitations and in evidently unsustainable ways. Our children will learn {the hard way} from these not-so-great elders the price to be paid for the unadulterated arrogance and unbridled greed of a single generation.
The brightest and best, most powerful advocates of socioeconomic reasoning are leading the children down a “primrose path” to some sort of colossal ecologic and/or economic wreckage, I fear, the likes of which only Ozymandias has witnessed.
Patrick, Melbourne, Au
3 July 2009 at 11:38
The most shocking finding (apart from the immense, life-threatening climate disruption already occurring across the world with a temperature of +0.7oC above that in 1900 and with a further circa 1oC virtually inevitable) is the ~25% probability of exceeding very damaging +2oC if we have as our target the “zero net emissions” target of the present atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) level of ~ 450 ppm CO2-equivalent.
Indeed a survey of the Copenhagen Conference participants found that 90% expected 2oC to be exceeded (see: World will not meet 2C warming target, climate change experts agree ).
2 July 2009 at 19:08
What I find is the public has lost trust. They do not trust the UN IPCC regarding climate science because they state that the money will be transferred to poor countries (the Dictators of which will take the money gladly). Sounds like the UN IPCC has an ulterior motive other than saving the environment. The public doesn’t trust Gore anymore because, as the primary salesman, he stands to make way too much money from Cap&Trade. Sounds like Gore has an ulterior motive as well. They don’t trust the politicians because there is something fishy about the present RUSH to get this new tax scheme passed through Congress. If it is such a good idea why is the Climate Bill now almost 1000 pages? Why is it that no one, including the people who wrote the bill, can say reasonably accurately what it will cost? All this sneaking around trying to get a bad bill through Congress makes me extremely suspicious. Sorry but ‘Saving the Planet’ with Cap&Trade, I just don’t buy it anymore. Cap&Trade is about a new tax scheme, it’s about the money not the planet.
2 July 2009 at 11:52
After reading yesterday’s comments, I assumed there wouldn’t any very substantive comments, especially not from Roger. Thanks for pointing that out.
2 July 2009 at 11:44
For a look at just how hilariously pathetic the science behind the IPCC report is, take a look at this report by Drs. Fred Singer and Craig Idso. It’s 880 pages of delicious schadenfreude. Executive summary available at the website.
Jaap
2 July 2009 at 10:41
Since ice extent did not drop as low in 2008 as in 2007, it’s certainly quite possible that 2009 started with thicker ice than 2008 did. We need to see what the data shows this year.
The point of “old” ice is that it’s generally thicker. If old ice melted but the ice recovered to be thicker in the start of 2009 than at the start of 2008, then it doesn’t matter that it’s “young,” thick ice. Scientifically speaking, age is only a proxy. Ice doesn’t have memories.
1 July 2009 at 19:24
Well, I suppose they took the time out to specially commend Bush and the US for slowing the pace of US CO2 emissions since 2000, then? No?
They also fail to note that Antarctic sea ice is growing, though that’s because Antarctica is still really cold, so increased water vapor elsewhere can mean extra ice in Antarctica even if the planet warms some.
Arctic sea ice is complicated. We had a really really melty year back in 2007. 2008 was fairly close to normal for most of the year, but then in the lowest ice months of September and October, a lot of melting occurred. This is believed to be because 2007 had so little ice, comparatively more of the ice in 2008 was thinner first-year ice and so it melted more rapidly. However, 2008 didn’t reach the lows of 2007.
2009 so far is even closer to normal than 2008, though people are still waiting to see what will happen in September. Did 2007 cause a tipping point, or will it repair.
It is pretty crazy that they can say that “climate change is accelerating faster than expected” and completely leave out temperatures.
Howard
1 July 2009 at 18:58
I hope it snows really, really hard in Copenhagen this December.
Kyle: most of us here are already illegal, according to the DHS.
John
1 July 2009 at 18:52
“That’s because if you look in terms of 5 year averages, rather than day-to-day data, there is nothing new.”
really ? so the statement that “climate change is happening even faster than previously estimated” is a lie? or does “nothing new” = “faster than previously estimated” in newspeak.
1 July 2009 at 18:43
Repair in the long term? Highly unlikely. “Repair” a bit for the next year or two, until the current La Nina phase and low-activity phase of the sunspot cycle ends? Probably. Either way, the thick old ice is largly gone.
Roger, please look at the graph Artic Sea Ice Extent graph. The 2007 minimum was almost one-third less than the traditional minimum. I’m not sure under what definition “one-third” is equal to “largely.” (Or even “largly,” for that matter.) The 2008 minimum recovered about a third of that third, contrary to (seemingly reasonable) predictions that the ice, left thinner after 2007, would all melt in 2008. It’s ridiculous to say categorically that the thick old ice is largely gone. We don’t know for certain, and the hypothesis that it was was the one that led the to assumption that 2008′s ice extent would be even lower than 2007′s. But it wasn’t.
It’s certainly true that the ice extent doesn’t measure thickness, and that thinner ice will melt more in the summer, which is why ice extent appeared normal for most of 2008 but then dropped fairly rapidly towards the end of summer. But it didn’t reach the 2007 lows, so we should certainly expect that we started this year with more ice than we started 2008 with. It still bears watching.
I’m glad to see that you’re admitting that the sunspot cycle and La Nina has an effect. Shouldn’t that surely mean that people who denied in 1998 that El Nino and sunspots had an effect were exaggerating the warming slightly? Shouldn’t that mean that, on average, our opinion of how fast warming is occurring should have decreased compared to the predictions of those people?
Roger, one can certainly agree that warming has been on a 150 year upward trend, and that anthropogenic CO2 seems to have an effect (though the 150 years predates the really massive increase in human emitted CO2), but still agree that the pace of warming seems somewhat slower than according to the most dire predictions in 1997.
1 July 2009 at 18:37
@ Roger
“And I find it interesting that you consistently post tropospheric temperatures, not surface temperatures, which are the ones that really matter.”
Actually, if you’re looking for evidence of temperature change specifically attributable to the Greenhouse Effect, the troposphere would be the first and best place to look, since it’s the exact location that GHGs would be working their IR spectrum absorbing magic.
If the earth’s surface is warming, but the troposphere (the source of the Greenhouse Effect) is not warming as much, then at least some of the warming must be attributed to some other cause.
The added benefit of satellite trophosphere measurements is that they aren’t influenced by sampling distribution irregularities (e.g the greater concentration of temperature stations in the northern hemisphere than the southern hemisphere) and certain elements of non-GHG related noise (e.g. the Urban Heat Island effect).
What, in your opinion, would be the advantage(s) of using surface measurments? One would be a longer data history, predating satellite measurements, but apart from that, I can’t really think of any others.
Beth
1 July 2009 at 18:07
So…Farming temperatures in Greenland for almost a century didn’t irreparably damage the Arctic environment, but slightly higher temperatures than existed in the 70′s do?
Plus, Roger, the 150-year stat undermines your argument, since that means the warming started before there was a significant change in atmospheric CO2.
1 July 2009 at 17:42
2009 so far is even closer to normal than 2008, though people are still waiting to see what will happen in September. Did 2007 cause a tipping point, or will it repair.
Repair in the long term? Highly unlikely. “Repair” a bit for the next year or two, until the current La Nina phase and low-activity phase of the sunspot cycle ends? Probably.
Either way, the thick old ice is largly gone.
1 July 2009 at 17:27
Kyle, of course they don’t talk about global temperature trends, as this is old news. Temperatures have been slowly rising for the last 150 years.
Or are you complaining about no comments about the last 5-10 years? That’s because if you look in terms of 5 year averages, rather than day-to-day data, there is nothing new. Temperatures keep climbing.
http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0127-temperature.html
And I find it interesting that you consistently post tropospheric temperatures, not surface temperatures, which are the ones that really matter. After all, we live in the surface, not in the middle of something that averages 11 miles deep.
Yes, there is a disagreement betweeen surface and satellite measurements, but there is no doubt that surface temperatures are rising. Glaciers, icecaps, and wildlife do not have an ideology – and they are voting with the surface measurements.
Roger
1 July 2009 at 16:33
Curiously, there is no statement talking about actual global temperature trends.
What, you expect actual, good science to be part of The New Religion?
And for the record, I’m not a Climate Change denier. Just fed up with the onesided, ram it down our throats, control-Control-CONTROL bullshit that seems to spring up from most large bodies when it comes to handling Climate Change.
Oh and if you like folding pocket knives, you better stop. Homeland Security and Customs want to ban ‘em.
Kyle
30 June 2009 at 17:09
I am a Democrat who for the past 20 years believed global warming was caused by CO2. Now, I think the wheels are coming off the man-made global warming theory. More and more it looks like is a natural phenomenon to me. A year ago I launched http://www.energyplanusa.com where I try to bring common sense discussion to our country’s energy policy. Since energy policy is closely tied to global warming (i.e. climate change) I set out to find the ‘smoking gun’ that proves global warming is driven by CO2. Instead, I found that the wellspring of man-made global warming theory, the UN’s IPCC reports on climate change, are compromised by politics, and that man-made global warming theorists cherry pick facts and ignore contradictory evidence from reliable studies. In short, there is no smoking gun and the man-made crowd refuse to entertain other possibilities.
Ron
30 June 2009 at 14:37
“Climate change is one of the epic challenges facing this and future generations. It is time to seal a deal. We need a global movement that mobilizes real change,” said UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon.
So … how about airborne ebola?
Roger
30 June 2009 at 12:52
If the a CO2 reduction deal is merely a dream, then at some point in time our children or grand children will live a nightmare.
30 June 2009 at 11:36
The headlines will read “copenhagen, more hot air rising” with a subtitle “as the earth continues to cool”.
look at the science folks. for the past decade the earth has cooled. since the mid-1950’s when co2 began to spike we’ve had the threat of a mini ice-age, the threat of global warming and now,once again, a cooling off period beginning. and carbon dioxide still is increasing. what are you missing here folks? the sad thing is that so many have followed the church of al gore and the new world order as professed by maurice strong ( kyoto and it’s successor the ipcc ). it not only is unfounded but costly. i sincerely hope that those of you that refuse to look at the science and instead blindly accept the trash that you’re being fed have substantial wealth in reserve. ’cause you’re going to need it to pay for all of those carbon offsets, inefficient wind farms, corn-based ethanol programs, etc etc. hey, just saying: dig deep and dig often because your standard of living is gonna change dramatically. the sad thing is that our children and grandchildren will be left to pay and wonder just how stupid we actually were.
Kravetz, Renville, Tx
29 June 2009 at 20:02
Your post has been copied entirely here:
http://watchingthewatchers.org/indepth/15117/climate-change-expectations-and-commitments
I found out as one of mine is copied too.
29 June 2009 at 21:48
You don’t have to worry about it. On the contrary, I’d say it’s stimulant as Watching the Watchers is a wellknown net referrer. I’m personally happy they do so. Moreover, if you look down they point always the author and the weblog where the paper is extracted.
Enjoy JR
29 June 2009 at 11:14
Some people imagine that that the deal was successful after the European Union agreed at a summit last week to contribute $50 billion a year to help developing nations combat climate change, matched by a pledge by U.S. President Barack Obama in December to give $60 billion.
The real life headlines will be less enthusiastic at the end of the December U.N. conference.
You’ll see.
Evan
29 June 2009 at 17:06
Obama pledged 60 Billion a year?
Gee I thought we were in the middle of an economic crisis with record debt levels projected?
Do we have money for this?
Paying for this by going into debt will cause it to cost 40% more in the long run. America is bankrupt, we can’t afford to spend money on every little thing.
29 June 2009 at 17:28
hey Dustin: 60B is 5-10% of our annual Pentagon budget. gee. let’s start saving money where we’re wasting it.
28 June 2009 at 14:34
Two hundred world leaders agree: “the misguided effort to release the long-buried climate-chaos agent–fossil carbon–has enslaved our spirits, broken our backs, and battered our bodies. Finally, we are choosing to abandon this dead end and to embrace a smarter, safer, more secure, and sustainable future. A future in which external *benefits*–chief among these, the fundamental human value of solidarity–are internalized along with external *costs*. The choice belongs to the people–the citizens of the world. We have been asked to lead, follow, or get the h%$# out of the way. Finally, our choice is indeed to lead.”
28 June 2009 at 12:24
“We need hope to live …” -Luis
V.B. Price wrote: “The first task is to remove all obstacles to hope. Hope does not require optimism, it requires imagination.”
I believe cannot place all of our hopes in Copenhagen — our hope builds upon “imagination” at home.
Imagine … distributed renewables: geothermal heat pumps, solar PV electricity, solar thermal hot water, and solar thermal heating and cooling on every “available” rooftop — residential and commercial.
Not to disparage COP15, but whatever level of “good” comes out of Copenhagen in December will be “icing on the cake” — essential but supported by a solid grassroots foundation. Collectively, we are that foundation.
“What are world leaders waiting for?” -Marcus
They are waiting for us to show them we are serious, in actions as well as words.
We need to take control of our destinies with local actions in our homes and in our communities.
Learn more about CityFIRST — it is a tidal wave that is sweeping the U.S. … why not the globe?!
Google ‘CityFIRST’ or ‘BerkeleyFIRST’ or ‘AB 811 Levine’
28 June 2009 at 10:08
Nations have to unite in order to deal with climate changes and engage into serious mutual commitments.
Otherwise next generations will pay our debt by living in a world of spreading diseases, floods and food scarcity.
What are world leaders waiting for?