YOU OWE US! Pay the Climate Debt!

Putting a price on carbon is unlikely to prevent deforestation

2010-02-18T17:34:00.000-08:00

Three straws in the wind: Two pieces of policy news and a new piece of research.

Two weeks ago, a leaked document from the EU revealed that the European Commission and some member states hope to include oil palm plantations in the definition of forests. Yesterday, the Jakarta Post reported that Indonesia’s Forestry Ministry is drafting a decree to reclassify oil palm plantations as “forests”.

Last week, the European Commissions Science for Environment Policy put out a News Alert with the headline “Pricing carbon insufficient to save tropical forests from deforestation”.

There are two related issues here. The first is the definition of “forest”. Currently, the UN defines a forest as any area larger than 500 square meters with crown cover of 10 per cent and trees capable of growing two meters high. Clearly, this definition fails to address the conversion of native forests to mono-culture industrial tree plantations. (Incidentally, the UN has not yet attempted to agree a definition of forest degradation. The latest document from the Ad-hoc Working Group on the Kyoto Protocol, includes two alternative lists of definitions. But the word “degradation” is not included in either list, not even in square brackets.)

The second issue is whether deforestation (including conversion of forests to monocultures) can be prevented by putting a price on carbon. Recent research, published in Environmental Science and Technology found that putting a price on carbon is unlikely to prevent forests being cleared for oil palm plantations. Part of the problem is that a higher carbon price drives up demand for biofuels (as an alternative to expensive fossil fuels). This in turn increases both the price of biofuels and the likelihood that forests are converted to oil palm plantations.

Tokyo CO2 Credit Trading Plan May Become A Model

2010-02-16T00:17:00.000-08:00

Buildings are silhouetted against the setting sun in front of Mount Fuji in Tokyo December 2, 2009.Photo :Gary Hershorn

12-Feb-10
Risa Maeda- Reuters

TOKYO - A plan to cut carbon dioxide emissions in the heart of Tokyo, one of the world's biggest and richest metropolitan areas, may prompt political action on a stalled national effort. Tokyo city proper will set emission limits for 1,400 large factories and offices to meet by using technology like solar panels and advanced fuel-saving devices starting in April. Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama has pledged to cut national greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent by 2020 based on 1990 levels of 1.261 billion tonnes, deeper than a minus 6 percent goal over 2008-2012 under the Kyoto Protocol. Japan has already made strong strides in energy efficiency and combined with an economic slowdown has seen emissions of CO2, the main greenhouse gas, fall 6.5 percent to 1.216 billion tonnes in the most recent fiscal year.

Big emitters like power plants, none located in Tokyo, are likely to respond to volume caps by spending on cleaner energy projects rather than relying on solely conservation or buying carbon credits, according to analysts. For oil consumption, Japan as the world's third largest oil importer, saw consumption fall 6.9 percent to 193 million kilolitres last year, a trend in place since 2006. To cut CO2 by 6 and 8 percent in Tokyo by any factory or office that uses 1,500 kilolitres of oil equivalent, respectively, in the next five years by contrast is a drop in the ocean at less than 500,000 kilolitres of oil equivalent.

If as planned the programme spreads wider nationally and evolves along with variants used elsewhere, it could be a new that thinking brings fresh ideas to global climate talks now stalled because of fierce debates over equity and scale, an academic said.

Copenhagen Accord Turns Direction from Climate Justice

2010-02-08T20:36:00.000-08:00

The Copenhagen Accord has yielded very poor results as the developed countries have given very low emission reduction pledges. By the deadlinen on January 31st, about 56 countries had officially written in. Most of them are developed nations. Not many developing countries have signed up so far. And most have taken a wait-and-see approach.The Accord is controversial because it arose from a meeting of only a few countries which was not on the official Conference agenda – the Convention has over 190 member states.

Moreover, the Accord threatens to displace the legitimate multilateral process mandated to follow up from the UNFCCC’s 2007 Bali Conference.The model agreed to in Bali was to set a binding overall target for developed nations to cut their collective emissions. This was initially set at 25% to 40% by 2020 compared to the 1990 level.

The Copenhagen Accord counters the developed countries no longer have to make any binding commitments.Each country merely submits the emission reduction it is willing to undertake. There is also no longer an “aggregate target”.These fears have now been proven to be justified. The pledges of some of the developed countries are so low that the overall reduction is only 12% to 18% by 2020 compared to 1990, according to a paper by the World Resources Institute (WRI).

Even if the high end of the pledges (18%) is realised, this does not meet the 25%-40 reduction that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) indicated is necessary to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations at 450 ppm or below. Thus the the pledges made by the developed countries do not even meet the Accord’s own standard.

Another report last week, by the scientific Ecofys network, assessed the Copenhagen Accord so far, concluded that they add up to a level of emissions in 2020 that would be in line with a global temperature rise of over 3°C.

GLOBAL TRENDS
By MARTIN KHOR
http://thestar.com.my/columnists/story.asp?file=/2010/2/8/columnists/globaltrends/5634779&sec=globaltrends

55 countries submitted to Copenhagen Accord

2010-02-03T01:45:00.000-08:00

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has received submissions of national pledges to cut and limit greenhouse gases by 2020 from 55 countries. These countries together account for 78 per cent of global emissions from energy use.

This represents an important invigoration of the UN climate change talks under the two tracks of Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol, said Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC. The commitment to confront climate change at the highest level is beyond doubt. These pledges have been formally communicated to the UNFCCC.

Industrialised countries listed their mid-term targets to cut emissions:
http://unfccc.int/home/items/5264.php

Developing countries communicated information on their nationally appropriate mitigation actions:
http://unfccc.int/home/items/5265.php

China as Prince of Denmark

2010-01-26T21:11:00.000-08:00

Analysis by Walden Bello*
January 20, 2010

Like Hamlet, Shakespeare’s conflicted Prince of Denmark, China was caught between conflicting currents in Copenhagen. Its failure to manage these challenges, argues columnist Walden Bello, led to its biggest diplomatic debacle in years. In many accounts, President Barack Obama comes across either as a figure who valiantly tries to rescue a doomed conference or as a well-meaning head of state whose hands are unfortunately tied by the realities of US politics. As the villain of the continuing climate drama, Washington has been replaced in much of the media by Beijing . China did make mistakes in Copenhagen , but the media portrayal of it as the spoiler of the climate change negotiations is neither accurate nor fair. Like Hamlet, Shakespeare’s conflicted Prince of Denmark, China was caught in multiple crosscurrents in Copenhagen . Its failure to manage these led to one of its biggest diplomatic setbacks in years.

The British J’accuse

In the immediate aftermath of the talks, Ed Miliband, Britain’s secretary of energy and climate change, charged that China vetoed an agreement on a 50 percent global reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 or on 80 percent reductions by developed countries “despite the support of a coalition of developed and the vast majority of developing countries.”

Many climate activists would probably have taken Miliband’s statement as simply part of the blame game after the controversial ending of a critical conference had it not been seconded--and in detail--by Mark Lynas of the Guardian, a British newspaper that is usually critical of the policies of Washington, London, and other northern governments. Lynas described the scene at a key Friday night meeting of selected countries as the clock raced to the conclusion of the conference:

This account of a relatively low-ranking Chinese official vetoing the naming of unilateral cuts offered by heads of northern countries is indeed shocking. But there’s something the Guardian piece neglects to mention: the meeting was one of several unofficial meetings with a small number of countries that Obama had called, apparently with the support of host Denmark, in order to impose a deal on the climate conference, and the drafting of the declaration was, in fact, a violation of an agreed-on conference process.

Where China Went Wrong

Where China went wrong was not so much in opposing the listing of the emission numbers but in agreeing to attend these covert caucuses where Obama and a small group of other heads of state sought to unilaterally draft a declaration. China undoubtedly knew that these meetings, which included the leaders of selected northern countries as well as those of Brazil , South Africa , and India – undermined the UN process. In the days leading up to Copenhagen, China had heard its allies in the developing world expose and denounce a covert effort by Denmark to convoke a parallel conference of over 20 countries to push through an unauthorized “Danish text” that advanced a climate agenda favored by the developed countries.

More ono :

Foreign Policy in Focus http://www.fpif.org/articles/china_the_prince_of_denmark

UNFCCC Press Briefing on Copenhagen Outcome

2010-01-24T20:13:00.000-08:00

UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer gave a press conference today to sum up the outcomes of the Copenhagen climate change meeting with the following remarks:It is fair to say that Copenhagen did not produce the full agreement the world needs to address the collective climate challenge. That only makes the task more urgent. The window of opportunity to come grips with the issue is closing at the same rate as before.

But although COP15 wasnt a full success, it produced three key outcomes. First, it raised climate change to the highest level of government, which ultimately is the only level at which it can be resolved. Second, the Copenhagen Accord reflects a political consensus on the long-term, global response to climate change. Third, negotiations away from the cameras brought an almost full set of decisions to implement rapid climate action near to completion.

Were now in a cooling off period that gives useful and needed time for countries to resume their discussions with each other.
Copenhagen set out to deliver an agreement on four essential areas: medium-term emission cuts by industrialised countries; action by developing countries to limit the growth of their emissions; finance to implement action; and an equitable governance of the climate regime.

Those issues remain as relevant as they were before Copenhagen. If countries follow up Copenhagens outcomes calmly, with eyes firmly fixed on the advantage of collective action, they have every chance of completing the job.
more on http://unfccc.int/files/press/news_room/statements/application/pdf/unfccc_speaking_notes_20100120.pdf

Climate Change Negotiation Illustration

2010-01-20T18:59:00.000-08:00

by Creative commons DIPLO Foundation

How it is very complex and challenging..

-sb-

Obama official: UN should be sidelined in future climate talks

2010-01-17T20:33:00.000-08:00

America sees a diminished role for the United Nations in trying to stop global warming after the "chaotic" Copenhagen climate change summit, an Obama administration official said today.

Jonathan Pershing, who helped lead talks at Copenhagen, instead sketched out a future path for negotiations dominated by the world's largest polluters such as China, the US, India, Brazil and South Africa, who signed up to a deal in the final hours of the summit. That would represent a realignment of the way the international community has dealt with climate change over the last two decades.

The Guardian, Thursday 14 January 2010

The First Test of Copenhagen Accord on Jan 31st!

2010-01-17T20:22:00.000-08:00

The Guardian: Jan 15, 2010
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/14/climate-change-us-envoy-copenhagen

The next few weeks will be critical in deciding whether the Copenhagen accord succeeds in halting global warming, America's top climate change envoy said today. "We have an accord that is lumbering down the runway, and we need it to get enough speed so it can take off," Todd Stern, the state department climate change envoy, told an investor meeting at the United Nations in his first public remarks after the Copenhagen summit. "We need to get this up and running."

He said the next year would be critical in fleshing out the details of an accord that - because of the chaos and acrimony surrounding the talks - was only 12 paragraphs long. The first test arrives on 31 January when industrialised countries and the major developing nations make their formal commitments to act on carbon emissions.

Snubbed In Copenhagen, EU Weighs Climate Options

2010-01-17T19:57:00.000-08:00

Stunned by being sidelined in the endgame of the Copenhagen world climate summit, the European Union is debating how to regain influence over the fight against global warming.

Should the world's largest trading bloc and economic area respond to the policy setback and the diplomatic humiliation of the bare-minimum Copenhagen accord by playing Mr Nice, Mr Nasty, Mr Persistent or Mr Pragmatic?

Since the EU looks unlikely to wield either a bigger carrot or a bigger stick, it is left with more mundane options: improving its negotiating methods; working more actively with China and other emerging powers, and with the United States; and meeting its own reductions targets.

More on : http://planetark.org/wen/56341

Housing planning to reduce GHG’s emission

2010-01-11T19:48:00.000-08:00

Climate change that has happening and followed by more frequently catastropic impacts. Let say, flood and the atmosphere temperature that is getting hotter. In Jakarta and other cities in Indonesia experience this event quite oven even worse. As practical and quick solution to adapt those situations, people will try to choose living in the upstream area to avoid flood and for the hot temperature, people just turn on the aircondition button to make it cool. Is that the best solution to adapt with climate change? It would not give the long-term solution, however it will become new problems.

Almost no workplace area that no use air condition in Indonesia. And for the resident area the air condition consumption tends to increase. Air condition requires lot of energy consumption which is about 44 percent of the total building energy consumption. We can reduce the CO2 emission by environmental friendly building planning through natural ventilation and lighting. Make the wide openings that facing each other could let the wind flow in the room. Beside that, planting tree in the yard, avoid setting the bulding direction toward the west. Those are several alternatives to creat a convenience house through environmental friendly way. Besides, it also could have economic benefit due to less energy consumption in the house or building.

Kompas, 13 Jan 09

Does Obama Undermine the UN Climate Process?

2010-01-07T19:44:00.000-08:00

Find here :...

Jeffrey D. Sachs, an Economic professor of the Earth Institute at Columbia University and also Special Adviser to UN Secretary-General on the MDG’s think that Obama has undermined the UN climate change. This statement came out because he think that Obama have not respect for the international law of UNFCCC and ignore of other 187 remaining member countries’s voice by declaring with a vague statement of principles agreed with four other countries. It is non-binding and will probably strengthen the forces of opposition to emissions reductions.

Responsibility for this disaster reaches far and wide. Let us start with George W. Bush, who ignored climate change for the eight years of his presidency, wasting the world’s precious time. Then came the UN, for managing the negotiating process so miserably during a two-year period. Then came the European Union for pushing relentlessly for a single-minded vision of a global emissions-trading system, even when such a system would not fit the rest of the world. Then came the United States Senate, which has ignored climate change for 15 consecutive years since ratifying the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Finally, there is Obama, who effectively abandoned a systematic course of action under the UN framework, because it was proving nettlesome to US power and domestic politics.

Further, Sachs thought that Obama has taken on a grave responsibility in history. If his action proves unworthy, if the voluntary commitments of the US and others prove insufficient, and if future negotiations are derailed, it will have been Obama who single-handedly traded in international law for big-power politics on climate change.
Aside from that, Sach’s opinion is still in controversial in US.

His tought on : http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/sachs161

CSF Reflection of COP 15: It failed....

2010-01-04T19:45:00.000-08:00

Civil Society Forum on Climate Justice has concidered that COP 15 in Copenhagen has failed to represent the Indonesian civil society voice. The two weeks conference last December failed to achieve the Kyoto Protocol and Bali Action Plan Target where it only achieved the Copenhagen Accord and brought the world to a worst condition. The society forum expectation was much more to legally fair treaty binding. Indonesia has supported and signed for Copenhagen Accord. It was not enough effort to fight on climate change if we see the condition of Indonesia as one of the most vulnerable country due to its effect.

The most crucial issue has not been discussed in the conference. Fossil fuel as the major cause of climate change was not been discussed. Most of developed countries has used the fossil fuel and caused global climate change. It is badly needed to limit the fossil fuel usage in the future so that the atmosphere temperature will not rise to 2◦C. The scenario that has predicted by the IPCC even much worse than 2◦C, that is 3◦C. “The only one solution to prevent the temperature rise by 2◦C is do not use three-quarters of the reserves of fossil fuels” said by the Hendro Sangkoyo, one of the representative of Civil Society Forum in the COP 15. Besides that, ocean issue also not been stated in the President’s speech. It is showed the inconsistency of the Indonesian government to bring the crucial issue of Indonesia, even this issue was started been told in the WOC forum. The Civil Society forum also observed that REDD is a mean to get financial assistant.

The Civil Society Forum on Climate Change COP 15 Reflection, 28 December 2009

sb

Climate Change Rises Malaria Risk at Kenya

2010-01-03T23:38:00.000-08:00

The Research funded by the UK government in Kenya found that raising temperature on the Slopes of Mount Kenya caused seven times more people are contracting the Malaria in outbreaks in the region than 10 years ago and have put an extra four million people at risk.

In 1989, the average temperature in the Central Highlands was 17C in 1989, with malaria completely absent from the region as the parasite which causes it can only mature above 18C.But now th eavarage is 19C. So it needs a strong and ungent action to tackle the potentially devastating impacts of climate change in Kenya.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5hT5cEtGozeDOq3KdWKk2wmWnxAmg

Hope for a legally binding treaty next year

2010-01-03T23:11:00.000-08:00

“While I am satisfied that we sealed a deal, I am aware that the outcome of the Copenhagen conference, including the Copenhagen Accord, did not go as far as many have hoped,”. "The leaders were united in purpose, but they were not united in action,” Mr. Ban pointed out, exhorting world leaders to act in concert to ensure that a legally binding treaty is reached next year.

More on : http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=33377&Cr=copenhagen&Cr1=

Obama as Climate Change Villain

2009-12-23T01:28:00.000-08:00

New York – Two years of climate change negotiations have now ended in a farce in Copenhagen. Rather than grappling with complex issues, President Barack Obama decided instead to declare victory with a vague statement of principles agreed with four other countries. The remaining 187 were handed a fait accompli , which some accepted and others denounced. After the fact, the United Nations has argued that the document was generally accepted, though for most on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.

Responsibility for this disaster reaches far and wide. Let us start with George W. Bush, who ignored climate change for the eight years of his presidency, wasting the world’s precious time. Then comes the UN, for managing the negotiating process so miserably during a two-year period. Then comes the European Union for pushing relentlessly for a single-minded vision of a global emissions-trading system, even when such a system would not fit the rest of the world.

Then comes the United States Senate, which has ignored climate change for 15 consecutive years since ratifying the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Finally, there is Obama, who effectively abandoned a systematic course of action under the UN framework, because it was proving nettlesome to US power and domestic politics.

Further on : http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/sachs160

Climate Deal Highlights U.N. Flaws

2009-12-23T00:51:00.000-08:00

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon speaks to the media during a news conference at the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen December 19, 2009.

COPENHAGEN - A weak U.N. climate deal, agreed on Saturday after two weeks of talks pulled back from near collapse, underscored the vulnerability of a process depending on consensus and may mark a diminishing U.N. role.
The principal negotiations took place among about 30 countries and the biggest breakthrough involved just five -- the United States, China, Brazil, South Africa and India.

The final deal was not legally binding and left it for countries to choose to participate - all but four or five were expected to do so -- marking a departure from its umbrella U.N. climate convention.

2009-12-20T20:18:00.000-08:00

Here are several interesting COP 15 Visualized, a part of the WWF COP 15 effort, facilitated by bigger picture.

http://www.cop15visualised.com/

COP 15 Closing Press Breafing

2009-12-20T19:25:00.000-08:00

Briefing the press at the end of the two-week conference, Yvo de Boer said an accord has been reached that has significant elements, but that is not legally binding. The key points of the accord include the objective to keep the maximum temperature rise to below 2 degrees Celsius; the commitment to list developed country emission reduction targets and mitigation action by developing countries for 2020; USD 30 billion short-term funding for immediate action till 2012 and USD 100 billion annually by 2020 in long-term financing, as well as mechanisms to support technology transfer and forestry.

The challenge now is to turn what is agreed into something that is legally binding in Mexico one year from now.

Article on: http://unfccc.int/files/press/news_room/press_releases_and_advisories/application/pdf/pr_cop15_20091219.pdf

All.. or Nothing!

2009-12-17T05:12:00.001-08:00

Yvo De Boer says the world is in an "all-or-nothing situation" and has urged major countries such as the United States to "act now". "We either get a deal at the end of this week on Friday or we get nothing,". "There are two key issues in current negotiations at the U.N. climate change conference here, one of which was ambitious targets and the other was ambitious financing. He hopes the U.S. can help participating parties to "get a solution on both".

De Boer, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), said during an exclusive interview with Xinhua .

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-12/16/content_12658345.htm

Deadlocked as clashes erupt outside!

2009-12-17T04:08:00.000-08:00

The 10-day-old climate talks ran into disputes and paralysis as they entered a critical stage Wednesday, just two days before President Barack Obama and more than 100 other national leaders hope to sign a historic agreement to fight global warming.

Outside the meeting site in Copenhagen's suburbs, police fired pepper spray and beat protesters with batons as hundreds of demonstrators sought to disrupt the 193-nation conference, the latest action in days of demonstrations to demand "climate justice" — firm steps to combat global warming.
Police said 260 protesters were detained.

Full article on : http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091216/ap_on_sc/climate

Survey Showed Fewer Americans Worried By Climate Change

2009-12-16T23:34:00.000-08:00

Many Americans seem unworried, the Zogby Interactive survey showed that the percentage not at all concerned about global climate change rose to 37 percent from 27 percent in 2007, while only 20 percent said they were highly concerned, compared with 37 percent in 2007.

Stephen Harned, executive director for the National Weather Association, and a 36-year veteran of the National Weather Service, exlained further, "Well, I think people respond to what is going on around them. In the last couple of years, especially in the Eastern part of the United States, weather patterns have been quite normal,"

The survey also showed 68 percent of Republicans and 46 percent of political independents said they are not at all concerned about global climate change and global warming, compared to just 7 percent of Democrats.

The online interactive survey of 3,072 adults nationwide was conducted December 8-10.

(Editing by Eric Walsh)

See more detail : http://www.planetark.org/enviro-news/item/55991

BAN still optimist and support financial aid..

2009-12-16T20:29:00.000-08:00

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on Wednesday (3 days away from final deal) in Copenhagen still optimist. He think that Kyoto Protocol should remain in force as long as we continue the negotiations. Ideally speaking, if we can agree a comprehensive deal which can cover all the elements, that is fine. Otherwise, He think the Kyoto Protocol should continue.

Financial support for developing countries is one of the keys in getting this deal agreed in Copenhagen,futher of his statement denying a media report that he had given up a drive to get the summit to set a figure for aid by 2020. In the last interview he said that this conrefence is the largest ever where more than 120 world leaders are going to attend.

Full article on :
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/reuters/2009/12/16/2009-12-16T124443Z_01_LDE5BF181_RTRIDST_0_CLIMATE-COPENHAGEN-BAN-UPDATE-2.html

Copenhagen : Try to avoid 'Kyoto-style failure'

2009-12-16T03:03:00.000-08:00

The formal opening of the annual climate change gathering is marked by political ministers taking over command from their top negotiators. They will then hand over the discussions to the 113 heads of state and government who are expected to conclude the talks with a political agreement, setting the stage for a new emissions-reduction treaty to 2020.

The Danish host of the 193-nation conference was forced to defend herself against sharp criticism Monday that the informal consultations she set up over the weekend to discuss the most contentious issues with some countries was in fact hijacking the talks and steering an expected agreement in the favour of the rich countries. Developing countries outnumber their rich-world cousins at this conference and often use the threat of a walkout to voice their concerns.

Their chief concerns here are securing hundreds of billions of dollars to help them adapt to the droughts, floods and other ravages of a hotter planet. They also want countries that signed the Kyoto deal in 1997 to take on additional pledges to cut their emissions after 2012.

Further, Hedegaard, the president of this conference and the former Danish environment minister said "We cannot dictate anything that the parties do not want ... That is why we have had to use the time needed for everybody to feel comfortable with this."

Even with a successful outcome here, there are no assurances that it won't result in – as one journalist described it here – "a Kyoto-style failure" where some countries live up to their commitments and others, like Canada did after signing Kyoto, continue growing their economy and emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

The big difference this time, Hedegaard said, is that the Copenhagen pact will be a truly global treaty, including the United States and China, who are responsible for 40 per cent of the world's emissions, as well as major emerging economies like India, Brazil and South Africa.

Read more on : http://www.thestar.com/news/sciencetech/environment/copenhagensummit/article/738895--climate-talks-try-to-avoid-kyoto-style-failure?bn=1

Collaborative action on Climate Debt Demanded

2009-12-16T02:33:00.000-08:00

Reparations for Climate Debt demanded from Highly-Industrialized Countries

Protesters from Asia, Latin America, Africa and other regions of the world staged a lively demonstration in front of the Bella Center today to demand reparations from highly-industrialized countries for their climate debt and for the World Bank and its sister institutions to stay out of climate finance.

The demonstrators demanded that on industrialized countries including the United States, Great Britain and Japan to give reparations for the climate debt they owe to the peoples of the South, developing countries and marginalized communities everywhere. The capitalist industrialization of these countries were said to have driven the excessive carbon emissions of the past two centuries, and were undertaken at a very high cost now being shouldered by developing countries who are most vulnerable to climate-induced disasters.

Jubilee South International Coordinator Beverly Keene, from Argentina, stressed that now is the time for the North to clean up and return to nature and the peoples of the South, the atmospheric space they have been contaminating through their model of development based on fossil-fuel consumption and the total disregard for the rights of peoples and of mother earth. Reparations are needed now, not aid or a new round of illegitimate debt, in order to restore our planet and enable equitable development, or buen vivir, for everyone.

Today's action is part of a global campaign to demand reparations and restitution for the climate debt owed by the rich industrialized countries. Since the campaign was first initiated, more groups have also come to support the concept of a climate debt and have come to actively participate in demonstrations calling for reparations.

The demonstration was organized by Jubilee South, Freedom from Debt Coalition (FDC) Philippines, Koalisi Anti Utang (KAU) Indonesia, Grassroots Africa,and many more

Fight for Climate debt !

2009-12-16T00:50:00.000-08:00

A transfer of wealth and power from the global North to South is essentials to averting climate catastrophe said by Tim Jones. East Africa is suffering from drought for the fifth year in a row, South east Asia has suffered from typhoons and the flooding, and India had its weakest summer monsoon for 40 years are several examples of the catastrope.

Fair fossil shares
Kenya, the Philippines and even India still make effectively no contribution to climate change. If their use of fossil fuels per person were reflected across the rest of the world, we would not have global warming. In contrast, this year the UK will emit more carbon dioxide than the inhabitants of what is now called Bangladesh have throughout history. The UK has already used far more than its fair share of fossil fuels.Campaigners across the global South argue that the UK and others in the global North owe a climate debt.

Two forms of climate debt :
Adaptation debt
For these organisations, the climate debt owed by the North is twofold. First, ‘for their disproportionate contribution to the effects of climate change – requiring developing countries to adapt to rising climate impacts and damage – they have run up an “adaptation debt” to developing countries.’

Emissions debt
The statement from southern campaigners says: ‘For their excessive historical and current per person emissions – denying developing countries their fair share of atmospheric space – [the global North has] run up an “emissions debt” to developing countries.’ As well as now drastically reducing emissions, countries of the global North have a responsibility to provide the finance and technology to help the South meet its energy needs, without using fossil fuels.

Financial debt and fossil fuels
The climate debt owed by wealthy countries can be contrasted with the unjust financial debt the North continues to claim from the South. These unjust debts have impoverished countries both by extracting vitally important revenue and by giving wealthy countries the leverage to force particular forms of development on the South.

"The Climate Debt Crisis: the report by the WDM and Jubilee Debt Campaign"

Detail article of the campaign, see on :

http://www.redpepper.org.uk/Climate-indebted

Interview corner : Lies..damn lies of climate negotiation

2009-12-16T00:21:00.000-08:00

Oscar Reyes say on climate change..
interviewed by : Nina Brenjo

What's at stake during the two weeks of climate negotiations in Copenhagen?

The Copenhagen conference is sold as the means to achieve a new climate treaty, but it is clear that if there is an agreement it will take the form of some kind of “political declaration,” which has little legal force.
The EU, Japan and other wealthy, industrialised countries want to see Kyoto dead because they want to see non-Annex I countries – mainly developing countries – commit to reduction targets too. Meanwhile, most developing countries want to defend Kyoto and see new emissions reduction targets agreed by industrialised countries under this framework.

Are the Kyoto emissions reduction targets legally binding?
Yes. The Kyoto sets the target of 5.2% of emissions reductions by 2012.

If the deal is legally binding, how was Canada allowed to ditch the Kyoto targets back in 2006?
Although the targets are binding, there's no international punitive sanction for states that don't fulfil their commitments.

More interview on : http://www.tni.org/print/69416

Poor nations stall talks in Copenhagen.

2009-12-16T00:02:00.000-08:00

Global warming talks were suspended for hours Monday because of a walkout by developing countries, as rich and poor nations struggled to reconcile the divisions that have dominated international climate policy for decades.

In the meantime, developing country representatives such as Bernaditas de Castro Muller -- who comes from the Philippines but negotiates for the G-77 as a member of the Sudanese delegation -- questioned Monday whether rich nations are doing enough to compensate for their historical contribution to global warming.
"We are trying very hard to get the best equitable deal in this process," Muller said. "No matter how small the country, they are still a part of this planet. We have to be all consulted."

This article on :

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2009/12/14/AR2009121400762_pf.html

Carbon Fraud Causes Billions Euro Tax Loss

2009-12-15T23:49:00.000-08:00

Fraudulent trading of carbon emissions credits in the past 18 months has led to more than 5 billion euros in tax revenue losses for several EU nations, statement by European police agency Europol. Authorities estimate that in some countries, up to 90 percent of the whole carbon market volume was caused by fraudulent activities and warned that the fraud scheme could soon migrate to the gas and electricity sectors.

"There are reasons to believe that fraudsters might soon migrate toward the gas and electricity branches of the energy sector," Europol further said.

The carbon credit fraud was first detected by authorities in late 2008.

Find more on: http://www.planetark.com/enviro-news/item/55918

Klimaforum09 calls : System change – not climate change

2009-12-15T22:44:00.000-08:00

Solutios tha people and the planet need to address with climate crisis is a just and sustainable transition of our societies to a form that will ensure the rights of life and dignity of all peoples and deliver a more fertile planet and more fulfilling lives to future generations.

Klimaforum09 in Copenhagen, call upon every person, organization, government, and institution, including the United Nations (UN), to contribute to this necessary transition. It will be a challenging task. For this reason, we call for urgent climate action:
• A complete abandonment of fossil fuels within the next 30 years. We demand an immediate cut in GHG of industrialized countries of at least 40% compared to 1990 levels by 2020.
• Recognition, payment and compensation of climate debt for the overconsumption of
atmospheric space and adverse effects of climate change.

• A rejection of purely market-oriented and technology-centred false and dangerous solutions
• Real solutions to climate crisis based on safe, clean, renewable, and sustainable use of natural
resources, as well as transitions to food, energy, land, and water sovereignty.

Therefore, we demand that COP15 reach an agreement that will initiate the restoration of the environmental, social, and economic balance of planet Earth by means that are environmentally, socially, and economically sustainable and equitable, and finally come up with a legally binding treaty.

Furthen on : http://www.klimaforum09.org/IMG/pdf/A_People_s_Declaration_from_Klimaforum09_-_ultimate_version.pdf

Copenhagen climate summit negotiations 'suspended'

2009-12-14T19:32:00.000-08:00

By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website, Copenhagen

The African delegation is unhappy over moves by the Danish government
Negotiations at the UN climate summit have been suspended after developing countries withdrew their co-operation.

Delegations were angry at what they saw as moves by the Danish host government to sideline talks on more emission cuts under the Kyoto Protocol.

As news spread around the conference centre, activists chanted "We stand with Africa - Kyoto targets now".

But talks between the parties were expected to resume in the afternoon and informal discussions continue.

The countries that have suspended co-operation are those which make up the G77-China bloc of 130 nations. These range from wealthy countries such as South Korea, to some of the poorest states in the world.

The G77-China bloc speaks for developing countries in the climate change negotiation process.

CLIMATE CHANGE GLOSSARY

Glossary in full Blocs representing poor countries vulnerable to climate change have been adamant that rich nations must commit to emission cuts beyond 2012 under the Kyoto Protocol.

But the EU and the developed world in general has promoted the idea of an entirely new agreement, replacing the protocol.

Developing countries fear they would lose many of the gains they made when the Kyoto agreement was signed in 1997.

They point out that the Kyoto Protocol is the only international legally binding instrument that has curbed carbon emissions, and also that it contains functioning mechanisms for bringing development benefits to poor countries such as money for investment in clean energy projects.

Previously during this meeting - formally called the Conference of the Parties (COP) 15 - developing countries have accused the Danish chairs of ignoring their concerns.

G77-China chief negotiator Lumumba Di-Aping explained why the bloc had taken the decision to withdraw its co-operation.

"It has become clear that the Danish presidency - in the most undemocratic fashion - is advancing the interests of the developed countries at the expense of the balance of obligations between developed and developing countries," he told BBC Radio 4's The World at One programme.

"The mistake they are doing now has reached levels that cannot be acceptable from a president who is supposed to be acting and shepherding the process on behalf of all parties."

Last week, the Pacific island nation of Tuvalu forced a suspension after insisting that proposals to amend the UN climate convention and Kyoto Protocol be debated in full.

'Losing time'

At a news conference earlier in the day, UK Climate Secretary Ed Miliband said that for the developed world to commit to further cuts under the Kyoto Protocol would be "irresponsible for the climate".

Some developing nations are wary of the way negotiations are progressing

Developing countries split on CO2
He said it would leave some of the world's biggest emitters without targets for cutting emissions.

Many developing countries have been arguing for a "twin track" approach, whereby countries with existing targets under the Kyoto Protocol (all developed nations except the US) stay under that umbrella, with the US and major developing economies making their carbon pledges under a new protocol.

Kim Carstensen, director of the global climate initiative with environment group WWF, said that much more movement was needed on the Kyoto Protocol negotiations here.

"The point is being made very loudly that African countries and the wider G77 bloc will not accept non-action on the Kyoto Protocol, and they're really afraid that a deal has been stitched up behind their backs," he told BBC News.

While understanding the G77 position, he said the suspension could affect progress towards a deal.

"We're losing time, and that's a serious matter; because for every minute we lose on one issue, the chances of getting to the bottom of the next issue diminish."

The Danish government has yet to make any formal response; but Australian Climate Minister Penny Wong described the suspension as "regrettable".

Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the UN climate change convention, predicted that the negotiations would get back on track in the early afternoon.

"The vast majority of countries here want to see the continuation of the Kyoto Protocol," he said.

"I'm not aware that any countries are trying to block anything."

An African bloc walkout during prepatory talks in Barcelona in November proved unpopular with other developing countries, in particular some small island nations.

Richard.Black-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk

Coalition of Global Day of Action on Climate Change 2009 in US Embassy.

2009-12-14T02:10:00.000-08:00

USA is CARBON MAFIA LEADER of The EARTH DESTRUCTION!

Jakarta, 12 December 2009.
Global Day of Action on Climate Change is part of global campaign during the Conference of Parties (COP) under United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to call on climate justice. Held in Jakarta on December 12th 2009, coalition of environmental organizations such as WALHI, NTI, IESR, KIARA, RACA, KAU, SPI, Oxfam, CSF, and many more conducted an action in front of US Embassy; there were 100 people joined in the action.

Climate impacts have happened everywhere and it will worsen in the future. Yet, until COP 15 in Copenhagen, US as the world largest carbon emission country has low commitment and not ambitious traget to cut emission. US only set target to cut emission by 16% which is far away from That’s the background of the Global Day of Action in US Embassy this year that call the “USA is CARBON MAFIA LEADER of The EARTH DESTRUCTION”.

With only 5% of world population number, US has contributed to carbon emission of 36,1% from 1990 level. Developing countries asked developed countries, especially US, to cut their green house gases emission by 25-40% from 1990 emission level in 2020, preventing world’s temperature to rise by 2◦C; US only set a target only 16 % instead. The low commitment of US will influence other developed country in setting their target emission target and Climate Change Deal in Copenhagen will end up out with poor solution.

This action started with long march from the Indosat Building and ended in front of US Embassy. A theatrical performance showed that US Leader (Mr. Barack Obama) has not enough power to bind on a fair climate change commitment in COP 15 Copenhagen. Then, several activists (WALHI, Oxfam, RACA, KNTI, SPI, etc) spoke in front of other participants, warning US deeply to take their responsibility and sign the Kyoto Protocol. After that activist and other participants build a “climate change refugee camp 2009” in front of US Embassy built 30 tents. In this occasion also, IESR spread out flier entitled “Your IGNORANCE makes the whole world suffers!” to participants, policeman, and several cars which passing through the Medan Merdeka street.

Musicians also participated to this action. Popular Indonesian group band singer of PADI (Fadli) and Krusial Band have also participated this action. Before singing, Fadli, The PADI group band singer, spoke that he did not hate any country but he hate country that made destructions in the world. That’s why we have to fight climate change and the largest carbon emitter countries should take their responsibility.

SB (14/12/2009)

Ministers try to bridge rich-poor gap on climate

2009-12-13T23:13:00.000-08:00

ENVIRONMENT ministers tried to overcome rifts between rich and developing nations in Copenhagen yesterday, just days before a deadline for reaching a global pact on tackling climate change.

Most analysts expect only a nonbinding, political agreement out of the two-week gathering.

Highlighting a spat between top greenhouse gas emitters China and the US, United Nations Climate Change Secretariat head Yvo de Boer said at the weekend he hoped all countries would seek to raise their offers in the talks.

“China is calling on the US to do more. The US is calling on China to do more. I hope in the coming days everyone will call on everyone to do more,” he said.

The ministers were holding informal talks during a one-day break in the December 7-18 meeting involving 192 countries, which will culminate in a summit of world leaders on Thursday and Friday, including US President Barack Obama.

“There are still many challenges. There are still many unsolved problems,” Danish Minister Connie Hedegaard said. “But as ministers start to arrive there is also the political will.”

At the Bella Centre in Copenhagen the European Union (EU), Japan and Australia joined the US in criticising a draft pact that says major developing nations must rein in greenhouse gases, but only if they have outside financing. Rich states want to require developing states to limit emissions, with or without financial help.

Swedish Environment Minister Andreas Carlgren, representing the 27-nation EU, said “there has been a growing understanding that there must be commitments to actions by emerging economies as well”. He said those commitments “must be binding, in the sense that states are standing behind their commitments”.

Indian Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh said his country — the world’s fifth-largest greenhouse gas polluter — would not offer more than its pledge to slow its growth rate of emissions. It has offered to cut greenhouse gases measured against production by 20%-25% by 2020.

“National interest trumps everything else,” Ramesh said. “Whatever I have to do, I’ve said in my Parliament. We’ll engage them (the US and China). I’m not here to make new offers.”

China has made voluntary commitments to rein in its carbon emissions but does not want to be bound by international law to do so. In China’s view, the US and other rich countries have a heavy historical responsibility to cut emissions and any deal in Copenhagen should take into account a country’s level of development.

Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists said rich nations were trying to renegotiate the deal they reached two years ago on the island of Bali, calling on developing nations to limit emissions with financial help.

“It’s going to blow up in their faces,” he said. “The rich countries are trying to move the goal posts. And developing countries are not going to agree to that, no matter how loudly the rich countries demand it.”

The tightly focused negotiating text was meant to lay out the crunch themes for environment ministers to wrestle with as they prepare for a summit of 110 heads of state and government at the end of next week. US delegate Jonathan Pershing said the draft failed to address the contentious issue of carbon emissions by emerging economies. “The current draft didn’t work in terms of where it is headed,” Pershing said in the plenary, supported by the EU, Japan and Norway.

The EU, however, also criticised the US, insisting it could make greater commitments to push the talks forward without stretching the legislation pending in Congress. Carlgren said both the US and China should be legally bound to keep whatever promises they make, Carlgren said.

Hugh Cole, climate change coordinator for Oxfam southern Africa, said: “There has been progress in some areas, but there is still deep division on key issues between the developed and the developing world. The rich countries are still not putting substance on the table in terms of finance and mitigation,” he said. He said that as pressure mounts to secure a deal, pressure tactics would be applied to get an agreement.

“It’s clear that Africa will take a firm line on mitigation and finance, and certainly the negotiators won’t accept a hollow deal,” he said.

President Jacob Zuma and Minister of Environment and Water Affairs Buyelwa Sonjica will play a key leadership role this week, said Cole, as SA is a member of the Africa Group, while also grouped with China, Brazil and India.

“It won’t be easy, as they have to balance their role, but I believe they will stick to Africa’s common negotiating position,” he said.

Global warming could cost Africa about 30bn a year by 2015 and between 50bn and 100bn annually by 2020, reports said. Reuters, Sapa-AP

Delegates working hard on draft deal

2009-12-13T23:00:00.000-08:00

Saturday marks the 6th day of the United Nations climate summit. Delegates at the conference were working through the weekend to negotiate the text of a possible new global agreement to combat global warming. And still, many disagree about the possible new deal.

Inside the conference hall, where negotiations were taking place, organizers said there was progress at the half-way mark.

A draft climate pact unveiled on Friday revived hopes that U.N. talks might be able to work out an international deal to fight global warming.

Connie Hedegaard, President of Conferrece of Parties, said, "The whole atmosphere here has been very constructive. These two texts, that is a very good sign, that both groups can actually come up with texts, that they have civilized and very constructive debates on that and I also think that showed in the plenary today."

But the draft still left open whether the agreement will be a legal document or a political declaration.

Yvo De Boer, Executive Secretary of UN Framwoek Convention on Climate Change, said, "Given the state of play and given the amount of remaining time, we cannot cast that all in a legally binding agreement here in Copenhagen but as the minister has indicated, we do need to do that in the next six to 12 months in 2010."

The draft distributed to the 192-nations attending the conference also set no firm figures on financing or on cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

There were still deep splits on raising funds for poor nations and sharing the burden of curbing greenhouse gases.

Yvo De Boer, Executive Secretary of UN Framwoek Convention on Climate Change, said, "The purpose of this gathering is to reach a result. It's very clear that the industrialized countries will not agree to an ending of the Kyoto protocol and it's also very clear that many rich nations will not agree to only continuing with the Kyoto protocol, so then it seems that there is only one way forward."

The draft continues the system for industrial countries set up in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol by which they are legally bound to targets for emission reductions and face penalties if they fall short.

Outside the conference hall, tens of thousands of climate activists marched on Saturday as part of a worldwide "Day of Action," to urge negotiators to agree to a strong treaty, one that will tackle global warming.

Editor: Zhang Pengfei | Source: CCTV.com

Copenhagen Plan B: “protect the rich”

2009-12-13T19:08:00.000-08:00

Published on Transnational Institute (http://www.tni.org)

Copenhagen Plan B: “protect the rich”
Author(s):Oscar Reyes [1]
Copenhagen Climate Talks (Credit: Department of Energy & Climate Change)[2]

So the rumours were true. For the past week, it was an open secret that the Danish government had already drafted a “political declaration” that could form the major outcome of the UN Climate Change Conference now that a full-blown international agreement is off the cards. The draft text has now been leaked, sparking outrage amongst Southern delegates and civil society organisations.

“The Copenhagen Agreement under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change,” as the draft is titled, would introduce percentage-based emissions targets for all except the Least Developed Countries, fatally undermining the Kyoto Protocol, which draws a line between industrialised Annex 1 states and the Majority World. The text also suggests that financial and technological support measures in non-Annex 1 countries, an underlying principle of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), should now be made conditional to their ability to meet complex emissions monitoring requirements.

The UNFCCC quickly attempted to limit the damage, putting out a statement from Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer that declared that the draft was a “decision paper put forward by Danish Prime Minister,” while maintaining that it was not a “formal text” of the UN negotiating process.

But the leaked text met with an angry response from many Southern delegates. Lumumba Di-Aping, the Sudanese chairperson of the G77 plus China grouping of 132 developing countries, said that the Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen had failed in his role as a neutral host and had instead “chosen to protect the rich countries.” The emergence of the draft text was also met by an impromptu protest from members of the Pan African Climate Justice Alliance, who marched through the Bella Centre chanting “Two degrees is suicide, One Africa, one degree.”

Democratic deficit
Concern stems not simply from the contents of the draft text, but also the secretive and biased way in which it came about. The COP Presidency, which is held by host country Denmark, is mandated to craft compromises based on painstakingly negotiated drafts. In this case, the Presidency stands accused not only of overstepping the mark, but of hopping, stepping and then jumping over it, pre-empting UN decisions with proposals lifted in part from text discussed at the Major Economies Forum, an initiative closely tied to the G20 grouping and chaired by US President Barack Obama.

As Meena Raman, Honorary Secretary of Friends of the Earth Malaysia, explains, “The leaked draft Copenhagen Agreement violates the democratic principles of the UN and threatens the Copenhagen negotiations. By discussing their text in secret back-room meetings with a few select countries, the Danes are doing the opposite of what the world expects the host country to do. The Danish government must stop colluding with other rich nations. Instead it must take as a starting point the positions of developing countries - which are the least responsible for climate change, but who are most affected by it.”

Raman Mehta from Action Aid India decried a “betrayal of trust” on the part of the Danish government.

More “hot air” on reductions
The draft text is weak and vague in its overall ambitions. In reiterating the goal of holding global warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, the text sets a global reduction target of 50 per cent by 2050, of which 80 per cent should come from the industrialised world. These figures look distinctly unimpressive when tracked back to existing per capita emissions, however, with one estimate suggesting that they would allow Northern industrialised countries to continue outpolluting the Majority World by a factor of 3:5.

The short-term proposals are ostensibly more ambitious, with a suggestion that global emissions should peak by 2020. But the same passage of the text misleadingly claims that this peak has already been reached in “developed countries collectively.” This is based on the latest UNFCCC figures, which show that Annex 1 countries are now on track to meet their Kyoto Protocol commitments, but a closer look reveals that this is achieved on the basis of “hot air” emissions resulting from economic collapse in the former Soviet bloc in the early 1990s. Emissions elsewhere in the developed world have continued to rise. The projections for 2020 are further massaged by counting a large volume of “emissions savings” from carbon offsets made in the global South as part of Annex 1 emissions figures.

Strings attached
Whereas the Bali Action Plan emphasises that developing country actions will be “supported and enabled” by technology, financing and capacity building, the draft suggests that these measures would be “subject to robust measurement, reporting and verification.” This inversion implies that the support measures could be withheld unless monitoring is externally approved. Instead of placing an obligation on industrialised countries to repay and restitute their climate debt, this makes any support measures conditional to a series of complex technical asssessments.
Just as significant is what the text does not include. There are no numbers on long-term financing, and there is no suggestion that these will be forthcoming in Copenhagen. The only figure offered is a projection of $10 billion per year of “fast start finance”, a scaled-down version of a plan first presented by UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown in late November. But Lumamba Di-Aping was dismissive: “Ten billion dollars will not buy developing countries’ citizens enough coffins,” he said.

A growing market
The flip side of this lack of financial commitments is a commitment to scale up carbon markets as part of any agreement. The cap and trade proposals currently passing through the US would allow up to 1.5 billion tonnes of carbon offsets per year to displace the need for domestic emissions reductions, a demand that is over seven times larger than the existing supply of offsets through the UN's Clean Devopment Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation scheme.

Although the language on carbon markets remains vague, talk of “an effective and orderly transition from project based to more comprehensive approaches” signals a framework that would introduce a broad range of new offsets, from “sectoral crediting” through to measures aimed at Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD).

“With developed countries offering so little by way of public finance, developing countries are being sent a message that support for offsetting mechanisms is their only real choice to access funds” says Payal Parkeh, a climate scientist with International Rivers.

A coalition of the unwilling
What the “Copenhagen Agreement” leak signals, above all, is a lack of ambition on the part of industrialised countries to make emissions reductions at home or meet their financial and other obligations to the South. “Despite the hype, the talk of ´Hopenhagen´, the supposed political will to ´get it done´, this set of negotiations might be no different than anything that has come before” concludes Rhiya Trivedi, a member of the Canadian Youth Delegation to Copenhagen. “It could be just another round of the North-South divide and power struggle.” Business as usual, in other words.

www.carbontradewatch.org [3]

The article appears in the Climate Chronicle [4] newspaper published at the Copenhagen climate talks.

Click here [5] for TNI's latest on the climate talks in Copenhagen.

* Copenhagen COP15
* Climate Justice
* Climate Talks
* Environmental Justice

Site Map - Privacy Policy - Copyright/Creative Commons Licence - Contact TNI - Complaints procedure - Site powered by Drupal , and created by Koumbit.org.

This site is best viewed using the Firefox browser
Source URL: http://www.tni.org/node/69395

Links:
[1] http://www.tni.org/users/oscar-reyes
[2] http://www.tni.org/sites/tniclone.test.koumbit.net/files/COP15-energyclimatechange.jpg
[3] http://www.carbontradewatch.org
[4] http://www.tni.org/briefing/newspaper-climate-chronicle
[5] http://www.tni.org/article/climate-talks-copenhagen-resource-guide

Klimaforum09 demands a carbon-free society by 2040

2009-12-13T18:58:00.000-08:00

--- On Fri, 12/11/09, Klimaforum09 wrote:

The first climate draft to come out of COP15 is not very visionary, say the organisers of Klimaforum09, the alternative peoples’ global summit, which is taking place aside the official conference. Today the forum offers its own declaration calling for a 100% carbon-free economy by 2040.

Participants at the peoples’ climate summit have agreed on a declaration ready to be presented to the politicians at the Bella Center next week. The declaration has been influenced and agreed upon by many of the Klimaforum09’s participants from developing countries - those being affected by the climate changes in their everyday lives.

"We are pleased that in spite of the many different voices and views we have succeeded in our agreement on this important document. It has been created through an open and democratic dialogue between people and organisations from all over the world”, says declaration spokesperson Paul Quintos from the Philippines.

One of the first to sign the alternative declaration at Klimaforum09 was Indian environmentalist Dr Vandana Shiva. “This is the declaration, which the Bella Center should be working on”, she said.

70 organisations and participants at Klimaforum09 from 92 different countries stand behind the declaration, which recommends the following demands:

- A complete abandoning of fossil fuels within the next 30 years.

- An immediate cut in greenhouse gases of industrialized countries of at least 40% compared to 1990 levels by 2020.

- Compensation of the people who are already affected by the adverse effects of climate change.

- Rejection to purely market-oriented and technology-centred false solutions such as nuclear energy, agro-fuels, carbon capture and storage.

- Real solutions to climate crisis based on safe, clean, renewable and sustainable use of natural resources.

- Fair and just exchange of technologies and ideas between North and South.

Indonesia activists demand US action at Copenhagen

2009-12-13T03:40:00.000-08:00

Dec 12 (AFP) -- Indonesian activists rallied in front of the US
embassy Saturday to urge the superpower to support developing nations
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

About 150 activists from various local organisations chanted "US is
the biggest emitter" while unfurling banners that read "US is the
carbon mafia leader" and "Be a part of a legally binding agreement".

"We rally in front of the US embassy to urge the US in joining
developing nations in a mechanism to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,"
Indonesia Forum for the Environment deputy director Ali Akbar told
AFP.

"If the US fails to act and commit further, then many of those nations
will also lag in the fight against cutting emissions," he said, adding
that the US should take action at the Copenhagen summit.

"We don't want the discussion in Copenhagen to remain raw," Akbar
said.

Indonesia is the third biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, after
China and the United States -- 80 percent of its emissions are the
result of deforestation.

2009-12-13T03:37:00.001-08:00

"Conference of Parties (COP) 15 is kicked off in Copenhagen. This is the
biggest COP ever since, attended by around 30 thousands of country delegates
and observers from all around the world. The outcome is crucial for our
future. It's time when parties are gathered together to vote for the the
future of the people and planet earth."

Drought, flood, famine - it's hot and getting hotter

2009-12-13T03:35:00.000-08:00

By Gerard Wynn
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

UN study shows the past 10 years have been the hottest decade since records
began

This decade is on track to be the hottest on record, according to the UN's
World Meteorological Organization, and 2009 is the fifth-warmest year on
record.

Speaking on the sidelines of the climate conference, WMO head Michel Jarraud
pointed to extreme hot spots this year - Australia had its third-warmest
year since records began in 1850, "with three exceptional heat waves."

"I could go on. There was the worst drought in five decades which affected
millions of people in China, a poor monsoon season in India causing severe
droughts, massive food shortages associated with a big drought in Kenya," he
said.

Mr. Jarraud also highlighted extreme floods, including one that broke a
90-year record in Burkina Faso. As well, 2009 marked the third-lowest summer
Arctic sea ice on record, after the two previous years.

Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at Britain's Met Office Hadley
Centre, which supplied some of the WMO data, agreed that 2009 is likely to
be the fifth-warmest year.

"Essentially what's happened is we've gone into an El Nino," she added,
referring to a natural weather pattern which drives abnormal warming in the
eastern Pacific Ocean and can unleash wider havoc in global weather.

If 2009 ends as the fifth-warmest year, it would replace 2003. According to
the U.S. space agency NASA, the other warmest years since 1850 have been
1998, 2005, 2007 and 2006. NASA says the differences in readings among these
years are so small as to be statistically insignificant.

The hottest year on record, 1998, coincided with a powerful El Nino, and a
new El Nino developed this year.

"It's just a matter of years before we break the record," Mr. Jarraud said.
"It's getting warmer and warmer. The warming trend is increasing."

"It's difficult to say [when the record will be broken] because of the
variability. The first time there will be a strong El Nino the temperature
will be greater than before."

Mr. Jarraud rejected a "climategate" row over leaked e-mails from Britain's
University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit that showed some
scientists' efforts to boost the credibility of climate change at the
expense of skeptics.

The WMO used British - including CRU - and two U.S. data sources for its
temperature analysis. "The three separately show almost identical results,"
Mr. Jarraud said.

The fact that the record for the hottest year has not been broken since 1998
has helped fuel arguments from a small minority of scientists that climate
change may not be as severe as feared.

But Ms. Pope said that temperatures had "climbed slightly" in the past
decade. "There hasn't been a cooling [since the 1998 spike]," she said.

The decade 2000-2009 was 0.44 Celsius above the 1961-1990 average, Ms. Pope
said, while the 1990s decade was 0.23C higher.

*Reuters News Agency with a report from AP*

Beyond Carbon Markets

2009-12-13T03:32:00.000-08:00

Published on *Transnational Institute*

Author(s):Oscar Reyes
Author(s):Tamra Gilbertson

The headlines generated by the carbon trading mechanisms at the heart of the
Kyoto Protocol, most notably the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), tell a
story of a scheme in trouble. But why has it caused such controversy?

Carbon trading is a complex system which sets itself a simple goal: to make
it cheaper for companies and Governments to meet emissions reduction
targets. The Kyoto Protocol saw industrialized countries (described as
“Annex 1”) commit to cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 2012 to levels 5.2
per cent lower than those of 1990. At the same time, a series of “flexible
mechanisms” were agreed to, which meant that these targets need not be met
domestically.

The CDM is the largest such mechanism, with almost 1,800 registered projects
as of September 2009 and over 2,600 further projects awaiting approval.
Based on current prices, the credits produced by approved schemes could
generate over $55 billion by 2012. The CDM takes the form of carbon
“offsetting,” which allows companies, international financial institutions
and Governments to finance “emissions-saving projects” outside the Annex 1
countries.

Although carbon offsets are often presented as emissions reductions, they do
not actually reduce emissions. At best, they move reductions to where it is
cheapest to make them, which normally means a shift from Northern to
Southern countries. Greenhouse gas emissions continue to be made at one
location on the assumption that an equivalent savings will happen elsewhere.
The projects that count as “emissions saving” range from building
hydro-electric dams to capturing methane from industrial livestock
facilities.

These “savings” are calculated according to how much less greenhouse gas is
presumed to be entering the atmosphere than would have been the case in the
absence of the project. But no ways exist to demonstrate that it is carbon
finance that makes the project possible. Researcher Dan Welch sums up the
difficulty: “Offsets are an imaginary commodity created by deducting what
you hope happens from what you guess would have happened.” Estimates vary,
but academic analysis of existing projects suggests that between one third
and three quarters of projects do not represent “emissions savings” by any
reckoning. The companies behind such projects are paid to do what they would
have done anyway, while the credits allowed companies in industrialized
countries to exceed their emissions cap.

*Easy pickings*
Beyond this, one of the most frequent justifications put forward for carbon
offsets is that they should ensure that the cheapest reductions are made
first. What is cheapest in the short term is not the same as what is most
environmentally effective or socially just, however. The cheapest abatements
tend to be generated by loopholes and generous subsidies for the deployment
of existing technologies, rather than stimulating shifts to more sustainable
development paths.

As of September 2009, three quarters of the offset credits issued were
manufactured by large firms making minor technical adjustments at a few
industrial installations to eliminate hydroflurocarbons (HFCS) (refrigerant
gases) and nitrous oxide (N2O)(a by-product of synthetic fibre production).
This picture is unlikely to change dramatically by the time the Kyoto
Protocol’s first commitment period expires. By the end of 2012, HFC and N2O
credits are still expected to account for the largest share of the CDM (28.5
per cent and 14.4 per cent respectively), followed by hydro-electricity
projects (10.8 per cent). By comparison, solar power is expected to account
for just 0.03 per cent of CDM credits by 2012.

As Michael Wara of Stanford University puts it, “The CDM market is not a
subsidy implemented by means of a market mechanism by which CO2 reductions
that would have taken place in the developed world take place in the
developing world. Rather, most CDM funds are paying for the substitution of
CO2 reductions in the developed world for emissions reductions in the
developing world of industrial gases and methane.” In fact, many of these
emissions do not even occur in the developed world—where production
facilities have voluntary opted to destroy HFCs without the use of emissions
trading. Wara estimates that a straightforward subsidy to regulate HFC-23
emissions would have cost less than €100 million, yet by 2012, up to €4.7
billion in carbon credits will have been generated by such projects.

*A fossil fuel subsidy*
Proponents of the CDM suggest that a new balance of future projects will
gradually move closer to incentivising cleaner energy and more sustainable
development. Yet the evidence does not support this conclusion. The most
obvious cases here are the plethora of fossil fuel projects that are
supported by the CDM. To apply for the scheme, a project simply needs to
prove that it is cleaner than the norm for existing power production in the
region or country where it is located. As new plants are generally more
efficient than old, this is rarely a difficult task.

A recent study of new gas-fired power stations in China, for example, found
that all twenty-four new Combined Cycle Gas Turbine plants under
construction between 2005 and 2010 had applied for CDM subsidies. A second
example involves new “supercritical” coal-fired power plants, which have
been eligible for CDM credits since autumn 2007—despite the fact that coal
is amongst the most CO2 intensive sources of power. Fifteen projects had
sought validation under this methodology as of September 2009. This sets up
a perversely circular structure where, instead of envisaging a rapid
transition to clean energy, the CDM is subsidizing the lock-in of fossil
fuel dependence through providing incentives for new coal-fired power
stations in the South, rather than renewable energy infrastructure based on
local needs. With the credits that these new plants will generate, the CDM
is at the same time encouraging a continued reliance on coal-fired power
stations in the North, as well.

*A greener future?*
The growth of CDM investment in fossil fuel power generation is not the
whole story, however, as proponents of the scheme might still claim that it
will expand investments in “renewable” sources at a similar rate.

Typically, the calculations for hydroelectric projects assume that they will
replace energy that would otherwise have been sourced from fossil fuels. Yet
most hydropower projects submitted for CDM validation are expected to start
generating credits within 12 months of their validation. Since hydropower
plants normally take several years to build, the likelihood is that most
projects were under construction prior to their beginning the CDM validation
process. The local environmental and social impacts of such projects are
frequently severe. A similar assessment could be made of biomass power
projects, which simply tend to count the methane (CH4) emissions that are
avoided because it is burned rather than allowed to biodegrade—without
considering the huge emissions caused by cutting down forests or draining
carbon-rich peatlands to set up the plantations that provide biomass
feedstock.

The attempt by carbon offset promoters to distinguish between “good” and
“bad” projects misses the point, since even the most renewable projects are
inserted within a system that generates credits to carry on polluting
elsewhere. Such projects not only perpetuate the old problems of coal, oil
and gas; they often promote local conflict as well. Not designed to deal
with the real complexities and intricacies of communities and livelihoods,
they require enormous quantities of land, water and machinery, and are not
set up to benefit the local communities or ecology. The resulting conflicts
often come as a surprise to idealists convinced that carbon offset projects
will bankroll community-friendly renewable energy, with administrative costs
of $100,000 and upwards, the CDM does not fund such initiatives.

*Different paths*

The failings of the CDM are not simply problems in how the rules are
designed, or teething problems in its implementation, but are fundamental to
the scheme itself. It was designed to look for the cheapest cuts and found
that those involved cheap deployment of existing technologies by large-scale
industry and power producers. The proposals on the table at Copenhagen to
reform and expand the CDM do not address these fundamentals. New “sectoral
crediting” schemes, which change the nature of the Nationally Appropriate
Mitigation Actions developing countries agreed to adopt as part of the 2007
Bali Road Map, would expand offsetting with even weaker checks and balances.

If a cleaner future is the goal, then the process should start elsewhere.
Clean infrastructure investment tends to require upfront public
funding—which should come largely from industrialized countries, since they
predominantly caused the problem. Such funding is no guarantee of success,
however, unless a decentralized governance structure is adopted that allows
for meaningful citizen participation and sensitivity to local contexts,
allowing for the adaptation and improvement of locally-adapted industrial
and agricultural techniques, and engaging in a bottom-up assessment of real
energy needs.

A further significant requirement is to break with the logic of offsetting
itself, which asks developing countries to clean up their act so that
companies in Annex 1 countries can carry on polluting as usual. Instead of
stimulating new commodity markets, the targets and obligations placed on
industrialized countries should be met domestically. A plethora of existing
regulations, performance standards and incentives exist to help guide this
path, ranging from “feed-in tariffs” for renewables, to emissions output
limits on power producers and heavy industry. With Annex 1 countries having
done the most to cause climate change, their rapid and binding adoption of
more meaningful domestic action remains the fundamental stumbling block on
the road to tackling climate change justly and effectively.

Originally published in UN Chronicle

Copenhagen Plan B: “protect the rich”

2009-12-13T03:26:00.000-08:00

Author(s):Oscar Reyes

Copenhagen Climate Talks (Credit: Department of Energy & Climate
Change)

So the rumours were true. For the past week, it was an open secret that the
Danish government had already drafted a “political declaration” that could
form the major outcome of the UN Climate Change Conference now that a
full-blown international agreement is off the cards. The draft text has now
been leaked, sparking outrage amongst Southern delegates and civil society
organisations.

“The Copenhagen Agreement under the UN Framework Convention on Climate
Change,” as the draft is titled, would introduce percentage-based emissions
targets for all except the Least Developed Countries, fatally undermining
the Kyoto Protocol, which draws a line between industrialised Annex 1 states
and the Majority World. The text also suggests that financial and
technological support measures in non-Annex 1 countries, an underlying
principle of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), should
now be made conditional to their ability to meet complex emissions
monitoring requirements.

The UNFCCC quickly attempted to limit the damage, putting out a statement
from Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer that declared that the draft was a
“decision paper put forward by Danish Prime Minister,” while maintaining
that it was not a “formal text” of the UN negotiating process.

But the leaked text met with an angry response from many Southern delegates.
Lumumba Di-Aping, the Sudanese chairperson of the G77 plus China grouping of
132 developing countries, said that the Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke
Rasmussen had failed in his role as a neutral host and had instead “chosen
to protect the rich countries.” The emergence of the draft text was also met
by an impromptu protest from members of the Pan African Climate Justice
Alliance, who marched through the Bella Centre chanting “Two degrees is
suicide, One Africa, one degree.”

*Democratic deficit *
Concern stems not simply from the contents of the draft text, but also the
secretive and biased way in which it came about. The COP Presidency, which
is held by host country Denmark, is mandated to craft compromises based on
painstakingly negotiated drafts. In this case, the Presidency stands accused
not only of overstepping the mark, but of hopping, stepping and then jumping
over it, pre-empting UN decisions with proposals lifted in part from text
discussed at the Major Economies Forum, an initiative closely tied to the
G20 grouping and chaired by US President Barack Obama.

As Meena Raman, Honorary Secretary of Friends of the Earth Malaysia,
explains, “The leaked draft Copenhagen Agreement violates the democratic
principles of the UN and threatens the Copenhagen negotiations. By
discussing their text in secret back-room meetings with a few select
countries, the Danes are doing the opposite of what the world expects the
host country to do. The Danish government must stop colluding with other
rich nations. Instead it must take as a starting point the positions of
developing countries - which are the least responsible for climate change,
but who are most affected by it.”

Raman Mehta from Action Aid India decried a “betrayal of trust” on the part
of the Danish government.

*More “hot air” on reductions*
The draft text is weak and vague in its overall ambitions. In reiterating
the goal of holding global warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius above
pre-industrial levels, the text sets a global reduction target of 50 per
cent by 2050, of which 80 per cent should come from the industrialised
world. These figures look distinctly unimpressive when tracked back to
existing per capita emissions, however, with one estimate suggesting that
they would allow Northern industrialised countries to continue outpolluting
the Majority World by a factor of 3:5.

The short-term proposals are ostensibly more ambitious, with a suggestion
that global emissions should peak by 2020. But the same passage of the text
misleadingly claims that this peak has already been reached in “developed
countries collectively.” This is based on the latest UNFCCC figures, which
show that Annex 1 countries are now on track to meet their Kyoto Protocol
commitments, but a closer look reveals that this is achieved on the basis of
“hot air” emissions resulting from economic collapse in the former Soviet
bloc in the early 1990s. Emissions elsewhere in the developed world have
continued to rise. The projections for 2020 are further massaged by counting
a large volume of “emissions savings” from carbon offsets made in the global
South as part of Annex 1 emissions figures.

*Strings attached*
Whereas the Bali Action Plan emphasises that developing country actions will
be “supported and enabled” by technology, financing and capacity building,
the draft suggests that these measures would be “subject to robust
measurement, reporting and verification.” This inversion implies that the
support measures could be withheld unless monitoring is externally approved.
Instead of placing an obligation on industrialised countries to repay and
restitute their climate debt, this makes any support measures conditional to
a series of complex technical asssessments.

Just as significant is what the text does not include. There are no numbers
on long-term financing, and there is no suggestion that these will be
forthcoming in Copenhagen. The only figure offered is a projection of $10
billion per year of “fast start finance”, a scaled-down version of a plan
first presented by UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown in late November. But
Lumamba Di-Aping was dismissive: “Ten billion dollars will not buy
developing countries’ citizens enough coffins,” he said.

*A growing market *
The flip side of this lack of financial commitments is a commitment to scale
up carbon markets as part of any agreement. The cap and trade proposals
currently passing through the US would allow up to 1.5 billion tonnes of
carbon offsets per year to displace the need for domestic emissions
reductions, a demand that is over seven times larger than the existing
supply of offsets through the UN's Clean Devopment Mechanism (CDM) and Joint
Implementation scheme.

Although the language on carbon markets remains vague, talk of “an effective
and orderly transition from project based to more comprehensive approaches”
signals a framework that would introduce a broad range of new offsets, from
“sectoral crediting” through to measures aimed at Reducing Emissions from
Deforestation and Degradation (REDD).

“With developed countries offering so little by way of public finance,
developing countries are being sent a message that support for offsetting
mechanisms is their only real choice to access funds” says Payal Parkeh, a
climate scientist with International Rivers.

*A coalition of the unwilling*
What the “Copenhagen Agreement” leak signals, above all, is a lack of
ambition on the part of industrialised countries to make emissions
reductions at home or meet their financial and other obligations to the
South. “Despite the hype, the talk of ´Hopenhagen´, the supposed political
will to ´get it done´, this set of negotiations might be no different than
anything that has come before” concludes Rhiya Trivedi, a member of the
Canadian Youth Delegation to Copenhagen. “It could be just another round of
the North-South divide and power struggle.” Business as usual, in other
words.

www.carbontradewatch.org

The article appears in the Climate Chronicle
*newspaper published at the Copenhagen climate talks.*

Klimaforum09 demands a carbon-free society by 2040

2009-12-13T03:24:00.000-08:00

*The first climate draft to come out of COP15 is not very visionary, say the
organisers of Klimaforum09, the alternative peoples’ global summit, which is
taking place aside the official conference. Today the forum offers its own
declaration calling for a 100% carbon-free economy by 2040. *

Participants at the peoples’ climate summit have agreed on a declaration
ready to be presented to the politicians at the Bella Center next week. The
declaration has been influenced and agreed upon by many of the
Klimaforum09’s participants from developing countries - those being affected
by the climate changes in their everyday lives.

"We are pleased that in spite of the many different voices and views we have
succeeded in our agreement on this important document. It has been created
through an open and democratic dialogue between people and organisations
from all over the world”, says declaration spokesperson Paul Quintos from
the Philippines.

One of the first to sign the alternative declaration at Klimaforum09 was
Indian environmentalist Dr Vandana Shiva. “This is the declaration, which
the Bella Center should be working on”, she said.

70 organisations and participants at Klimaforum09 from 92 different
countries stand behind the declaration, which recommends the following
demands:

- A complete abandoning of fossil fuels within the next 30 years.
- An immediate cut in greenhouse gases of industrialized countries of at
least 40% compared to 1990 levels by 2020.
- Compensation of the people who are already affected by the adverse
effects of climate change*.
- Rejection to purely market-oriented and technology-centred false
solutions such as nuclear energy, agro-fuels, carbon capture and storage.
- Real solutions to climate crisis based on safe, clean, renewable and
sustainable use of natural resources.
- Fair and just exchange of technologies and ideas between North and South.

Seruan Aksi Forum Masyarkat Sipil Indonesia Indonesia & Climate Justice Now!

2009-12-10T19:04:00.000-08:00

Dukung Petisi untuk COP 15
Masyarakat sipil harus mendesak Denmark bertindak adil dan tidak berpihak sebagai Presiden, sekaligus tuan rumah COP 15, juga menuntut seluruh proses negosiasi COP 15 UNFCCC berjalan adil, terbuka, dan transparan, menjamin partisipasi penuh seluruh negara.

Caranya? Cantumkan Nama anda, nama Organisasi, Alamat, Propinsi dibawah petisi. Kirim ke mai@jatam.org
Dukungan kami tunggu hingga 12 Desember 2009 waktu Indonesia. Petisi ini akan dikirim kepada Perdana Menteri Denmark dan Presiden COP 15 UNFCCC. Info terkait, buka www.csoforum.net atau www.jatam.org

=========================

Open letter to the Danish Presidency as host of the UN Climate Change
Conference in Copenhagen, December 2009

We, the undersigned civil society groups, express our concern over the actions of the Danish government in its role as President of the UNFCCC Conference of Parties.

The historic Copenhagen Climate Conference has yet to begin and a lengthening list of concerns is being raised by governments and by members of civil society:

• We criticize the undemocratic practices adopted by the Danish Prime Minister of convening small and exclusive groups of countries before the Copenhagen meeting, excluding the vast majority of countries whose futures are at stake in the negotiations.

• We criticize the Danish Prime Minister’s decision to produce draft “Copenhagen Accords” before the meeting has even started. These have been circulated to a select few governments, excluding others. They have been produced in spite of on-going negotiations under the UNFCCC and prejudge the outcome of good-faith negotiations among all Parties.

• We further criticize the texts on the basis that they systematically ignore the demands of developing countries and overwhelmingly reflect the position of Denmark and other developed countries on key issues. They seek to shift the burden of addressing climate change from those who caused it to those who suffer its worst effects.

• We criticize the Danish Prime Minister’s consistent disregard for the concerns of developing countries by downgrading expectations for Copenhagen to a “political agreement” and by falsely stating that the Kyoto Protocol ends in 2012.

These actions are inconsistent with the duty of the Danish Government in its neutral role as President of the Conference of Parties. They are an attack on the democratic processes of UN negotiations. And they are an affront to the interest of small and poor countries in the negotiations.

Further actions of this kind threaten the trust that is the very foundation of a fair and effective deal in Copenhagen. They undermine the capacity of the Danish Government to play a constructive role in the negotiations. Left unchecked, they threaten a Copenhagen collapse.

Copenhagen must mark an historic turning point. Parties have placed their trust in Denmark’s good reputation as a fair and impartial player. We therefore call for:

• The COP President to serve in an even-handed and unbiased manner;
• A fair, open and transparent process; and
• The full participation of all countries in an inclusive manner.

The imperative in Copenhagen is not to seal a deal at any costs – but to provide the opportunity for the nations of the world to work together to secure one that is fair and effective.

We call on Denmark to support such a process. The world is watching.

Best Regard,

1. Giorgio Budi I, Indonesian Centre for Environmental Law, Jakarta
2. Siti Maemunah, JATAM – Mining Advocacyy Network, Jakarta

Rich vs. poor clash at Copenhagen over money

2009-12-10T18:51:00.000-08:00

By JOHN HEILPRIN
Associated Press Writers

COPENHAGEN (AP) -- Negotiators on Wednesday worked to bridge the chasm between rich and poor countries over how to share the burden of fighting climate change, and a top U.S. envoy was to highlight the Obama administration's efforts to curb greenhouse emissions.

Lumumba Di-Aping of Sudan, the head of the 135-nation bloc of developing countries, said the $10 billion a year that has been proposed to help poor nations fight climate change paled in comparison to the more than $1 trillion already spent to rescue financial institutions.

"If this is the greatest risk that humanity faces, then how do you explain $10 billion?" he said. "Ten billion will not buy developing countries' citizens enough coffins."

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency head Lisa Jackson, whose agency just gave President Barack Obama a new way to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions, takes to the podium at the U.N. climate conference later Wednesday, headlining a U.S.-sponsored meeting entitled "Taking Action at Home."

The EPA determined Monday that scientific evidence clearly shows greenhouse gases are endangering Americans' health and must be regulated. That gave Obama a new way to regulate those gases without needing the approval of the U.S. Congress.

Obama will join more than 100 national leaders converging on Copenhagen for the final days of bargaining late next week.

China, which has recently overtaken the United States as the world's top greenhouse gas emitter, strongly protested Wednesday a blunder that prevented a top diplomat from entering the vast Bella Center where the 192-nation U.N. climate conference is being held.

Su Wei, the director general of China's climate change negotiation team, told the meeting he was "extremely unhappy" that a Chinese minister was barred from entry three days in a row.

Su called the incident "unacceptable" and expressed anger that U.N. climate chief Yvo de Boer was not informed. De Boer pledged to investigate and "make sure it doesn't happen again."

Meanwhile, small island nations, poor countries and those seeking money from the developed world to preserve their tropical forests were among those upset over competing draft texts attributed to Denmark and China outlining proposed outcomes for the historic Dec. 7-18 summit.

Some of the poorest nations feared too much of the burden to curb greenhouse gases is being hoisted onto their shoulders. They are seeking billions of dollars in aid from the wealthy countries to deal with climate change, which melts glaciers that raise sea levels worldwide, turns some regions drier and threatens food production.

Diplomats from developing countries and climate activists complained the Danish hosts pre-empted the negotiations with their draft proposal, which would allow rich countries to cut fewer emissions while poorer nations would face tougher limits on greenhouse gases and more conditions on getting funds.

"When a process is flawed then the outcome is flawed," Raman Mehta, ActionAid's program manager in India, said of the Danish proposal. "If developing countries don't have a concrete indication of the scale of finances, then you don't get a deal - and even if you do, it's a bad deal."

It focuses "on pleasing the rich and powerful countries rather than serving the majority of states who are demanding a fair and ambitious solution," said Kim Carstensen of the environmental group WWF.

A sketchy counterproposal attributed to China would extend the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which required 37 industrial nations to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases blamed for global warming by an average 5 percent by 2012, compared with 1990 levels.

The Chinese text would incorporate specific new, deeper targets for the industrialized world for a further five to eight years. However, developing countries including China would be covered by a separate agreement that encourages taking action to control emissions but not in the same legally binding way.

Poorer nations believe the two-track approach would best preserve the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities" recognized by the Kyoto treaty.

In Rome, Greenpeace activists climbed halfway up the Colosseum at dawn Wednesday to press for a historic climate deal at the Copenhagen conference.

The U.N.'s weather agency unveiled data Tuesday showing that this decade is on track to become the hottest since records began in 1850, with 2009 the fifth-warmest year ever. The second warmest decade was the 1990s.

Only the United States and Canada experienced cooler conditions than average, the World Meteorological Organization said, though Alaska had the second-warmest July on record.

2009 Set To Be Fifth Warmest Year On Record

2009-12-10T18:39:00.000-08:00

2009 Set To Be Fifth Warmest Year On Record
Date: 09-Dec-09
Country: DENMARK
Author: REUTERS

A tourist (L) looks at a view of Mount Everest from the hills of Syangboche in Nepal December 3, 2009.
Photo: Gopal Chitrakar

COPENHAGEN - This year is likely to be the fifth warmest on record and the first decade of this century the hottest since records began, the World Meteorological Organization said on Tuesday. Speaking on the sidelines of a U.N. climate conference in Copenhagen, WMO head Michel Jarraud pointed to extreme hotspots this year -- Australia had its third warmest year since record dating began in 1850, "with three exceptional heatwaves."

"I could go on. There was the worst drought in five decades which affected millions of people in China, a poor monsoon season in India causing severe droughts, massive food shortages associated with a big drought in Kenya," he told reporters. Jarraud also highlighted extreme floods, including one which broke a 90-year record in Burkina Faso. 2009 marked the third lowest summer Arctic sea ice on record, after the two previous years, he added.

Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at Britain's MetOffice Hadley Center, which supplied some of the WMO data, agreed that 2009 is likely to be the fifth warmest year.
"Essentially what's happened is we've gone into an El Nino," she added, referring to a natural weather pattern which drives abnormal warming in the eastern Pacific Ocean and can unleash wider havoc in global weather.
RECORD

The hottest year record, 1998, coincided with a powerful El Nino, and a new El Nino developed this year. "Its just a matter of years before we break the record," Jarraud told Reuters. "It's getting warmer and warmer. The warming trend is increasing."

"It's difficult to say (when the record will be broken) because of the variability. The first time there will be a strong El Nino the temperature will be greater than before."

Jarraud rejected a "climategate" row over leaked emails from Britain's University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU), which showed some scientists' efforts to boost the credibility of climate change at the expense of skeptics.

The WMO used British -- including CRU -- and two U.S. data sources for its temperature analysis. "The three separately show almost identical results," said Jarraud.

The fact that the record for the hottest year has not been broken since 1998 has helped fuel arguments from a small minority of scientists that climate change may not be as severe as feared.

But MetOffice Hadley Centre's Pope said that temperatures had "climbed slightly" in the past decade. "There hasn't been a cooling (since the 1998 spike)," she said.
The decade 2000-2009 was 0.4 degrees Celsius above the 1961-1990 average, while the 1990s decade was 0.23 degrees higher, said Pope.

Find on : http://www.planetark.com/enviro-news/item/55878

COP 15 in Pictures - Day One more on:

2009-12-09T23:51:00.001-08:00

UN Kyoto climate change fund still to help poor nations more on :

2009-12-09T21:38:00.000-08:00

Developing countries split over climate measures

2009-12-09T21:35:00.000-08:00

Future of humanity hinges on Copenhagen climate conference: UN chief more on:

2009-12-09T21:32:00.000-08:00

Fossil Award for those countries who don't support the prevention of climate change impact more on:

2009-12-09T21:25:00.000-08:00

The Show Must Go On

2009-12-09T04:24:00.000-08:00

On climate change, the world needs a dramatic climax. Instead we're getting a lame dress rehearsal.By Bill McKibben Sat Dec. 5, 2009 3:59 AM PST
________________________________________
"Calm before the storm" is how my colleague Jamie Henn described Copenhagen [1] today. "'Hopenhagen [2]' advertising everywhere, people setting up an outdoor concert venue in downtown, a few anarchist posters wheat-pasted on signs, and I even saw a 350.dk [3] license plate on a bicycle!"

I’m still in the United States, but packing for the trip to Denmark. This by all rights should be a charged moment, the culmination of two decades of work by scientists, negotiators, and activists—the moment when we finally decide what we’re going to do about the biggest crisis we’ve ever faced. The curtain about to rise!

But.

The play will go on—the hall’s been rented, after all. It’s clear by now, though, that it’s likely to be not even a dress rehearsal. More like a read-through. And the script’s pretty weak—10 days ago the US made it clear that they’d lowball their offer. Obama will propose 4 percent reductions in its emissions by 2020, compared with 20 percent for the Europeans (a number the EU said they’d raise to 30 percent if the US would go along). Scientists, meanwhile, have made it clear that a serious offer would mean about 40 percent cuts by 2020. So—we’re exactly an order of magnitude shy of what the physics demands.

Meanwhile, the big emerging powers—Brazil [4], China [5], South Africa, India [6]—have reportedly agreed on a series of demands that seem perfectly designed to keep the Congress from acting. No carbon-related tariffs, they’re insisting, knowing full well that the crucial senators from the Midwest have set that as their price for going along. This afternoon the Indians made their bid—reducing the amount of energy used per dollar of goods produced by about 20 percent, or half the Chinese goal.

"The game seems to be that all countries pick a politically safe number," Navroz Dubash, an Indian analyst with the Center for Policy Research [7], told the Times. "India is now joining that game. And the game started with the United States."
And in the United States the leaders of the anti-anything-at-all bloc are pulling out every stop, insisting among other things that some shady emails from a couple of British climate researchers mean the entire science of global warming is now suspect. Maybe the glaciers are simply pretending to melt! Maybe they’ve been paid off!

It’s such a strange feeling. Civil society has largely come together. The number we’ve been talking about for two years—350 parts per million [8]—is now mainstream science. Last weekend the patriarch of the Orthodox Church called wrecking the climate a sin and said "350 is an act of repentance." The next day the leaders of all the world’s big zoos and aquariums demanded a 350 ppm target. The big NGOs—Oxfam, Avaaz, and so forth—will hold a giant vigil on December 12 in Copenhagen to demand, among other things, a 350 target, with figures like Desmond Tutu on the platform.

But so far it hasn’t penetrated the dense politics of the big nations. It’s as if they’ve gone to the doctor, and the doctor has said, You have cancer, and so you need six months of chemotherapy. And they’ve responded, We’ll do one week of chemotherapy. Anything more would be too hard.
We’ll keep doing our level best to educate them, with science, with art, with our bodies. What else really is there to do?
________________________________________
Source URL: http://motherjones.com/environment/2009/12/show-must-go
Links:
[1] http://motherjones.com/special-reports/2009/10/copenhagen-here-we-come
[2] http://motherjones.com/mojo/2009/11/hope-for-copenhagen
[3] http://350.dk/
[4] http://motherjones.com/environment/2009/11/gms-money-trees
[5] http://motherjones.com/mojo/2009/11/hope-china-us-climate-deal-despite-copenhagen-delay
[6] http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2009/10/india-stands-lose-most-copenhagen
[7] http://www.centerforpolicyresearch.org/
[8] http://motherjones.com/environment/2008/11/most-important-number-earth

Cast your vote in the Angry Mermaid Award

2009-12-09T04:16:00.000-08:00

Check out here : http://www.angrymermaid.org/

Crucial UN climate talks take place in Copenhagen this December. While people, organisations and social movements around the world are calling for strong action to prevent climate change and ensure climate justice, big business has been lobbying to block effective action to tackle the problem, while also seeking to benefit from it. Lobbying is defined as attempting to influence the decision-making process.

The Angry Mermaid Award has been set up to recognise the perverse role of corporate lobbyists, and highlight those business groups and companies that have made the greatest effort to sabotage the climate talks, and other climate measures, while promoting, often profitable, false solutions.

Named after the iconic Copenhagen mermaid who is angry about the destruction being caused by climate change, the Angry Mermaid Award winner will be decided by a public poll. Read the story of the Angry Mermaid. Online voting has opened on Monday 16 November 2009.

Climate Change Reference Guide: The One You Need to Understand Climate Change

2009-12-09T02:17:00.000-08:00

Climate change is probably the most frequent topic emerged for a conversation nowadays. Many people are talking about Climate Change issues both scientifically and politically. COP 15 in Copenhagen becomes a place to which every eye will look to, since from there in these two weeks, many hopes to combat Climate Change are expected to be granted.

But, frankly, what is actually Climate Change? What cause it? How does it differ with global warming? Why CO2? Why COP (Conference of Parties), what is it actually? What are they talking about in COP?

All of these questions (and surely there are still lots more), are very basic questions that need to be answered, and eventually to be understood.A reader friendly publication about Climate Change has been released by World Watch Institute entitled Climate Change Reference Guide, that will help readers to understand further about Climate Change; starting from what causes it, scientifically, until the negotiation issues.This publication may help you to understand Climate Change further.

Find out here : http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/CCRG.pdf

Last chance to save the world says Naomi Klein

2009-12-09T01:51:00.000-08:00

Klimaforum is not about giving charity to the developing world its about taking responsibility and the industrialized countries cleaning up our own mess, Naomi Klein said speaking at the opening of Klimaforum09.

Speaking at Klimaforum’s opening ceremony in Copenhagen Naomi Klein expressed her doubt whether an ambitious deal would be made at the Bella Centre. “The Bella Center is the biggest case of disaster capitalism. The deal we really need is not even on the table,” she said. The Canadian author emphasized the importance of civil society to come together to take action on the climate crisis. “There is a difference between a deal and success and Klimaforum09 needs to be the lie detector when the politicians come out with a deal,” she added. Naomi also had critical words to say about Hopenhagen and its branding extravaganza. “The globe has Siemens logo on the bottom and the whole event is sponsored by Coke. That is a capitalization of hope but Klimaforum09 is where the real hope lies,” she said.

“Klimaforum is not about giving charity to the developing world its about taking responsibility and the industrialized countries cleaning up our own mess,” she concluded.Klimaforum09 the peoples conference is open from Tuesday 8th till Friday 18th December. The programme features close to 200 workshops, 70 exhibitions and a comprehensive film, theatre and musical events.

The Danish organizers expect up to 10,000 daily visitors and guest speakers include Vandana Shiva, George Monbiot, Bill McKibben, Tim Jackson and Wangari Maathai. “We would like to tell you that climate change is already seriously impacting us. It brings floods, droughts and the outbreak of pests that are all causing harvest failures,” said Henry Saragih, general coordinator of the global peseants movement Via Campesina, also speaking at the opening cermony.

Nnimmo Bassy, Head of Friends of Earth International, stressed the importance of people getting together to take action. "At Klimaforum09 we find the real people taking real action. Poluters must be hold accountable and policy makers must start listening to the people," he said.

Further on : http://www.klimaforum09.org/Last-chance-to-save-the-world-says,151?lang=da

Rich Countries, Pay Your Debt!

2009-12-08T20:41:00.000-08:00

Taken from www.phosee.dk

Climate Chronicle from COP15 : “The time to act is now”… or later

2009-12-07T21:39:00.000-08:00

“The time to act is now”… or later

The rapid talking down of expectations for Copenhagen signals a lack of commitment on the part of industrialised countries, writes Trusha Reddy. In place of divide and rule tactics, a fundamental change of direction is needed to expand their targets and dump the market-based approach.

It’s official! The COP15 will to be the place to “seal the deal” for global action on climate change.

No, actually it will be a “historic moment”.

No, perhaps it will be a “turning point”.

Or further, it will be one of a “few turning points”.

In less than two short months before the UN climate talks were due to kick off in Copenhagen, the official language changed subtly yet dramatically to convey the effective relegation of the summit, touted to be the biggest environmental gathering in history, to a talk shop.

Find more on :
http://www.earthlife.org.za/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/ClimateChronicle_issue1.pdf

Fair, Ambitious and Binding: Essential for Successful Climate Deal

2009-12-07T21:26:00.000-08:00

Climate Change has occurred and threatens the survival of human life. Poor countries and developing countries will face the worst affects of climate change. A hope to minimize the risk of climate change in the future is through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change COP 15 in Copenhagen. The Copenhagen climate change negotiation has to bring out the fair agreement for developing countries, ambitious target to reduce global emission so that prevent global temperature average rise above 2◦C, and sufficient funding to support adaptation programs and mitigation actions. Climate Action Network (CAN) International published a document entitled Fair, Ambitious and Binding: Essential for Successful Climate Deal, which includes key aspects that should be achieved in the climate deal COP-15 in Copenhagen.

The document could be found below:
http://www.climatenetwork.org/climate-change-basics/CAN_FAB_Essentials.pdf

World leaders race to save Copenhagen

2009-12-07T20:56:00.000-08:00

Copenhagen, 7 November (Martin Khor)* – The lead up to Copenhagen saw a flurry of activities by some world leaders to give impetus to the highly anticipated conference on climate change, after gloom cast on it when it was made known that there would be no legally binding agreement to be expected from it.

President Barack Obama of the United States and President Hu Jintao of China on 26 November announced 2020 targets for their countries. For the US this would be cuts to greenhouse gas emissions. For China, it would be reducing the emission intensity of its gross national product (GNP).

These announcements by the two most important countries in terms of total emissions gave a boost to the mood in climate politics just a week before delegates arrive for the Copenhagen meeting.

In reality, the chances of the success of Copenhagen are in the balance. The definition of what would constitute success has changed, has in fact been downgraded. No longer is there any possibility of a final set of agreements. There are deep divisions on key issues that cannot be resolved in time.

At best, Copenhagen will come up with a framework intended to lead to a final deal. But many leaders hope that this framework can at least have some key details. For example, the United Kingdom's climate minister Ed Miliband says that there have to be figures on the emission reduction targets of developed countries, and on adequate finances for developing countries, otherwise Copenhagen will be a failure.

At the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Summit in Singapore, a breakfast meeting of leaders that included US President Barack Obama concluded that there would not be a legally-binding agreement, but some kind of “political declaration” that would somehow be “binding.”

To many analysts, this constitutes a climb-down from the “seal the deal” goal for which the UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon has campaigned. No one is sure what a “political declaration” would look like and how this can be “binding” or have legal effect.

The UN General Assembly convened a meeting on 19 November to discuss the status of the climate talks. At that meeting, the developing countries strongly attacked the lack of commitment by the developed countries either to cut their emissions or to provide financing to developing countries, or even to retain the legally-binding Kyoto Protocol. This, they said, is what has caused the downgrading of expectations for Copenhagen.

Mr. Ban tried to reassure the General Assembly that Copenhagen is still on track. He said that news reports had recently portrayed that Copenhagen is destined to be a “disappointment”, but this was wrong. He countered this perception with examples of individual countries' pledges on emissions reduction.

However, the Chair of the G77, Ambassador Abdalmahmood Mohamad of Sudan, speaking on behalf of the Group and China said the developing countries were extremely disappointed that the Copenhagen Conference did not seem to be able to result in the final outcomes needed and this was a major setback. It said Parties should not pretend otherwise by using words such as a “legally binding political declaration”.

For the G77 and China, Copenhagen's most important outcome should be adopting the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, the treaty that implements the legal commitment of industrialised countries to reduce greenhouse gases emissions.

Instead the developed countries are moving to exit from this Protocol, and this is the main cause of the present impasse. Without a Kyoto Protocol decision, Copenhagen cannot succeed, said the Group.

Grenada, speaking for the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) said the group was concerned over attempts to water down the results of Copenhagen. It insisted that an internationally legally binding outcome at Copenhagen is both technically and legally feasible.

At the end of the 2-hour session, Mr. Ban acknowledged the deep concerns of the developing countries about there being a major setback or deep disappointment as there would be no treaty agreed upon in Copenhagen. But this should not be seen as a failure as Copenhagen will lay the foundation for a legally-binding agreement, he said.

However, as the meeting ended, the mood among many delegates, at least those from developing countries, was that there would be a setback in Copenhagen. Several delegates said they had the impression after listening to the speakers that the conference would not result in a final legally binding outcome, and they were uncertain whether there would be a clear decision on the emission reduction commitments of developed countries, which is the foundation of many other decisions.

The G77 and China highlighted their most serious concern, that many developed country Parties of the Kyoto Protocol want to move away from this Protocol and move towards another agreement of which the nature is not understood.

“There is a danger of a downgrading of the commitments of developed countries from an internationally legally binding commitment in the Kyoto Protocol to an inferior agreement involving each country pledging its national programme, with no aggregate figure for developed countries overall, and which is not legally binding,” said the Sudanese Ambassador.

The Group was also very disappointed with the very low overall reduction figure arising from the national announcements from developed countries so far, which is only 12 to 19 per cent (including the US) below 1990 levels.

“The main impasse that has led to downgrading of expectations in Copenhagen is the uncertainty caused by the actions of the developed countries on whether they are willing to commit to a second period for the Kyoto Protocol, and whether their emission reduction targets are good enough,” said the G77 Chair.

He asked if the Secretary General and the Denmark representative could assure the Group that the developed country members of the Kyoto Protocol will remain in the Protocol and will make adequate commitments of at least 40% cut by 2020 (from 1990 levels), and will finish the negotiations in the Kyoto Protocol track by the time Copenhagen is concluded. Without such an assurance, it will be hard to see how Copenhagen will be a success, he said.

The Copenhagen Conference must not end only with mere rhetorical political statements. There must be concrete commitments from the developed countries on their emission reduction figures, and commitments on finance, as well as decisions to establish a finance mechanism and a technology mechanism.

Earlier, Mr. Ban said he believed that Parties will reach a deal in Copenhagen that sets the stage for a binding treaty as soon as possible in 2010. He said that political momentum was building almost daily. He urged Parties to stay positive, come to Copenhagen and seal a deal.

Despite last week's announcements by the US and Chinese Presidents, the prospects are not so bright that Copenhagen will “seal the final deal”. Hopefully the Conference can agree to a framework and basis of an eventual deal in 2010 that is both fair and effective.

* Martin Khor is the Executive Director of the South Center

TWN Copenhagen News Update No.1

07 December 2009
Published by Third World Network
www.twnside.org.sg

Copenhagen emissions targets ‘not enough to avert catastrophic warming’

2009-12-07T20:44:00.000-08:00

Ben Webster, Environment Editor
Emissions cuts proposed by the world’s leading countries fall far short of what is needed to prevent catastrophic global warming, according to a study released on the eve of the Copenhagen climate change summit. Even if countries adopted the most ambitious targets that each has put forward, the global average temperature would still rise by 3.5C by the end of the century and make large parts of the world uninhabitable.

The UN’s top climate change official appealed to the 192 nations taking part in the summit to strengthen their targets during the two-week summit to help deliver a global deal. Yvo de Boer said: “Copenhagen must be a turning point. The scientific community has told us we have 5 to 10 years to turn an upward emissions trend into a downward emissions trend. “Around 100 heads of state are coming to Copenhagen to make sure it is a turning point.” The study by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany found that, with the pledges made so far, emissions would continue to increase until 2040.

Lord Stern of Brentford, the world’s leading climate change economist, has also concluded that, even assuming each country formally adopted the tightest targets in the ranges they had proposed, the temperature would still rise more than 2C. In July, the world’s leading economies agreed to limit the increase to 2C above pre-industrial levels to avoid the worst effects of climate change. Lord Stern said the world needed to cut emissions from 47 billion tonnes of CO2, the predicted figure for next year, to 44 billion tonnes by 2020. Lord Stern said that there was a gap of up to 5 billion tonnes between the cuts that the most ambitious targets would deliver and what was needed to reach 44 billion tonnes by 2020.

Achim Steiner, director of the UN Environment Programme, attempted to put a positive gloss on the figures: “People overestimate the impossibility of closing the gap. The deal at Copenhagen could still be meaningful if everyone puts a little bit more on the table.” Mr Steiner hinted that the US would need to produce a much more ambitious target to persuade the rest of the world that it was taking its fair share of the burden.

President

Obama has provisionally offered to cut US emissions by 4 per cent on 1990 levels by 2020. The EU has committed to a 20 per cent cut over the same timescale and offered to increase this to 30 per cent if other countries make similar efforts. China has also been criticised by many summit negotiators for proposing a weak target. It has offered to cut its emissions per unit of GDP by 40-45 per cent on 2005 levels, which means its overall emissions will continue to grow rapidly.

PricewaterhouseCoopers has calculated that per capita emissions in China will be higher than in the EU by 2020. The average Chinese person will emit 6.3 tonnes and the average EU citizen 5.5 tonnes. US per capita emissions will be 14.7 tonnes, assuming that President Obama can persuade Congress to adopt his 4 per cent target.

Mr de Boer expressed concern that rich countries would engage in “aid-wash” at Copenhagen by repackaging existing aid money as financial pledges to help poor countries adapt to climate change. He said rich countries needed to give at least $10 billion a year of additional money over the next three years.

Keith Allott, head of climate change at WWF-UK, said: “Copenhagen is the right time and the best opportunity for the world to agree on a climate deal.” But, he warned: “Going into this conference, there is not enough ambition on the table. The commitments made so far will not keep the world under 2C of warming, which is the threshold of unacceptable risks of runaway catastrophic climate change. This has to change over the next 12 days.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6946675.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=3392178

From The Times December 7, 2009

Historic Climate Talks Open With A Stark Warning

2009-12-07T20:23:00.000-08:00

Copenhagen climate talks begin

2009-12-07T20:16:00.000-08:00

Copenhagen, 7 November ( Martin Khor) --
This year’s biggest global event – the United Nations Copenhagen climate conference – begins today.For the next two weeks, world leaders and their negotiators will try to thrash out the elements of a global deal on how to collectively tackle what is arguably the greatest threat the world has known – catastrophic global warming that will make human life very difficult or impossible within decades.

Around 30,000 people are gathering in this Danish capital to be part of this event. The diplomats from almost 200 countries are already here. They will pore over hundreds of pages of texts that may eventually form the basis of an agreement of sorts, or at least a framework for further talks and a final deal next year. Also here are environmentalists, indigenous people, trade unions, scientists, scholars, who have a stake in what comes out, or does not come out, of Copenhagen . And about 5,000 journalists are also expected to cover the events.
Next week the Environment Ministers will arrive, followed on 17 and 18 December by at least a hundred Presidents and Prime Ministers, who hope to endorse a declaration that their diplomats and Ministers have agreed upon.

The conference was given a last-minute fillip by an announcement last Friday that US President Barack Obama will come on 18 December to join the Summit part of the conference. This corrects his earlier plan to make a one-day appearance on 9 December on his way to collect the Nobel Peace Prize. That would have been too early because the other heads of government would only be coming on 17-18 December.

The delegates already in Copenhagen expect sleepless days and nights of diplomatic battles and high drama, since many key issues are still in dispute. This is not surprising. Although all countries believe in the scientific evidence that climate change is s serious threat, they disagree on the sharing of responsibilities (especially who cuts their Greenhouse Gas emissions and by how much), how much it will cost, and who will pay the bill.

What started as mainly an environmental topic has become a complex set of economic, financial and political issues. The developed countries stress the need for a target for a global emission cut, with all countries to play their part. The developing countries worry whether actions to reduce emissions will affect their economic development. They stress the need for equity, that the rich countries must transfer enough finance and technology to enable the poorer countries to reduce emissions and cope with the effects of climate change.

There is wrangling on many key issues that will pre-occupy the Copenhagen fortnight.

First is whether the developed countries are willing to do their part to cut emissions. Their pledges so far are depressingly low, adding up to only 12-19 per cent by 2020 (compared to 1990 levels). This is far below the 40% cut they need to do as demanded by developing countries, and below the 25-40 per cent range indicated by studies cited by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN climate change panel.

The chair of the group negotiating the numbers has warned that “we will be a laughing stock” at the end of the Copenhagen meeting with this low ambition. Developed countries are demanding deeper cuts. Will developed countries respond?
A particular problem is the United States, whose present emission levels have ballooned to a far higher level than 1990. Its offer to cut by 17% by 2020 compared to 2005 is only 2 to 7 percent below its 1990 level, which is well below the 20 or 30 per cent target that Europe is willing to take on for itself.

Second is the apparent decision by the developed countries that are members of the legally binding Kyoto Protocol (only the US is not a member) to move out of that protocol and move in with the US into a new agreement which may not be internationally binding, but only requires each country to make pledges and be subjected to peer review.

This has outraged the developing countries. They feel that the rich countries are climbing down from their commitments at a time when they should be stepping up, and shifting the responsibilities to developing countries, especially since these rich countries insist that developing countries like China, India and Brazil join in the obligations of the rich countries.

If China and India are drawn in today, the rest of the middle income countries like in the ASEAN (10-member group of South-east Asian countries) region will be drawn in the day after. In fact the Europeans are already insisting that all developing countries commit to slow their emissions to 15-30 per cent below their “business-as-usual level”. There are of course many problems with this, not least that almost no developing country government knows what is meant by “business as usual level”, or how the 15-30% deviation rate was derived, nor what this means for their economic growth ambitions.

Third is the money issue. Developed countries not only pledged but also legally committed to pay developing countries for the increased costs associated with their climate-related actions. This has hardly materialized in the past 15 years.
This time the developing countries want a new climate fund created inside the UN Convention (and not have the funding done through the World Bank as the developed countries desire) and a legal commitment to contribute at least US$200-400 billion annually. This amount is in fact lower than several studies say is required for actions in developing countries. At Copenhagen, the developing countries want agreement at least that the new fund will be set up in whose governance and policies they will have a fair say. The US$10 billion being mentioned by some developed country leaders are also seen as grossly inadequate.

Fourth is the transfer of climate-friendly technology, which is another commitment made but not met. The developing countries want a new body set up inside the Convention with the authority to make policies and oversee the transfers. They also want intellectual property rules to be relaxed so that the technologies can be transferred at lower cost.So far the developed countries are disagreeing with even the setting up of a technology policy-making body, preferring an advisory group with little power. And they are adamantly opposed to any relaxation to global intellectual property rules, which they fear will reduce their technological monopoly.

Fifth is whether to set a 2050 target for either limiting temperature rise (and if so should this be 1.5 or 2 degrees) or for a global cut in emissions (for example by 50% compared to 1990), or both. The developed countries are also angling to put in a 80% cut for their own emissions. The problem with such a set of targets is that the developing countries would indirectly be agreeing to a big emission cut for themselves (20% in absolute terms and 60% in per capita terms).

They should thus not agree to the developed countries’ 80% target for themselves, as this is far too low. And even a 50% global cut must be premised on and preceded by getting enough finance and technology for developing countries to enable them to contribute to the global effort.

These are only some of the contentious issues facing Copenhagen this fortnight. Other topics include how to deal with deforestation, with market mechanisms such as carbon trading, whether to limit “offsets” that the rich countries use to evade the full domestic emission reductions, and trade protection on climate grounds.
This is why a full climate deal cannot be reached in Copenhagen. A lot is at stake, a lot of issues are involved, and a lot of them are unresolved. Hopefully there will be more agreement on many of these issues before the Presidents and Prime Ministers arrive.
________________________________________
 Martin Khor is Executive Director of South Centre, an intergovernmental think tank of developing countries

Climate pledges 'sending world towards 3.5 C rise'

2009-12-06T23:19:00.000-08:00

Source : (AFP 2009)

PARIS — Current pledges from rich and developing nations for cutting carbon pollution will stoke potentially catastrophic warming by century's end, according to a study released on Sunday on the eve of the Copenhagen climate summit.

National commitments proposed so far for the December 7-18 UN conference would mean the global temperature would rise by 3.5 degrees Celsius (6.3 degrees Fahrenheit) over pre-industrial times, way over a 2.0 C (3.6 F) threshold widely considered safe, the study said.

Concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) would hit about 650 parts per million (ppm), according to the tally published by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany and energy specialists Ecofys.

"The pledges on the table will not halt emissions growth before 2040, let alone by 2015 as indicated by the IPCC [the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] and are far from halving emissions by 2050 as has been called for by the G8," said Niklas Hoehne of Ecofys.

"Instead, global emissions are likely to be nearly double 1990 levels by 2040 based on present pledges."

The Copenhagen conference gathers the 192-member UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Its task is to craft a global pact that will dramatically reduce man-made carbon emissions -- invisible gases that trap solar heat and warm the atmosphere, interfering with Earth's delicate climate system.

Hoehne said that pledges by developed countries so far were currently projected to be 13 to 19 percent below 1990 levels.

But forest credits that these countries are likely to claim against their emission target would lower this contribution by around five percent.

The IPCC, the UN's panel of climate scientists, says cuts of around 25-40 percent reductions by industrialized countries by 2020 from 1990 levels would be needed to achieve the 2 C (3.6 F) target.

For developing countries, emissions cuts of 15 to 30 percent by 2020 against "business-as-usual" scenarios are needed to make the 2 C (3.6 F) targets.

Voluntary promises by China to make gains in energy efficiency and vows, also non-binding, by Brazil and Indonesia to tackle deforestation, will be a big help, said the paper.

Overall, developing country emissions are projected to be close to the IPCC range, it added.

Copyright © 2009 AFP. All rights reserved. More »

Climate Change Action : “WE SEEK HELP”

2009-12-02T04:05:00.000-08:00

Climate Change Action : “WE SEEK HELP”
In US Embassy

A collaborative action by Walhi, SPI, KAU, LS-ADI, Oxfam GB, and IESR in front of US Embassy has done today, December 2nd, 2009, as a warning for US to be responsible for their emission reduction. It is a call action for US to have commitment to cut emission for 40% by 2020 in the next week Copenhagen Climate Negotiation COP 15, December 7th, 2009 since they are responsible for more than 35% of the world emission. However, they only set target for 16% emission reduction. This is unsafe and fair commitment. Thus low commitment of US for emission reduction will impact on the Climate Change Deal in Copenhagen and make the negotiation become slow. If America only commit for low emission reduction, the world space condition will become worse. It means more disasters related to climate will happen.

The Clean Development Mechanism and Carbon Trade models that have supported by the US are not enough to recover the climate crisis. That is why this is urgent to call America through this action to cut their domestic emission as proposed by the UNFCCC and will sign the agreement. Beside that through this action, they also asked public to unite in Global Day of Action on 12 December 2009 as a way to monitor the progress of America commitment in climate change deal in Copenhagen.

This action was quite unique where around 20 activists rode bicycles and accompanied by the group performence of Traditional Betawi music that called Tanjidor. A parade of people who ride bicycles wore caping (a traditional hat from Java) and showed climate change messages (Ecological debt, Land Right, Human Security, Production and Consumption Change, etc) that put in front of the handlebar. The action ended with putting a monument symbol in front of the embassy to ask US to have a good, fair, and safe deal in Copenhagen. Various kinds of media (Kompas, Detik.com, Trans7 TV, etc) has recorded this action.

SB-ET

Climate Debt

2009-11-24T19:35:00.000-08:00

Climate Change: Less ambitious Climate Deal for Copenhagen

2009-11-23T00:40:00.000-08:00

"Climate Action Tracker", an independent science-based assessment which tracks the emission commitments and actions of countries, has found the emission reduction commitments made by countries in the Copenhagen climate negotiation next month are still far less ambitious than those needed to limit global warming to 2°C, even to the limit of 1.5°C. These less ambitious reduction commitments mostly made by developed countries, who hardly decrease their greenhouse gas emissions.

The result shown that developed country emission reductions as a whole are currently projected to be 8-12% below 1990 levels by 2020 after accounting for forestry credits, rather than the 25-40% reductions described as necessary by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Moreover, after accounting for forestry credits that developed countries want, the effective target by 2020 for developed countries would be only 3-7% more than the original Kyoto target of a 5% reduction by 2010. It explicitly shows how developed countries are really less ambitious in supporting the climate-neutral proposed by the Maldives and Costa Rica. Another result also shows that some countries already proposed to reduce their emissions, though there is still a special case where the European Union (EU) and United States are considered as “inadequate” since they really have unconditional commitment in reducing their emissions. The worst one related to this issue is that there are some countries who have not yet proposed any substantial actions. They are Belarus, Russia and Ukraine.
Therefore, more ambitious targets are needed if we are to achieve low greenhouse gas concentrations and keep the rise in global temperature within low limits.

Further information:
http://www.climateactiontracker.org/

Climate Change : APEC Leaders Drop Climate Target

2009-11-16T20:52:00.000-08:00

World leaders meeting in Singapore have said it will not be possible to reach a climate change deal ahead of next month's UN conference in Denmark. After a two-day Asia-Pacific summit, they vowed to work towards an "ambitious outcome" in Copenhagen. But the group dropped a target to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, which was outlined in an earlier draft. Leaders also vowed to pursue a new strategy for growth after the world's worst economic crisis in decades. They resolved to conclude the Doha round of global trade talks in 2010. In a joint declaration issued at the end of their two-day annual summit, they said: "We firmly reject all forms of protectionism and reaffirm our commitment to keep markets open and refrain from raising new barriers to investment or to trade in goods and services." They also agreed to keep stimulus spending in place until a recovery was seen.

'Staging post'
But leaders have failed to agree a target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions at the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation (Apec) forum. Officials said the leaders - including presidents Barack Obama of the US and Hu Jintao of China - now viewed the Copenhagen summit as a "staging post", and not an end point, in the search for a global deal to cut emissions of greenhouse gases.

“ There was an assessment by the leaders that it was unrealistic to expect a full internationally legally binding agreement to be negotiated between now and when Copenhagen starts in 22 days. ” Mike Froman US Deputy National Security Adviser

"We... reaffirm our commitment to tackle the threat of climate change and work towards an ambitious outcome in Copenhagen," they said in the final declaration. "Global action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will need to be accompanied by measures, including financial assistance and technology transfer to developing economies for their adaptation to the adverse impact of climate change," the declaration said.

A Chinese official involved in the world climate talks said the 50% reduction target was "a very controversial issue in the world community" which could "disrupt the negotiation process". US Deputy National Security Adviser Mike Froman said the leaders had reached the conclusion that "it was unrealistic to expect a full, internationally legally-binding agreement to be negotiated between now and when Copenhagen starts in 22 days".

• 1. Friday 13: Arrived in Japan
• 2. Saturday 14: Joined Apec summit in Singapore
• 3. Sunday 15: Has talks with Russia's President Medvedev before leaving for China
• 4. Tuesday 17: Summit in Beijing with Chinese President Hu Jintao
• 5. Wednesday 18: Ends tour in South Korea

This was unwelcome evidence that the gap between developing and developed nations, between rich and poor, East and West can sometimes be hard to bridge, says the BBC's Rachel Harvey in Singapore. Mr Obama later met his Russian counterpart as the clock ticks for the world's two leading nuclear powers to strike a new arms reduction deal. The deal is meant to replace the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (Start I), which expires on 5 December. After the meeting, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said he hoped that "as we agreed earlier... we can finalise the treaty by December".

The two leaders also said they were unhappy with the pace of talks over Iran's nuclear programme. "We are running out of time with respect to that approach," Mr Obama said. Mr Obama kicked off his week-long Asian tour in Japan on Saturday. In Tokyo, he pledged Washington's "unshakeable" commitment to the security of the region and said Washington wanted to pursue a policy of "pragmatic cooperation" with China, Asia's rising power.

Following the meeting with Mr Medvedev, Mr Obama will travel to China amid heightened trade tensions between the two countries. The BBC's Chris Hogg in Shanghai says the face-to-face talks Mr Obama will have with China's President Hu Jintao will offer an opportunity to take the heat out of some of those trade disputes, and to pursue areas of co-operation, such as technology transfer from the US to help China build a so-called green economy.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/asia-pacific/8360982.stm

Published: 2009/11/15 08:06:00 GMT

© BBC MMIX

Public Lecture Series: The Road to Climate Justice

2009-11-09T19:38:00.000-08:00

”Be Aware of the Climate Change!”

IESR and the Climate Project (TCP) Indonesia has collaborative work for the first time to educate and increase awareness of Climate Change to student and faculty member of School of Public Health, University of Indonesia.

The speakers (TCP, IESR, and Public Health Faculty University of Indonesia

Jakarta, 23/10/09. IESR, The Climate Project Indonesia (TCP), and School of Public Health of University of Indonesia organized a half-day event: “Public Lecture on Climate Change,” in conjunction with the “United Nations Day” and “The International Day of Climate Action,” organized internationally by 350.org (www.350.org). This activity is part of TCP Indonesia activity on the public lecture on Climate Change in 34 universities across Indonesia. IESR has been trying to engage wider public on climate change awareness, and this event is a part of IESR’s Climate Justice Program. This event is taken place in the auditorium of the School of Public Health, University of Indonesia on 23 October 2009.

Nadia Hadad from TCP Indonesia presented the climate change evidences and humanity challenges. Nadia, who is Indonesia Project Coordinator of Bank Information Center (BIC), is alumni of The Climate Project training. Prof. Dr. I Made Jaya, SKM from the School of Public Health of University of Indonesia made presentation on Adaptation and Mitigation of Climate Change, while Febi Dwirahmadi, an alumni of the school and associate researcher of IESR who is working on climate adaptation project for urban, presented the impact of climate change to the public health. The lecture is moderated by Dr. dr. Rahmadi Purwana, SKM, from the School of Public Health.

One of messages conveyed in this lecture, that the current carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere has reached 386 part per million (ppm) based on findings from NASA’s climate scientist (NASA 2008). This level exceeds the 350 ppm level that some scientists said about the safe upper limit to avoid catastrophic impact to the ecosystem. So far the impacts of climate change have occurred in many part of the world and are projected to worsen in the future. It contributes to the reducing number of glacier in Alaska, Argentina and also New Zealand; inducing forest fire in Riau, Indonesia and Australia, sea level rise due to ice melting, flood and drought, and other extreme weather and the extinction of wildlife.

From public health aspect, climate change has the potential to affect population health either directly or indirectly. The examples of direct impact of climate change are : climate change will increase the frequency and the intensity of climate extreme events such as heat wave or cold wave in which may result in deaths or injuries. It also has been reported that climate change will intensify the climate related natural hazards such as storms, high tidal wave, and hurricane in which may not only impact human health but also building and infrastructure. Indirectly, climate change can also impact human health. This may happen because climate change will disturb the ecological system. This will include disease transmission and distribution, hydro-agronomical system, air pollution, water availability, and others. This for example, the global dengue fever which will increase during the La Nina phenomenon. In Indonesia dengue fever has significantly increased doubled during La Nina year in 1973, 1988, and 1998 (UNDP, 2007). Since Indonesia already experienced the impact of Climate Change, the government should design a mitigation and adaptation strategy including energy sector, land use, forest, and also ocean to reduce green house gases in atmophere.

Further, it was explained also about the climate debt concept. Based on the historical emission, industrial countries that represent only ¼ of world population already occupied ¾ of atmosphere with their carbon emission. Meanwhile developing countries who are the majority of the world population only produce ¼ of the historical emission. Further it constitutes a term that called as “climate debt”. Industrial countries ran up debts to developing countries due to their over-using the right to emit.

IESR now is working on a campaign on climate debt and preparing to release a post card campaign to ask developed countries leader to take serious and meaningful action to cut their emission. The post-card targeted the top 5 largest emitter countries and will be sent through the embassy or representative offices in Indonesia. This is part of our effort to make industrial countries responsible to their debt. IESR has asked student to participate in this campaign and raising their voice to demand the climate justice.

About more than 120 students and faculty members participated in the event. Some students claimed that this is a meaningful event for them since their understanding and knowledge on climate change issues are improved, and this lecture help them to have better analytical skill on their observation of public health issues that are closely linking with climate change.

Written by SB & FT

For more information, please contact:
Siti Badriyah, Program Officer Climate Change
(siti@iesr-indonesia.org)

Climate Change: Greenhouse Effect and Greenhouse Gases

2009-11-09T15:37:00.000-08:00

Four-billion years ago, this earth was covered by large amount of hydrogen and oxygen which became water and united as glacier. At that time, the earth’s temperature was -180˚ and unable all living creatures lived on the earth. However, every single day, the energy received from the sun affects the increase of the earth’s temperature, thus the heat is returned back to the atmosphere as infra-red waves and some of the energy is absorbed by 'greenhouse gases'. This process enables the average temperature of the earth increases into ±15 ˚ and, consequently, also enables the earth to be habitable.

The greenhouse effect is best explain by referring to circumstances where the short wavelengths of visible light from the sun pass through a transparent medium and are absorbed, yet the longer wavelengths of the infrared re-radiation from the heated objects are unable to pass through that medium. The trapping of the long wavelength radiation leads to more heating and a higher resultant temperature. Moreover, the greenhouse effect has also been widely used to describe the trapping of excess heat by the rising concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The carbon dioxide strongly absorbs infrared and does not allow as much of it to escape into space. It means, in essence, actually greenhouse effect is really useful for the earth to be habitable.

However, there is not only one gas, carbon dioxide, which trapped by greenhouse effect, but also other gases. Briefly, there are two kinds of gases cause greenhouse: controlled and uncontrolled as shown by the following table:

*Not all greenhouse gases are to be controlled under the Kyoto Protocol (see IPCC list of greenhouse gases for further understanding of greenhouse gases).
**The three major greenhouse gases
(http://www.climatechangesask.ca/html/learn_more/Emissions/GHGs/index.cfm)

Climate Change: Global Warming

2009-11-09T15:20:00.000-08:00

We realize that the earth is getting older; however, human activities are also one of the important accounts that are worsening the condition. Human modern lifestyles are subsequently adding greenhouse gases, especially the three major one, to the atmosphere, which made the world warmer than it normally should. This unnatural additional warming is called the "enhanced" greenhouse effect which further called as global warming.

In addition to global warming, the researches show that human activities since the industrial revolution have increased the atmospheric concentration of various greenhouse gases, leading to increased radiative forcing from CO2, methane, tropospheric ozone, CFCs and nitrous oxide. The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and methane have increased by 36% and 148% respectively since the mid-1700s. These levels are considerably higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice cores. Less direct geological evidence indicates that CO2 values this high were last seen approximately 20 million years ago. Fossil fuel burning has produced approximately three-quarters of the increase in CO2 from human activity over the past 20 years. Most of the rest is due to land-use change, in particular deforestation.

Furthermore, CO2 concentrations are expected to rise continually due to ongoing burning of fossil fuels and land-use change. The rate of rise will depend on uncertain economic, sociological, technological, and natural developments. The IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios gives a wide range of future CO2 scenarios, ranging from 541 to 970 ppm by the year 2100. Fossil fuel reserves are sufficient to reach this level and continue emissions past 2100 if coal, tar sands or methane clathrates are extensively exploited.

In brief, the major contributors to global warming are fossil fuels (such as coal and oil) since they release carbon dioxide, the most important greenhouse gas, when it’s burned. Further, there are also other main contributors to possible climate change; they are:

deforestation: where the trees are released carbon dioxide when the wood is burned.
rice paddies, cattle, coal mines, gas pipelines, and landfills produce methane, another greenhouse gas, which today causes about 30% as much warming as carbon dioxide.
fertilizers and other chemicals release nitrous oxide, which today causes about 10% as much warming as carbon dioxide. (http://www.gcrio.org/gwcc/part1.html).

Those contributors, undeniable, have enhanced the concentration of the three major greenhouse gases particularly CO2 to absorb the sun’s heat excessively since air pollution because of activities of industry, transportation, the increase of vehicles’ volume (which then worsen with traffic jams), and forest fire have contributed large amount of CO2concentration to the air.

On the other hand, methane, another major gas, which created by microbial activities in swamps, scrapheap, septic tank, and also industrial processes, has also increased the heat excessively since methane absorbs the heat around 20 times more than CO2 does. Furthermore, nitrous dioxide (N2O) that naturally produced by bacteria, livestock waste, vehicles’ smoke, and plastic industry processes has contributed 300 times more heat than CO2. SO2 (dioxide sulfur), from industrial and vehicles’ smoke and CFC (chlorofluorocarbon) from the use of AC, refrigerator and aerosol, has also gradually decreased the ozone layer, so that the infrared can’t be filtered maximally.

Climate Change: Climate Change and Its Impacts

2009-11-09T15:10:00.000-08:00

Continuous and rapid global warming then would directly affects the earth’s natural water cycle. The faster the water cycle contributes to wind directions and also precipitation frequency. Moreover, the warmer the earth will fasten glaciers melting and also the ice-cover at North Pole (can be seen from below Figures). These direct effects of climate change would then cause the following:

More droughts and more floods. When the weather gets warmer, evaporation from both land and sea increases. This can cause drought in areas of the world where the increased evaporation is not compensated for by more precipitation. The extra water vapour in the atmosphere has to fall again as extra precipitation, which can cause flooding other places in the world.

More extreme weather incidents. The warmer climate will most probably cause more heat waves, more cases of violent rainfall and also possibly an increase in the number and/or severity of storms.

Rising sea level. There are two reasons of sea level rises. First, it is because of the melting ice and snow, and second it is because of the thermal expansion of the sea due to temperatue increased. Thermic expansion takes a long time, but even an increase in temperature of two degrees Celsius is expected in time to cause a rise in the water level of almost a metre.

Temperature Changes. Global temperatures have increased by 0.75 °C (1.35 °F) relative to the period 1860–1900, according to the instrumental temperature record. This measured temperature increase is not significantly affected by the urban heat island effect. Since 1979, land temperatures have increased about twice as fast as ocean temperatures (0.25 °C per decade against 0.13 °C per decade). Temperatures in the lower troposphere have increased between 0.12 and 0.22 °C (0.22 and 0.4 °F) per decade since 1979, according to satellite temperature measurements. Temperature is believed to have been relatively stable over the one or two thousand years before 1850, with possibly regional fluctuations such as Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age.

Disease. Extensions of the geographical range and season for some organisms could result in increases of diseases like malaria, dengue fever and yellow fever. If the temperature increases by 3-5C the number of people potentially exposed to malaria could go up from 45% to 60% of the world population and result in an extra 50-80 million cases a year. Air pollution and exposure to greater extremes in temperature could lead to a greater frequency of asthma and respiratory diseases.

Ecosystems. Scientists predict that composition and range of many ecosystems will shift as species respond to climate change. Research models project that a substantial fraction of the world's forests, and possibly up to two thirds, will undergo major changes. They say the species composition will change and some forest may disappear all together.

Deserts are likely to become more extreme and result in increased soil erosion. Mountain glaciers could retreat and inland wetlands would be affected by global warming with resultant changes in habitat for the current species.

Researchers suggest that there will be a myriad of other changes and even a few surprises. But both the scientists and environment campaigners say human impact on the climate can be reduced by a number of measures.

Climate Change: Let’s Save the Earth

2009-11-09T14:50:00.000-08:00

By knowing the importance of restoring the earth due to the climate change, we need to use energy effectively such as turn off the lamp and electronic devices when we don’t use it, limiting the use of AC, unplug any chargers and stop-contact of any electronic devices, use natural energy: sell solar, biogas, water and wind mill.

To decrease air pollution, we can also use public transportation or biking as the best solution. Planting many trees around schools and houses would also be an advantage since it can absorb CO2 and process it into O2.

The other important thing is by asking the developed country to cut their emission. Send their leaders postcard, email attack as a way of showing our care to the earth. Help them to understand the danger that is waiting us in the future.

It's time for climate action!

2009-10-13T02:24:00.000-07:00

ABOUT - IESR

2009-10-13T01:57:00.000-07:00

IESR at glance

Institute for Essential Services Reform (IESR) is an independent institution. It was established in December 10th, 2006 as a working group (Working Group on Power Sector Restructuring-- WGPSR) under International NGO Forum on Indonesia Development (INFID) worked on energy related issues between 2002-2006. The external evaluation conducted in 2007 and requested by its donor organization suggested to establish a permanent institution and broaden its focus and works to cover energy issues in order to meet growing demand. IESR transformed from WGPSR into IESR on 14/04/2008 and is still an NGO (“Ornop”) organized as a membership organization (“Perkumpulan”).