GoodLifeBottles - 728x90

Copenhagen climate change summit 2009

India gets serious on climate change

July 29, 2009

India has resisted the external imposition of climate change law – and with good reason. But its about-turn is to be applauded

Here’s the best news I’ve seen all year: India is finally lumbering into action on climate change.

Though this country is likely to be hit harder than almost anywhere else by the climate crash, not least because its food production is largely dependent on meltwater from Himalayan glaciers, which are rapidly retreating, it has almost been a point of pride in India not to respond to the requests of richer nations to limit its emissions.

I think there are several reasons for this, not all of them discreditable. The first is that Indian people and governments have rightly perceived that when it comes to acting on climate change, most developed countries are all leaf and no plums. They make grand statements (remember the G8 meeting) about the need to cut emissions, but in most cases they haven’t been translating them into domestic policy (the UK is now an exception). With some justice, India has suspected that it is being urged to implement global policies that the rich nations have no intention of honouring.

Indians are also painfully aware that the rich nations in the past deliberately prevented their nation from developing. England, for example, banned the import of calico (cotton cloth) from India, in order to protect its own textile industries. It went on to smash Indian looms and cut off the thumbs of Indian weavers in order prevent them from making their superior products. As Ha Joon Chang shows in his book Kicking Away the Ladder, England’s industrial revolution was made possible by preventing India’s. Many people there suspect that attempts to limit India’s future greenhouse gas emissions have the same purpose.

Partly as a result, and partly because it’s the quickest and easiest route to mass electrification, India has been investing heavily in coal plants, while neglecting its great potential to produce renewable energy. But suddenly this seems to be changing. Draft documents released today show that the government intends to announce 20GW of solar power investments by 2020.

This is equivalent to one eighth of India’s installed capacity of all forms of electricity generation, or roughly a quarter of the UK’s (we have 80GW of plant, about 70% of which is powered by fossil fuel). China and Japan have similar targets, but because most of India is closer to the equator, the capacity factor (the amount of power you get from any given amount of plant) will be higher in India.

Well that’s the good news. The bad news is that India is also in the middle of a programme to increase coal capacity by 79GW – equivalent to the entire UK power sector – by 2012. The new solar plant will supplement, not substitute, its other forms of power generation. But at least the $19bn India is spending on it shows that the country is starting to get serious about climate change. Whether it makes any commitments at Copenhagen is another matter.

www.monbiot.com

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Read the full article →

World will warm faster than predicted in next five years, study warns

July 28, 2009

New estimate based on the forthcoming upturn in solar activity and El Niño southern oscillation cycles is expected to silence global warming sceptics

The world faces record-breaking temperatures as the sun’s activity increases, leading the planet to heat up significantly faster than scientists had predicted for the next five years, according to a study.

The hottest year on record was 1998, and the relatively cool years since have led to some global warming sceptics claiming that temperatures have levelled off or started to decline. But new research firmly rejects that argument.

The research, to be published in Geophysical Research Letters, was carried out by Judith Lean, of the US Naval Research Laboratory, and David Rind, of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

The work is the first to assess the combined impact on global temperature of four factors: human influences such as CO2 and aerosol emissions; heating from the sun; volcanic activity and the El Niño southern oscillation, the phenomenon by which the Pacific Ocean flips between warmer and cooler states every few years.

The analysis shows the relative stability in global temperatures in the last seven years is explained primarily by the decline in incoming sunlight associated with the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle, together with a lack of strong El Niño events. These trends have masked the warming caused by CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

As solar activity picks up again in the coming years, the research suggests, temperatures will shoot up at 150% of the rate predicted by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Lean and Rind’s research also sheds light on the extreme average temperature in 1998. The paper confirms that the temperature spike that year was caused primarily by a very strong El Niño episode. A future episode could be expected to create a spike of equivalent magnitude on top of an even higher baseline, thus shattering the 1998 record.

The study comes within days of announcements from climatologists that the world is entering a new El Niño warm spell. This suggests that temperature rises in the next year could be even more marked than Lean and Rind’s paper suggests. A particularly hot autumn and winter could add to the pressure on policy makers to reach a meaningful deal at December’s climate-change negotiations in Copenhagen.

Bob Henson, of the National Centre for Atmospheric Research in Colorado, said: “To claim that global temperatures have cooled since 1998 and therefore that man-made climate change isn’t happening is a bit like saying spring has gone away when you have a mild week after a scorching Easter.” Temperature highs and lows

1998

Hottest year of the millennium

Caused by a major El Niño event. The climate phenomenon results from warming of the tropical Pacific and causes heatwaves, droughts and flooding around the world. The 1998 event caused 16% of the world’s coral reefs to die.

1957

Most sunspots in a year since 1778

The sun’s activity waxes and wanes on an 11-year cycle. The late 1950s saw a peak in activity and were relatively warm years for the period.

1601

Coldest year of the millennium

Ash from the huge eruption the previous year of a Peruvian volcano called Huaynaputina blocked out the sun. The volcanic winter caused Russia’s worst famine, with a third of the population dying, and disrupted agriculture from China to France.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Read the full article →

A message to Copenhagen

July 22, 2009

Got something to say to those deciding the world’s fate? Get your voice heard by sharing your message with our Flickr group, A Message to Copenhagen and we’ll feature the best here

This December, governments meet in Copenhagen to thrash out a successor to the Kyoto Protocol that will – hopefully – make a historic commitment to cut international greenhouse gas emissions. Governments have already started setting out their stalls. Environmental campaigners have called on world leaders to attend.

But what about you? What message do you have for the environment ministers and officials deciding the world’s fate this December? Get your voice heard and share your message by adding it to our new Flickr group, A Message to Copenhagen.

We want to collect as many photos from Guardian readers and Flickr users as possible, to show governments how people feel about the Copenhagen talks and climate change.

We’ll feature the best here on guardian.co.uk and maybe in the print version of the Guardian too.

GD13056886

GD13056873

GD13056898

GD13056894

Sylvia IMG_0711

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Read the full article →

Activists reveal plan to storm Copenhagen climate summit

July 21, 2009

Anti-globalisation group Climate Justice action talks of plans to mobilise up to 15,000 protesters to storm Copenhagen summit in December

A network of radical green groups is planning to disrupt the international climate change meeting in Copenhagen in December by invading the conference centre and occupying it for a day, it has emerged.

The anti-globalisation group Climate Justice Action has said it hopes to mobilise up to 15,000 protesters to storm the climate summit, and a large carbon dioxide emitter nearby, while negotiators try to thrash out a replacement for the Kyoto protocol.

“We want to take over the summit space to set the global agenda away from false, market-based solutions, towards an agenda of social justice,” said Tadzio Müller, a 32-year-old German activist who is part of the group organising the protest. “Real emission cuts will not be achieved by initiatives like carbon trading…It is (the pursuit of) economic growth that is driving us into climate chaos.”

But other green groups have condemned the plan. WWF said the action would be “counter-productive”. It is “very concerned” that the proposed protest will put off its own supporters.

“If you want to help fight against climate change, you don’t storm the building,” said Rasmus Helveg Petersen from WWF Denmark. “I don’t see the point of this protest.”

“We are afraid it might affect our ability to mobilise people during the conference. If there is a sense that there could be violence, people will stay at home.”

According to Müller, thousands of activists will take part in the action, organised by an international network of green and anti-globalisation activists called Climate Justice Action. He says: “If the turnout is bad, it will be 2,000-3,000 people. If it is good, it is going to be between 10,000 and 15,000 people.” He added that demonstrators will come from a variety of countries, including the UK.

The action will begin with a march in the streets of Copenhagen, ending at the summit’s conference site, the Bella Centre in the south of the city, where protesters will attempt to push pass police officers guarding the venue. “The police will try to stop us, but we will try to break the blockade in strictly non-violent ways,” said Peter Polder, a 34-year-old Dutch green activist and member of Climate Justice Action.

Activists are also planning to occupy an installation in the Copenhagen area that is a big emitter of carbon dioxide. Polder explains: “It could be a factory or a coal-fired power plant. We are still looking into it.”

Danish authorities appear not to be worried by the protest. “It’s not the first time we are having a conference in Copenhagen, so we are well prepared,” said Flemming Steen Munch from Copenhagen police. He declined to comment on the security measures taken for the conference.

Müller said the climate meeting was a legitimate target for protest because it would not go far enough to tackling the global warming crisis. “There is not a hope in hell that something significant will take place in Copenhagen,” said Müller. “Everyone close to the negotiations knows that nothing is on the table.”

“Copenhagen will be dominated by false solutions like biofuels and carbon trading,” added Polder. “The most effective way to do so is to return to more localised, sustainable economies…We should work on true solutions and not wait for the politicians.”

Petersen at WWF disagreed. “We want to influence the summit by engaging as widely as possible … This protest will not affect the summit and its outcome.”

He also dismissed Climate Justice Action’s description of their tactics as “a contradiction in terms”. “You can’t force your way into the conference centre and remain non-violent at the same time,” he said.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Read the full article →

India says no to emission reduction

July 21, 2009

Ramesh suggests a three-pronged approach for India–US collaboration on climate change as a way forward. From SciDev.net, part of the Guardian Environment Network

India’s minister for environment and forests Jairam Ramesh has ruled out the country’s agreeing to specific targets for reducing carbon emissions.

“There is simply no case for the pressure that we [India] — who have among the lowest emissions per capita — face to reduce emissions,” Ramesh told visiting US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton yesterday (19 July).

“And as if this pressure was not enough, we also face the threat of carbon tariffs on our exports to countries such as yours,” Ramesh said. These tariffs are charges levied on companies for the carbon dioxide they produce while manufacturing goods.

Ramesh says that detailed modelling studies carried out in India show that even if gross domestic product grows by 8–9 per cent over the next two decades, India’s emissions will be below that of developed countries.

He also said India sees “a critical role for international technology cooperation in enabling countries like India to adapt to climate change”. India, in collaboration with the UN, will host an international meeting on climate change technology issues on 22–23 October, in New Delhi, which is expected to culminate in a statement for inclusion in any agreement to be reached in Copenhagen in December.

Although developing countries expect a concrete adaptation fund to be put in place in Copenhagen, developed countries have not yet committed themselves to any specific contributions, Tove Maria Ryding — a climate and energy campaigner for Greenpeace Denmark and chair of a coalition of 92 nongovernmental organisations — told journalists from developing countries last month (June).

Technology transfer is being linked to how willing developing countries — especially Brazil China, India and South Africa — are to commit themselves to reducing emissions, she says.

A press release from India’s environment ministry on 19 July says Ramesh suggests a three-pronged approach for India–US collaboration on climate change as a way forward. The first is to set up an India–US forum on climate change technology, with initial funds from the two governments to kickstart it. The two countries could engage in joint research in solar energy, biomass, clean coal, high-voltage power transmission, smart grids and wastewater utilisation, he suggests.

The second is building institutional capacity for climate change research and its impacts, and the third is collaboration between the two countries on environmental planning, regulation and management.

India’s future plans in this area include establishing a science-based national environmental protection authority and a national ‘green tribunal’ to serve as an environment court — a specialist court for environmental issues.

• This article was shared by our content partner SciDev.net, part of the Guardian Environment Network

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Read the full article →

UN panel to study climate impact on poor nations

July 21, 2009

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change determined to increase understanding of regional effects of warming

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN body of scientists drawn from around the world, will use its next assessment due in 2014 to look at how the impact of global warming is falling unequally on the poorest developing countries.

Two hundred key members of the IPCC met in Venice last week to begin scoping out its fifth assessment. Rajendra Pachauri, the body’s chairman, told reporters at the UN building in New York today that the panel was determined to increase its understanding of local and regional impacts of rising temperatures.

There was an awareness, he said, that in Africa in particular there was insufficient scientific and modelling fire-power to be able to predict in any detail what was likely to happen under global warming. “It’s critically important that we create the capacity in Africa to be able to assess the impact of climate change.”

A portion of the money the panel was awarded for the 2007 Nobel peace prize that it shared with Al Gore has been put into a trust specifically to help the least developed countries predict, and thus prepare for, the likely consequences.

Pachauri said the fifth assessment, the first draft of which is scheduled for 2013, would concentrate both on adaptations and mitigations that countries could make as rising temperatures take hold. “Every nation and community in the world will have to adapt [to] whatever happens in Copenhagen.”

Pachauri said he had been heartened by the recent G8 meeting in which the world’s industrialised powers agreed on an aspirational ceiling of 2C temperature rise. But he said that in that case they should also have signed up to the IPCC’s conclusion that to contain global temperatures within that limit, emissions of greenhouse gases had to peak in 2015 and decline rapidly thereafter.

“They should have categorically stated that by 2020 they will implement deep cuts in emissions. So there are several gaps that are rather glaring.” He went on to say that “the time has come for the global community to take action. There is frustration about the gap between our knowledge [of climate change] and acting on that knowledge.”

Another area that the IPCC will home in on in its fifth assessment is extreme weather caused by climate change, a topic that has garnered mounting public attention in recent years.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Read the full article →

IPCC chief: Benefits of tackling climate change will balance cost

July 20, 2009

The cost of tackling climate change will be paid for by benefits that would come from better energy security, employment and health, Rajendra Pachauri says ahead of major announcement on 2013 reports

Measures needed to tackle global warming could save economies more money than they cost, the world’s top climate change expert said today.

Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), told the Guardian: “The cost could undoubtedly be negative overall.” This is because of the additional benefits that reducing greenhouse gas emissions could bring, beyond limiting temperature rises.

Until now, estimates of the price of preventing dangerous climate change have all indicated significant costs. The most authoritative study, the 2006 Stern report, concluded that 1% of global GDP would be required, and he has since said 2% is now more likely.

Pachauri’s comments came ahead of a press announcement in New York today about the IPCC’s plans for its next series of reports in 2013. He said these would include a greater emphasis on the economics, as well as ethical and humanitarian concerns.

Funding for reducing and adapting to climate change in one of the most difficult issues in the negotiations towards a global deal at a UN summit in December in Copenhagen. But Pachauri argues that if the costs are negative, then “inertia and vested interests would be washed away. As the Americans say, it would be like dollar bills lying on the sidewalk.”

Alex Bowen, one of the Stern report authors, said: “[Pachauri's] is a defensible postion, not delusional. But I am more of a sceptic.”

“My hunch overall is that it will be a little more costly than we estimated in 2006. But if well designed policies are put in place, we can still do it remarkably cheaply. And there is still no doubt that strong action now is much cheaper than no action,” added Bowen, an economist at the Grantham Research Institute On Climate Change at the London School of Economics.

The associated benefits Pachauri pointed to include better energy security, protecting consumers from oil price spikes, new employment in green industries, more productive agriculture and lower air pollution, cutting health costs. He said one good example was insulating draughty homes and installing better energy control systems. “This can yield very high rates of returns, with pay back in one year.”

The idea of co-benefits is also central to the “green new deals” promoted by the UN Environment programme, Lord Stern’s group and others.

Bowen said: “Negative costs depends on assumption that policy design and implementation is sensible and very consistent across countries all over the world. But we have gone three years [since the Stern report] without global policies. Emissions have grown rapidly and a lot of people now think economic growth will be much higher later in the century.” The faster you have to reduce emissions, he said, the more expensive it is likely to be.

Pachauri’s comments came as he led discussions what the next set of reports from the IPCC should cover. Its last report in 2007 is acknowledged to have settled the argument over whether emissions from human activities were causing climate change.

In the next series, due in 2013, Pachauri said the focus would change. “The IPCC cannot address the issue in purely scientific terms. For adaptation and mitigation, we need to put euro or dollar values on those. But there are also some costs you can’t quantify. For example, take Hurricane Katrina. You can put a value on property losses, what about psychological, sociological, and institutional costs. I would not like to try to quantify those.”

The IPCC meeting raised a range of further issues that it believes need more attention, including extreme weather events, new greenhouse gases, the full impacts of aviation and global scale geo-engineering.

The reports take between five and seven years to complete, but Pachauri argued that this is their strength: “The IPCC process of regular peer review means the reports are far more defensible than anything else. Comments received are posted on our website as are actions.”

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Read the full article →

Activists: we’ll ‘rush’ parliament to pressure Copenhagen climate summit

July 16, 2009

It may not have been the ‘summer of rage’ that was feared, but environmental activists have big plans for Copenhagen

Environmental activists last night set up an alternative People’s Parliament and called for drastic action to jolt the government into action, even as some of them admitted that the green movement is – just temporarily – a little “stuck”.

Beneath a rainy sky in the Old Palace Yard opposite the Houses of Parliament, around a hundred campaigners gathered to berate the government for dragging its feet.

While speakers broadly welcomed yesterday’s plan for a low carbon Britain, Darren Johnson of the Green Party said he deeply regretted the “dismal failure we’ve seen from the government,” and Colin Challen MP revealed that direct government action since 1990 had cut carbon emissions by a dismal 15%. The Save Vestas campaign talked about the 600 jobs about to be lost in the Isle of Wight when the island’s wind turbine factory shuts, which they claimed was a result of the government’s failure to fully back the wind industry.

Privately, activists admitted that the last couple of months have been quiet ones, confounding police expectations of a “summer of rage”.

Perhaps the G20 protests let the steam out of the kettle, or perhaps the large numbers of activists under bail restrictions and awaiting charges or trial is deterring action. Perhaps they are too busy poring over the small print of yesterday’s white paper, which sets out how the government will achieve its 2020 carbon targets. The numbers joining climate change groups have not diminished, but most campaigners yesterday admitted that they’re taking a breather in preparation for the autumn build-up to climate negotations at Copenhagen.

Tamsin Omond of Climate Rush ended the night by reminding everyone to join a march on 5 December, designed to spur politicians at Copenhagen to take serious action:

Meetings like this are great for getting us together, for talking about things. But how are we going to put the fear of god into our politicians before they go to Copenhagen? I want to advocate civil disobedience and direct action.

There will be a vanguard on that march, we’re planning a Climate Rush of parliament, we’ll knock on that door, we’ll go in, we’ll occupy parliament, we’ll put wind turbines on the roof, we’ll seedbomb the gardens, every terrace, every windowbox …

She did later admit that the march was taking place on a Saturday. “So we may have to stay in there a couple of days before they notice.” But we won’t let boring reality get in the way of a grand finale …

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Read the full article →