Scoreboard Video — Climate Interactive

A 4 minute motion graphics and data visualization video explaining the Climate Scoreboard. Click the triangle “play” button to watch.

more about "Scoreboard Video — Climate Interactive", posted with vodpod

“Good planets are hard to come by” – a note from Andrew Glickson

6 February 2010 Posted by OveHG 150 views No Comment

Dr Andrew Glick is an earth and paleoclimate scientist from the Australian National University.

“We’re simply talking about the very life support system of this planet.” (Joachim Schellnhuber, Director, Potsdam Climate Impacts Institute, advisor to the German government).

The release of more than 320 billion tons of carbon (GtC) from buried early biospheres, adding more than one half of the original carbon inventory of the atmosphere (~590 GtC) to the atmosphere-ocean system, has triggered a fundamental shift in the state of the atmosphere at a rate of 2 ppm CO2/year, a pace unprecedented in the geological record with the exception of the effects of CO2 released from craters excavated by large asteroid impacts.

Recent paleoclimate studies, using multiple proxies (soil carbonate δ13C, boron/calcium, stomata leaf pores), indicate that the current CO2 level of 388 ppm and CO2-equivalent level of 460 ppm (which includes the methane factor), commits warming above pre-industrial levels to 3 to 4 degrees C in the tropics and 10 degrees C in polar regions [1], leading to an ice-free Earth.

Such conditions existed in the early Pliocene (5.2 Ma) and mid-Pliocene (2.8 Ma) Pliocene, about the time Australopithecine bipeds were emerging from tropical forests [2]. Pliocene climates changed gradually and pre-historic humans responded through migration. There is nowhere the 6.5 billion of contemporary humans can go, not even the barren planets into the study of which space agencies have been pouring more funding than governments allocated for environmental mitigation to date [3].

It appears difficult to explain to the public and politicians that, at 460 ppm CO2-equivalent, the climate is tracking close to the upper stability limit of the Antarctic ice sheet, defined at approximately 500 ppm [4]. Once transcended, mitigation measures would hardly be able to re-form the cryosphere, which serves as the Earth’s thermostat, from which cold ocean and wind current emanate – keeping lower latitudes cool. Once the ice melts the atmosphere-ocean system shifts to greenhouse Earth conditions such as existed about 15 Ma (mid-Miocene), before 40 Ma (Eocene), and much of the Cretaceous (141 – 65 Ma), when only small burrowing mammals could live on land.

About 2.8 Ma, the mid-Pliocene, temperatures rose by at least 3 degrees C above pre-industrial and sea levels rose by 25+/-12 meters [5]. About 15 million years ago the rise of CO2 to near~500 ppm resulted in global temperatures about 4 degrees C above pre-industrial level and sea level by about 40 meters. Since the early 20th century the rate of sea level rise increased from about 1 mm/year to about 3.5 mm/year [6] (1993 – 2009 mean rate 3.2+/-0.4 mm/year (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Sea level changes 1993 – 2009 scanned by the Topex and Jason satellites. University of Colorado, 2009 (http://sealevel.colorado.edu/)

The world is in a lag period, when the consequences of human greenhouse gas emissions and land clearing are increasingly manifest, including atmospheric energy levels which drive hurricanes and is shifting climate zones toward the poles, with consequent desertification of temperate zones, i.e. southern Europe, southern Australia, southern Africa. The desiccated forests become prey to firestorms, such as in Victoria and California.

Global warming is modulated by the ENSO cycle, including relatively cool La-Nina phases (Figure 2). Studiously ignorant climate change deniers, who would like to call themselves “sceptics”, use these cycles to claim “global cooling” [7]. In contravention of basic laws of thermodynamics (Stefan-Boltzmann law, Kirchoff law) which underlie the infrared absorption/emission resonance effect of greenhouse molecules, they invoke the role of short-lived (9 days average atmospheric residence) water vapour but neglect the long-term effects (centuries to millennia) of the well-mixed CO2 and nitric oxides. The increased frequency of the El-Nino is tracking toward conditions of permanent El-Nino, free from the effects of polar-derived currents (Humboldt Current, California Current). Such conditions existed about 2.8 Ma ago [8] (Figure 3).

Figure 2: Mean global temperature trend 1975 – 2009 and the ENSO cycle, representing the superposition of the El-Nino – La Nina cycles on the global warming trend."

Climate change is appropriately described as a global oxygenation event affecting geological carbon deposits as well as the present biosphere. At 2 ppm/year the scale of carbon oxidation exceeds the highest recorded geological rate of 0.4 ppm/year, recorded at the Paleocene-Eocene boundary at 55 Ma when about 2000 GtC were burnt, triggering an extinction of species [4].

Figure 3: Evolution of the ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation) cycles from the Pliocene (5.2 – 1.8 million years ago) to the present, showing the divergence of ocean temperatures in the east Pacific Ocean (blue line) from the west Pacific Ocean (red line).

Hopes for a meaningful binding agreement in Copenhagen, described as “the most important meeting in the history of the human species.” (Joachim Schellnhuber), and for a supposed presidential “Messiah” to wave the magic wand, collapsed in December, 2009, in the sorry mess of vested and tribal interests.

The international system required to protect the lives of the young and future generation is failing. According to the Global Carbon Project “Carbon emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels and land use changes reached almost 10 billion tonnes in 2007” [9]. Those who deny the reality of climate change around the globe seek uncertainties in future climate projections, cf. dates of Himalayan glacier melt or Amazon deforestation. This ignores the evidence for dangerous climate trajectories even where the precise dates of future events can not be determined, namely, Himalayan glaciers melt may precede or postdate 2035. Presumably the claims of “conspiracy” on the part of the scientific world include the pioneers of atmospheric physics (Joseph Fourier, John Tyndall, Svante Arrhenius and Guy Chalendar), as well as those who defined the basic thermodynamic laws of the greenhouse process (Stefan, Bolzmann, Kirschner)?

Most of all those who criticise the IPCC ignore the fact that, to date, the IPCC reports have UNDERESTIMATED ice melt rates, sea level rise, feedback effects and the proximity of tipping points, not least the looming release of hundreds of GtC as methane from permafrost, lake sediments and bogs.

Governments continue to pour the planet’s dwindling resources into wars (US$1.4 trillion in 2008) and bank bailouts (US$0.7 trillion). Entertainment and media are projected to cost US$2 trillion in 2011. Between 1958 and 2009 the US (NASA) spent US$823 billion on space exploration searching among other for water and microbes on other planets [10]. Now they have found water on Mars and the Moon, while pH of the terrestrial oceans has declined between 1751 and 1994 by 0.075 (8.179 to 8.104) [11], threatening the marine food chain.

1. Pagani M. et al. 2010. http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n1/abs/ngeo724.html
2. deMenocal P.B. 1995. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/270/5233/53
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA Budget#Annual _budget.2C_1958-2008;
4. Zachos J.C. et al. 2008 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v451/n7176/full/nature06588.html
5. Haywood M. and Williams M. 2005. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118652116/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
6. Rahmstorf S. 2007. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1135456 http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
7. Easterling D.R. and Wehner M.F. 2009. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL037810.shtml
8. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;312/5779/1485
9. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/09/26/2374776.htm
10. http://features.csmonitor.com/innovation/2009/09/24/nasa-finds-water-ice-in-mars-craters/ http://features.csmonitor.com/innovation/2009/09/24/new-evidence-of-water-on-the-moon/
11. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

OveHG is Professor and Director of the Centre for Marine Studies at the University of Queensland. He completed his BSc. Hons at the University of Sydney and PhD at UCLA in 1989, and was recognized in 1999 with the Eureka prize for Research into the physiological mechanisms of coral bleaching. Specialising in the impact of climate change on biological systems, Professor Hoegh-Guldberg has worked in polar, temperate and tropical regions, and is well-known for his work on the impacts of ocean warming and acidification on coral reefs. He is currently a Queensland Smart State Premier’s fellow, and holds positions as reviewing editor at Science Magazine and chair of the World Bank/GEF working group on coral reefs and climate change.
Email this author | View all posts by OveHG

http://www.climateshifts.org/?p=4339

POST COP 15 | TIME TO BE BOLD | GLOBAL DECLARATION

POST COP 15 | TIME TO BE BOLD

At COP15 2010, on December 17th and 18th, presentations were made, by the heads of states, to the assembly. The majority of heads of states were calling for the global community to maintain the rise in temperature to well below 1.5 degrees. Sadly, it was clear at COP15 that the demands of the majority of states were disregarded. On December 7th, Papua New Guinea proposed that, rather than descend to the lowest common denominator, the parties should strive for consensus with a fall back of 75%. Unfortunately, this proposal was summarily dismissed by the chair.

If one counts the G77 representing 130 developing states along with some low lying states or small island states which were not members of the G77 and, with some of the member states of the European Union, then possibly over 75% of the signatories of the UNFCCC would have been prepared to sign and ratify a strong, legally binding agreement. It could be argued, on the one hand, that such an agreement would be irrelevant because the major greenhouse gas producers would not have signed on. On the other hand, citizens in the major greenhouse gas producing states could use the agreement to pressure their governments to commit to stronger emission reductions. COP16, in Mexico, must respect the demands of the majority.

We affirm that

The UNFCCC is ratified by 192 countries representing near universal membership. It commands near universal support and its legitimacy is unquestioned. Therefore all signatories of the UNFCCC are legally bound to discharge the obligation in Article 2 which states: “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere must be at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system”. The emerging science, including the scientific reports from COP15, indicates that the global crisis is much more urgent than what was anticipated in the 2007 IPCC report that was based on data up to the year 2005. This crucial emerging science was not recognized in the Copenhagen Accord. In addition the IPCC must be called upon to include the contribution, through militarism, to greenhouse gas emissions.

The issue of climate change and its impact on our environment is the most urgent issue of our time. Because of the global urgency, there is the legal obligation to contain the rise in temperature to less than 1°C above pre-industrial levels, and the parts per million to 300 ppm.This level is now acknowledged to be the point if which we exceed – global systems on land, water and air will be so affected as to create irreversible vicious feedback cycles and destabilize many ecosystems and human societies.

Strict time frames must be imposed, so that overall global emissions will begin to be reversed as of 2010. There must be a global target of 30% below 1990 levels by 2015, 50% below by 2020, 75% by 2030, 85% by 2040 and well above 100% by 2050, while adhering to the precautionary principle, intergenerational equity principle and differentiated responsibility principle.

Developed country parties must acknowledge their emissions debt to developing countries. To address the emission debt developed states must; (i) cancel the existing debt owe by developing countries, (ii) implement the long-standing commitment of .7% of GDP for overseas development, and (iii) ensure new funding for climate change compensation, and for socially equitable and environmentally safe and sound development. In addition, developed country parties will renounce war and reallocate military expenses.

ENDORSED BY:

Canadians for Action on Climate Change

Global Compliance Research Project

To sign onto this declaration please send an email to canadiansforactiononjclimatechange.

Interview with Rajendra Pachauri on Two Degrees

Interview in Copenhagen by Joan Stevenson (PhD)

I was only able to catch him briefly on the evening on December 18, I asked him the following Question:

"Why is the conference still discussing two degrees? The World Meteorological Organization said everything is increasing much faster than anticipated. Why is the emerging science not being considered?"

RAJENDRA PACHAURI: "Well, I think there are two reasons. I think the countries that can really make a difference have not really got sensitive enough to the plight of the poorest of the poor. I think that¹s a harsh reality which we have no choice but to accept. And I hope that will change.

And the second reason is that, you know, climate change and acting to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases would affect every sector of the economy. And there’s a certain inertia over there. There’s a certain vested interest that almost sees that as an enemy of business as usual. “

So I¹m not surprised. I mean, this is something that we should have anticipated. People are not going to give up their so-called benefits. They’re not going to give up the profits that they are making from what they are doing business on. And it’s inevitable that you¹ll get this kind of resistance. But I think truth will triumph, and science will triumph."

DEFENCE OF PACHAURI

February 1. 2010

Joan Stevenson (PhD)

The real culprits escape Andrew Weaver condemnation
Harper releases pitiful commitments to greenhouse gas reductions

In response to Andrew Weaver‘s article criticizing Dr. Pachauri, Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – January 27th, Times Colonist.

Pachauri, as an individual, was willing to take on powerful corporate interests. While being clear that he was speaking as an individual, he made important statements about actions that could contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. For example, at the 2007 Climate Change Conference at the UN, when he was asked what action would he recommend; he responded to transition from a meat-based diet to a vegetarian-based diet. Recent reports have indicated that methane is a massive contributor to greenhouse gas emissions.

Pachauri was willing as an individual to take on the destructive Canadian tar sands by calling for the production in the tar sands to end. A position too few have had the courage to take on the international stage. While it appears that the Himalayas are bucking the trend, and the IPCC erred in its estimation, at COP 15, the IPCC released recent data that at 2 degrees rise in temperature, the poor, the disenfranchised and the vulnerable would not survive, and at 1.5 degrees there was a chance. Also there were reports from the World Meteorological Organization that temperatures were rising more rapidly, climate -related incidents were more frequent and more intense, and droughts were advancing more rapidly than had been projected in the IPCC 2007 report which was based on 2004 and 2005 data. In addition, the UNCHR reported that climate change refugees were increasing more than anticipated. Rather than attacking Pachauri, why does Weaver not express concern that at COP!5, the emerging science was ignored in the Copenhagen Accord. Why does he not criticize the reluctance on the part of the IPCC to address the contribution of militarism to greenhouse gas emissions, which could be as high at 20%. And above all why does he not condemn the serious lack of political will on the part of most of the developed states, especially Canada and the US, to seriously address the pleas from the G77, the Organization of Small Island States, and the low lying states. The Chair of the African Caucus decried that while the developed states play with numbers Africa is dying;

Obama and Harper are out of sync not only with the leaders from the developing world but also with most of the leaders from developed countries

The cobbled-up so-called “Obama” Copenhagen Accord undermines any resolve to seriously address the issue. Not only was it agreed to behind closed doors, it was foisted on the developing states. As the representative of Tuvalu stated, “I will not sell out the citizens of Tuvalu for 30 pieces of silver”. The Copenhagen Accord ignores the emerging science and the statements by most of the state leaders when it still uses the limit of 2 degrees. Sadly, many of the developing states may be coerced into adopting the Copenhagen Accord.

In Copenhagen, around 3am on December 19, 2009 there was a table 1 list of developed country emission targets. On the 3am table 1, Harper had listed his target as 20% below 2006 level by 2020, and the US had listed its target as 17% below 2005 by 2020, both of which would have been about 3% below 1990 levels by 2020. Both these targets were conspicuously below the other developed state targets. All the other developed states, except Australia – which used 2000 as the baseline – used the 1990 level as the baseline. The European Union made a commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% [or 30% if
other developed states would move] below 1990 levels by 2020. In Copenhagen, at 4 am, on December 19, 2009, Adrienne Arsenault, from CBC, reported from Copenhagen and showed table 1 of the Copenhagen accord, as being blank. WHAT HAPPENED BETWEEN 3AM AND 4AM? Perhaps Harper and Obama were so ashamed that they insisted that their meagre commitments had to be removed. Or was it just Harper that was concerned because Harper had made a serious error in not completely emulating Obama. On January 30 Harper submitted his copycat emission reduction targets, of 17% below 2005 level by 2020, to the annex 1 table to the Copenhagen accord: As of the preliminary deadline, January 31, 19 states had adopted the Copenhagen Accord.

Inadequate funding in the Copenhagen Accord

Harper has now agreed to the Copenhagen Accord. The funding allotted to assist the developing states was an insult if one compares it to the 1.4 trillion per year that the developed states are willing to spend on the military budgets. This fact was pointed out by the leader of the G77, and by the Alba group; Evo Morales pointed out in an appeal to Obama to spend money on life, not death (a paraphrase).

What needs to be done

The UNFCCC is ratified by 194 countries ­ representing near universal membership. It commands near universal support and its legitimacy is unquestioned. The UNFCCC stated: “Stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere must be at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system”. This level equates to a target of below 1°C, which is the point at which global systems on land, water and air will be so affected as to create vicious feedback cycles and destabilize many ecosystems and human societies. Indeed this is already happening at .78 C.

Because of the global urgency, there must be the political will to strive to contain the rise in temperature to less than 1°C above pre-industrial levels, and the parts per million to 300 ppm. Strict timeframes must be imposed, so that overall global emissions will begin to be reversed as of 2010. There must be a global target of 30% below 1990 levels by 2015, 50% below by 2020, 75% by 2030, 85% by 2040 and 100% below by 2050, while adhering to the precautionary principle, the intergenerational principle and the differentiated responsibility principle [the emission debt owed by developed countries to developing countries
has to be seriously addressed].

Let them buy rubber boots and drink bottled water”

The real leaders in Copenhagen were from the South, not from the North where most of the “leaders”, especially Harper who, like Marie Antoinette, appears to cry out: “Let them buy rubber boots and drink bottled water” as the Earth floods and burns.

Post Copenhagen Stress Disorder (PCSD)

Civil society should connect the dots around Copenhagen’s failure, pee its collective pants, and then come up with an effective plan in 2010 to cope with a rapidly changing planet.

I’d hoped the Copenhagen climate conference was a bad dream that might fade from memory after the holidays. No such luck. Over said yuletide, I corroborated my presence in Denmark via a digital photo taken by Andrew Revkin, former environment reporter at The New York Times.

During the 10 days I reported from Copenhagen, I bore witness to stories of climate breakdown underway in developing countries. I was cognizant of looming climate catastrophes in developed nations, whether through sea-level rise, drought, or disruption of supply chains to Western stores from Asian factories.

And I observed how nation states failed to incorporate the findings of climate science into economic policy, unjustly ignoring the basic aspirations of people around the world who want to be saved from terrible climate impacts.

So, how does one make sense of the disastrous Copenhagen summit, and bring perspective to its troubling outcome?

My approach was to look for patterns among seemingly disconnected climate-conference phenomena — in my case, firsthand experience with a climate obstructionist, a chaos theorist, a Danish chair and a rock star.

The climate obstructionist

On December 17, Republican Senator James Inhofe, noted U.S. opponent of climate change legislation, arrived in Copenhagen for a three-hour visit. He spent a half hour of that time holding court at the official media centre.

Photo/Andrew C. Revkin

Said Inhofe to the impromptu media scrum, "There’s no [scientific] consensus on climate change." Referring to the hacked emails from the University of East Anglia, he added that climate science was "discredited" because of the emails’ content, and that we, the journalists, whom he said were on the "left" didn’t understand the "truth."

The European journalists were stunned. A German scribe told Inhofe he was "silly."

Soon afterwards, I looked over at Eric Reguly, the Globe and Mail’s European business correspondent.

Reguly said, "God help us."

I muttered, "We’re $%&#!"

To call Inhofe is a climate denier hardly describes his pivotal role as a climate legislation obstructionist on behalf of the Republican Party. When push comes to shove later this year, the Obama administration will be forced to "negotiate" climate legislation with the GOP.

I believe the chasm between political compromise — and the economic and climate action that’s needed to protect humanity from being waylaid by climate impacts

PAN AFRICAN CLIMATE JUSTICE ALLIANCE Urges African Leaders to REJECT Copenhagen Accord

PAN AFRICAN CLIMATE JUSTICE ALLIANCE

STATEMENT OF THE AFRICAN CIVIL SOCIETY DURING THE 14TH ORDINARY SUMMIT OF THE AFRICAN UNION

25 JANUARY – 3RD FEBRUARY 2010

We convey our heartfelt thanks and support to the African Ministers and Negotiators who stood for and defended the interests of the countries and continent of Africa during the climate negotiations in December 2009. We celebrate your commitment, clarity, courage, and your willingness to defend our lives and livelihoods, those of our children and the future generations of Africans.

In particular, we express our support for the science-based African position submitted to the UNFCCC Secretariat by Algeria on 12 December 2009 on behalf of the Africa Group at Copenhagen and embodied in the documents entitled:

• The Copenhagen Decisions: Submission on the outcome of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long Term Cooperative Action under the Convention; and
• The Copenhagen Decisions: Submission for the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP) for the amendment of the Kyoto Protocol.

These documents – formally endorsed and submitted by Ministers and senior officials representing countries across our continent – reflect the interests of all Africans, and of vulnerable countries everywhere. We call on all African countries to support and strengthen these positions in negotiations during 2010 that can lead towards a successful outcome in Mexico.

We also express our support for the background paper entitled “Defining a Science-Based African Position on Climate Change”. We believe that Africa’s position must be based on the best possible analysis of the efforts required to keep the continent safe, to ensure the burden of mitigating and adapting to climate change is fairly shared, and to secure the financing and technology required by African and other developing countries. To this end, in our view, the elements of the package to be agreed in Mexico must “add up” to a deal that ensures Africa’s future.

We reiterate the demands set out in the African Climate Justice Manifesto. As we stated in that document “Africa must sign no suicide pact. Our longer-term interests must under no circumstances be sacrificed to short-term financing or to “beggar thy neighbour” outcomes that pursue the interests of some developing countries at the expense of others.”

In this context, we reiterate our deep concerns about the way the December 2009 UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen was conducted including the decision by the Danish Government and a small group of countries to negotiate the so-called "Copenhagen Accord" outside formal UNFCCC proceedings, and the attempt by this group of countries to circumvent agreed UN procedures and impose on all UNFCCC Parties an outcome agreed by a select few. We join you in calling for the two-track negotiating process under the UNFCCC, and call upon all Parties to strengthen their work within the UN system to address climate change.

The Copenhagen Accord, thus, raises serious issues that must be considered by all African countries when deciding how to respond to it:

• The Accord’s 2 degree global goal threatens Africa with catastrophic harm. Based on IPCC analysis, 2 degrees of global warming implies over 3 degrees of warming in all regions of Africa. We concur with Reverend Desmond Tutu that “a global goal of about 2 degrees C is to condemn Africa to incineration and no modern development”.

• The proposed review of the Accord’s global goal to 1.5 degrees would occur too late — well after the date by which global emissions would have to peak and decline in order to secure this goal and to safeguard Africa’s future.

• The Accord fails to include appropriate provisions to enable developing countries to adapt to climate change. It calls for “adequate” financial resources, for example, but fails to provide the same. The Accord reflects the inherent failure of an exclusive process to represent the interest of vulnerable countries that it excludes. An inclusive process under the UN is the only safeguard for poor and vulnerable countries.

• The proposed inclusion of “bottom up” Annex I emission reduction pledges threatens the establishment of further commitments under the Kyoto Protocol, fails to require a science-based aggregate target, and threatens to shift the burden of mitigating climate change to developing countries. We call for a science-based, not a pledge-based, approach to setting Annex I targets.

• The Accord would commit developing countries to new obligations regarding mitigation actions (which must be listed in an Annex), and for their measurement, reporting and verification. It does not link these to the provision of adequate finance and technology. Nor does it include new obligations on MRV for developed countries.

• The proposed $10 billion in short-term financing for the period 2010 to 2012 is hopelessly inadequate. Some developed countries have already confirmed that this will not be “new and additional” and over and above ODA. Developing countries, which are already suffering billions in climate-related damage, will have their ODA budgets raided to address climate change. The African Group has called for short-term financing of around $400 billion, with $150 billion immediately available as “special drawing rights”. We should not retreat on our demands.

• The proposal of $100 billion in longer-term financing is not a commitment to “provide” it from public sources, but merely to “mobilize” finance. $100 billion is considerably lower than the amount proposed by the European Union ($100 billion Euro is over $140 billion USD). Assessments by the United Nations and other organizations confirm that much higher levels of financing will be required. Based on a goal of stabilizing concentrations of carbon dioxide below 350ppm – a goal essential to the survival and prosperity of Africa – the Africa Group has called for longer term financing by Annex I countries equivalent to 5% of their GDP.

• The Accord calls for a Copenhagen Green Climate Fund but provides no indication of whether it will operate under the authority of the Conference of Parties. The Accord fails to address a range of factors called for by the African Group and other members of the G77 and China.

• The Accord’s provisions on a range of issues – including adaptation, REDD, technology and finance – are inadequate.

• The Accord includes terms that are legally unclear and, in some cases, legally void. A document agreed outside the UNFCCC process, for instance, cannot require the UNFCCC Conference of Parties or Secretariat to undertake certain actions. Agreeing to these terms introduces legal uncertainty into the UNFCCC process.

Indeed, in our view the process by which the Accord was agreed (and its future role) risks establishing a dangerous precedent within the UN system. It risks creating a parallel system that may undermine the UNFCCC process and agreement on a deal under the UN that will truly safeguard Africa’s future.

Based on these concerns, we encourage the countries of Africa to join their counterparts in other regions – including small island states such as Tuvalu — in rejecting the Accord. We support the statement by the representative of Tuvalu in Copenhagen that the future of his country would not be sold for “30 pieces of silver”.

At a minimum, we call on our leaders to adopt a “wait and see” attitude to the Accord. They must ensure that the Copenhagen Accord will not prejudice Africa’s negotiating position, or prejudge the outcome of the UNFCCC negotiations. African leaders must seek clarification of the relationship between the Accord and the UNFCCC process, and of those terms in the Accord that are legally uncertain or void. And they must ensure that Annex I countries deliver on their pledged emission reductions and their commitments to new and additional short-term financing.

A “wait and see” attitude is particularly important in light of recent reports that some developed countries (such as Australia) will not be submitting ambitious targets, but rather intends to retreat to much lower offers. It is also important in light of reports that some countries (such as the United Kingdom) intend to reclassify existing ODA as climate finance, rather than provide new and additional financing. If this is the trend among developed countries, what value is there in this Accord?

We call for a detailed evaluation by our Parliaments of the Copenhagen meeting, the African negotiating position, as well as the terms of the Copenhagen Accord. We believe that appropriate guidance and oversight by elected representatives will strengthen the negotiating leverage of our delegations, raise public awareness about climate change, improve the prospect of African unity, and reduce the prospect that offers of finance and other inducements will undermine African solidarity and divide developing countries.

We further call for a detailed evaluation of the role of the African Union (AU) in the UNFCCC negotiations, AU’s proposal in Copenhagen including the expression of support by Ethiopia on behalf of the AU for the Copenhagen Accord. We call on you to strengthen cooperation during 2010 and ensure AU’s role is spelt out clearly in relation to AMCEN, Africa Group and other institutions.

We believe that all African institutions and all Africans have a role to play in addressing climate change. We hope that the 14th Summit of the African Union will give adequate impetus and solidify Africa’s resolve to ensure that the UNFCCC-COP16 in Mexico delivers a fair, adequate and legally binding outcomes.

Signed this 1st Day of February 2010 at Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

AN UPDATE ON HARPER AND THE COPENHAGEN ACCORD

UPDATE: JANUARY 30 HARPER SUBMITTED ITS COPYCAT EMISSION REDUCTION TARGETS TO THE ANNEX 1 TABLE TO THE COPENHAGEN ACCORD:

IN COPENHAGEN, AT 3AM ON DECEMBER 19, 2009 THERE WAS A TABLE 1 LIST OF DEVELOPED COUNTRY EMISSION TARGETS. ON THE 3AM TABLE 1, HARPER HAD LISTED ITS TARGET AS 20% BELOW 2006 LEVEL BY 2020, AND THE US HAD LISTED ITS TARGET AS 17% BELOW 2005 BY 2020, BOTH OF WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN ABOUT 3% BELOW 1990 LEVELS BY 2020. BOTH THESE TARGETS WERE CONSPICUOUSLY BELOW THE OTHER DEVELOPED STATE TARGETS. ALL THE OTHER DEVELOPED STATES, EXCEPT AUSTRALIA – WHICH USED 2000 AS THE BASELINE – USED THE 1990 LEVEL AS THE BASELINE. THE EUROPEAN UNION MADE A COMMITMENT TO REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS BY 20% [OR
30% IF OTHER DEVELOPED STATES WOULD MOVE] BELOW 1990 LEVELS BY 2020.

IN COPENHAGEN, AT 4 AM, ON DECEMBER 19, 2009, ADRIANNE ARSENAULT, FROM CBC, REPORTED FROM COPENHAGEN AND SHOWED TABLE 1 OF THE COPENHAGEN ACCORD, AS BEING BLANK.

WHAT HAPPENED BETWEEN 3AM AND 4AM?

PERHAPS HARPER AND OBAMA WERE SO ASHAMED THAT THEY INSISTED THAT THERE MEAGER COMMITMENTS HAD TO BE REMOVED.

OR WAS IT JUST HARPER THAT WAS CONCERNED BECAUSE HE HAD MADE A SERIOUS ERROR IN NOT COMPLETELY EMULATING OBAMA.

TODAY, JANUARY 30 2010, TO RECTIFY THIS SITUATION, HARPER HAS SUBMITTED ITS GREENHOUSE GAS COMMITMENT TO BE INCLUDED IN TABLE 1 OF ANNEX COUNTRY COMMITMENTS:

HARPER’S COMMITMENT NOW IS 17% BELOW 2005 BY 2020.

AGAIN, CANADA HAS BECOME AN INTERNATIONAL PARIAH.

Implementation of UNFCCC; TIME TO BE BOLD

Implementation of UNFCCC; TIME TO BE BOLD

At COP 15, on December 17 and 18, presentations were made, by the head of states, to the Assembly. The majority of heads of states were calling for the global community to maintain the rise in temperature to well below 1.5 degrees. Sadly, it was clear at COP 15 that the demands of the majority of states were disregarded. On December 7, Papua New Guinea had proposed that, rather than descend to the lowest common denominator, the Parties should strive for Consensus with a fall back of 75%. Unfortunately, this proposal was summarily dismissed by the Chair.

If one counts the G77 representing 130 developing states along with some low lying states or small island states which were not members of the G77 along with some of the member states of the European union, then possibly over 75% of the signatories of the UNFCCC would have been prepared to sign and ratify a strong, legally binding agreement. While it could be argued, on the one hand, that this agreement would be irrelevant because the major greenhouse gas producers would have not signed on, but on the other hand, citizens in the major greenhouse gas producing states could use the agreement to pressure their governments to make commitments to stronger emissions reductions. Hopefully that in COP 16 in Mexico, the demands of the majority will be respected.

Signing of the Copenhagen accord currently in front of heads of states would undermine the actions necessary to make the drastic cuts necessary to fulfill the legal obligations under article 2 of the UNFCCC  to  “stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.“

We affirm that
The UNFCCC is ratified by 194 countries representing near universal membership.  It commands near universal support and its legitimacy is unquestioned. This would mean that all signatories of the UNFCCC are legally bound to discharge the obligation in Article 2 which states: “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere must be at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Given the emerging science, this level equates to a target of below 1°C, which is the point at which global systems on land, water and air will be so affected as to create vicious feedback cycles and destabilize many ecosystems and human societies.

and that
Because of the global urgency, there is the legal obligation to contain the rise in temperature to less than 1°C above pre-industrial levels, and the parts per million to 300 ppm. Strict time frames must be imposed, so that overall global emissions will begin to be reversed as of 2010. There must be a global target of 30% below 1990 levels by 2015, 50% below by 2020, 75% by 2030, 85% by 2040 and 100% below by 2050, while adhering to the precautionary principle, and differentiated responsibility principle

and developed country parties agree to acknowledge their emissions debt to developing countries, to cancel their existing debt of developing countries, to implement the long-standing obligation of .7% of GDP for overseas development, to ensure new funding for climate change reparation.  In addition, developed country parties will renounce war and reallocate military expenses.

15 convincing minutes

If you have friends or family who aren’t sure that global warming is a problem, this 15-minute video may be useful. It comes from an old friend of ours, Ross Gelbspan, who is a prize-winning journalist and who has been covering climate change since the mid-1990s.

more about "15 convincing minutes", posted with vodpod

Peoples’ Movement on Climate Change | Statement on the 2009 UN Climate Change Conference and the Copenhagen Accord

Millions of people across the planet had hoped that governments under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) would walk away from Copenhagen with a strong, just, and timely climate deal. Predictably, the summit failed to deliver. Copenhagen is the latest, and – with runaway climate change looming large on the horizon – perhaps the costliest, of the UNFCCC’s long list of failures.

Coming in to the summit, it was clear what outcomes the planet and those most vulnerable to climate change demand.

Science requires that warming be held to as far below 1.5ºC as possible, and that to achieve this, emissions must peak no later than 2015 and approach zero by 2050.

Equity and justice requires the North to compensate the South, first, by taking on deep emissions cuts – 45% to 50% by 2020 and 95% to 100% by 2050 against 1990 levels – and second, by enabling Southern adaptation and low-carbon development – through sufficient, long-term, and mandatory technology transfer, capacity building support, and provision of finance amounting to $500bn to $1tn annually as reparations for climate debt.

These obligations require an international enforcement and compliance architecture that legally binds the North to fulfill their twin commitments, and places enhanced mechanisms for mobilizing and delivering financial, technology, and capacity building support to the South.

The UN climate summit failed to meet any of these demands. The Copenhagen Accord, a document parachuted down on the conference in its final hours, is a hollow, unjust, and potentially disastrous agreement.

The dangerously conservative 2ºC limit to warming that the Accord sets ignores the growing scientific consensus and popular demand for the safer warming limit of 1ºC and below, and threatens the very survival of many vulnerable countries.

The Accord sets no internationally legally-binding emissions reduction target for developed countries. Instead, it calls on rich countries to submit non-binding individual pledges, which to date are so little that if implemented could lead to catastrophic warming of 4ºC by 2100.

The Accord further waters down the North’s emissions commitments by installing a REDD (Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) mechanism that creates private sinks out of Southern forests and links them to the market for carbon offsets, encouraging land-grabbing and the conversion of forests into monoculture plantations, and risking the displacement and loss of livelihood of forest-dependent communities.

While it downgrades rich countries’ emissions obligations, the Accord raises those of poor countries, tasking them to register their mitigation actions and submit them to international monitoring. This lays the ground for greater emissions obligations from poor countries in the future.

The funding the Accord commits – $30bn for mitigation and adaptation over 2010-12, and $100bn per year by 2020 for mitigation – is only a tiny fraction of the amount developing countries need. Small as they are, these amounts will not come from mandatory payments, but will be raised through a hodgepodge of public and private sources, including carbon offsetting and voluntary aid from Northern development agencies.

This means that under the Accord, funding for poor countries will be left to the vagaries of carbon markets and Northern donors, that debt-creating loans will still be pushed on poor countries, and that developed countries will continue to raid their long-underfunded aid flows to fulfil their climate funding commitments.

Finally, the Accord sketches out a toothless and patchwork architecture for global climate action that would likely leave even its measly targets hanging unfulfilled.

The emissions reduction system it sets up relies entirely on voluntary and individual pledges by rich countries, doing away with targets and timetables that are multilaterally-negotiated, science-based, and internationally-binding.

Similarly, the North’s financing pledges in the Accord do not have the force of legally-binding targets and can be ignored at will.

The Accord also preserves the existing system of climate change finance dominated by the market for carbon offsets, Northern aid agencies, and the World Bank through which most of the money flows. It means the UNFCCC will continue to have little control over climate funding, and that developing countries will have to keep begging for the funds they are entitled to get.

The responsibility for this unjust and disastrous outcome lies squarely on Northern governments.

Two years of negotiations passed with no developed country offering the numbers for emissions cuts and finance needed to seal an effective deal. They single-mindedly refused to honor their historical obligations and unjustly insisted on passing their responsibilities on to the South.

During the summit, the North used underhanded tactics to force developing country delegates into accepting their weak offers. As the conference faded with no deal in sight, the United States with the help of the Danish government went behind the back of the conference to stitch up the Copenhagen Accord with a handful of developing country governments committed to the status quo (Brazil, South Africa, India, and China). In the early morning of 19 December, the Danish prime minister dropped the Accord on the delegates who had been kept in the dark about this deal’s existence.

We share developing countries’ indignation over this blatant show of power and contempt for transparency, multilateralism, and the equality of nations, and laud them for fighting to block the Accord’s adoption as the official outcome of the summit.

While we continue to fight alongside developing country governments for greater commitments from the North within the UN process, we believe that the UNFCCC is fatally flawed, and the 2009 climate summit has only exposed this more fully.

This is because it does not tackle the prevailing organization of ownership, production, and consumption at the root of man-made climate change – the highly unequal and unsustainable, growth-centered and profit-driven capitalist system.

The UN process has become a venue for competing elite interests to negotiate the terms on how to share among themselves future growth under a climate-constrained world. This finds expression in the struggle between states with the greatest stakes in the global growth economy – the G7 on one hand and emerging powers on the other – which has come to define global climate politics.

Corporations have hijacked official climate policy both at the international and national levels. Nearly all solutions on the table are about managing climate change through market and technology quick-fixes such as carbon trading and offsetting, agro-fuels, nuclear power, “clean coal”, and genetically modified organisms (GMOs), to name a few.

These false solutions further the unsustainable profit system by creating new profit opportunities, and expanding corporate and elite control over resources (privatizing the atmosphere, transforming forests and soils into private sinks or agro-fuel plantations, etc.)

Moreover, institutions more powerful than the UN such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank (WB), and World Trade Organization (WTO) sponsor the free reign of corporations and the expansion of their ecologically damaging but also highly unequal practices such as industrial agriculture, fossil fuel extraction, mining, logging, and unfair trade.

The power of corporations and elites over the UN process shows that arresting climate change requires no less than fundamental social transformation. Our societies need to abandon the pursuit of limitless wealth and profit, and this requires putting people and communities back in control of our shared resources.

The UNFCCC’s bankruptcy contrasts with the dynamism and vitality present in the movements who mobilized hundreds of thousands of people in Copenhagen and across the globe to demand a just deal, real solutions, and system change.

They prove that solutions lie in the peoples’ hands – in the movements of workers, farmers, and communities to reclaim power over their livelihoods, resources, rights, and cultures that they have lost to the North, corporations, and elites both in the course of causing climate change and in the false solutions to it.

We call on peoples, communities, and social movements to take our struggles forward, in their local contexts and internationally, and mobilize along the following platform for action set out in the Peoples’ Protocol:

Deep, rapid, and sustained emissions reduction based on binding domestic cuts by the North (95%-100% by mid-century), and the end to fossil fuel use, carbon-intensive activities, (production, extraction, and wars) and all investments thereto;

Full reparation of climate debt owed by the North and elites to the South and the poor through unconditional and mandatory transfer of technology and finance without the involvement of IFIs, aid agencies, carbon markets, and large private financial institutions;

Rejection of false solutions that allow the North and corporations to continue inflicting social and ecological harm, provide new and greater opportunities for profit, and expand corporate control over natural resources and technologies;

System change based on people-centered, democratic, cooperative, and community-based control of production, natural resources, and institutions; and

Movement building across sectors (farmers, workers, women, fisher folk, youth, indigenous people, etc.) around the people’s agenda for climate justice and social change.

Peoples’ Movement on Climate Change (PMCC)
06 January 2010

http://peoplesclimatemovement.net/component/content/article/21/139-statement