During a visit to Henderson Nevada, President Obama explained basic climate science for the people who had gathered to listen to him at the town hall.
“First of all, we just got five feet of snow in Washington and so everybody is like — a lot of the people who are opponents of climate change, they say, see, look at that, there’s all this snow on the ground, this doesn’t mean anything. I want to just be clear that the science of climate change doesn’t mean that every place is getting warmer; it means the planet as a whole is getting warmer. But what it may mean is, for example, Vancouver, which is supposed to be getting snow during the Olympics, suddenly is at 55 degrees, and Dallas suddenly is getting seven inches of snow.
The idea is, is that as the planet as a whole gets warmer, you start seeing changing weather patterns, and that creates more violent storm systems, more unpredictable weather. So any single place might end up being warmer; another place might end up being a little bit cooler; there might end up being more precipitation in the air, more monsoons, more hurricanes, more tornadoes, more drought in some places, floods in other places.”
For over 15 years delegates and politicians from around the world have discussed, debated and negotiated the questions of dealing with manmade climate change in various COP (Conference of the Parties) summits. So why haven’t they made any real progress yet?
That is a big question that covers a whole range of topics and issues that I won’t go into. Instead I will try to focus on the actual politics and tactics used at the COP summits. I will try to see if uneven development and inequality plays any part in how the actual negotiations plays out, how the delegates attending perceive climate justice and fairness, and if all this combined somehow sabotages the efforts to secure a climate deal.
With only a few days left before the 2010 Olympic Games officially begins, there is a buzz around the streets of Vancouver. Being a resident of the city, I can certainly say it has undergone some radical changes in the past few months. Regardless of whether or not you support the games, it seems everyone has something to say.
Recent talk has surrounded the issue of sustainability. Considering, at the very least, the carbon emissions created by all the flights into the host city (and some residents’ flights out of the city) the Olympics can never be genuinely environmentally-friendly. However, Vancouver 2010 has been promoted as “the greenest Olympics ever” (official website: http://www.vancouver2010.com/sustainability/).
Interestingly, David Suzuki recently awarded Vancouver 2010 a bronze medal for sustainability (full article: http://www.davidsuzuki.org/latestnews/dsfnews02031001.asp). He writes: “achievements of the 2010 Olympics include building energy-efficient venues, using clean-energy sources, relying on public transit during the Games, and offsetting part of the Games’ emissions.” However, several areas were lacking. For example, the David Suzuki Foundation admits that “opportunities to create lasting reductions in transportation emissions in the region have been missed.” In addition, the carbon-offsetting accounted for less than half of the overall emissions.
In an interesting interview during COP15 Amy Goodman from Democracy Now asks Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela, about his view of the climate summit in Copenhagen, climate change, USA, and the huge oil reserves in Venezuela. Watch it:
“AMY GOODMAN: What level of emissions are you willing to support reductions of emissions?
PRESIDENT HUGO CHAVEZ: [translated] One hundred percent. One hundred percent. We must reduce the emissions 100 percent. In Venezuela, the emissions are currently insignificant compared to the emissions of the developed countries. We are in agreement. We must reduce all the emissions that are destroying the planet. However, that requires a change in lifestyle, a change in the economic model: we must go from capitalism to socialism. That’s the real solution.”
“What can decent people do to save the Planet from the Australian, EU and US climate criminals?”
The bottom line in the Copenhagen Climate Summit should be (a) equal per capita greenhouse gas emissions for everyone and (b) an additional but equitable penalty for First World countries for their disproportionately huge historical contribution to atmospheric carbon pollution. Anything less is pure and simple climate racism and climate injustice leading to climate genocide. Unfortunately climate criminal First World countries believe that they are much more deserving than others, and are lead by Copenhagen sabotaging, US surrogate, climate criminal Australia which wants a 2020 per capita GHG pollution for itself that would be over 60 times that of Bangladesh.
Informed by “all men are created equal and have an unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, Climate Justice demands that “annual per capita GHG emissions” should at the very least be the same for “all men” – at the very least, because European countries have been responsible for about 73% of 1750-2006 historical carbon pollution of the atmosphere since the start of the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century (see Dr James Hansen’s 2008 Open Letter to PM Kevin Rudd of Australia).
Chances are, you already do quite a few of these already. These ideas certainly aren’t new or ingenious. However, they are simple, easy and attainable. So if you see something new on the list, give it a go. There are always things we can work on.
Your Two New Best Friends…
…are your reusable shopping bag and stainless steel thermos, of course. The thing about shopping trips and coffee runs is that they’re often unplanned, so you can’t realistically say no to plastic bags or paper cups. The problem is that these one time slip-ups really add up for the planet. But its easy to avoid if you always keep these two essentials with you. Never leave home without them!
Go Veggie Once a Week
It’s probably no surprise thatmeat production and processing requires an immense amount of water and land—morethan is required to produce any other form of food. So even if it’s just once a week, eating a vegetarian meal makes a difference. As an added bonus, a plant-based diet has countless health benefits, including lower cholesterol and a reduced chance of heart disease.
As winter weather hits us again, many people confuse the current weather (cold) with the long-term direction of the climate (warmer).
Just because it is cold outside right now doesn’t mean that global warming isn’t real. Global warming has to do with the climate, with the long-term trend of the world’s average temperature. The short-term weather has to do with what is happening this week or next in the part of the world where we currently reside. The two are not identical, and colder weather does not contradict the fact that our climate is warming up.
Another reason the two related but not identical issues are confusing is that global climate change is not uniform across the globe. Just because it is colder where you live doesn’t mean it isn’t warmer, relatively, elsewhere. In fact, global warming is taking place much more at the northern latitudes than in the continental U.S.
This is the reason why, even though the U.S. is experiencing more severe winter weather, the Arctic summer ice is covering less and less of the Arctic water, opening the fabled Northern Passage. It is still very cold at the North Pole, but it is relatively warmer. Average temperatures have already increased in the northern latitudes by almost 4 degrees Fahrenheit, much more than at temperate latitudes.
Our world leaders haven’t yet apologized for their climate failure in Copenhagen so Greenpeace and the global tcktcktck campaign have done it for them in these advertisements at the Copenhagen airport:
“I’m sorry,” the text of the ad reads. “We could have stopped catastrophic climate change… We didn’t.”
Some of the so called world “leaders” depicted are Barack Obama, Angela Merkel, Nicolas Sarkozy, Gordon Brown, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, Dmitry Medvedev and others.
Yesterday Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela, made a passionate and courageous speech at the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. Chavez criticized President Obama’s “laughable” promise to help climate change and also said that capitalism will destroy our planet. Watch it:
I was listening to the pressconference that the European Union had the last two days. One would think that by now with all the high level people attending that they would have a clear and effective communication on what they want to achieve here in Copenhagen. More often than not the devil is in the details so one have to take to listen carefully what they really say.
During these two press conferences I found a few interesting contradictions and points worth to notice. The first interesting statement is made by Joe Lionel where he concludes the following:
“The Scientific community is asking for the upper level of 25-40 % for industrialized world. Let’s say that 20 % is definitely not enough, that’s the conclusion what the scientific panel has found. therefore 30 % would even not be enough, that would match half-way what we could then do. It is not a scientific definition but a political assesment.”
Here he completely agrees that neither 20 % of the European target nor their 30 % target is enough. We have to do more to come up to a scientific standard. So the question I ask here is why is a political agenda the driving force if the science is clear? If we are to keep below a 2 degree target we also need progressive action inline with science, not inline with the political assesment made.
The next interesting statement is made by Stavros Dimas where he is commenting the ‘great deed’ of financing CDM.
Green Blog has daily updates and posts from authors around the world. Get our latest posts, commentaries
and articles by RSS-feed or by adding your
Email to our newsletter.
I was listening to the pressconference that the European Union had the last two days. One would think that by now with all the high level people attending that they would have a clear and effective communication on what they want to achieve here in Copenhagen. More often than not the devil is in the details so one have to take to listen carefully what they really say.
