Photo credit: JC i Núria

Much sheer speculation has been written about the upcoming Copenhagen climate negotiations, and we will see much more over the next few weeks. What is this conference about, and what are the real issues at stake for the future of the world?

The conference in Copenhagen was set to negotiate a follow-up treaty to the Kyoto Accords, set to expire in 2012, a treaty that the Senate and the Bush administration refused to ratify or cooperate with. While China has recently passed the US as the largest emitter of global warming gases, the US is still far, far ahead of all other countries in per capita emissions, making US efforts a crucial aspect of whatever efforts the world makes.

The Kyoto Accords set aspirational guidelines for countries to shoot for as they worked to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. A large majority of the world’s countries ratified the Accords, and some made serious efforts to meet them, but few countries managed to do so. The European Union set up a carbon trading scheme, and several European countries have made large-scale investments in alternative renewable energy. Other countries only approached their targets due to decreased economic activity, primarily Russia.

An international treaty with mandatory limits on carbon emissions has become more urgent. The climate is heating more rapidly than earlier predictions, and the current consequences of worldwide climate change are accumulating and intensifying. As well, shifting to a new energy economy is a massive undertaking, and current plans require an immediate boost if the world is to keep emissions to a manageable level, since this effort will take many decades. In the meantime, carbon dioxide emissions are still increasing.

Major contributors to carbon emissions include transportation using fossil fuels, coal-burning electric plants, deforestation including the burning of forests, unnecessary heat loss from both residential and office buildings, industrial agricultural processes, and increased emissions from the cattle industry which has been growing rapidly. Controlling emissions will mean efforts in all these areasnThe main issues leading up to Copenhagen are:

• Mandatory emission limits for developed countries;
• Emission goals for developing countries;
• A fund from the developed countries to compensate developing countries for technological development, for efforts to mitigate the effects of global warming, and for stopping or slowing deforestation (The UN environmental program proposes a minimum of $10 billion);
• Whether or not the US will actively participate, since cap-and-trade legislation will not be passed by the Senate before the Copenhagen Conference, and the Senate refused to ratify the Kyoto Accords;
• Whether the conference will result in a treaty, as originally projected, or will only agree to a “politically binding” agreement to negotiate a treaty in the next two years.

There is increasing pressure for President Obama to attend the Copenhagen Conference, especially since he will be nearby in Norway to accept the Nobel Peace Prize. Other world leaders are attending, including Sarkozy of France, Lula of Brasil, and possibly Brown of England. However, there is some reluctance on the part of the administration, since the conference is not likely to result in a completely successful treaty.

On his recent trip to Asia, Obama signed important agreements with China on carbon research and technology development. China, which has until now been almost as much of an obstacle to an international treaty as the US, is now in the forefront of investment in sustainable energy, in production of solar panels, in conservation efforts. The Chinese stimulus was almost 40% devoted to emissions control, conservation, smart electric grid development, and alternative energy investment, compared to about 12% of the US stimulus.

One argument used in recent years by conservative opponents of any climate change efforts has been that the US shouldn’t agree to any limits until and unless China and India agreed to mandatory emissions limits first. Now that China is outpacing the US in many ways, this is a harder argument to make, even though China still opposes mandatory limits on developing countries, which have a much lower per capita emission rate, which are more in need of economic development, and which have contributed much less to the emissions which have already accumulated in the atmosphere.

Other countries are also in advance of the US in particular fields. Germany leads the world in electricity from wind power. Brazil leads in the production of alternative biofuels (from sugar cane and sugar cane scrap instead of from corn). The Netherlands, the most threatened developed country due to it exposure to rising sea levels, leads in adaptation efforts, abandoning unsustainable reclaimed land, improving dikes and water control.

Opponents of US climate change action are primarily, though not only, conservative Republicans. They use every argument to prevent or delay any US action, even the inadequate steps proposed in the two major bills before Congress. The Waxman-Markey Bill passed the House months ago. A similar bill in the Senate, whose prime sponsors are Barbra Boxer and John Kerry, will be debated more seriously starting next year, after the battle over health care reform is completed. The conservatives deny climate change is real, they deny that it is cause by human activity, they claim it will be too expensive, that it will hurt the U.S. economy too much, that various industries should get a pass from any mandatory limits, and so on. James Inhofe, Republican senator from Oklahoma, intends to set up a sideshow in Copenhagen for climate change deniers.

The exact details of whatever the conference comes up with are less important than that the world is seen to be taking real steps, placing more pressure on the US to act. The longer the US waits to start seriously tackling climate change and carbon emissions, the more difficult and expensive the transition will be, and the more harmful will be the results of the current impacts of climate change.

On December 11th and 12th, the climate change campaign 350.org is planning candlelight vigils around the country, at the offices of Congress people and at other symbolic sites. The same groups sponsored the over 5,000 October actions around the world to demand that the world work to reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere to 350 parts per million from the current 380 (the pre-industrial level was about 270 ppm). Go to their website to join an action or to initiate one.

Author: Marc Brodine, People’s World

350 ppm, as in parts per million, the level scientists have identified as the safe upper limit for CO2 in our atmosphere. We are currently at 390 ppm and, according to the science, we need to get back to 350 ppm as soon as possible to be able avoid runaway climate change.

In an interview with a German newspaper Stern endorsed the 350 ppm target saying he “think it’s a very sensible long-term target.” Bill McKibben, environmental writer and founder of 350.org, writes:

“I think it’s a very sensible long-term target.” He went on to explain: “People have to be aware that is a truly long-term target. We have already passed 350ppm, we are at 390 ppm of Co2 and at 435 ppm of Co2-equivalents right now. It is most important to stop the increase of flows of emissions short term and then start the decline of flows of annual emissions and get them down to levels which will move concentrations of CO2 back down towards 350ppm.

McKibben says “Stern is right” and that his endorsement will “help stiffen the push for real measures” at the climate talks in Copenhagen this December.

Stern is right, of course–even if we do everything right at Copenhagen, we won’t be back at 350 soon. But unless we do everything right we’ll be back at 350 never ever. His call will help stiffen the push for real measures at the conference.

Also read:
- Nicholas Stern: Climate change will create billions of refugees, extended world war
- Nicholas Stern: “I underestimated the threat”
- Green Quote of the Week: Nicholas Stern

An overwhelming global scientific consensus says that man-made global warming is happening NOW. Indeed for the latest see the report from President Obama’s science advisers that states that massive climatic disruption is already affecting the United States and that projects that the average U.S. temperature could rise by as much as 11 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century (see “White House: climate change damage happening now. Obama’s first global warming report most dire yet: Ill effects already here, will get worse”). Thus White House report report co-author Anthony Janetos of the University of Maryland:

“There are in some cases already serious consequences. This is not a theoretical thing that will happen 50 years from now. Things are happening now.”

Nevertheless the climate sceptics are unfazed and essentially all governments around the world are committed to continuing to increase atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration above the present level of circa 390 parts per million (ppm) to even more dangerous levels.

In contrast, in climate criminal Australia (one of the world’s worst annual per capita greenhouse gas polluters) climate activists and leading climate scientists are calling for urgent reduction of atmospheric CO2 to 300 ppm. The Australia-based Climate Emergency Network, the Canberra Climate Action Summit (over 140 Australia-wide climate action groups), the influential Yarra Valley Climate Action Group and 300.org all say – informed by the latest science from America’s Dr James Hansen (NASA GISS), Australia’s Professor Barry Brook (climate science, University of Adelaide) and others – that for a safe and sustainable existence for all people and all species the atmospheric CO2 of our warming-threatened planet must be urgently reduced from the current circa 390 ppm to 300 ppm (click here for details and documentation).

What can a man believe? Well, just as we turn to top medical specialists for advice on life-threatening disease, so we turn to the opinions of top scientists and in particular top biological and climate scientists for climate change risk assessment and climate emergency facts and requisite actions. Further, we haven’t the time or money to attend university courses on climate science – but we can access publicly available lectures given by top climate scientists and analysts.

A number of readily accessed, readily scanned, easily comprehended and brilliantly illustrated climate change power point lectures are available which point to the urgent need to reduce atmospheric CO2 from the current ~390 ppm to ~300 ppm.

Thus that by NASA’s Dr Hansen entitled “Global warming 20 years later: tipping points near” (2008) (address to National Press Club, and House Select Committee on Energy Independence & Global warming, Washington DC [44 pages]) spells out that 300-325 ppm atmospheric CO2 concentration is needed for restoration of sea ice, QUOTES: “Target CO2: <350 ppm To preserve creation, the planet on which civilization developed" and "Arctic Sea Ice Criterion. 1. Restore Planetary Energy Balance -> CO2: 385 ppm -> 325-355 ppm. 2. Restore Sea Ice: Aim for – 0.5 W/m2, CO2: 385 -> 300-325 ppm. Range based on uncertainty in present planetary energy imbalance (between 0.5 and 1 W/m2)”.

Some of these excellent power point lectures on climate change are accessible via the links provided below. The credentials of these top scientists and analysts are given in parentheses.

1. Professor Barry Brook (Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia), “Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies” (2008), an outline of paleoclimate history, climatic disruption and mitigation and adaptation strategies [40 pages].

2. Dr Andrew Glikson (Earth and paleoclimate scientist, School of Archaeology and Anthropology & Research School of Earth Science, Australian National University (ANU), Canberra, Australia), “Human evolution and the atmosphere: return of the Pliocene?” (2008), illustrating the global temperature, methane and CO2 levels in the generally cooling period since the Pliocene (3 Mya, million years ago) during which time the genus Homo evolved to yield Homo sapiens (us) about 100,000 years ago. However, massive man-made greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution in the industrial era (post-1750) has pushed atmospheric CO2 concentration outside the range of 180-300 ppm obtaining during the final evolution of Homo sapiens from his immediate precursors over the last 600,000 years [46 pages].

3. Dr James Hansen (top US climate scientist; Director, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies; Adjunct Professor, Columbia University, New York; member of the prestigious US National Academy of Sciences; 2007 Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility of the prestigious American Association for the Advancement of Science), “Global warming 20 years later: tipping points near” (2008) – address to National Press Club, and House Select Committee on Energy Independence & Global warming, Washington DC [44 pages].

4. Dr James Hansen (top US climate scientist; Director, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies; Adjunct Professor, Columbia University, New York), “Climate threat to the planet. Implications for energy policy and intergenerational justice”, Bjerknes Lecture, American Biophysical Union, San Francisco, California, 17 December, 2008 [39 pages]. [For a series of other incisive writings by Dr James Hansen see: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/, most notably Dr James Hansen, “Carbon Tax and 100% Dividend vs. Tax and Trade”, Committee on Ways & Means, US House of Representatives, February 2009].

5. Professor John Holdren (Professor of Environmental Policy and Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University; Director, Woods Hole Research Center; former president, American Association for the Advancement of Science, AAAS; President Barack Obama’s chief science adviser), “The Science of Climate Disruption” (2008) – a summary of the basis of man-made global warming and the climatic disruption that has already occurred [32 pages].

6. Dr Graeme Pearman (former Climate director, Australian CSIRO, Australia’s premier scientific research organization; GP Consulting; interim director, MSI; Monash University Sustainability Group), “Climate change: the evidence, science and current projections” (2008) [37 pages].

7. Dr Peter Seligman (Bionic Ear engineer, Cochlear Pty Ltd and Monash University, Melbourne, Australia), “Bang for Buck in CO2 abatement” (2008) discusses where you can invest your money most effectively to reduce your Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions; some of our favourite solutions do not bear up under his analysis [43 pages].

8. David Spratt and Phillip Sutton, Climate Emergency Network, “A Safe Climate Future”, (2008), based on the book “Climate Code Red. The case for emergency action” by David Spratt and Phillip Sutton (Scribe, Melbourne, 2008), a powerful summary of the latest climate science results by 2 leading non-scientist climate activists heavily informed by top climate scientists such as NASA’s Dr James Hansen who indeed endorsed “Climate Code Red” as “a compelling case … we face a climate emergency” [95 pages].

The brilliant power point lectures I have listed above are not only educative for climate activists – they should be very useful for educating the public as a whole. Please tell everyone you can and encourage them to judge for themselves.

All of the above are referred to by me (biochemist, teacher, La Trobe University, Melbourne and U3A, Melbourne) in my “Global Warming, Climate Emergency Course” (2009) detailed course notes for an 8 x 2 hour course for the Yarra Valley University of the Third Age (U3A) on global warming, the present climatic disruption and what we can do about it [if you are in Melbourne , Australia: Semester 2, St. Andrew’s Hall, Rosanna, Melbourne, Australia; 1.30-3.30 pm, each Tuesday, 7 July 2009 onwards; one semester course attendance cost A$15 for non-U3A members, A$7.50 for members of another U3A branch]. You can attend this up-to-date climate change course for FREE from the other side of the planet by simply accessing the 52 pages of carefully documented notes via this link.

Informed by the latest science, Australia-based, but hopefully International, 300 was formed to educate the public about the urgent need to reduce atmospheric CO2 from the present damaging level of about 390 ppm to a safe and sustainable level of 300 ppm.

300.org enthusiastically endorses the 350.org 24 October 2009 International Day of Climate Action but recommends the number from the latest climate science of “300” (see “Re 300.org & 350”.org) .

Here are comments from some major climate activists and climate action groups who have summed up the latest scientific evidence and conclude that there is an urgent need to reduce atmospheric CO2 concentration to 300 ppm.

David Spratt (co-author with Phillip Sutton of “Climate Code Red. The case for emergency action” (2009):

“In short, if you don’t have a target that aims to cool the planet sufficiently to get the sea-ice back, the climate system may spiral out of control, past many “tipping points” to the final “point of no return … And that target is not 350ppm, it’s around 300 ppm. [NASA’s] Hansen says Arctic sea-ice passed its tipping point decades ago, and in his presentations has also specifically identified 300-325ppm as the target range for sea-ice restoration … Target 300 puts the science first. Interestingly in Australia, where I am based, 350 has not gained wide appeal, with most of the grass-roots climate action groups adopting a 300 ppm target, consistent with the propositions elaborated in “Climate Code Red”” (see “350 is the wrong target. Put the science first”).

Climate Positive (2009):

“Why humanity must aim for 300 ppm to restore a safe climate – this report is a summary of the latest climate science and solutions and argues convincingly that humanity must reduce atmospheric carbon [CO2] levels to 300 ppm or below to restore a safe climate … As a society we are preparing for a medium-sized climate problem, despite evidence that points to the problem being greater than we had anticipated. Instead of relying of an illusion of certainty, we need to manage the risks of climate change responsibly. This means reducing atmospheric concentrations to within the range that we know the climate will maintain stability – 300 ppmv CO2 equivalent. This would rule out a domino effect of sea-ice loss, albedo flip, a warmer Arctic, a disintegrating Greenland ice sheet, more melting permafrost, and knock-on effects of massively increased greenhouse gas emissions, rising atmospheric concentrations and accelerated global warming.Any proposal for a target higher than 300ppmv would imply confidence that it is safe to leave the Arctic sea ice melted. If we currently have such confidence, it is misplaced. 300ppmv is below current atmospheric concentrations, but we can achieve it if we act now, because of the delay in how the climate system responds – if we can lower the atmospheric concentrations this century the system may never reach the full level of warming we are due to receive” (see: “Climate Safety report – 300 ppm”).

Westernport Green Allianc (Victoria, Australia, 2009):

“In short, if you don’t have a target that aims to cool the planet sufficiently to get the sea-ice back, the climate system may spiral out of control, past many “tipping points” to the final “point of no return”. And that target is not 350ppm, it’s around 300 ppm. Hansen says Arctic sea-ice passed its tipping point decades ago” (see: “350 is the wrong target: put the science first”).

Jenny Curtis, mother and member of Climate Change Balmain Rozelle (Sydney, Australia):

“Australia must be part of a global climate change action plan that will reduce carbon concentration in the atmosphere to 300 parts per million (ppm) and keep it there” (see Greenlivingpedia, “Australian climate Action Summit 2009”).

Australia’s 2009 Climate Action Summit (a meeting of over 140 Australian Climate Action Groups, Canberra, January 2009) concluded:

“The united Community Climate Action Groups will campaign for outcomes on these objectives: (1) Prevent the CPRS [the higly flawed Rudd Labor Government Emissions Trading Scheme or ETS] from becoming law as it will fail to make emission cuts necessary to stop the climate emergency; (2) Build community-wide action to demand green jobs, a just transition for industry workers and 100% renewable energy by 2020; (3) Aim for stabilisation at 300ppm CO2 in the atmosphere and strong international agreement in line with what science and global justice demands” (see Greenlivingpedia, “Australian climate Action Summit 2009”).

The initially Victoria-based Australian Climate Emergency Network endorses the position of the 2009 Australia’s 2009 Climate Action Summit (a meeting of over 140 Australian Climate Action Groups, Canberra, January 2009):

“To build community support for a goal of stabilisation at 300ppm CO2 and strong international agreement in line with what science and global justice demands. To communicate this position to Copenhagen Conference of Parties, and advocate for the Australian government to adopt that position” (see Climate Emergency Network, 2009).

The Melbourne-based Yarra Valley Climate Action Group (one of the larger climate action groups in Australia, stretching gfrom Taggerty in the northern mountain s to the suburban heartland of Melbourne) (2009):

“Climate Emergency Actions URGENTLY Required. 1. Change of societal philosophy to one of scientific risk management and biological sustainability with complete cessation of species extinctions and zero tolerance for lying. 2. Urgent reduction of atmospheric CO2 to a safe level of about 300 ppm as recommended by leading climate and biological scientists. 3. Rapid switch to the best non-carbon and renewable energy (solar, wind, geothermal, wave, tide and hydro options that are currently roughly the same market price as coal burning-based power) and to energy efficiency, public transport, needs-based production, re-afforestation and return of carbon as biochar to soils coupled with correspondingly rapid cessation of fossil fuel burning, deforestation, methanogenic livestock production and population growth” (see “Climate emergency facts and required action”, 2009).

Target 300 (Australia):

“300 ppm CO2 adopted by Victorian and then National grass roots groups … why Hansen’s recent work shows our climate target must be 300 ppm CO2 or below … 300 ppm CO2 or below. A goal to reestablish a stable climate” (see: Target 300, 2009).

Please join with these well-informed Climate Activists and Climate Action Groups in demanding an urgent return of atmospheric CO2 concentration from circa 390 ppm to a safe and sustainable 300 ppm for a safe planet for all peoples and all species.

It’s 3 in the morning in Poland and I need your help with an experiment. Can you take 2 minutes watch an animation and help take over YouTube?

A little background: starting a week ago, a few members of the international 350.org team have converged for the annual UN Climate Conference. It’s a little crazy here–over 9,000 people representing 190 countries have gathered to negotiate our collective future. Things are changing by the hour, and there’s both bad news and good news to report.

The bad news first: lots of countries still don’t get it, and some (most notably, the EU) are using delay tactics to postpone action, squandering time that scientists say we simply do not have.

Now for the good news: over 49 of the least developed countries (that’s more than a quarter of the world’s nations) just announced support for a 350 target. This is AMAZING, as last year a 350 goal wasn’t even on the map. It’s testament to your hard work–and the very real threats these countries are facing right now–that we’ve come so far in such a short time.

More good news: there is a movement bubbling up here–scores of people are working with us, both inside and outside of the UN, to campaign for strong climate action in the face of stiff political opposition. This Saturday, we’re all going to join hundreds of activists in Poland–and thousands of people around the world–for the Global Day of Action for the Climate.

You can be part of this. The first option is to look for an action taking place near you on Saturday, December 6th.

The second option is the experiment I referred to: I need your help taking over YouTube with climate change videos, as part of a collaborative campaign with some of our partner organizations.

It’s an unconventional tactic, but sometimes, simply getting people to listen and talk makes a difference–that is, if you can get the right conversation going.

Today, we’re asking you to be part of this conversation by commenting on a 90-second animation about 350. If we can get enough comments and ratings, we can climb the YouTube charts. With your help, we’ll make YouTube all about climate change, even if just for one day.

Our video is a 90-second animation that explains 350–the science, the art, the movement–without using a single word. I think you’ll like it. Please watch it, comment, and pass it on.

People are always talking about how we need to reach outside the choir. YouTube is the third most popular site on the internet. If we can make a splash there, we’ll be well on our way to spreading 350 all around the world.

So please, watch the video today and take a minute to comment on it, and help start a climate conversation.

Thanks for all you do,

Jon and the rest of the 350.org team.

Watch the video:

You can watch the video on YouTube as well.

So far over 48,000 “invitations” have been sent. Sign the invitation, click here!

Dear Sen. Obama

I’m writing with a simple request: attend the UN Climate Meetings this December and rejoin the world’s fight against the climate crisis.

The need for an international deal has never been greater. NASA’s top climate scientists have said that to avoid disaster the planet needs a plan both to cut carbon emissions sharply and immediately, and to steer a long term path back below 350 parts per million Carbon Dioxide.

And time is running out. The UN Climate Meetings mark a one year countdown to finish crafting an international climate deal.

I call on you, as President-elect, to commit to going to the UN meeting in Poland in December 2008 to:

*Commit the US to mandatory reductions of Greenhouse gas emissions that meet the urgency science calls for and transition the US to a clean energy economy.

*Commit to helping developing countries reduce their emissions and adapt to the impacts of climate change, and to transfer the technology that will help bring the world to more sustainable economies.

Sending this strong signal to the world will help spur the negotiations so that a genuine global agreement meets the seriousness of the problem. The world is ready for action.

Thank You.

Watch the video: