However it is possible to quantitate the Climate Debt incurred by profligate high polluters such as the US Alliance countries and the Climate Credit allowing low polluters to advance economically on a path to eventual zero emissions in circa 2050. Quantitative, country by country analysis of the Climate Debt of Climate Debtor countries versus the Climate Credit of Climate Creditor countries may prove to be a valuable litigation weapon in the fight of Island States for their very physical survival. This approach may indeed help avert “climate genocide”.

The contribution of each country to elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) can be calculated as Historical Climate Debt (1751-2006 CO2 pollution) minus Climate Credit (its fair share of the World’s terminal CO2 pollution budget of 600 Gt CO2 between 2010 and zero emissions in 2050). With CO2 pollution valued at $100 per tonne CO2, mostly European countries and Japan have Net Climate Debts ranging up to $9.7 trillion (for the USA) whereas non-European countries typically have Net Climate Credits ranging up to $6.5 trillion for India.

The World is increasingly threatened by man-made global warming due to pollution of the atmosphere with greenhouse gases (GHGs), principally carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4), with this GHG pollution deriving mostly from fossil fuel burning and from land use (agriculture and deforestation). According to I.C. Prentice et al “Before the Industrial Era, circa 1750, the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration was 280 +/- 10 ppm for several thousand years. It has risen continuously since then, reaching 367 ppm in 1999” (see “The carbon cycle and atmospheric carbon dioxide”, coordinating lead author I.C. Prentice). The atmospheric CO2 concentration reached 394 ppm in 2010 with a rate of increase of 2.4 ppm per year (see “Recent Mauna Loa CO2”, US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). Note that CO2-equivalent (CO2-e) is the greenhouse gas (GHG) amount taking all GHGs other than water (H2O) into account and expressing this in terms of CO2 equivalents, CO2 being largely responsible for the atmospheric GHG effect (excluding H2O) (see “2011 Climate Change Course”: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/2011-climate-change-course ).

Historical Climate Debt

The Historical Climate Debt of the World has been estimated at 12 Gt CO2 (12 billion tonnes CO2) in 1751-1900 and 334 Gt CO2-e for 1901-2008, for a total of 346 Gt CO2 in the period 1751-2008 (see “Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere”).

In a 2008 letter to Australia PM Kevin Rudd, NASA’s Dr James Hansen provided a breakdown of global responsibility for fossil fuel-derived CO2 pollution between 1751 and 2006 (see “Letter to PM Kevin Rudd by Dr James Hansen”, 2008) that is summarized below as a percentage (%) of the Historical Climate Debt (1751-2006) of 346 Gt CO2.

Ships/air (4%) : 4% of 346 Gt CO2 = 13.84 Gt. This has been allocated proportionately to the other groups.

Rest of World (12.8%) = 44.29 + 1.85 = 46.14 Gt CO2

The above compilation shows the Climate Debt for major polluters in the period 1750-2006. It should be noted that this is a big under-estimate of Historical Carbon Debt because it is based solely on fossil fuel-derived CO2 and ignores that due to other GHGs, cement manufacture and de-forestation. For countries in the “Rest of Europe” category, their Historical Climate Debt was calculated based on their proportion of the 2011 population (see “List of countries by population” (2011)). Thus according to the UN Population Division (see: http://esa.un.org/wpp/unpp/p2k0data.asp ) Europe had a population of 738.2 million in 2010 and accordingly the “Rest of Europe” has a population of 738.2 million – 62.3 million (UK) – 81.7 million (German) – 142.9 million (Russia) = 451.3 million. Thus, for example, Switzerland (part of “Rest of Europe”) has a population of 7.9 million and its Historical Climate Debt is 7.9 million x 64.88 Gt CO2 /451.3 million = 1.14 Gt CO2.

For countries in the “Rest of World” category, their Historical Climate Debt was also calculated based on their proportion of the 2011 population (see “List of countries by population” (2011), Wikipedia). Thus according to the UN Population Division the World had a population of 6,980.3 million and accordingly the “Rest of World” population = 6,980.3 million – 62.3 million (UK) – 81.7 million (Germany) – 142.9 million (Russia) – 1,210.2 million (India) – 1,339.7 million (China) – 127.7 million (Japan) – 312.7 million (USA) – 34.5 million (Canada) – 22.8 million (Australia) – 451.3 (“Rest of Europe” ) = 3,194.5 million. Thus, for example, Turkey (part of “Rest of World” ) has a population of 73.7 million and so its Historical Climate Debt is 73.7 million x 46.14 Gt CO2/3,194.5 million = 1.06 Gt CO2.

It should be noted that this analysis is rather unfair to India, China , the “Rest of World” and indeed much of the “Rest of Europe” because it ignores the reality that most of these countries were variously subject in this period of 1751-2006 to colonial subjugation or crippling hegemony by the major polluters, namely the UK, Germany, the USA, Russia and Japan (see “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950”, “Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History” and William Blum’s “Rogue State”).

Further, one can value this Historical Carbon debt by applying a Carbon Price and here we will use $100 per tonne CO2, roughly the price that could achieve a transition from dirty coal and gas burning to clean, renewable wind energy. Thus the Historical Climate Debt of the US can be expressed either as 99.12 Gt CO2 or as 99.12 Gt CO2 x $100 / t CO2 = $9,912 billion = $9.912 trillion. By way of comparison, the GDP of the US is currently $14.5 trillion. China has an Historical Climate Debt of 29.55 Gt CO2 or $2.955 trillion.

Of course a Carbon Price of $100 per tonne CO2 is only based on what is required to implement wind power competitively in the current World Order. A more valid price would be that based on the value of a human life and the avoidable death associated with carbon burning. Thus at a “value of a statistical life” (VOSL) of $7.6 million per person ($73 billion pa for10,000 pa Australian carbon burning-related deaths) and $9 billion pa in fossil fuel subsidies, the minimum Carbon Price to cover carbon burning-derived deaths and carbon burning subsidies is $554 per tonne of carbon as compared to the recently Australia legislated Carbon Price of $23 per tonne CO2-e (see “Australian carbon burning-related deaths and carbon burning subsidies => minimum Carbon Price of A$554 per tonne carbon”).

Historical Climate Debt can be expressed on a per capita basis simply by dividing the Historical Climate Debt for a country (e.g. see the data tabulated above ) by the present population of the country. For all “Rest of World” countries, the Per Capita Historical Carbon Debt (US$ per person) = 46.14 billion tonnes CO2 X $100 per tonne CO2/ 3,194.5 million persons = $1,444.4 per person. For all “Rest of Europe” countries, the Per Capita Historical Climate Debt (US$ per person) = 64.88 billion tonnes CO2 X $100 per tonne CO2/ 451.3 million persons = US$14,376.2 per person.

Post-2010 Climate Credits

In 2009 the WBGU which advises the German Government on climate change estimated that for a 75% chance of avoiding a disastrous 2C temperature rise (EU policy), the World must emit no more than 600 Gt CO2 between 2010 and zero emissions in 2050. From this information it was possible to use data for annual per capita GHG pollution (i.e. of CO2-e; see “List of countries by greenhouse gas emissions per capita”) to calculate years left to zero emissions for every country in the world (see “Shocking analysis by country of years left to zero emissions”). If we accept that “all men are created equal” then the annual per capita “terminal budget “ share is 600 Gt CO2/ (40 years x 7 billion people) = 2.14 t CO2 per person per year.

Thus relative to mid-2010, Australia (population 22.8 million in 2011) at its current rates of GHG pollution had only 1.1 years left to zero emissions and thus by about August 2011 had used up its” fair share of this terminal global GHG pollution budget and is now stealing the entitlement (Climate Credits) of other countries i.e. it has approximately zero Carbon Credits. A more precise calculation of Australia’s Carbon Credits is 2.14 t CO2 per person per year x 22.8 million persons x 1.1 years = 53.7 Mt CO2 (million tonnes CO2) = 0.054 Gt CO2. Note that these estimates derive from consideration of CO2-e.

While the Climate Credits of the US = 2.14 t CO2 per person per year x 312.7 million persons x 3.1 years = 2,074 Mt CO2 = 2.074 Gt CO2 = $207.4 billion , the Climate Credits of China = 2.14 t CO2 per person per year x 1,339.7 million persons x 18.5 years = 53,039 Mt CO2 = 53.04 Gt CO2 = $5,304 billion. .

These Climate Credits can be expressed either as Gt CO2 or in US dollars by applying a Carbon Price of $100 per tonne CO2 e.g. the Climate Credits of Australia, the US and China are $5.4 billion, $207 billion and $5.3 trillion, respectively.

Per capita Climate Credits each country can simply be obtained by dividing Carbon Credits by the population. Per capita Climate Credits (US$ per person) = years to zero emissions x 2.14 tonnes CO2 per person per year X $100 per tonne CO2.

Net Climate Debt and Net Climate Credit

Net Climate Debt equals Historical Climate Debt minus Climate Credits. Thus the Net Climate Debt of the US is + $9.912 trillion – $0.207 trillion = $9.705 trillion. In contrast China has a Net Climate Debt of $2.955 trillion – $5.304 billion = – $2.349 trillion i.e. China has a Net Climate Credit of + $2.349 trillion.

Listed below is the Per Capita Net Climate Debt (US$ per person) for all the Climate Debtor countries (those with a Net Climate Debt) and the Net Climate Credit for all the Climate Creditor countries (those with a Net Climate Credit). One notes that just as the debtor countries of Europe are expected to meet their financial obligations, so the Climate Debtor countries must also be brought to account for their profligacy. The data is expressed country by country as Per Capita Historical Climate Debt minus Per Capita Climate Credit = Net Per Capita Climate Debt (US$ person). To obtain the total Net Climate Debt or Net Climate Credit for a country simply multiply the per capita value (in US$ per person) by the population (see “List of countries by population”).

Net Per Capita Climate Debt (US$ per person) of Climate Debtor countries

United Kingdom (33,307), United States (31,035), Germany (27,856), Australia (23,900 or 24,265 if including the effect of its huge GHG Exports on its Climate Credits), Russia (17,529), Canada (15,560), Luxembourg (13,649), Estonia (13,520), Ireland (13, 456), Czech Republic (13,263), Netherlands (13,242), Belgium (13,306), Finland (13,199), Denmark (13,135), Norway (13,028), Greece (12,942), Cyprus (12,878), Slovenia (12,857), Austria (12,835), Iceland (12,835), Ukraine (12,793), Poland (12,771), Belarus (12,579), Slovakia (12,707), Spain (12,707), Italy (12,707), France (12,600), Sweden (12,322), Switzerland (12,193), Bulgaria (12.300), Serbia & Montenegro (12,300), Hungary (12,300), Portugal (12,236), Malta (11,851), Croatia (11,765), Macedonia (11,723), Romania (11,573), Lithuania (11,509), Bosnia & Herzegovina (10,931), Latvia (11,780), Japan (10,017), Moldova (8,213), Albania (7,357).

Belize (1,273), Qatar (1,166), Guyana (1,148), Malaysia (1,038), United Arab Emirates (1,016), Kuwait (1,228), Papua New Guinea (909), Brunei (845), Antigua & Barbuda (845), Zambia (824), Bahrain (802), Trinidad & Tobago (738), Panama (653), New Zealand (653), Botswana (567), Saudi Arabia (503), Venezuela (460), Indonesia (417), Equatorial Guinea (374), Turkmenistan (353 ), Singapore (353), Liberia (332), Nicaragua (289), Oman (246), Palau (246), Brazil (246), Uruguay (225), Mongolia (135), Israel (135), Nauru (118), South Korea (53), Kazakhstan (32), Libya (11), Myanmar (11).

Net Per Capita Climate Credit (US$ per person) of Climate Creditor countries

Taiwan (11), Cambodia (75), Peru (118), Paraguay (118), South Africa (182), Argentina (225), Central African Republic (268), Suriname (353), Gabon (396), Ecuador (439), Bolivia (460), Cameroon (589), Iran (589), Côte d’Ivoire (610), Seychelles (631), Guatemala (631), Congo, Democratic Republic (formerly Zaire) (631), Uzbekistan (674), Azerbaijan (824), Angola (867), Bahamas (888), Benin (931), Zimbabwe (931), Laos (974), Mexico (974), Nepal (995), Colombia (995), Namibia (995), Chile (995), Congo, Republic (1,124), Madagascar (1,124), Jamaica (1,166), Barbados (1,209), Mauritania (1,316), Turkey (1,316), Costa Rica (1,423), Lebanon (1,466), North Korea (1,530), Thailand (1,573), Jordan (1,701), China (1,753), Honduras (1,830), Sudan (1,915), Algeria (2,236), Iraq (2,236), Sierra Leone (2,236), Syria (2,408), Tunisia (2,729), Dominican Republic (2,964), St Kitts & Nevis (3,221), Nigeria (3,221), Fiji (3,221), Guinea (3,371), Mauritius (3,371), Cuba (3,542), Togo (3,542), Vanuatu (3,692), Philippines (3,692), Malawi (3,692), Mali (3,884), Chad (3,884), Sri Lanka (4,077).

Uganda (4,269), Dominica (4,269), St Lucia (4,269), Egypt (4,483), Niue (4,483), Ghana (4,483), Grenada (4,719), El Salvador (4,976), Guinea-Bissau (4,976), Tanzania (4,976), Djibouti (4,976), Pakistan (5,254), Samoa (5,254), Tonga (5,254), Morocco (5,575), Senegal (5,575), Georgia (5,575), Armenia (5,896), St Vincent & Grenadines (6,281), Kenya (6,281), Maldives (6,666), Kyrgyzstan (6,666), Burkina Faso (6,666), India (7,837), Cook Islands (7,137), Bhutan (7,629), Yemen (8,207), Tajikistan (8,207), Mozambique (8,207), Rwanda (8,207), Burundi (8,207), Lesotho (8,849), Swaziland (8,849), Eritrea (9,577), Haiti (9,577), Solomon Islands (12,573), Vietnam (12,573), Cape Verde (12,573), Niger (12,573), Ethiopia (12,573), São Tomé and Príncipe (13,985), Afghanistan (15,697), The Gambia (15,697), Bangladesh (15,697), Comoros (20,598), Kiribati (24,278).

Summary

Using readily available data this analysis attempts to estimate Net Per Capita Climate Debt or Net Per Capita Climate Credit for all countries of the World. Note that it is domestic GHG pollution that is being considered and thus the grievous culpability of fossil fuel exporters like Australia and Saudi Arabia is not evident from this data set, although all the major fossil fuel exporters end up in the Climate Debtor list. The assumptions and methodology are clear, this enabling more precise revisions. The total amounts of Net Climate Debt and Net Climate Credit can be readily determined from the above per capita data simply by multiplying by the population. Thus, by way of key examples, the Net Climate Debt is $9.7 trillion (for the USA), $2.3 trillion (Germany), $2.1 trillion (UK), $0.5 trillion (Australia) and $0.5 trillion (Canada) whereas the Net Carbon Credit is $6.5 trillion (India), $2.3 trillion (China), $2.2 trillion (Bangladesh) and $0.9 trillion (Pakistan).

After the disastrous inaction of the Durban Climate Conference and the derisory First World offer of a $100 billion climate fund for poor nations, it is apparent that the greedy climate criminals (notably the US, Australia and Canada) and the other Climate Debtors will not repay their debt nor indeed stop polluting the atmosphere. One hopes that the Climate Creditor countries will insist on full reparations for a polluted planet. Hopefully this analysis will be useful in International Court of Justice (ICJ) litigations and International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutions against Climate Debtor countries by Climate Creditor countries. I would urge everybody, and in particular citizens of threatened megadelta and Island States, to inform their leaders about this Climate Debt and Climate Credit analysis. The First World EU governments in the current EU financial crisis are insisting on financial debt repayment and fiscal responsibility by debtor countries. Climate Creditor countries should likewise insist on repayment of Climate Debt and a rapid global move to cessation of greenhouse gas pollution. The Climate Debtors are stealing from the poor Climate Creditors and should be held to account by the Climate Creditors at the ICJ and the ICC.

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.

“We have also invested in CDMs, many people does perhaps not know, that there are right now 3 billion euros worth of projects in CDMs, from this 80 % is from European Union and already 4 billion has already been dispersed. This is money coming from the European Union.”

When you hear this for the first time, you think: “Great, EU is contributing to the welfare of other countries and help them mitigate their emissions.” On a closer note what Stavros Dimas seems to propose here is that you should count the money given in CDM projects as climate finance. He specfically mentions that: “This is money coming from the European Union”. In this context money should NOT be mentioned AT ALL if they want to count the emission reductions that are made through these very CDM projects. However if they rather want to feel good about all the money being spent in CDM one should not count the emission reductions done. Put it simply, one can never eat the cake and keep it at the same time.

The next statement is from Andreas Carlgren where he explains the strategy of the European Union and how their strategy with a conditionalized target is going to put pressure on other countries.

“It is conditionalized because otherwise we would give up and sell out our target to cheap without making sure that united states and china would also deliver sufficiently we cover a bit more than a tenth of the emissions of the world. If the two countries covering half of the emissions of the world wouldn’t deliver sufficiently. [ ... ]. It would be just in vain and not for the good of the planet if we would sell out this target [30 %] too cheap. That’s why we use it as a lever. That’s why we put pressure on the others”

If we compare what Carlgren is saying to what Joe Linen is telling I’m wondering where the leverage point is? Joe tells us that 20 % is scientifically illiterate, at the same time Andreas tells us that this waiting game will be used to get others to raise their goals. The problems is that currently all the developed countries have scientifically illiterate targets. Would not a better strategy be to line up with the NGO, be the examplerary rolemodel, then all focus would be on the countries that do less. There would be massive media attention, generated from both NGOs and press and a lot more pressure would come from this than the meekly political pressure that we are seeing right now. That would be an absolute brilliant move. Because I do believe that EU:s core intention is for Fair Ambitious and Binding deal.

The countries have to start understand that we live in a different world than we did 30 years ago. Civil society has a lot more power with the internet technology, this could be utilized for good if the parties of the negotiations only understood how to do so.

Jonathan Sundqvist is following the COP15 negotiations in Copenhagen from a Swedish/European perspective and is writing about it on Adopt a Negotiator as well as here on Green Blog.

A draft text for a potential final agreement in Copenhagen was leaked today to the Guardian. The “Danish text” has made the developing countries “furious” as the draft agreement would give even more powers to the rich nations, weakening UN’s future role as well as abandon the Kyoto protocol. Some say this shows the true agenda in Copenhagen, others believe the draft is unofficial and may have changed a lot since its first creation.

The Environmental Protection Agency in the USA has declared that carbon dioxide is a public danger. This would make it possible for Barack Obama to impose his proposed emissions cuts without an agreement in the sceptic U.S. Senate. A report released today by the Center for Biological Diversity claims that Obama now has the clear legal authority to make a binding commitment for greenhouse gas reductions in Copenhagen without waiting for Congress.

The UK Met Office and World Meteorological Organization have announced, in yet another report, that the first decade of this century is “by far” the warmest on record: “The decade of the 2000s (2000–2009) was warmer than the decade spanning the 1990s (1990–1999), which in turn was warmer than the 1980s (1980–1989).” The National Climatic Data Center (NOAA) in USA also released a similar report today: “The 2000 – 2009 decade will be the warmest on record, with its average global surface temperature about 0.96 degree F above the 20th century average. This will easily surpass the 1990s value of 0.65 degree F.”

Gordon Brown says the EU must cut its emissions with 30% by 2020 – but only if an ambitious global deal is reached in Copenhagen: “We’ve got to make countries recognise that they have to be as ambitious as they say they want to be. It’s not enough to say ‘I may do this, I might do this, possibly I’ll do this’. I want to create a situation in which the European Union is persuaded to go to 30%.”

Speaking at Klimaforum09 (Climate Forum 09), the alternative climate conference, in Copenhagen Naomi Klein said this is the last chance we have to save the world, but at the same time she expressed her doubt whether an ambitious deal would be made at the Bella Centre: “The Bella Center is the biggest case of disaster capitalism. The deal we really need is not even on the table.” Klein also criticized the Hopenhagen climate campaign: “The globe has Siemens logo on the bottom and the whole event is sponsored by Coke. That is a capitalization of hope but Klimaforum09 is where the real hope lies,” she said. “Klimaforum is not about giving charity to the developing world its about taking responsibility and the industrialized countries cleaning up our own mess,” she concluded.

The White House says the leaked “climategate” email story is “silly” and that the science is clear: “I think scientists are clear on the science. I think many on Capitol Hill are clear on the science. I think that this notion that there is some debate … on the science is kind of silly.” But just look at these scandalous emails!

Today I walked around and asked a number of young people what they expect of Copenhagen and the climate conference. What strikes me is how important young people are. It is we who will take over the world afterwards.

Those who I talk with here in Copenhagen really cares about what happens here on our planet. And they all agree that something must be done about the climate and environmental crisis we are facing as soon as possible. When the world has its eyes focused on the Copenhagen climate conference, it is far too good an opportunity to let it slip out of one’’s hands. It is now we must act for ourselves when we grow older, for our children and our grandchildren. For all farmers, all women, for everyone who are already facing water shortages, for all who live below sea level.

We must not only act, we can act, and if we’ll act we will make a big success!

It’s here! The 15th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP15) and the last chance we have to take action against “the greatest threat the world has ever faced”. The climate conference is taking place at Bella Center in Copenhagen from the 7th to the 18th of December. Around 15000 participants from 192 countries representing governments, the business community, and civil society is expected to attend. About 110 world leaders will come to Copenhagen, and last week Barack Obama promised to come to the last days of the climate conference.

COP 15 President Connie Hedegaard and UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer have, after the first day of the conference, said that there is “an unprecedented political will to reach an agreement”. Hedegaard continued by saying that “there is a huge pressure on everyone to deliver not just a deal, but an ambitious deal in Copenhagen”:

“Don’t believe that anything gets easier if we postpone things now. This is the time. This is now we have the possibility.

We must deliver. Not a deal, but an ambitious deal in Copenhagen. That’s why we are busy, very busy for the next few weeks.”

Yvo de Boer stated that he “believe the conference will write history, but we must make sure it writes the right history”.

“Time is up. People are speaking out. We’ve spent two years negotiating and now this process must deliver, he said.”

Also watch the four-minute long COP15 opening film which was shown to thousands of delegates in Copenhagen today. “We have made a film which speaks to the heart rather than to the brain,” said the Danish director of the film Mikkel Blaabjerg Poulsen.

Photo credit: azrainman

New research from the UK Met Office, one of the world’s leading providers of environmental and weather-related services, shows that the world’s efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions would only offer a 50-50 chance of keeping temperature rises below the two degree threshold.

Dr Vicky Pope, Head of Climate Change Advice at the Met Office states: “Even with drastic cuts in emissions in the next 10 years, our results project that there will only be around a 50% chance of keeping global temperatures rises below 2 °C.

“This idealised emissions scenario is based on emissions peaking in 2015 and quickly changing from an increase of 2–3% per year to a decrease of 3% per year. For every 10 years we delay action another 0.5 °C will be added to the most likely temperature rise.”

The new research shows that early action against man-made climate change is a must to be able to avoid the doomsday scenarios that comes with a two degree increase in global temperatures.

“These new figures suggest quite unambiguously that the world is on course for calamity unless rapid action can be taken which is far more drastic than any politicians are so far contemplating – never mind the general public.

If action is sluggish or non-existent, the model suggests that climate change is likely to cause almost unthinkable damage to the world; under a “business-as-usual” scenario, with no action taken at all and emissions increasing by more than 100 per cent by 2050, the end-of-the-century rise in global average temperatures is likely to be 5.5C, with a worst-case outcome of 7.1C – which would make much of life on earth impossible.”

The new findings from the UK Met Office were presented at the Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges and Decisions Congress in Copenhagen last week. And they will put even more pressure on the countries around the world now starting to gather and negotiate in Copenhagen for the upcoming UN Climate Change Conference this December – the last chance we have to take action against “the greatest threat the world has ever faced”.

Al Gore says the world will agree on a new and better climate deal this time. He argues that a “political tipping point” regarding climate change has been reached:

“There is a very impressive consensus now emerging around the world that the solutions to the economic crisis are also the solutions to the climate crisis,” he says. “I actually think we will get an agreement at Copenhagen.”

I am on the other hand not that optimistic. Sure, we might reach an agreement in Copenhagen. But will it be a strong agreement that actually take the new scientific findings into account? Or will it surrender to short-sighted economic gains from corporate interests?

I do see light in the tunnel. With the election of Barack Obama we got rid of the ignorant and idiotic stopping block, that is to say George Bush and the Republican Party. But even Obama is showing signs of weakness. Todd Stern, the Obama administration’s new top climate-change negotiator, says that a 25% greenhouse gas reduction by 2020 is “not possible”:

“It’s not possible to get that kind of number. It’s not going to happen,”

And so far all the climate conferences and talks have ended in a total failure. The climate targets that have been set and agreed on are too conservative and don’t take the science into account. And pretty much all the reductions that countries so far have managed to do have been by outsourcing the pollution to poorer developing countries. For example the UN Climate Change Conference in Poznań, Poland, ended in embarrassment for the European Union when it’s leaders failed to agree on a strong climate deal. George Monbiot, Europe’s leading green commentator, even called the new EU deal for “carbon colonialism”.

What we need is a new stronger climate deal that is based on science and not corporate interests. We need a climate deal with a goal of 350 ppm as a level to balance and stabilize the CO2 in our atmosphere. And we need a climate deal that includes sanctions against countries that do not follow the climate roadmap. Is that really too much to ask for?

The full transcript of his speech can be found below:

Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you very much for that warm welcome. And Yvo de Boer, thank you very much for your very generous introduction. And thank you for your leadership and tireless efforts in combating this crisis. Thank you so much. To all of the ministers, delegates, members of the NGO community, scientists, especially members of the IPCC who are gathered here, to my good friend who has shown such leadership and courage Wangari Maathai who is also here somewhere, and to all of the distinguished guests, this is an unusual moment during this long journey that began 16 years ago in Rio de Janeiro. To all of you who have worked here in Poznan and to the many of you who have worked at conferences throughout this process, thank you for your extraordinary efforts and for your remarkable achievements.

We, the human species, have arrived at a moment of fateful decision. It is unprecedented and in some ways even laughable to imagine that we could actually make a conscious choice as a species. But that is nevertheless the challenge that now faces us because our home, Earth, is in danger. What is at risk of being destroyed is of course not the planet itself but the conditions that have made it hospitable for human beings I will not dwell on the science but I want to state a few facts if only to underscore the urgency of our task. We are, after all, in a process of negotiation with one another around the world but it’s important to remind ourselves that we cannot negotiate with the facts. We cannot negotiate with the truth about our situation. We cannot negotiate with the consequences of unrestrained dumping of 70 million tons of global warming pollution into the thin shelf atmosphere surrounding our planet every 24 hours. Scientists have for several years now warned us that we are moving dangerously close to several so-called tipping points that could within less than 10 years make it impossible to avoid irretrievable damage to the planet’s habitability for human civilization unless we act quickly.

As many of you here know full well, in virtually all of the mountain ranges of this planet, the glaciers are now melting rapidly in the Alps in the Andes in the Rockies and most ominously in the Himalayas which contain number 100 times as much ice and snow of all of the mountains here in Europe.

The leading Chinese scientist who studies ice, professor Yao Tandong calls the Tibetan plateau the water tower of Asia. As you know it feeds the great rivers of Asia, the Indus, the Ganges, the Brahmaputra, the Salween and the Irawati, the Mekong, the Yangtze and the Yellow. 1.4 billion people depend for more than half of their drinking water on the rivers and spring systems that flow from the ice of the Tibetan plateau which is now melting at an alarming rate. Because the climate crisis has also increased the rate of soil moisture evaporation around the world and concentrated rainfall in shorter periods of time, shifting the seasons during which it falls, there is increased desertification and longer droughts, increasing stress on all of the people who live in the dry land regions of our world. Many shallow lakes, including prominently lake Chad, have disappeared. The Great Lakes of Africa are undergoing dramatic change, the Great Lakes of North America are losing their ice cover, and the water level is dropping dramatically. Last year 2000 scientists gathered at the food and agriculture organization in Rome to discuss their fear of an impending crisis in the Mediterranean as it becomes saltier and as warmer water reaches its depths, threatening in the future to turn it into a stagnant sea if this process continues. The dumping of 25 million tons of CO2 into the oceans of the world every day, and the increasing acidification of the ocean water along with rising temperature is putting stress on the ocean Fisheries throughout our planet. And as you know, the warming ocean waters are also causing stronger typhoons and cyclones and hurricanes. Typhoon Saomai was the strongest to hit China in more than 50 years, two of the three strongest histories in history hit south Asia within the last 3 years, one of them killing 20,000 people in Myanmar. We have had such strong storms in North America as well, and in South America where Brazil had the first hurricane in recorded history. Massive flooding has resulted at record rates on every continent. Last year more than a dozen countries in Africa suffered the consequences of such flooding. Last year Mexico had record flooding. We have seen comparable events in Europe and throughout the world. Heat waves continue. Two winters ago was the hottest winter in the history of recorded atmospheric measurements. 20 of the 21 hottest years in recorded history have occurred in the last 25 years. The university of Tel Aviv recently published a new study predicting that with each 1 degree increase in temperature there is a 10 percent increase in lightning, along with man-made causes, we are now seeing record fires as dryer soils and dryer vegetation leads to spreading fires in Greece, for example last year and in many other countries as well. The extinction crisis is tearing at the fabric of the web of life, and the scientific consensus that we must take action was strengthened by the IPCC yet again earlier this year. So the science is clear, and we are faced with a sharp contrast between two notional rates of change, first, the rate at which we are approaching a point of no return in terms of systems collapse, and second, the slower rate at which we have been addressing the problem of how to reduce the emissions that are causing this crisis. We are moving up against a physical standard that doesn’t give credit for a good try. We will succeed or we will fail. At every time of great challenge, we as human beings first of all must resolve a struggle in our own hearts between hope and fear. That struggle is palpable here during this meeting at Poznan. The causes for fear, pessimism, discouragement and doubt have been discussed in whispered conversations among the delegates here. The global recession, we are told, makes the task of solving the climate crisis more difficult. The businesses lobbies in the developed nations we are told have too much power and may divert leaders from their obligation to safeguard our future. The prices for oil — the prices for oil and coal have, in a cyclical and destructive pattern, once again risen to new highs in the first half of this year, contributing to the causes of the economic downturn, only then to once again plummet to levels that threaten to discourage investments necessary to develop renewable sources of energy and effective measures to improve conservation and efficiency. We are also told that even though people throughout the world are more aware of the unprecedented threat posed by the climate crisis, many still seem not to feel the appropriate sense of urgency that should cause them to demand the emergency measures that the scientists have so clearly told us governments must take as quickly as possible. The gap between rich and poor as we are all aware is not being closed with sufficient speed to build the unity of purpose so desperately needed as a basis for supporting global action. These are all causes for doubt, for fear, for pessimism. But in spite of these fears and doubts, you have continued your work and have continued to make steady progress in resolving many issues that once seemed intractable. Thank you. And even though the steps that you have taken and that have been taken by nations around the world sometimes seem small and even though the progress seems painfully slow, it is worth taking stock and recognizing that this great enterprise that began 16 years ago has now taken us to a vantage point from which we can see the basis for success because in spite of the remaining obstacles and difficulties, I believe that the causes for hope and optimism are greater than the causes for doubt and discouragement, and I believe the road to Copenhagen is now clear.

Let me outline for you the basis for the hope and optimism that I feel in my heart. In the midst of this synchronized global recession, there is an emerging consensus throughout the world that the best, indeed the only way to effectively combat the recession is with a synchronized global stimulus and in nation after nation, leaders have concluded that they must design a green stimulus and build the infrastructure for renewable sources of energy and put people to work retro-fitting homes and buildings with CO2 reducing insulation and windows and lighting and more efficient technologies. China, a second cause for hope, China once seem by many as a looming obstacle to the world’s effort to reduce CO2 emissions has itself announced a green stimulus of $600 billion over the next 2 years. Chinese leaders are mobilizing a national effort to introduce CO2 reduction initiatives and have already begun the largest tree planting program the world has ever seen. And in contrast to it 2 years ago, no one at this conference has said China is standing in the way of progress. China is ready to join in leading the world toward a solution for this crisis. Much more needs to be done, of course. Much more needs to be done even in countries that have in the last few years provided leadership. The struggle between hope and fear is taking place even today here in Europe. And yet we hear the reports that leaders once resistant to fiscal stimulus are now calling for massive new initiatives to create jobs in ways that also reduce CO2 and the Secretary general of the United Nations who has provided such tremendous leadership for the world in this process has himself called for what he terms a green new deal in the world.

Developing countries that were once reluctant to join in the first phases of a global response to the climate crisis have themselves now become leaders in demanding action and in taking bold steps on their own initiative. Just last week Brazil proposed an impressive new plan to halt the destructive deforestation in that nation.

Thanks to your efforts in Bali and in the continuing discussions, we now know how to integrate the protection of forests in a global agreement that also sharply reduces industrial sources of global warming pollution. Yes, much more work needs to be done, but you have created the basis for integrating the different kinds of solutions that must come together to solve this crisis. Another source of optimism, scientists and engineers and entrepreneurs in every part of the world have been busy and productive in developing exciting new ex-technologies that will dramatically improve our ability to create renewable energy, they are creating the basis for increasing living standards while simultaneously reducing pollution. In my country there have also been promising and optimistic changes. State governments, including the State of California, our largest state, have shown leadership by passing binding laws requiring the mandatory reduction of CO2. 884 U.S. cities have now embraced the principles of the Kyoto protocol without waiting for the Federal Government to act. The United States — dozens of proposed coal firing generating plants have in the last 2 years been cancelled because of grassroots opposition and public pressure to adopt renewable sources of energy.

The United States Supreme Court, which I must tell you in my opinion does not always reach the right conclusion, decided earlier this year in a ruling that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is required by law to regulate CO2 emissions. No new coal fired generating plant can be approved without a decision by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

1 year ago this week in Bali at another extraordinary moment during this process, I asked you to anticipate the possibility that there would be significant changes in the approach of the U.S. national government to the climate crisis because of our oncoming elections.

Just prior to coming here to Poznan, I went to Chicago for a meeting with president-elect Barack Obama and he emphasized that the climate crisis will be a top priority of his administration. We discussed how to create millions of new jobs in a new clean energy economy, and he emphasized that once he is president, the United States will once again engage vigorously in these negotiations and help lead toward a successful conclusion.

I would like to read to you some of the public statements that president-elect Barack Obama has made since the election. He said, “…the time for delay is over. The time for denial is over. We all believe what the scientists have been telling us for years now, that this is a matter of urgency and national security and it has to be dealt with in a serious way. That’s what I intend my administration to do.”

He said in another statement, “The science is beyond dispute. The facts are clear…. Washington has failed to show leadership. That will change when I take office. My presidency will mark a new chapter in America’s leadership on climate change… That will start with a Federal cap and trade system… It will not only help us bring about a clean energy future saving our planet, it will also help us transform our industries and steer our country out of this economic crisis….Solving this problem will require all of us working together….Once I take office, you can be sure that the United States will once again engage vigorously in these negotiations and help lead the world toward a new era of global cooperation on climate change.”

Don’t discount these words. Will there be difficulties? Of course. Not only in my country but in every country. You know that better than most. Mahatma Gandhi, one of the most inspirational leaders in the history of the world said halfway through the last century that the most powerful force in global politics is what he called “satyagraha” which I am told translates into my language roughly as “truth force”. The reason why you have been able to continue moving forward is because you understand the truth about the crisis that we face.

One of Mahatma Gandhi’s — one of those inspired by Mahatma Gandhi, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once said in discussing human rights, injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. In that very same way, we now face a crisis that makes it abundantly clear that increased CO2 emissions anywhere are a threat to the integrity of this planet’s climate balance everywhere. As a result, the old divide between north and south, between developed countries and developing countries is a divide that must become obsolete. We must link poverty reduction with the sharp reduction of CO2 emissions, including reduced emissions from deforestation with reform of the clean development mechanism and adequate funding for adaptation that is essential and must be financed even though obviously mitigation and prevention are the primary task because without them adaptation would ultimately prove to be impossible.

We hear a lot also about capacity building. A phrase that is almost exclusively used with respect to the developing countries and indeed capacity building is important there. But I want to talk about the need for capacity building in the developed countries as well. The political systems in the developed world have become sclerotic. We have to overcome the paralysis that has prevented us from acting and focused unblinkingly on this crisis as opposed to spending so much time on OJ Simpson and Paris Hilton and Anna Nicole Smith. In this struggle between our hopes for success and the doubts that constantly complicate this task, we have to call upon the people of the world to speak up more forcefully, to put their weight in the balance of the scales that are measured by world leaders. The truth is that the goals we are reaching toward are incredibly difficult, and even a goal of 450 parts per million, which seems so difficult today, is inadequate. We will soon need to toughen that goal to 350 parts per million. We understand that. But we have to understand as delegates in this process understand all too clearly the difference between stating the goal and reaching the goal. As governments come to grips with the very difficult work that has to be performed in order to reach even a goal of 450 parts per million, the task can seem very daunting. But for those of us who do understand that the goal should be tougher still, let us remember that the early steps in a process of reaching a goal of 450 parts per million and a process to reach 350 parts per million, the early steps are very similar, and we know from experience that once the process of change begins, once the momentum shifts, once the decisions are arrived at, then the task often becomes easier in the doing. As we start making these changes, we will see that they do strengthen our economies, they do create millions of new jobs, and they do improve the standard of living. To those who are fearful — to those who are fearful that it is too difficult to conclude this process with a new treaty by the deadline that has been established for 1 year from now in Copenhagen, I say it can be done. It must be done. Let’s finish this process at Copenhagen. Don’t take the pressure off. Let’s make sure that we succeed. Because ultimately this really is not a political issue. It is of course a moral issue, and even a spiritual issue, however you understand that word. And our different traditions lead us to different ways of describing a spiritual challenge. But this one affects the survival of human civilization. It is simply put, a question of right versus wrong, and we have to bring to bear that truth force and that moral courage necessary to do what is sometimes seen as impossible. Very simply put, it is wrong for this generation to destroy the habitability of our planet and ruin the prospects of every future generation. That realization — that realization must carry us forward. Our children have a right to hold us to a higher standard when the future of all human civilization is hanging in the balance. They deserve better, and politicians who sit on their hands and do nothing to confront the greatest challenge humankind has ever faced. This crisis does offer us the chance to experience what few generations have had the privilege of experiencing, a generational mission, a compelling moral purpose, a shared cause and the opportunity to put aside the pettiness and conflict of politics and narrower concerns to embrace a genuine moral generational mission. I believe that it is time between now and the gathering in Copenhagen 1 year from now for heads of state to become personally involved in meeting several times between Poznan and Copenhagen. I don’t think that they can stay disengaged from this process any longer.

I am very optimistic about the leadership of the new Danish chair that will preside over the meeting in Copenhagen, and even though I do not have the opportunity to speak formally for the people of my country, I would like to relay to you a message that I heard from the people of the United States of America this year, that I think is very relevant to the task the world is facing over this next year. Yes, we can. Thank you.

Photo credit: World Economic Forum

George Monbiot writes today on the Guardian that the new EU emissions agreement is a disaster and calls it carbon colonialism.

So much for the Europeans leading the way on climate change. Even as our governments claim they want to drag the world into an effective climate agreement in Poznan, they have just pulled Europe out of one in Brussels.

The agreement they have just reached is a disaster. The 20% carbon cut they promise by 2020 falls miles short of what’s needed, and they’ll be able to buy most of it from abroad anyway. All this means, in a world which has to eliminate most of its carbon pollution, is that other countries, which have sold their easiest reductions to us, will then find it harder to make emissions cuts of their own. It’s carbon colonialism, in which Europe picks the low-hanging fruit in developing countries, leaving them with much tougher choices later on.

Monbiot blames the failure on Germany, which he calls the new dirty man of Europe. Monbiot says that Angela Merkel is prepared to go green only when it doesn’t hurt big business.

[…]Who has pushed hardest for these exemptions? The great green German chancellor Angela Merkel. The British government’s environmental policies are wildly contradictory, but they look almost coherent by comparison to Germany’s. In some respects it’s the most progressive country in the EU, with a federal scheme to insulate the entire housing stock and an investment in wind power which puts the UK (with far greater wind resources) to shame. In other respects it has become the dirty man of Europe. It was Merkel who demanded weaker standards for fuel efficiency in cars, Merkel who pushed hardest for a €40bn bail-out of the motor manufacturers, Merkel who now insists that the big cement, steel and chemicals companies are allowed to get away without paying.

[…]Shame on you, Mrs Merkel. With the help of Donald Tusk, Silvio Berlusconi and one or two other Neanderthals, you have now messed it up for everyone.

Read it: Germany: the new dirty man of Europe

Related: EU leaders fail to agree on a strong climate deal

Photo credit: rockcohen

Leaders from the European Union (EU) have just agreed on a new watered-down climate deal to tackle global warming. The actual emissions cuts could amount to as little as 4% by 2020.

Yesterday UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said in Poznan that “the world is watching us. The next generation is counting on us. We must not fail.” He also called for the EU to show the way and leadership on the climate crisis for other countries. Unfortunately it seems the short-sighted “leaders” of Europe ignored him. Instead of 30% emission cuts by 2020 the EU leaders only agreed on cuts by 20% by 2020, compared to 1990 levels.

But the actual emission cuts could end up being as little as 4% by 2020, environmental groups warned. That is because of special exemptions for dirty industries in Europe as well as allowing cheap emission cuts overseas to be counted to the EU total. The latter has been heavily pushed by the new Swedish right-wing government who has called for as much as 88% of the EU emission cuts to be allowed to do overseas in development countries.

“EU leaders will probably trumpet the deal on climate change as a great success, but in reality this is a big failure in EU ambition,” said Delia Villagrasa, Senior Advisor to WWF.

“Basically, Europe just decided to off-set about two thirds of its own greenhouse gas emissions, to have consumers pay for emissions permits that polluting companies get for free and to avoid supporting poorer countries in the fight to climate change. This is not quite the third industrial revolution we were expecting,

“The result of this race to the bottom is that Europe will reduce its own greenhouses gas emissions significantly less than the proclaimed 20% target by 2020.”

EU leaders on the other hand have said the new climate deal is “historic” and “ambitious”.

EU Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso called the plans “the most ambitious proposals anywhere in the world”, saying that “Europe has today passed its credibility test. We mean business when we talk about climate.”

And French President Nicolas Sarkozy told a press conference in Brussels that “this is historic” and that it “was difficult up to the last minute” to reach an agreement on the deal.

“A flagship E.U. policy now has no pilot, a mutinous crew and numerous holes in its fuselage,” said Sanjeev Kumar of the environment group WWF.

“This is a dark day for European climate policy. European heads of state and government have reneged on their promises and turned their backs on global efforts to fight climate change,” Climate Action Network Europe, Friends of the Earth Europe, Greenpeace, Oxfam and WWF said in a joint statement today.

“Angela Merkel, Silvio Berlusconi, Donald Tusk and Nicolas Sarkozy should be ashamed. They have chosen the private profits of polluting industry over the will of European citizens, the future of their children and the plight of millions of people around the world. The Parliament can and should amend the worst parts of today’s deal.”

Photo credit: World Economic Forum

Avaaz, an independent and not-for-profit global campaigning organization, says that European leadership on climate is “essential to secure us all a global deal” in the UN climate conference in Poznań, Poland. Unfortunately have Germany, Poland and Italy so far been the “main blockers” during the climate negotiations for strong European actions.

But Avaaz says that Poland has begun to change their mind and that now only Germany and Italy are left “standing in the way”. And so they want you to help them put pressure on Chancellor Angela Merkel “to do the smart thing for the environment and the economy”.

Germany is the key – Chancellor Merkel is normally a climate champion, but has caved to industry, fearing for German jobs. She needs to hear from us that a Green Recovery is the answer to both our climate and our economic crises.

Merkel cares a great deal about her international reputation, which is why Avaaz has delivered our 150,000-strong petition and protested at her international meetings with the Poles. But now for the punch: an Avaaz commissioned opinion poll which reveals that 85% of Merkel’s own people are calling for her to show leadership in securing a strong climate deal. Together, we can help push Merkel over the edge — follow this link to leave her a quick message encouraging her to do the smart thing for the environment and the economy: http://www.avaaz.org/en/merkel_lead_on_climate/

[…]But despite mounting pressure, Germany is still arguing that emissions allowances should be free for industry. Merkel doesn’t seem to understand the power of a green lead recovery or that green-collar jobs are the new growth industry. Instead she is catering to her country’s cement, chemical, steel and car industries.

But if we can convince her to shift gears, an EU package will be all but sealed and with it a platform for a global climate plan. We’ve got to move decisively before Merkel publicly announces her final position later this week. We need to send clear and unambiguous messages demanding that she doesn’t stand in the way of a global deal. Let her know that we need her back on side.

As our leaders delay and lower their ambitions for action, our planet and our people are placed at greater risk. At this crucial time, our role is to let our representatives now that we wont allow another global climate talks to fail, that we have the solutions to the climate crisis, and we expect nothing less than a strong and binding deal to achieve it.

Click here to tell Merkel to show leadership in securing a strong climate deal.