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!

“U.S. President Barack Obama will go to Copenhagen for a U.N. climate change meeting on December 9, hoping to add momentum to an international process despite slow progress on a domestic bill to cut carbon emissions”, Reuters reports.

“Obama planned to make a visit at the beginning of the climate negotiations in Denmark, an administration official told Reuters on Wednesday, before picking up the Nobel Peace Prize at a ceremony in neighboring Oslo.”

With him to the climate summit Obama has a pledge to cut emissions in the USA with 17% from 2005 levels by 2020, 30% by 2025, 42% by 2030 and 83% by 2050. But these numbers are much lower than those proposed by the EU and other industrialised countries such as Norway.

The numbers are also much lower than what the science says is needed to avert catastrophic man-made climate change. According to the IPCC report in 2007 industrialised countries such as the USA needs to cut their emissions by 25-40% by 2020. The global environmental alliance TckTckTck calls for developed countries to cut emissions with 40% by 2020. And according to paleoclimate scientist Dr Andrew Glikson we need to cut carbon emissions with up to 80% by 2020 to avoid catastrophe.

In response to Obama’s announcement the UN climate chief, Yvo de Boer, said that “the world is very much looking to the United States to come forward with an emission reduction target and contribute to financial support to help developing countries.”

But Obama does not plan to join around 65 other world leaders during the final days of the UN climate meeting. Despite this the Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen praised Obama’s decision and said that “the visit underlines the president’s desire to contribute to an ambitious, global agreement in Copenhagen”.

World Wildlife Fund’s Climate Program Director, Keya Chatterjee, said that the environmental organization is “pleased” that President Obama will attend the climate summit. But also noted that:

“If his presence during the latter days of the COP becomes necessary to secure the right commitments, we hope the President will be willing to return to Copenhagen with the rest of the world’s leaders during the final stages of the negotiations.”

Greenpeace USA Global Warming Campaign Director, Damon Moglen, response was a bit harsher. In a statement Moglen said Obama’s short visit “amounts to nothing more than President Obama taking a photo opportunity on his way to pick up the Nobel Peace Prize.” Moglen also said that the international community cannot take Obama’s emission pledge seriously:

“The proposed emissions reductions target – 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 – is less than one seventh of what the European Union leaders have said they are prepared to commit. The proposed reduction refers to 2005 emissions and not the standard 1990 baseline used by scientists and policymakers around the world. Arranging the numbers this way may be more politically palatable, but it misleads the public on information key to its welfare.

Science calls for the United States and the developed world to cut pollution by at least 25 to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 to 95 percent by 2050. Using this accepted standard, the announced target that the U.S. plans to bring to the table shoots for only a 4 percent cut in pollution.”

You can learn more about the Copenhagen meeting here.

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

Big and exciting news are coming today from the UNFCCC climate talks currently being held in Bangkok, Thailand. Norway has announced a commitment to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions with 40% by 2020 – based on 1990 levels.

This emission reduction promise from the Norwegian government is now the biggest commitment announced by any industrialized country. It beats the European Union (the now former climate leader) who has so far only promised a 20% reduction by 2020.

Adopt A Negotiator says in a statement that this is “a great day for ambition” in the climate talks and praises Norway for committing to a target that comes very “close to what the science demands”.

“Norway has shown that we can be ambitious in these negotiations. They have decided to break ice today, to avoid their glaciers melting and to avoid seeing more and more devestating climate consequences around the world.”

I think we can thank the people in Norway for this strong climate commitment. If they hadn’t re-elected the country’s centre-left ruling coalition we might have seen a conservative Norway downplaying the severity of climate change instead.

Now we are just waiting for Norway to also take the lead on banning gas cars after 2015.

via Eco-Digital

Photo credit: rockcohen

Green political parties from across Europe made a successful European parliament election this past week. The European Greens gained 11 new seats in the parliament and will now have a total of 46 Green MEPs, an increase with 31%. The Greens/EFA Group is now likely to have 53 MEPS (46 Greens and 7 EFA MEPs).

“To have increased the number of Green MEPs from 35 to 46 is a great success. Our showing is even more remarkable when you consider that we have 11 more seats than before in a parliament with 49 fewer MEPS and that all other groups have shrunk”, said EGP Co-Spokesperson Philippe Lamberts, who has been elected a MEP for the Belgian French-speaking Green Party Ecolo.

In France the green political party Europe-Ecologie gained 16% of the votes and will thus send 13 green MEPs to the European parliament. Belgium, Germany, Sweden, Denmark and Finland are other countries where the greens will receive more MEPs than from the last EU election. In Greece 3.48% of the people voted for Ecologoi-Prasinoi and as a result Greece will be able to send their first green MEP to the European Parliament.

“The Greek Greens’ campaign demonstrated European solidarity as an Austrian-Greek Green stood as a candidate to support the Greek party”.

“What our 31% increase in seats proves beyond any shadow of a doubt is that the Greens are a major political force to be reckoned with and that we are gaining the trust of more and more voters, not only in our traditional areas like the environment and climate policy and human rights, but also economics and social policy“, Lamberts said.

The greens across Europe will together and stronger than ever work hard to gain support in the parliament for their €500 billion new Green Deal which will help solve the economic crisis and save our climate.

EGP Co-Spokesperson Ulrike Lunacek, who was also elected a MEP for the Austrian Greens and managed to maintain their 2 seats despite heavy waves of rightwing populism, thanked all the people who dared to “Think Big, Vote Green”.

“We will fight hard on their behalf for a Green New Deal for Europe, which was at the heart of our common election campaign and obviously appealed to many voters, including many who had never voted Green before,” she said. “The Green New Deal would not only create 5 million new Green-Collar jobs in 5 years but would also help fight climate change as 500 billion Euros of public and private funds would be invested in renewables, energy efficiency and other future-oriented technologies”.

I am happy to see that the Greens has a growing support among the voters across Europe, and that they will with the support of the voters get at least 10 more seats in the EU parliament. And I am happy to see that Sweden (for now) isn’t taking part in the Europe-wide trend of sending far-right extremist, racists and anti-democratic political parties to the European Parliament.

Election Results

The Green election results can be found below:

Watch:

via Vote or Die 2009

The upcoming European Elections are just a few days away. And when it comes to saving the climate this EU election is one of the more important ones. And I believe it’s definitely something you must take part in if you care the slightest about the climate, your children and their future, the environment or just the well state of your country.

But how, when and on who should you vote for? Don’t worry! Green Blog got you covered. You can find out when the deadline for voting is in your country by using this map here. And here you will find a complete list of green political parties that you can vote for around Europe.

Find your country’s green party and vote for it in the upcoming EU election. It really isn’t harder than that! This is our chance to vote for change. Don’t waste it.

Photo credit: rockcohen

The upcoming European Elections are just a few weeks away. And when it comes to saving the climate this EU election is one of the more important ones. And I believe it’s definitely something you must take part in if you care the slightest about the climate, your children and their future, the environment or just the well state of your country.

As you probably already know by now time is no longer on our side when it comes to fighting man-made climate change. We need radical actions now if we are to have the slightest chance to stop the worst doomsday scenarios. That is why this election is so important. Because whatever you like it or not the decisions which are being made in the European Parliament affects all member states. So this is our chance to vote for meaningful actions against climate change that will affect politics and regulations both in Europe and around the world. Don’t wait until the next European Parliament elections in 2014, because then it will be too late.

How to vote?

If you live in one of the 27 member states of the European Union, and are eligible to vote, you can take part in the election and help save out climate by voting for a green political party. Yes, you read right. I am asking you to vote for a political party that might not be the right party for you personally in terms of your political views or ideology. But this is such an important, almost a once in a lifetime, election for the climate and the future of our civilization which require us to vote for political parties that actually stands for real actions against climate change.

When to vote?

The elections will take place in early June and all member states votes on different dates. For example the UK voting will be on the 4th and in Sweden the voting is not until the 7th. You can find out when the deadline for voting is in your country by using this map here.

Who should you vote for?

Because Europe has so many different political parties it’s hard to tell exactly which party should get your vote. That is why I think the easiest way to decide is to choose a political party that is a member of the European Greens (They have even set up a website to promote their candidates and their new green deal for Europe which will help solve the economic crisis and save our climate).

The following parties listed below are members of the European Greens:

• Albania: Partia e Gjelber
• Austria: Die Grünen
• Belgium: Ecolo OR Groen!
• Bulgaria: Bulgarian Green Party/Bulgarian Greens
• Cyprus: Cyprus Green Party
• Czech Republic: Strana Zelenych
• Estonia: Eestimaa Rohelised
• Finland: Vihreät De Gröna
• France: Les Verts
• Germany: Bündnis90/Die Grünen
• Greece: Ecologoi-Prasinoi
• Hungary: Zöld Demokraták Szövetsége
• Ireland: Comhaontas Glas
• Italy: Federazione dei Verdi
• Latvia: Latvijas Zala Partija
• Luxembourg: déi gréng
• Malta: Alternattiva Demokratika
• Moldova: Partidul Ecologist din Moldova “Aliante Verde” (PEM AVE)
• Netherlands: De Groenen OR GroenLinks
• Poland: Zieloni 2004
• Portugal: Partido Ecologista “Os Verdes”
• Romania: The Green Party
• Slovakia: Strana Zelenych (SZ)
• Slovenia: Stranka mladih Slovenije (SMS)
• Spain: Los Verdes OR Iniciativa per Catalunya Verds (ICV)
• Sweden: Miljöpartiet de Gröna
• United Kingdom: The Green Party of England & Wales OR Scottish Green Party

Find your country’s green party and vote for it in the upcoming EU election. It really isn’t harder than that!

This is our chance to vote for change. Don’t waste it.

“The legislation follows lobbying by animal welfare groups, which have long argued that the clubbing of seal pups by hunters is barbaric.

Canada kills about 300,000 seals annually off its east coast – the biggest such hunt in the world.”

Stavros Dimas, European Commissioner for the Environment, welcomed the new ban and said that the new legislation “addresses EU citizens’ concerns with regard to the cruel hunting methods of seals.”

Caroline Lucas, MEP for the Greens in the UK, said that “today, nearly one million seals are slaughtered annually in commercial seal kills around the world”, and that this new legislation will help end “one of the most vile examples of animal cruelty.”

The new ban will come with exceptions for Inuit communities and other indigenous peoples from Canada and Greenland which will be allowed to continue their traditional hunts. But they are not allowed to participate in any large-scale trade of seal products within EU.

The International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) applauded the new legislation and said it was a major victory in the organizations 40 year campaign to end Canada’s commercial seal hunt.

“The Parliament has hammered the final nail in the coffin of the sealing industry’s market in the EU,” said Lesley O’Donnell, Director of IFAW EU. “MEPs clearly heeded the tens of thousands of emails, postcards and messages sent by IFAW supporters from across Europe.”

“From Mexico City to Milan and all the way to Moscow, the world is uniting in opposition to commercial seal hunts,” continued O’Donnell. “A complete collapse of Canada’s commercial seal hunt may now be inevitable.”

Canada and Norway have warned that they will take the European Union and its 27 member nations to the World Trade Organization if they agreed on a ban on seal product imports.

It is feared that the new EU ban will overshadow any other topics during the EU-Canada summit in Prague this week. The summit is meant to launch negotiations for a new economic and free trade agreement between Europe and Canada as well as strengthening efforts to build a low-carbon global economy.

Sunscreen has been touted over the past few decades as an essential component in keeping our skin healthy and cancer-free.  It is, of course, widely known now that prolonged exposure to the sun’s UV rays could be a common cause of skin cancer.  Not to mention the other benefits of sunscreen, like its role in preventing the signs of premature aging.  But scientists are now looking at sunscreen, rather some of its ingredients, as a potential threat to the environment.

Zinc oxide is a common and popular ingredient used in sunscreens to absorb or deflect damaging ultra violet (UV) rays.  The complaint by users in the past has been the ghostly white appearance it leaves behind.  The solution; make zinc oxide clear by shrinking it into tiny particles between one and 100 nanometers (a nanometer is roughly half the size of a strand of DNA).  No more chalky white skin, but at what price? 

Scientific America reported Tuesday that the use of these nanoparticles may pose risks to the environment by damaging beneficial microbes

A study by University of Toledo researchers discovered that nano-titanium dioxide used in personal care products reduced biological roles of bacteria after less than an hour of exposure. The findings suggest that these particles, which end up at municipal sewage treatment plants after being washed off in showers, could eliminate microbes that play vital roles in ecosystems and help treat wastewater.

These tiny microbes have big jobs; remove ammonia from wastewater, clean up toxic waste and reduce phosphorus in lakes.

The European Union has also been researching nanoparticles and the role they play in the disruption of the environment.  On Wednesday a majority of the the EU Parliament voted for new EU-wide rules regarding nanocosmetics that will take effect in 2012.  Clear labeling on products that contain nanoparticles is part of the new regulation, as well as special safety testing before a product’s release.

Nanotechnology has been noted as potentially beneficial in creating drugs that could cure cancer and radiation poisoning, exciting possibilities to be sure.

At this point, rather than discourage the use of nanoparticles all together, scientists see more research that needs to be done to recognize their true potential.