Each year’s average temperature is determined by a number of factors, including solar activity and the status of the El Niño/La Niña phenomenon. But heat-trapping gases that have accumulated in the atmosphere, largely from the burning of fossil fuels, have become a dominant force, pushing the Earth’s climate out of its normal range. The planet is now close to 0.8 degrees Celsius warmer than it was a century ago. Hidden within annual averages and expected variability are startling instances of new temperature and rainfall records in many parts of the world — weather extremes that would once be considered anomalies but that now risk becoming the new norm as the Earth heats up.

Worldwide, 2011 was the second wettest year on record over land. (The record was set in 2010, which also tied 2005 as the warmest overall.) Heavier deluges are expected on a warmer planet; each temperature rise of 1 degree Celsius increases the amount of moisture the atmosphere can hold by about 7 percent. Higher temperatures also can fuel stronger storms.

Brazil started the year with the deadliest natural disaster in its history: in January, a month’s worth of rain fell in a single day in Rio de Janeiro state, leading to floods and landslides that killed at least 900 people. That same month, flooding in eastern Australia covered an area nearly the size of France and Germany combined. Overall, it was the third wettest year in Australia since recordkeeping began in 1900.

The most expensive weather disaster of 2011 was the flooding in Thailand in the second half of the year, which ultimately submerged one third of the country’s provinces. At $45 billion worth of damage — equal to 14 percent of Thailand’s gross domestic product — it was also the costliest natural catastrophe the country ever experienced.

In October, more than 100 people died as two storms — one from the Pacific and the other from the Caribbean — pounded Central America with rain. In western El Salvador, nearly 1.5 meters of rain (almost 5 feet) fell over 10 days. And in December, Tropical Storm Washi hit the Philippines, creating flash floods that killed more than 1,200 people.

The 2011 Atlantic hurricane season had 19 named storms. Hurricane Irene brought extreme flooding to the northeastern United States in August, with total damages topping $7.3 billion. The year was the wettest on the books for seven states in the country, while it was among the driest for several others. Although the extremes appear to balance out, making for a near-average year, in fact a record 58 percent of the contiguous United States was either extremely wet or extremely dry in 2011.

Indeed, as is expected on a hotter planet, while some parts of the globe were overwhelmed by rain in 2011, others were distinguished by dryness. A severe drought in the Horn of Africa that began in 2010 devolved into a crisis situation in 2011, characterized by crop failure, exorbitant food prices, and widespread malnutrition. Exacerbated by chronic political instability and a belated humanitarian response, the death toll may have exceeded 50,000 people.

Back in North America, a drought that began in late 2010 and worsened over 2011 led hundreds of farmers from northern Mexico to march to that nation’s capital in January 2012 to draw the government’s attention to their suffering. Nearly 900,000 hectares of farmland (some 2.2 million acres) and 1.7 million head of livestock were lost due to the dryness — the worst in Mexico’s 70+ years of data collecting.

Scorching heat, drought, and wildfires across the U.S. Southern Plains and Southwest caused farm, ranch, and forestry damages that exceeded $10 billion in 2011. Wichita Falls, Texas, experienced 100 days over 100 degrees Fahrenheit — far more than the previous record of 79 days set in 1980. Oklahoma and Texas had the hottest summers of any states in history, breaking by a wide margin the record set in 1934 during the Dust Bowl. James Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, writes that the likelihood of such extreme heat waves “was negligible prior to the recent rapid global warming.” Texas also had its lowest rainfall on record. Invigorated by the heat and drought, wildfires burned across an estimated 1.5 million hectares (3.7 million acres) in the state.

For the continental United States, summer 2011 was the second warmest in history. Nearly three times more weather stations hit record highs than lows in 2011, in line with a trend of increasing heat extremes. Whereas in the middle of the 20th century there were close to the same number of record highs and lows — as would be expected absent a strong warming trend — in the 1990s highs began outpacing lows. In the first decade of this century, there were twice as many record highs as record lows.

Worldwide, seven countries set all-time temperature highs in 2011: Armenia, China, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Republic of the Congo, and Zambia. Interestingly, Zambia also was the only country to experience an all-time low temperature when it dropped to -9 degrees Celsius (16 degrees Fahrenheit) in June. Kuwait experienced the year’s highest temperature, with thermometers measuring a searing 53.3 degrees Celsius (127.9 degrees Fahrenheit), the highest temperature ever recorded on Earth during the month of August. Even more threatening to health than daytime highs are extra hot nighttime minimum temperatures, which do not allow any respite from the heat. The world’s hottest 24-hour minimum ever — 41.7 degrees Celsius (107 degrees Fahrenheit) — was recorded in Oman in June 2011.

Even the Arctic had a notably warm year, with the 2011 temperature a record 2.2 degrees Celsius (4 degrees Fahrenheit) above the mean for 1951–80. Barrow, Alaska, the northernmost U.S. city, spent a record-breaking 86 consecutive days at or above freezing, far more than the previous record of 68 days set in 2009.

In fact, over the last 50 years temperatures in the Arctic have risen more than twice as fast as the global average, melting ice and thawing permafrost. Arctic sea ice has been shrinking more rapidly, falling to its lowest volume and second lowest area on record during the 2011 summer melt season. With the summertime ice loss outpacing wintertime recovery, Arctic sea ice has thinned, making it increasingly vulnerable to further melting. Scientists expect a completely ice-free summertime Arctic by 2030 or even earlier.

As the reflective ice disappears, it exposes the dark ocean, which more readily absorbs solar energy, further warming the region. This sets forth a climate cascade, accelerating ice loss both in the ocean as well as on nearby Greenland, which contains enough ice to raise global sea level by 7 meters (23 feet) if it completely melted. The warming also thaws Arctic permafrost, releasing carbon dioxide and methane, further accelerating global warming.

Even without fully incorporating such climate feedback, models show that continued reliance on fossil fuels could raise the global temperature by up to 7 degrees Celsius (over 12 degrees Fahrenheit) by the end of this century. Such an elevated temperature would amplify temperature and precipitation extremes enough to make the weather events of recent years look tame in comparison. Only a rapid, dramatic reduction of greenhouse gas emissions can hold future temperatures in a range bearing any resemblance to what civilization has known.

By Janet Larsen and Sara Rasmussen

The Historical Carbon Debt (aka 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”). Most of this greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution has occurred in the last half century.

In a 2008 letter to Australian PM Kevin Rudd, NASA’s Dr James Hansen provided a breakdown of global responsibility for fossil fuel-derived CO2 pollution between 1751 and 2006 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 as shown below.

India (2.5%) = (0.025 x 346 = 8.65) + (2.5 x 13.84/96 = 0.36) = 9.01 Gt CO2.
Japan (3.9%) = 13.49 + 0.56 = 14.05 Gt CO2.
UK (6.0%) = 20.76 + 0.87 = 21.63 Gt CO2.
Germany (6.6%) = 22.84 + 0.95 = 23.79 Gt CO2.
Russia (7.4%) = 25.60 + 1.07 = 26.67 Gt CO2.
China (8.2%) = 28.37 + 1.18 = 29.55 Gt CO2.
USA (27.5%) = 95.15 + 3.97 = 99.12 Gt CO2.
Canada-Australia (3.1%) = 10.73 + 0.45 = 11.18 Gt CO2 -> Canada 5.59 Gt CO2 & Australia 5.59 Gt CO2.
Rest of Europe (18.0%) (population 451.2 million) = 62.28 + 2.60 = 64.88 Gt CO2.
Rest of World (12.8%) (population 3,197.1 million) = 44.29 + 1.85 = 46.14 Gt CO2.

Post-2010 Carbon Credits (aka Climate Credits) relate to the last amount of GHG pollution the World can sustain before zero emissions in 2050 if it is to avoid a disastrous 2 degree Centigrade temperature rise. 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 billion tones of 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”). This analysis based on current per capita pollution of CO2-e (CO2-equivalent i.e. considering GHGs such as methane and nitrous oxide in addition to CO2) was used to estimate Carbon Debt (Climate Debt) in US dollars for most countries (see “Climate Debt, Climate Credit”).

However a simpler and much more comprehensive analysis of Carbon Debt (Climate Debt) for all countries of the World is presented below that reports Carbon Debt in millions of tonnes of CO2 from fossil fuel burning alone (and ignores GHG pollution deriving from land use (agriculture and forestry), methane, nitrous oxide (N2O) and other GHGs).

Net Carbon Debt (aka Net Climate Debt) and Net Carbon Credit (aka Net Climate Credit) can be estimated from the difference between Historical Carbon Debt and post-2010 Carbon Credits. Thus, by way of example, if one accepts that “all men are created equal”, the Carbon Credit for India (population 1,210.2 million out of a total global population of 6,983.2 million) is 600 billion tonnes CO2 x 1,210.2 million/6,983.2 million = 103.981 billion tones CO2. The Net Carbon Debt for India is therefore 9.010 billion tonnes CO2 (Historical Carbon Debt) – 103.981 billion tonnes CO2 (post-2010 Carbon Credit) = – 94.971 billion tonnes Net Carbon Debt or a Net Carbon Credit of + 94.971 billion tones CO2.

Conversely, the Carbon Credit for the US (population 312.8 million out of a total global population of 6,983.2 million) is 600 billion tonnes CO2 x 312.8 million/6,983.2 million = 26.876 billion tonnes. The Net Carbon Debt for the US is therefore 99.120 billion tonnes CO2 (Historical Carbon Debt) – 26.876 billion tonnes CO2 (post-2010 Carbon Credit) = 72,244 billion tonnes CO2 Net Carbon Debt.

For “Rest of Europe” countries the Net Carbon Debt is 64,880 million tonnes CO2 /451.2 million people = 143.79 million tonnes CO2/person (Historical Carbon Debt) – 600,000 million tonnes /6,983,2 persons = 85.92 tonnes per person (Carbon Credit) = 57.49 tonnes per person i.e. there is a positive Net Carbon Debt which is in magnitude 57.87 x100/85.92 = 67.4% of the 2010-2050 Carbon Credit.

For “Rest of World “ countries the Net Carbon Debt is 46,140 million tonnes CO2/3,197.1 million persons = 14.43 million tonnes CO2/person (Historical Carbon Debt) – 85.92 tonnes per person (Climate Credit) = -71.49 tonnes per person i.e. there is a positive Net Carbon Credit which is in magnitude 71.49 x100/85.92 = 83.2% of the 2010-2050 Carbon Credit.

Net Carbon Debt (millions of tonnes of CO2) of Climate Debtor countries (descending order).

United States (72,244), Germany (16,765), United Kingdom (16,277), Russia (14,392), France (3,763), Australia (3,631), Japan (3,069), Italy (3,515), Spain (2,671), Ukraine (2,643), Canada (2,617), Poland (2,204), Romania (1,241),

Saint Barthélemy (0.5), Saint Pierre et Miquelon (0.4), Falklands Islands (0.2), Vatican City (0.05).

Net Carbon Credit (millions of tonnes of CO2) of Climate Creditor countries (ascending order).

Tokelau (0.07), Niue (0.07), Saint Helena Ascension and Trista da Cunha (0.3), Montserrat (0.4), Tuvalu (0.7), Nauru (0.7), Cook Islands (0.8),

Bangladesh (10,173), Nigeria (11,617), Pakistan (12,737), Brazil (13,753), Indonesia (16,989), China (85,558), India (94,971).

Some major observations arise from this data set

1. Some will argue that it is “unfair” to the major polluters of the European countries to saddle them with the Carbon Debt of previous generations. However these same countries have no problem with continuing to run up huge national debts, with demanding debt repayment by vulnerable countries (as in the current Eurozone crisis) or with crippling Third World countries with massive debt (for a damning account read John Perkins’ “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man”). Indeed Germany finally paid its last reparations for World War 1 (1914-1918) in 2010 and 96.5% of the 1751-2008 Historical Carbon Debt considered in this analysis was generated between 1901 and 2008. It should be also noted that this analysis is actually 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.

2. This analysis is only concerned with available data on Carbon Debt arising from the burning of fossil fuels and ignores Carbon Debt from greenhouse gas (GHG) production from deforestation and methanogenic livestock production. Using the data that methane (CH4) is 72 times the global warming potential (GWP) of carbon dioxide (CO2) on a 20 year time frame (as compared to 25 times worse on a 100 year time frame) World Bank analysts have re-assessed annual global GHG pollution as 50% bigger than hitherto thought with methanogenic livestock production contributing over 51% of the bigger figure (see Robert Goodland and Jeff Anfang. “Livestock and climate change. What if the key actors in climate change are … cows, pigs and chickens?”, World Watch, November/December 2009). However this re-assessment in turn needs further re-assessment because Dr Drew Shindell and colleagues at NASA have shown that CH4 is actually 105 times worse than CO2 as a GHG on a 20 year time frame when aerosol impacts are taken into account (see Drew T. Shindell , Greg Faluvegi, Dorothy M. Koch , Gavin A. Schmidt , Nadine Unger and Susanne E. Bauer , “Improved Attribution of Climate Forcing to Emissions” and Shindell et al (2009), Fig.2).

3. The set of all the Carbon Debtor (Climate Debtor) countries include all the European countries and Japan. The set of all the Carbon Creditor (Climate Credit) countries includes all the non-European countries , excluding Japan, as well as the European colonies New Zealand and Israel (that could arguably be put in the “Rest of Europe” category).

4. One can convert the Carbon Debt or Carbon Credit from units of “million tonnes of CO2” simply by multiplying by whatever carbon price you desire in, say, US dollars. Thus a genuine Carbon Price of US$100 per tonne of CO2 would permit a transition from coal- and gas-burning for electric power. Using this value the Carbon Debt of the US would be 72, 244 million tonnes CO2 x $100/ tonne CO2 = $7,200, 244 million = $7.2 trillion. Likewise the Carbon Credit of China and India would be $8.6 trillion and $9.5 trillion, respectively.

5. The US is steadily increasing its current $15.3 trillion national debt and is devaluing this debt by printing money. Conversely, the US has a 72,244 million tonne CO2 ($7.2 trillion @ $100 per tonne CO2) Net Carbon Debt but is steadily increasing this debt at the rate of 6,946 million tonnes CO2-e per year (2008) i.e. the US Carbon Debt is increasing at about 10% per year. The US under Obama shows no indication of reducing its GHG pollution profligacy. Obama’s declining to approve the current Keystone XL pipeline proposal to carry oil from Canadian tar sands to Texas may only be a temporary reprieve to keep pro-environmentalists on side in a Presidential election year. According to leading US climate scientist Dr James Hansen, exploitation of the Canadian tar sands will mean “game over” for the Planet.

6. Australia is the worst annual per capita GHG polluter of the Carbon Debtor countries but shows no indication of changing its disproportionate GHG pollution. Australia’s Domestic plus exported GHG pollution was 1,077 million tonnes CO2-e in 2000 but under the Australian Labor Government’s dishonest “Carbon Tax-ETS Scheme” this is estimated to increase to 1,799 million tonnes by 2020 (a 1.7-fold increase) and to 4,490 million tonnes CO2-e by 2050 (a 4.2-fold increase). In vain top US, UK, German and Australian climate scientists and biologists demand that global GHG pollution must be rapidly reduced to zero emissions in about 2050 and that the atmospheric CO2 concentration must return to about 300 parts per million (ppm) from the current damaging 394 ppm (increasing at 2.4 ppm per year) (see “300,org – return atmosphere CO2 to 300 ppm”). Australia’s Net Carbon Debt (3,631 million tonnes CO2) is currently increasing at about 1,415 million tonnes CO2-e per year i.e. at 39% per year.

7. “Annual per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution” in units of “tonnes CO2-equivalent per person per year” (2005-2008 data) is 0.9 (Bangladesh), 0.9 (Pakistan), 2.2 (India), less than 3 (many African and Island countries), 3.2 (the Developing World), 5.5 (China), 6.7 (the World), 11 (Europe), 16 (the Developed World), 27 (the US) and 30 (Australia; 54 if Australia’s huge Exported CO2 pollution is included, 64 being the 2010 figure). The major Climate Creditor countries are vastly lower in per capita GHG pollution than Australia (see “Climate Genocide”). Thus Australia’s current annual per capita of 64 tonnes CO2-e per person per year (with Exported GHG included) is 71 times that of Bangladesh.

8. The Carbon Debtors are stealing from the poor Carbon Creditors that are increasingly threatened by the worsening climate crisis. The Carbon Debtors (Climate Debtors) should be held to account through public advocacy, boycotts, sanctions, green tariffs, International Court of Justice (ICJ) litigations and International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutions applied against Climate Debtor countries by Climate Creditor countries, notably the numerous Island States and major mega-delta countries such as Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, China, Egypt, Nigeria, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. The climate criminals and Carbon Debtors (Climate Debtors) must be brought to account before it is too late.

The climate activist group Climate Justice Now! has stated that “Communities in the global south as well as low-income communities in the industrialised north have borne the toxic burden of this fossil fuel extraction, transportation and production. Now these communities are facing the worst impacts of climate change – from food shortages to the inundation of whole island nations” and demands “Huge financial transfers from north to south, based on the repayment of climate debts and subject to democratic control. The costs of adaptation and mitigation should be paid for by redirecting military budgets, innovative taxes and debt cancellation”. The present fossil fuel-based Carbon Debt analysis provides a quantitative basis for such transfers and should be used by Island States, mega-delta countries and other threatened Climate Creditor countries to force urgently needed climate change action.

The government of Iran spent the most on promoting fossil fuel consumption in 2010, doling out $81 billion in subsidies. This equaled more than 20 percent of the country’s gross domestic product. Saudi Arabia was a distant second at $44 billion. Rounding out the top five were Russia ($39 billion), India ($22 billion), and China ($21 billion).

Kuwait’s fossil fuel subsidies were highest on a per capita basis, with $2,800 spent per person. The United Arab Emirates and Qatar followed, each spending close to $2,500 per person.

Carbon emissions could be cut in scores of countries by simply eliminating fossil fuel subsidies. Some countries are already doing this. Belgium, France, and Japan have phased out all subsidies for coal, for example. As oil prices have climbed, a number of countries that held fuel prices well below world market prices have greatly reduced or eliminated their motor fuel subsidies because of the heavy fiscal cost. Among those reducing subsidies are China and Indonesia. Even Iran, which was pricing gasoline at one fifth its market price, dramatically reduced its gasoline subsidies in December 2010 as part of broader energy subsidy reforms.

In contrast to the $500 billion in fossil fuel supports in 2010, renewable energy received just $66 billion in subsidies — two thirds for electricity generation from wind, biomass, and other sources, and one third for biofuels. Not only do fossil fuel subsidies dwarf those for renewables today, but a long legacy of governments propping up oil, coal, and natural gas has resulted in a very uneven energy playing field.

A world facing economically disruptive climate change can no longer justify subsidies to expand the burning of coal and oil. The International Energy Agency projects that a phaseout of oil consumption subsidies by 2020 would cut oil use by 3.7 million barrels per day in that year. Eliminating all fossil fuel consumption subsidies by 2020 would cut global carbon emissions by nearly 5 percent while reducing government debt. Shifting subsidies to the development of climate-benign energy sources such as wind, solar, and geothermal power will help stabilize the earth’s climate.

This data highlight is adapted from World on the Edge by Lester R. Brown. For more data and discussion, see the full book at www.earth-policy.org.

Yes, it’s great that the pipeline is dead, and everyone from Bill McKibben and 350.org to every single demonstrator who got this done by leading the charge against the project against all odds, deserves our sincerest and most heartfelt congratulations and gratitude. It really would have been game over for the climate had the pipeline gone through.

But as we get past the celebration and refocus on the hard work ahead to ensure that the game is won in the end, it’s crucial to note what the president’s Keystone statement says about our chances for victory. And it’s not one bit encouraging.

Two things stand out. First, there’s not a single mention of the climate threat as one of the motivations behind the decision, when in fact it should have been the MAIN motivation. He blames it on the administration’s inability to meet the arbitrary Republican deadline.

What??!! Are you kidding me? You mean to say he would have gone along if Republicans had been more lenient and agreed to more time? This alone raises a huge red flag, the same he raised with his stance at Durban, where the U.S. shocked everyone with its inexplicable foot dragging and outright opposition to any significant progress.

Second, Obama once again boasts about his perplexing all-of-the-above energy policy, which includes the support of domestic oil, gas and coal in addition to renewables. Congratulate me, he seems to say, because oil and gas are up in America, alongside increases in solar and wind.

This is simply mind blowing. The planet risks an end-of-the-world scenario in a few decades with today’s runaway climate change and record increases in carbon and methane emissions. The latest science is the scariest yet, saying we’re this close to passing the dreaded 2 degree C temperature rise, and dreaded indeed it is. Avoiding that threshold already requires a herculean task, which leaves zero room for NEW fossil-fuel generation that locks in tipping-point emissions for decades more.

So why is the president of the United States, the same one who once promised with inspiring passion to halt the rise of the oceans, feeling great about today’s increase in oil and gas production? That’s the alarming part of his statement, the fact that this is something he is PROUD of, not something he apologetically laments being cornered into by politics.

No, he’s not sorry at all. Not one iota. He is concerned solely, it seems, with enhancing our security by ending the country’s reliance on foreign oil and replacing it with an all-of-the-above American menu. His often stated concern over climate change, we are then led to think, must be blurred by the 1990s assumption that we have a long time to solve this mother-of-all problems.

Mr. President, we do not have that luxury. You have to stand for the end of fossil fuels TODAY. Stopping Keystone helps, but you can’t stop there. When you signed up for the job, you told us you knew damn well that you would be the final president with any chance at preventing irreversible climate change. If you lose this year, we all know your Republican successor will lose the game in regulation, so we’re still cheering for you, because you may still be able to pull it off, even if it takes double-overtime. But not like this, Mr. President.

Not like this.

But this rejection from the US state department is only a temporary setback for TransCanada, the developer, and not a definite “no” to the pipeline. As a result of a legislative standoff in 2011, where Republicans forced a final decision-deadline on the pipeline plan within 60 days, the state department didn’t have the time to do a full and proper investigation. And thus the Keystone XL pipeline was rejected by the state department.

President Barack Obama acknowledges this and blames the denied permit on the Republicans. According to Obama the rejection by the state department “is not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of a deadline”:

“As the State Department made clear last month, the rushed and arbitrary deadline insisted on by Congressional Republicans prevented a full assessment of the pipeline’s impact, especially the health and safety of the American people, as well as our environment.”

“I’m disappointed that Republicans in Congress forced this decision, but it does not change my Administration’s commitment to American-made energy that creates jobs and reduces our dependence on oil. Under my Administration, domestic oil and natural gas production is up, while imports of foreign oil are down. In the months ahead, we will continue to look for new ways to partner with the oil and gas industry to increase our energy security,” Obama said.

TransCanada has announced that they are “disappointed” by the outcome but that they are still “fully committed” to the Keystone XL pipeline project:

“This outcome is one of the scenarios we anticipated. While we are disappointed, TransCanada remains fully committed to the construction of Keystone XL. Plans are already underway on a number of fronts to largely maintain the construction schedule of the project,” said Russ Girling, TransCanada’s president and chief executive officer. “We will re-apply for a Presidential Permit and expect a new application would be processed in an expedited manner to allow for an in-service date of late 2014.”

Several Republicans have criticized Obama for the rejection of the pipeline. Mitt Romney, one of the front-runners in the 2012 Republican primary, have said the decision shows a “lack of seriousness” when it comes to bringing down unemployment in the US. “President Obama is about to destroy tens of thousands of American jobs,” a spokesman for Republican house speaker John Boehner said. And Republicans in Congress have proclaimed that they will try and put forward new legislation to push the Keystone XL pipeline project forward, the Guardian reports.

But it’s interesting to note that the US state department concluded in their report that the Keystone XL pipeline “is unlikely to have a substantial impact on U.S. employment” levels. The report also concludes that the pipeline would make little difference to economic activity, trade, energy security, or foreign policy over the longer term in the US. According to the report only around “5,000 to 6,000 direct construction jobs” would be created because of the Keystone XL pipeline. And these jobs “would last for the two years that it would take to build the pipeline”.

So we can now be sure on a couple of things. The Keystone XL pipeline has only been temporary stopped. TransCanada will re-apply, and most likely they will get their permit a couple of months after the presidential election. Barack Obama doesn’t acknowledge the dangerous effects the Keystone XL pipeline and tar sands will have on our environment and climate. He would gladly approve the pipeline project today, if that was possible. If constructed, the Keystone XL pipeline will only create a few thousands temporary jobs and it will not help the US reach energy independence or energy security. And if the tar sands are exploited, it would only result in the destruction of our climate.

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.

Kent claimed that the Kyoto protocol “will not work” when China and USA is not participating and that the global climate change agreement doesn’t “represent a way forward for Canada”.

“As we said from the outset, the Kyoto Protocol did not represent the path forward for Canada”, Kent said in a statement to the House of Commons.

“Before this week, the Kyoto Protocol covered less than 30% of global emissions. Now it covers less than 13% — and that number is only shrinking. The Kyoto Protocol does not cover the world’s two largest emitters – the United States and China – and therefore will not work.”

The Kyoto protocol, Kent said, would force Canada to implement “radical and irresponsible action” that would result in “the loss of thousands of jobs.” Kent also expressed criticism against Canada’s obligation under the protocol to transfer about $14 billion to poorer countries to help them to mitigate and respond to the effects of climate change.

And so the conservative government in Canada ignores both the economical differences between the North and the South as well as the historical responsibility Canada has when it comes to climate change.

“The Harper government has imposed a death sentence on many of the world’s most vulnerable populations by pulling out of Kyoto,” said Greenpeace climate and energy campaigner Mike Hudema.

But why is Canada really withdrawing from the Kyoto protocol? The Canadian government blames it on USA for not being part of the global climate treaty, saying it stops Canada from competing economically on the world market. But others say that the real reason is Canada’s climate killing tar sands.

“One of the reasons that Canada is not meeting its goals is because it has opted not to hobble oil-sands production — in fact, the government has encouraged it. And although many sectors of its economy have drawn down emissions, the tar-sands industry has more than made up for those drops. So Canada was faced with a choice: money from tar sands or climate change. It’s choosing climate change.”

Back in Europe, another conservative government led by PM David Cameron has secretly been helping Canada to push its dirty and deadly tar sands project on EU markets. Conservative governments and politicians around the world are busy trying to delay the implementation of climate policies and now even abandoning the world’s only global climate treaty. At the same time socialistic governments are trying to device the “radical” changes needed to confront the climate crisis. Such as the red and green coalition in Denmark which has set plans in motion to completely end their reliance on fossil fuels.

So what does Canada’s withdrawal from the Kyoto protocol mean? Considering the fact that Canada has increased their greenhouse gas emissions with nearly 20% since 1990 they never really were a part of the Kyoto protocol anyway. So for the climate crisis it doesn’t do much difference. But future UN negotiations will certainly become even more polarized and the mistrust created will surely delay, or in worse case even sabotage, efforts to secure a global climate deal for 2020 and beyond. But one thing that is painfully clear now is that a legally binding climate deal does not guarantee countries won’t ignore or walk away from their commitments.

“It may be true, as many say: the ultimate goal of a comprehensive and binding climate change agreement may be beyond our reach – for now,” Ban Ki-moon said.

The UN climate talks in Durban, South Africa, were supposed to end this past Friday night after nearly two weeks of negotiations. But the talks continued long into Sunday night with the delegates desperately trying to come up with at least some sort of agreement to avoid another COP15-style failure. In the very last hour the delegates managed to agree on a deal. This outcome was largely thanks to three powerful women politicians, one of them being EU climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard.

And so the 17th climate summit ended with an agreement that at least the EU believes commits all major developing countries such as China, USA and India among others, to accept legally binding targets on greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately these binding targets won’t come into force until 2020, or even later in worst case. So basically, “the deal saves the talks”, but not the climate.

By waiting till 2020 to enforce cuts in greenhouse gas emissions our leaders have successfully ignored the 2 degrees target, which scientists regard as the final upper limit of safety against irreversible climate chaos, and set us on a path towards an increase of 4 degrees in global temperatures. Nnimmo Bassey, chair of Friends of the Earth International, said that “delaying real action till 2020 is a crime of global proportions” and that this delay would mean a 4 degrees temperature increase.

“This means the world is on track to a 4C temperature rise, a death sentence for Africa, small island states and the poor and vulnerable worldwide. The richest 1% of the world have decided that it is acceptable to sacrifice the 99%.”

Greenpeace International director Kumi Naidoo said that “the chance of averting catastrophic climate change is slipping through our hands with every passing year that nations fail to agree on a rescue plan for the planet.”

But not everyone agreed that the Durban deal was a failure. Chris Huhne, the UK’s secretary of state for energy and climate change, was a bit more optimistic and said that COP17 was a “significant step forward“.

“For the first time ever we have a process within the [UNFCCC] where there are regular reviews of the scientific evidence and seeing where the commitments of countries are. [...] Up to now we have not even had a commitment to [be guided by] the scientific evidence,” he said. “If you talk to the Russians, they will tell you their scientists say there is no global warming.”

Ban Ki-moon welcomed the outcome and said that the deal is “essential for stimulating greater action and for raising the level of ambition and the mobilization of resources to respond to the challenges of climate change.”

“Taken together, these agreements represent an important advance in our work on climate change,” Ban said, calling on countries to “quickly implement these decisions and to continue working together in the constructive spirit evident in Durban.”

We made it. EU’s strategy worked. We got a roadmap that marks a breakthrough for international fight against climate change. Good night.

— Connie Hedegaard (@CHedegaardEU) December 11, 2011

So what’s in the Durban deal? Reuters has a good rundown on what was agreed on this past week during COP17. If you can handle the dry legal language you can find the final texts here. The text talks about a process to “develop a new protocol, another legal instrument or agreed outcome with legal force that will be applicable to all Parties to the UN climate convention.” What the terms “legal instrument” and “agreed outcome” really means for a future climate deal is still pretty uncertain. It wouldn’t surprise me if countries will use these unclear terms to delay much-needed action on climate as the UN process develops. The delegates in Durban also made little progress on the much-needed Green Climate Fund.

“The Durban talks made headway on agreeing the design of Green Climate Fund to channel up to $100 billion a year by 2020 to poorer nations, but achieved little on establishing where the money will come from to fill it”, Reuters writes.

Celine Charveriat, director of campaigns for Oxfam, said that “governments must immediately turn their attention to raising the ambition of their emissions cuts targets and filling the Green Climate Fund.” If countries doesn’t quickly intensify their emissions cuts “we could still be in store for a 10-year timeout on the action we need to stay under two degrees [of temperature increase],” Charveriat said.

So despite the delegates reaching an agreement in the very last hour, and then some, this was another COP failure. But what would you expect from a summit which received minimal media attention and interest from world leaders? Our climate will die while we’re busy saving the banks and a failed economic system.

“Seven episodes of the multi-million-pound nature documentary series will be aired in Britain. However, the series has been sold to 30 world TV networks as a package of only six episodes. These networks then have the option of buying the seventh “companion” episode — which explores the effect man is having on the natural world — as well as behind the scenes footage. The six-episode series has been sold to 30 broadcasters, ten of which have declined to use the climate change episode, “On Thin Ice”, including the US. In America, the series is being aired by the Discovery channel, which insists that the final episode has been dropped because of a “scheduling issue”.”

This is typical cowardly behavior by the BBC which has an appalling record of lying by omission and commission, most notoriously about the 12 million Muslim war-related deaths (about half of them children) in the 1990-2011 US Alliance War on Muslims (for details and documentation not reported by the holocaust-ignoring BBC see “Muslim Holocaust, Muslim Genocide“), noting that holocaust ignoring is far, far worse than repugnant holocaust denial because at least the latter admits the possibility of public discussion). This Mainstream media lying by omission has dire consequences – thus it has just been announced that 2,500 child-killing US Marines are to be stationed in Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia where US lackey Apartheid Australia is remorselessly continuing a racist process of Aboriginal Ethnocide and Aboriginal Genocide.

What I suppose might well be covered in the “On Thin Ice” seventh episode of David Attenborough’s “Frozen Planet” series could be related to the 4 October 2011 press release from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSDIC) which includes a map showing the approximate halving of Arctic summer sea ice extent in recent decades and states:

“This September, sea ice covering the Arctic Ocean fell to the second-lowest extent in the satellite record, which began in 1979. Satellite data analyzed by NSIDC scientists showed that the sea ice cover narrowly avoided a new record low, while other data sources showed that ice extent matched or even fell below the record-setting low extent in 2007… NSIDC Director Mark Serreze said, “It looks like the spring ice cover is so thin now that large areas melt out in summer, even without persistent extreme weather patterns… The big summer ice loss this year is setting us up for another big melt year in 2012. We may be looking at an Arctic Ocean essentially free of summer ice only a few decades from now”.

The US, a major annual per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) polluter, has 4.4% of the world’s population, consumes 25% of its resources and is hell-bent on remorseless GHG pollution that is worsening a Climate Genocide that is set to kill 10 billion non-Europeans this century.

The Murdoch Media Empire is pretty bad when it comes to perversion of the truth, especially in relation to irresponsible and anti-social man-made climate change denialism (and hence “Boycott Murdoch Media“) but other media are heavily involved also. Thus in Australia, where Murdoch Media have 70% of the city newspaper readership, I understand that it is the major national TV channel Channel 9 (non-Murdoch) that has purchased “Frozen Planet” – but apparently only the first 6 episodes (e.g. see its promotion here).

This is yet another instance of the operation of what has been called Murdochracy (Big Money buys truth and votes) and Lobbyocracy (Big Money buys politicians and policy) in the Western democracies. In the West the 1% have substituted Murdochracy and Lobbyocracy for Democracy at the expense of the 99% and of rational risk management that is crucial for societal safety.

The WBGU that advises the German Government on climate change in 2009 estimated that for a 75% chance of avoiding a disastrous 2C temperature rise the world can emit no more than 600 billion tonnes of CO2 between 2010 and zero emissions in 2050. The climate criminal US is set to use up its “fair share” of this terminal global GHG pollution budget in about 2013. However it is estimated that Australia, an even worse per capita Greenhouse gas (GHG) polluter than the US, had already used up its “fair share” by mid-2011 and is now stealing the entitlement of wretchedly poor countries such as drought-devastated Somalia and inundation-threatened Bangladesh (see “Shocking analysis by country of years left to zero emissions“).

The climate criminality of the US and its lackey Australia are revealed by the following 2005-2008 data on “annual per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution” in units of “tonnes CO2-equivalent per person per year”: 0.9 (Bangladesh), 0.9 (Pakistan), 2.2 (India), less than 3 (many African and Island countries), 3.2 (the Developing World), 5.5 (China), 6.7 (the World), 11 (Europe), 16 (the Developed World), 27 (the US) and 30 (Australia; or 54 if Australia’s huge Exported CO2 pollution is included) (see “Climate Genocide”).

What can decent, pro-Planet people do in the face of media censorship in the face of a worsening climate emergency? Decent people can (a) inform everyone they can about the threat and the Mainstream media censorship and (b) urge sanctions and boycotts against all people, politicians, countries and corporations complicit in the worsening climate genocide.

IEA predicts that over the next five years the world will build so many dirty factories, fossil-fuelled power stations and energy inefficient buildings that it will become impossible for us to stop global warming from rushing past safe climate levels. And so they warn that our last chance against dangerous climate change will be lost forever. Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency, said that “the door is closing.”

“I am very worried – if we don’t change direction now on how we use energy, we will end up beyond what scientists tell us is the minimum for safety. The door will be closed forever.”

Everything that produces greenhouse gas emissions, such as dirty coal plants and other fossil-fueled power stations, which are being constructed from now on, will continue to spew out carbon for decades to come. And this will lock the world on a path towards irreversible climate change with disastrous effects. The Guardian reports:

“If the world is to stay below 2C of warming, which scientists regard as the limit of safety, then emissions must be held to no more than 450 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; the level is currently around 390ppm. But the world’s existing infrastructure is already producing 80% of that “carbon budget”, according to the IEA’s analysis, published on Wednesday. This gives an ever-narrowing gap in which to reform the global economy on to a low-carbon footing.

If current trends continue, and we go on building high-carbon energy generation, then by 2015 at least 90% of the available “carbon budget” will be swallowed up by our energy and industrial infrastructure. By 2017, there will be no room for manoeuvre at all – the whole of the carbon budget will be spoken for, according to the IEA’s calculations.”

A couple of days before the IEA “bombshell” the US department of energy released another gloomy report which showed that global carbon dioxide emissions rose with 6% in 2010, greatly exceeding the worst case scenario outlined by the IPCC. Al Jazeera English reports:

“In 2007, when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued its last large report on global warming, it used different scenarios for carbon dioxide pollution, and said the rate of warming would be based on the rate of pollution.

Tom Boden (director of the Energy Department’s Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Centre at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee) said the latest figures put global emissions higher than the worst case projections from the climate panel. Those forecast global temperatures rising between 2.4 and 6.4 degrees Celsius by the end of the century with the best estimate at four degrees Celsius.”

According to the report the world released around 564 million more tonnes of carbon emissions into the air during the last year compared to previous levels in 2009. The increase in emissions mainly comes from China and the USA which alone stood for more than half of the emissions in 2010. But more and more emissions come from developing countries. “We really need to get the developing world because if we don’t, the problem is going to be running away from us,” climate scientist Andrew Weaver from the University of Victoria said. “And the problem is pretty close from running away from us.” But “the more we talk about the need to control emissions, the more they are growing,” John Reilly, co-director of MIT’s Joint Programme on the Science and Policy of Global Change, said.

It’s now clearer than ever. We must start to aggressively change our high-carbon energy systems to more clean and renewable energy sources, scrap our massive fossil fuel subsidies and deploy a myriad of climate policies such as a carbon tax. We only have a few remaining years to make a difference until we must face certain and worldwide climate catastrophe. It looks grim, really grim to be honest. But we can’t give up just yet. Let’s put up a good fight.