“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.

For over 15 years delegates and politicians from around the world have discussed, debated and negotiated the questions of dealing with manmade climate change in various COP (Conference of the Parties) summits. So why haven’t they made any real progress yet?

That is a big question that covers a whole range of topics and issues that I won’t go into. Instead I will try to focus on the actual politics and tactics used at the COP summits. I will try to see if uneven development and inequality plays any part in how the actual negotiations plays out, how the delegates attending perceive climate justice and fairness, and if all this combined somehow sabotages the efforts to secure a climate deal.

At the major United Nations Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992 more than 100 world leaders met to address the question of global climate change. At the end of the conference 187 nations signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) treaty. Without any “tough details” the agreement said nations should “protect the climate system…on the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.” World leaders managed to get a consensus and reach an agreement but they still had disagreements on what kind of responsibilities nations had under the UNFCCC treaty. The “common but differentiated” phrase seems to have resulted in various different interpretations between the “North” and the “South”. The poor developing nations were, compared to the North, very precise in their interpretation of the phrase and called for the rich developed nations to take the lead in the emission reductions. They also wanted the North to help developing nations in their environmental efforts by transferring large amounts of economic and technologic assistance from the North to the South. The North on the other hand interpreted the phrase a bit differently. According to the UNFCC treaty $625 billion was needed every year for a sustainable development to take place in the developing nations. Around 20% of the money would be paid by below-market loans to the South. But the developed nations never fulfilled their promise of economic and technologic assistance to the South. In the end they paid less than 20% of the $625 billion.

In 1995, three years after the Rio Earth Summit, the first COP conference took place in Berlin, Germany. Here the so called “Berlin Mandate” declared that the developed nations in the North should reduce their emissions first while the developing nations would join in later on. Two years later in 1997 at the COP3 conference in Kyoto, Japan, the US president Bill Clinton actually signed the famous Kyoto Protocol, which called for binding reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. But the protocol was never ratified by the USA because of the US senate which voted unanimously in favor for the Byrd-Hagel Resolution. Once passed the Byrd-Hagel Resolution successfully blocked any climate treaty that was, in their words, “unfair”. Because the Kyoto protocol did not require the developing nations to do any emissions cuts the US senate felt it was “unfair” and refused to ratify it.

And it is now, with the Kyoto protocol, that you can start to clearly see the different positions and opinions the North and the South, rich and poor, developed and developing nations have on what climate justice actually is. Developing nations didn’t want to accept any scheduled emission reduction targets for the future. Any mention by the North that the developing nations should in some way slow down their development and economic growth by limiting their greenhouse gas emissions was met with an “openly hostile negotiating environment” from the South. The Brazilian ambassador Luis Felipe Lampreia stated during the COP3 conference that: “We cannot accept limitations that interfere with our economic development.” And the lead negotiator from China said: “In the developed world only two people ride in a car, and yet you want us to give up riding on a bus”.

The developed nations are responsible for about 80% of the worlds CO2 emissions. One person in Bangladesh will during a whole year emit as much CO2 emissions as one average person living the UK will in only 11 days. A single power plant in Great Britain will produce more CO2 emissions, every year, than all 139 million people living in Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Malawi, Zambia and Mozambique combined. It is also clear that developing nations are much more vulnerable to the effects a changing climate brings such as droughts, rising tides, floods and tropical storms than rich and developed nations are. And nine Chinese and eighteen Indians release as much greenhouse gas emissions into our atmosphere as one average American does. The USA is alone responsible for over 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions, but only around 4% of the world’s total population lives in the USA. A whopping 136 developing nations are on the other hand together responsible for 24% of global emissions.

But the former US President George H. W. Bush once notoriously stated that “the American lifestyle is not open to negotiation”. His son, George W. Bush later dismissed the Kyoto protocol completely by claiming that the treaty “would cause serious harm to the US economy” and that it is “an unfair and ineffective means of addressing global climate change concerns”.

Even in light of these clearly uneven numbers the North’s perception of climate justice seems to be to disregard any kinds of historical responsibilities or economical differences, the very same issues that the South thinks are the basis of climate justice. And these rather different perceptions on climate justice between the rich and poor nations help fuel an deteriorating negotiating atmosphere.

When it comes to the negotiations during these summits, like the COP15 this past December, the income differences between developing and developed nations plays a big role in creating a hostile negotiating environment for the delegates. It is also one of the more direct examples on how inequality can dampen cooperation on climate change. Attending these yearly COP summits obviously costs money. Nations need to be able to pay for their delegate’s salaries and accommodations. Other costs involves scientists, lawyers, translators, economists and consultants that can help the nations delegation in the actual negotiations, with their draft proposals, legal argumentation as well as being able to offer counterarguments and proposals to the demands of other nations.

“The reason why many poor small countries are hardly represented in negotiations that concern them directly, writes Robert Wade, is that they cannot afford the cost of hotels, offices, and salaries in places like Washington DC and Geneva, which must be paid not in PPP [purchasing power parity] dollars but in hard currency bought with their own currency at market exchange rates (quoted in J.T. & Parks, 2006: 15).”

Unfortunately many of the less developed nations (LDCs) cannot afford all this and most of the time they will have to go without this much needed help. Just a little side note to show how just bad these things can get: At a seminar in the aftermaths of COP15, at the Lund University in Sweden, a CPS student from Bangladesh told us about how he had, at a visit to the Bella center (where the climate talks were being held), walked into the delegation from Bangladesh. And after a short chat with them he ended up helping the delegation with translations at the big UN summit.

The delegates also need to attend all the formal and informal meetings during the climate summit. And these can be many and scheduled to take place at the same time. If you have several delegates you can easily divide up the work and focus on certain issues, read every single document and draft texts. That’s why the more delegates you can send the better. Studies have shown that there is a great difference between the numbers of delegates developed and developing nations are sending to these COP summits. For example: To COP6, in the Netherlands, the USA sent 99 delegates and the European Commission sent 76 delegates. Many developing nations such as African and small island states were lucky if they could even afford to scramble together a delegation consisting of one to three delegates. Recent studies and experiences at COP10 in 2004 confirm and back this up. During COP6 the chairs decided to split up the negotiations into smaller groups, subgroups and even subsubgroups so that they could easier cover all the climate related issues in an easier manner. Sure, this move can in an equal and perfect world make the debates and meetings flow much smoother. But with the current inequality between developed and developing nations it can make things worse. As you can imagine this decision gave a huge advantage and “agenda-setting power” to the developed nations who had been able to send many more delegates to the COP summit than the poorer nations had.

Another problematic side effect of not being able to send enough people to the climate summits is that the developing nations delegates often gets “buried” in documents and papers. This of course leads to the delegation losing its strength and energy. In the last hours of the summit they could then be presented with a document or proposal to a treaty which is already done and beyond alteration and forced to accept or reject it in an unrealistic short period of time. The developed nations use this to get a tactical advantage of the developing nations. They can offer a document at the last hour and pressure everyone to sign it. If the developing countries don’t accept it they are later labeled by the developing nations as the “bad guy” and the ones responsible for wrecking the climate talks (Huffington Post, 2009). At COP6, for example, “commitments were imposed by muscular chairmanship, or gaveled through without reaction from negotiators exhausted to the point of sleep,” Ashton and Wang claim. But this approach does not always succeed as can be seen by the walkout by G77 delegates in 2003 at the Cancun trade negotiations, or from the failure of the COP6 summit where China and the G77 group felt marginalized by the developed nations. Or from the walkout by African nations at the latest COP15 summit in Copenhagen.

The nasty behind-the-back tactics and behaviors used in the past by developing nations were also present at the latest COP. During the first week of the COP15 summit in Copenhagen a potential final agreement, called the “Danish text”, was leaked to the Guardian. The draft text was apparently worked out by developed nations such as the UK, US and Denmark and planned to be adapted by nations during the final week of the summit. The draft agreement made the developing countries “furious” as it would give even more powers to the rich nations, weakening UN’s future role as well as abandon the Kyoto protocol. Many NGOs, commentators and political leaders have criticized these COP summits and the tactics being used as unfair and even undemocratic. At the end of COP15 the Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez for example called the summit “undemocratic”. Raman Mehta from Action Aid India said this in a statement, in light of the “Danish text”, that:

“The global community trusted the Danish government to host a fair and transparent process but they have betrayed that trust. Most importantly, they are betraying those who are disproportionately impacted by climate change and whose voices are not being heard. This unfair behaviour strikes a blow to all efforts to achieve justice and equity in the climate change negotiations process (quoted from Friends of the Earth, 2009).”

George Monbiot’s verdict on the COP15 summit wasn’t much better. He called it “stupid” and labeled the organizers and attendees of the summit as incompetent:

“This was the chaotic, disastrous denouement of a chaotic and disastrous summit. The event has been attended by historic levels of incompetence. Delegates arriving from the tropics spent 10 hours queueing in sub-zero temperatures without shelter, food or drink, let alone any explanation or announcement, before being turned away. Some people fainted from exposure; it’s surprising that no one died. The process of negotiation was just as obtuse: there was no evidence here of the innovative methods of dispute resolution developed recently by mediators and coaches, just the same old pig-headed wrestling.”

One also need to keep in mind that local environmental problems such as preventing soil erosion, providing clean drinking water, treating sewage and slowing down the spread of deserts are for most developing nations a much more critical and pressing issue than the more global ones. For developed nations the more global environmental issues such as climate change, ozone depletion and habitat loss are higher up on their priority list. This means that the developing nations need to put more effort into pursuing the South that the global issues should be a higher priority for them.

At the same time many delegates and policy makers from the less developed nations fear that the nations in the core of the world system, which I explained earlier, might just use the climate and environmental concerns to cover up their real agenda: keeping the periphery nations underdeveloped. After being literally forced to accept trade-related, intellectual and property-rights laws and agreements that gives an advantage to the North many South policy makers and even academics hold this opinion of mistrust. And this is a reason to why there is such a big “climate of mistrust” at the COP negotiations. The North has almost constantly failed to keep their promises of financial aid, technological transfer, ignored many of the ecological problems in the South and used tactics to marginalize the South at negotiations. So it’s not really that hard to understand that any suggestions from the North that the South should limit their development, for the good of global environmental issues, are met with a dismissive response from the developing nations.

Final Thoughts

So the lack of power and the extreme poverty and underdevelopment among many of the developing nations leaves them vulnerable in negotiations with the North. It’s more expensive for developing nations to purchase environmental technology and knowledge as they have to be paid with real cash and not credits or loans from the North. This makes it hard for them to perform any kinds of meaningful emission reductions or take part in the COP summits on equal terms.

The wealthy developed nations believe that climate justice is when an agreement involves all parties, both developed and developing nations. Because, they argue, the non-Annex I nations will in a near future increase their emissions with so much that they must be included in a climate treaty. The poorer developing nations on the other hand perceive this in another manner. The climate crisis is a result from the rich North’s excessive consumption. And so they argue they also have the right, just like the North, to build and develop their economy using cheap fossil fuels.

The ozone layer crisis during the 1980’s is a good example of how the world can come together to combat global environmental issues. The negotiations back then was just as hard and complex as the climate talks are today. During the negotiations a Chinese delegate said that: “The call for modernization is so irresistible that China will continue to produce these ozone depleting chemicals,” unless, of course they and other developing nations received financial compensation for their efforts. India was equally tough in their negotiations and their environment minister said in a statement that: “We didn’t destroy the layer. You did. I’m saying that you [the West] have the capability and the money to restore what you have destroyed” (Do you recognize the style of the statements back then to the ones in today’s climate debate?). In the end the North agreed to give financial aid to the developing nations so that they could afford to take proper actions and protect the ozone layer.

But the current climate change negotiations are taking place in an even tougher “climate of mistrust” between the rich and poor. This mistrust is based on decades of Western promises not kept in global environmental and economic matters. To get rid of this suspicion and mistrust that is sabotaging efforts to secure a climate deal the North needs to understand their historical responsibility in this matter. As well as taking social and economic issues into account when negotiating about climate targets. The North could do this by offering a new and fairer global environmental and development treaty that clearly shows their commitments in this issue.

“They could do this by providing greater “environmental space” to late developers, supplying meaningful sums of environmental assistance, funding aid for adaption and dealing with local environmental issues as well as global issues like climate change, and by identifying and investing in win-win technologies and sectors that both address local environmental issues and reduce greenhouse gas emissions (quoted in J.T. & Parks, 2006: 217).”

Basically the North needs to stop treating the weaker nations in the South as “second-class citizens” and work on rebuilding the South’s trust. Until they do we won’t get a fair, ambitious and binding climate deal (Or a planet with a habitable biosphere!).

References

• Roberts, J.T. & Parks, B.C. (2006). “A Climate of Injustice: Global Inequality, North-South Politics, and Climate Policy”
• Hornborg, A., J.R. McNeill & J. Martinez-Alier, red. (2007).”Rethinking Environmental History: World-System History and Global Environmental Change”
• Age of Stupid, “UK Priemier: Message from the President of the Maldives” (2009)
• The Guardian, “Low targets, goals dropped: Copenhagen ends in failure” (2009)
• United Nations Earth Summit+5
• The Huffington Post, Pablo Erick Solón Romero Oroza, “Climate Headed for Crash Landing” (2009)
• Goodman, Amy, “The Climate Divide: Dispute Between Rich and Poor Nations Widens at UN Copenhagen Summit” (2009)
• Monbiot, George, ”Copenhagen negotiators bicker and filibuster while the biosphere burns” (2009)
• Democracy Now, ”Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on How to Tackle Climate Change” (2009)
• The Guardian, ”Copenhagen climate summit in disarray after ‘Danish text’ leak” (2009)
• Friends of the Earth International, ”danish government slammed for bias and secrecy in role as president of un climate conference” (2009)

“On the 16th of December, at the start of the high-level “ministerial” phase of the two-week summit, we, the movements for global justice, will take over the conference for one day and transform it into a Peoples Assembly.

Our goal is to disrupt the sessions and open a space inside the UN area to hold the Assembly. The assembly will give a voice to those who are not being heard, it will be an opportunity to change the agenda, to discuss the real solutions, to send a clear message to the world calling for climate justice.”

During her days in Copenhagen Naomi Klein has encouraged people to take part in this demonstration. Yesterday she spoke about tomorrow’s action at an event in Christiania: see video one and video two. In an interview with Katherine Goldstein, from the Huffington Post, Klein said that “its a possibility that there will be mass arrests” during the protest:

“I’m not concerned about people’s safety, but I do think its a possibility that there will be mass arrests. I think its a powerful message that people care enough to get arrested.”

And the organizers of the protest are expecting confrontation with the Danish police. In an interview with the Guardian Kevin Smith, an organiser for activist group Climate Camp, said:

“The Danish government knows just how embarrassing it will be when hundreds of delegates walk out tomorrow to join us in the protest tomorrow against the climate talks, and it is trampling over all manner of civil liberties to try and prevent that from happening.”

Earlier today Tadzio Mueller, a spokesman for Climate Justice Action, was arrested by plainclothes police as he left the Bella centre.

“It’s unbelievable that in a supposed democracy, undercover police are silencing spokespeople that are criticising the climate talks”, Smith said. “How far are the Danish authorities prepared to go to stop tomorrow’s protest from going ahead?”

Watch Naomi Klein talk about the Reclaim Power! demonstration tomorrow in this video from Grist:

“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

Photo credit: World Economic Forum

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is now warning that the upcoming climate talks this December in Copenhagen, Denmark, are in “grave danger” of failing. The UN climate change conference, also known as Cop15, in Copenhagen this year is the last chance we have to take action against “the greatest threat the world has ever faced”.

“”It is a historic moment: the ultimate test of global cooperation. Yet the negotiations are proceeding so slowly that a deal is in grave danger,” Brown wrote.

Brown has, after a rather successful global climate wake-up campaign around the world (see video below), pledged he will attend the Copenhagen talks. He says the UN climate change conference is such an important subject that it cannot be left to environment ministers.

“Securing an agreement in Copenhagen will require world leaders to bridge our remaining differences and seize these opportunities,” Brown wrote. “If we miss this opportunity, there will be no second chance sometime in the future, no later way to undo the catastrophic damage to the environment we will cause.”

Earlier this month Foreign Secretary in the UK, David Miliband, warned that the climate negotiations are in “real danger” of failing:

“There’s a real danger the talks scheduled for December will not reach a positive outcome, and an equal danger in the run-up to Copenhagen that people don’t wake up to the danger of failure until it’s too late.”

“The deal the world needs in Copenhagen is now in the balance,” he said.

“There’s a real danger the talks scheduled for December will not reach a positive outcome, and an equal danger in the run-up to Copenhagen that people don’t wake up to the danger of failure until it’s too late.”

Miliband put the blame on “the complexity of the issue”, the economic recession as well as “suspicion” between the North and the South. In light of a diplomatic pr tour around Europe “to raise the issue of climate change” Miliband warned that if the world failed to come up with an agreement to cut emissions global temperatures will increase with 4C.

“This would lead to large scale migration as parts of the world disappeared under rising seas, threaten infrastructure as extreme weather events became more common, and put pressure on natural resources such as water – all of which could have serious impacts on peace and security across the world.”

What do you think about the upcoming Climate Change Conference this December – the last chance we have to take action against “the greatest threat the world has ever faced”? Will it be a success or a failure? What are your hopes and expectations? Please share your thoughts and ideas by voting in the poll below and/or making a comment.

[polldaddy poll=1981184]

The full transcript of his speech can be found below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo credit: World Economic Forum

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read it: Germany: the new dirty man of Europe

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

Photo credit: rockcohen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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