In an interview with a Polish newspaper Lewandowsk said that:

“We already have overambitious agreements on CO2 emission reduction. There is a notion that the thesis that coal energy is the main cause of global warming is highly questionable. Moreover, more and more often there is a question mark put over the whole [issue of] global warming as such.”

He also expressed doubts about EU’s future climate goal saying the CO2 reduction targets “are too ambitious for the Polish economy” and that “a quick jump away from coal” would for Poland “be a disaster”. And this was no misquote from the Polish newspaper. A spokesman for Lewandowski even confirmed the accuracy of the statements later to the EU observer:

“His overall line is that it would be impossible for Poland to shift away from coal overnight. But he also expressed his doubts over climate change, in a personal capacity,” Patrizio Fiorilli told this website.

Environmental organizations and political groups are afraid that Lewandowsk’s science and climate skepticism will affect the drafting of the €130 budget that will form EU’s political course of action and structure between 2014 and 2020. But the Polish climate skepticism comes as no surprise. Poland helped block strong European leadership on climate during the Cop14 climate summit in 2008. And it’s an even less surprise considering the fact that Poland relies heavily on coal, around of 90%, for its electricity generation.

Ruth Davis, chief policy adviser at Greenpeace UK, said: “It’s terrifying that the man in charge of Europe’s budget is someone you might expect to see in Sarah Palin’s Republican party.

“He has a huge influence over all of our economic futures and yet not only does he deny the overwhelming evidence of climate change, but he’s also opposing measures that leading businesses say would drive green growth and create millions of new jobs in Europe’s clean industries.”

The environmental organization WWF also expressed their worry about the climate change denying budget chief:

“It comes as a shock, especially following the commission president’s recent statements. So much for collegiality,” said Tony Long, director of the WWF’s Brussels office. “That degree of climate change scepticism is now rare in Europe, and even rarer among politician’s of Lewandowski’s seniority.”

“One can’t have much faith in the commission’s budget proposals if one of the chief architects admits in a private capacity that he has doubts over global warming.”

European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso shows no sign of worry though. Saying that “the effects of climate change are – quite literally – all around us” and that the EU will stay it’s course on climate change. But one can only imagine how embarrassed Barroso must be from Lewandowsk’s anti-science statements.

“At 8.30 PM on Saturday 26 March 2011, lights will switch off around the globe for Earth Hour. This year, when the lights go back on, we want you to think about what you can change in your daily life that will benefit the planet.”

It’s just too bad that they are still focusing on individual responsibility. Individual actions are important, of course. But they will never solve our climate crisis. It doesn’t matter how many of us that change our light bulbs, drive less or buy more organic food. The climate crisis will still continue head-on in full speed. We need major and far-reaching collective actions, regulations and transformation from both the public and private sector for us to have a chance of slowing down the effects of climate change. Global warming is an effect of our current economic structures, and until we deal with that fact (corporate) events such as Earth Hour will continue to be meaningless in my opinion.

Next year I hope the campaigners turns Earth Hour into “a day of action”, where they organize and encourage people to go out in the streets and protest against the current inaction. I’ve said it before and I say it again. The only thing that will get the politicians attention are mass protests. Something which we clearly can see examples of in the Middle East these days.

What do you think? Is Earth Hour still a relevant and important climate change event?

During the last four years with a right-wing Government in Sweden the pace of emissions reductions decreased from 1.5% to 0.6% per year, and the slow pace is expected to continue. In other words this means that Sweden will miss the EU climate targets by a long shot. With the current rate Sweden won’t reach an 80% reduction in emissions until in 2205 or later, the report says. Climate scientists are recommending a 40% reduction in emissions by 2020, but Sweden won’t reach this level until around year 2062. And an upcoming international climate ranking from the WWF shows that Sweden have lost its former top position to countries such as Germany, Denmark and Ireland. Recently the Society for Nature Conservation (SSNC) issued a harsh report showing that the last 4 years of environmental policies in Sweden have been a failure.

- A passive and cowardly climate policy involves great risks. Sweden may lag behind in development if we have such low aspirations that we need not do anything. Investment and research into new technologies will end up in other countries, as well as the introduction of products with the latest environmental technology. We risk losing lots of jobs, especially in rural areas, “said Maria Wetterstrand, spokesperson for the Green Party in Sweden.

A general election will be held in Sweden in nine days. And according to Peter Eriksson, spokesperson for the Green Party in Sweden, ” there are clear differences” between the different political sides:

- When it comes to climate policies there are clear differences in this election. We need to invest in modern high-speed trains, make our homes energy efficient and expand public transportations. The current government says no to all of this. But why should Sweden have slower trains than the rest of the world?

- The red-green parties wants to increase the pace of the climate work in Sweden again. Our goals and measures will lead to a reduction in emissions by over 2% per year. This will put Sweden again in line with the international climate goals, Erikson said.

Read more about the Swedish government and its climate-wrecking efforts:
- Swedish Government Wins Greenwash Award
- The Swedish government is bad for the environment
- The Swedish government completes its climate wrecking track record with a pro-nuclear vote

“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: rockcohen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo credit: azrainman

A new report from WWF says that climate change is happening much faster than the scientists have predicated earlier. The report says that we must take action on a global scale to avert devastating climate effects such as more and heavier storms, flooding, droughts, crops failures, collapse of eco systems on land and sea and rising sea levels just to name a few.

Professor Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, Professor of Climatology and Environmental Sciences at the Université catholique de Louvain and newly elected Vice Chair of the IPCC, said that “it is clear that climate change is already having a greater impact than most scientists had anticipated, so it’s vital that international mitigation and adaptation responses become swifter and more ambitious.”

He also said, like we here on Green Blog have pointed out several times, that the 2°C climate target that the EU have agreed on (that Italy and Poland tried to wreck) is not enough to combat climate change:

“The last IPCC report has shown that the reasons for concern are now stronger, and this should lead the EU to plead for a lower temperature target than the 2°C they adopted in 1996. But even with a 2°C target, the IPCC says that emission reductions between 25 and 40% compared to 1990 are needed by 2020 from developed countries. Reductions by 20% are therefore insufficient,” Jean-Pascal van Ypersele said.

The WWF wants the EU to take the lead in climate change. Instead of a 20% emission reduction by 2020 they say the EU should “adopt an emission reduction target of at least 30% below 1990 levels by 2020″. WWF also says that the emission reductions should be made inside the EU and not being outsourced to Third World countries.

“If the European Union wants to be seen as leader at UN talks in Copenhagen next year, and to help secure a strong global deal to tackle climate change after 2012, then it must stop shirking its responsibilities and commit to real emissions cuts within Europe,” said Dr. Tina Tin, Climate Scientist and author of the report.

Instead of funding their offsets in Third World countries the WWF asks the EU to instead provide these countries with “substantial support and funding” to help them “tackle future climate change and adapt to those impacts that are already unavoidable”.

“Climate change is a major challenge to the future of mankind and the environment, and this sobering overview highlights just how critical it is that EU Environment Ministers discussing the EU legislations against climate change today commit to a strong climate and energy package, in order to ensure a low carbon future,” said Dr. Tina Tin.

photo credit: rockcohen

The governments of Italy and Poland are, as I write this, trying to weaken the already weak climate goals that the European Union agreed on in January. Italy and Poland blames their will to inaction against climate change because of the current financial crisis. They argue that they can’t afford to implement tough emissions targets on their industrial sector.

This is a fine example of ignorance from these right-wing governments in Europe. The climate package will not worsen the economy for Europe. Instead the plan will create millions of new green jobs, reduce our fuel costs and avert a catastrophe beyond our wildest dreams.

During a summit Nicolas Sarkozy said that they will look for “solutions” for those European countries who have expressed concerns about the climate goals and their economy. “The climate package is so important that we cannot simply drop it, under the pretext of a financial crisis,” said Nicolas Sarkozy, who currently holds the EU’s rotating presidency.

The European Commission chief Jose Manuel Barroso said that “we are not going to let up on the battle against climate change.”

The European Commissioner for energy policy, Andris Piebalgs, wrote on his blog that “this financial crisis should not be an excuse to delay even more our climate and energy package, to promote renewables or to boost our energy efficiency. On the contrary, it has shown us that remedies are always worse than prevention. Therefore we cannot fail to implement the necessary measures to change from a fossil fuel based economy to a low carbon one, because this time citizens will not forgive us.”

Fine words indeed, but that doesn’t mean there is a reason to sit back and hope for the best. That is why Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, WWF and the Climate Action Network Europe needs your help to let the European Environment Ministers know that “we’re all watching them.”

“The EU package of climate measures MEPs debated last week is under threat again — and we need your help before Monday evening (yes, Monday 20 October). Environment Ministers will negotiate the details of the European package on Monday, and we want them to know that we’re all watching them. Please visit the timetolead.eu website again, and write to your government minister. (Yes, even if you’ve been there before. Last time you wrote to your MEPs — this time it’s Environment Ministers.)”

Greenpeace says that “the next days are crucial if we are to get a strong package of measures agreed by December”, and that “we must keep the pressure on Europe’s leaders now”.

Tell your ministers it’s time to lead!

“Europe, it’s time to lead” and “keep global warming below 2°C”.

That is what a new campaign from Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, WWF and the Climate Action Network Europe is demanding. And they want you to help put pressure on your MEPs to take action now, before it’s too late.

Who will answer the call in Europe?

The first polar bear, named Björn Björnesson, came to Iceland in the beginning of June this year. The polar bear was shot as soon as he was spotted for fears he would get into the nearest village. According to the hunters, killing the polar bear was the only solution as it would take to long to get the anaesthetic that was on the other side of the island.

The polar bear had probably travelled the 29 miles (47 kilometres) from Greenland on a flake of ice and swim the last miles to Iceland.

And just two days ago another polar bear was discovered on Iceland. People from the nearest village who discovered the polar bear said “he was very calm and seemed to be very tired” and “fell asleep after half an hour.” This polar bear was named Ófeig.

The local authorities had received a lot of criticism for their handling of the first polar bear, so this time they wanted deal with it properly. But their plans to put Ófeig to sleep and transport him back to Greenland failed and they had to kill him, the second polar bear in less than two weeks.

Eyewitness said that Ófeig tried to flee back to the sea when the veterinarian came. The authorities and the veterinarian then decided that the polar was to skinny and hungry and that killing it would be the most humane way.

It’s very rare that polar bears come to Iceland. Last time a polar bear visited Iceland was 20 years ago. That polar bear was also killed.

But according to Tom Arnbom from WWF we will see more polar bears in wrong habitats. Tom Arnbom says the polar bears natural habitats are melting away because of climate change.

“The worst case scenario everyone was talking about would happen in 20-30 years, is happening right now,” Tom Arnbom said, and added that “no one contemplated that the warming would increase faster the more ice melted away.”

The United Arab Emirates, home for around 5 million people, wants to build the world’s first zero-carbon city called Masdar City.

In Masdar City cars will be banned. A light rail system will serve the residents inside the city as well as taking them to nearby cities. Waste water will be reused, all garbage will be recycled and organic food will be locally grown.

The water will be provided through a solar-powered desalination plant. Even though the developers of Masdar City haven’t said any exact percentage they plan to power most of the city by solar power.

Masdar City, which will stretch out 3.5 miles and will have a wall built around the city. The wall is there to diminish the heat carried in from southerly desert winds, but also the noise from the airplanes at the nearby Abu Dhabi International airport.

It all sounds good, but this Gulf desert nation has a lot to prove.

For example, the United Arab Emirates has the world’s largest ecological footprint per capita, 11.9 global hectares per person. You can compare this to USA who has the second-worst ecological footprint, 9.6 hectares per person. Compare this to the global average which is 2.2 hectares a person and you clearly see the problem.

The country also wins (or loose depending on how you see it) the per capita carbon footprint. In the United Arab Emirates it takes 9.06 global hectares of land to take up each person’s carbon dioxide emissions, in a year. The US carbon footprint is 5,66 and the world average is 1.7.

After a deal with the Emirates government, the WWF will be monitoring the construction and the finished city to be sure it lives up to it green claims.

The city is expected to cost $22 billion to construct and is scheduled to inaugurate in 2015.