OBAMA TO COPENHAGEN: INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE NEGOTIATIONS NEWS COMPILATION AND ANALYSIS–TEN DAYS LEFT
November 16 through 25, 2009, Cochabamba, Bolivia
Source–The Economist, reprinted from Joe Romm (http://www.climateprogress.org) November 23, 2009. (We in Bolivia generally believe strongly in free-flowing Intellectual Property (IP) rights for expeditious climate solutions ;]. We are grateful and give due credit to the scientists, policymakers and journalists of the “developed” world, such as our hero, Joe Romm, for sharing, in order to avoid catastrophe. If you have a problem with this, Joe, let us know. We are in a climate change emergency and figure you will be happy to pitch in as we throw down the sandbags . :]) For more information on the role of IP liberation in climate change politics, see Bolivian President Evo Morales’ speech at the Pozan, Poland climate change conference, December 2008. See Alert Oilwatch. http://correo.oilwatch.org/pipermail/alert/2008-December/000594.html.
This issue features:
*today´s White House news that President Obama will attend Copenhagen with emissions targets in hand. [See Joe Romm, from climateprogress.org Nov. 25, for a more complete analysis.]
*a must-read four-page journalist briefing on Copenhagen from International Institute of Sustainable Development (IISD). For already-versed policymakers and advocates, this report serves as an excellent teaching tool.
*Andrew Light and Julian Wong´s article from Center for American Progress (which former White House Cheif-of-Staff, John Podesta leads and where U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change, Todd Stern, was a fellow) regarding U.S.-China’s mid-November climate change cooperation advances, in full-text in section #7 A and top emitters’ negotiations stance statistics in #7 B.
*my analysis: The U.S.-China climate change courtship, global climate change negotiations poker, and hopefully not “the longest suicide letter in history — TEN DAYS UNTIL COPENHAGEN
This type of “Maobama” or “Obamao” image was banned from circulation in China during President Obama’s November 2009 trip, which featured a town hall speech in Shanghai that addressed internet information freedom, climate change and renewable energy, among other topics.
The Maobama or Obamao images symbolize the increasing partnership between the two countries. Climate change and renewable energy are on the forefront of this partnership. The banning of the image in China during Obama´s trip there also represents limitations on the U.S.-China partnership in both countries, including the backlash President Obama faces from some U.S. citizens due to his efforts reaching out to China. The Obama and Jintao administrations are walking political tightropes on two continents. By posting this image, no disrespect is intended to my political and personal hero, U.S. President Obama, or to Chariman Mao for that matter, although I have some major issues with Mao. I wanted to do my part for free internet speech in China. See China Hush for more information on how the t-shirt was actually banned only during the U.S. President’s visit. China and stores reportedly were told they could sell after the visit (another sign that the U.S. and China’s desire for profits brings them together). I also want to underline the crucial importance of this bilateral relationship of the #1 and #2 CO2 emitters at Copenhagen in ten days.
——————————————————————
1) TOP OF THE NEWS
– President Obama will attend Copenhagen with emissions targets. That’s my President! In fact, a few of the cabinet members will be there at a U.S. climate change center. See Joe Romm’s cite, below for Obama leadership on climate and energy. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president-attend-copenhagen-climate-talks; http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/25/breaking-obama-to-attend-copenhagen/
–More than 100 icebergs headed to New Zealand [I hear these icebergs are on their way to Copenhagen COP 15 to adopt negotiators ;) ]. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091123/ts_afp/australianzealandantarcticaclimateiceberg
–At least 60 heads of state will attend Copenhagen. Hooray!http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8373551.stm
–Andrew Light and Julian Wong. Center For American Progress, proclaim Copenhagen a near victory: “Announcements of U.S.—China Cooperation Create A Path To Copenhagen Success.” http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/11/china_ccs.html. See the article in full text, Section #7 A, below.
–Key and unprecedented US-China climate change and renewable energy deal. Joe Romm, Climateprogress.org, Wednesday, Nov. 17, 2009. See full article below.
–Transnational Institute (which consults with many small countries, such as Bolivia, on climate change negotiations) contradicts Joe Romm and the European Union’s assertions that the European Trading System (ETS) has succeeded. Last week I republished Joe Romm’s piece on the success of the ETS. This week, I found this piece by Kevin Smith of Transnational Institute claiming ETS has been a failure (without citing any real proof). http://www.tni.org/es/node/69218. BUT SEE, Joe Romm´s Nov. 12 blog post http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/12/europe-exceed-kyoto-target-european-trading-system-has-worked/
–California outlaws big TVs. I love you California! If California is doing it, you know we in Bolivia ought to be doing it too. See http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/154936/california-outlaws-large-power-hungry-tvs/
2) HIGHLIGHTS AND ANALYSIS
TEN DAYS UNTIL COPENHAGEN: The U.S.-China climate change courtship, global climate change negotiations poker, and hopefully not “the longest suicide letter in history”
by Adam Zemans, Nov. 25, 2009. Cochabamba, Bolivia. Copyright.
The U.S. and China are now courting heavily in bilateral climate change negotiations, but will they marry at Copenhagen? The Center For American Progress’ (CAPs’) Joe Romm, Andrew Light and Julian Wong (in a Nov. 20 climateprogress.org posting from CAP, “Announcements of U.S.-China cooperation create a path to Copenhagen success”), would give us hope for transference from bilateral foreplay to the birth of life-changing commitments within the multilateral setting of the Copenhagen COP 15 climate change conference. I am skeptical of CAP’s triumphalism (for the moment at least) for a variety of reasons. Most importantly, China remains addicted to coal for 70 percent of its energy needs, is growing like metastasized cancer and CCS technology is years away from successful implementation (which is too little too late, as Joe Romm himself has said). In addition, U.S.-China joint initiatives rely on too many energy sources of dubious cleanliness to effecitively thrwart dangerous climate change.
More generally, Mike Shanahan, author of a just-published report for journalists from the International Institute For Sustainable Development (IISD) expressed my own doubts about the prospects for COP 15 very well, when he concluded his briefing by referring to the European Commission’s President, José Manuel Barroso’s statement in September 2009 that: ‘If we do not sort this out, it risks becoming the longest suicide note in history.’ As each negotiator aims to maximise their country’s gain and minimise their concessions, we are left waiting to see who blinks first in the world’s biggest poker game.” To down load this journalists’ briefing http://www.iied.org/pubs/display.php?o=17074IIED
How a U.S.—China lifelong marriage and a broader poker game fit together is anybody’s guess ten days before the big event!
On Nov. 17, Romm, synthesizing Light and Wong, did an excellent job in highlighting U.S. and China cooperative accomplishments. To be sure, the U.S. and China took a giant leap forward this week, with unprecedented joint pursuits in climate change and energy policy, including: 1. greenhouse gas inventory 2. joint clean energy research center 3. electric vehicles 4. energy efficiency 5. renewable energy 6. 21st century coal 7. shale gas 8. nuclear 9. public-private partnerships on clean energy. “In a joint statement, President Barack Obama and President Hu Jintao agreed on a common approach to achieve a successful outcome in international climate negotiations…” Joe Romm, “U.S. and China announce ‘positive, cooperative and comprehensive plan…,” Climate Progress, November 17, 2009. See also The Washington Post, November 17, 2009. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/17/AR2009111701090.html. Nevertheless, the Presidents landed far short of what the world needs: commitment to deep and truly binding emissions agreements, vows they can fulfill with Measurable, Reportable and Verifiable (MRV) actions from now until eternity.
But, as it was when CAP recently announced India’s revolutionary turn around in climate change policy, which India did an aboutface on only days later, it is too early to celebrate the U.S. and China walking down the aisle together on anything much more than business—profits—as usual. And I believe the ultimate prize, while it ultimately will save climate change costs, will require an unprecendented dowry, for both the U.S. and China. The hard stuff in the relationship will then begin. Meanwhile, the “Earth [is] heading for 6c of warming,” according to the U.N.–affiliated Global Carbon Project’s lead scientist. BBC. November 24, 2009. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8364926.stm
Nov. 23, 2009—In Britain this week, a once every 1,000 year weather event (Joe Romm, Climateprogress.org).
3) INTERNATIONAL
US-CHINA
–Andrew Light and Julian Wong. Center For American Progress, “Announcements of U.S.—China Cooperation Create A Path To Copenhagen Success.” http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/11/china_ccs.html. See the article in full text, Section #7 B, below.
–John Podesta, Andrew Light and Julian Wong. “Cooperation Is Key.” Nov. 4, 2009. [Provides very specific CCS proposals primarily, in English and Chinese]. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/11/china_ccs.html
US
–Bill Mckibben’s very positive review of Al Gore’s new book, Our Choice. http://www.progressivebookclub.com/blog/2009/11/03/pbc-book-review-bill-mckibben-on-our-choice-by-al-gore/
–A short summary of Al Gore’s new book, Our Choice. http://www.progressivebookclub.com/pbc2/viewBook.pbc?id=1882
Europe
–See “Top of the News” above regarding the European Trading System (ETS).
4) NATIONAL (BOLIVIA).
–From Teresa Flores in email correspondence last week: Frank Fog is right, global warming is not the main reason of the water loss of the Titicaca Lake, but rather the overuse of its tributaries, particularly by mining industries in Peru. This was the conclusion of the research presented this year at the Symposium of the Institute of Ecology in La Paz. Agriculture, population grow, and natural conditions are also factors to be considered.
Whereas, I would also agree with the procrastination statement, it is not making a favor to the cause, to deliver inaccurate information. [Contrary to a previous U.N. news report, taken from ATB channel I believe].
Teresa Flores
––China y el litio de Bolivia. http://www.lostiempos.com/diario/actualidad/economia/20091120/china-ratifica-interes-en-el-litio_46113_79806.html.
–Author’s random note: Bolivians could have a lot to offer the world in the 2020s as global economic inflation and depression break loose because Bolivians are so good at recycling and repair. When the industrialized world collapses there will be a big market teaching the “developed” world how to fix and save everything, like is traditional here in Bolivia.
– Transparency International. As also reported in Los Tiempos, Bolivia scored at 2.7 on the corruption scale out of a high score of 10. It was 120thin its position, with New Zealand in first place and Afganistan in last, among 180 surveyed countries. The score is a survey of surveys based on 13 different country and business surveys. http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2009/cpi_2009_table
–Not yet able to post the citation, but be sure to get a copy of Bolivia’s Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Agua’s Agosto—October 2009 edition if you are interested in Bolivian climate change politics. There are a number of details on the intenational and national climate change politics that I had not previously seen.
5) SELECTED NEW EVENTS. Ten days until Copenhagen!
6) ATTENTION-CATCHING THEORETICAL INSIGHTS. None this week.
7) SELECTED ARTICLES IN FULL-TEXT (apparent links within will not connect):
A) Joe Romm, Climateprogress.org, Nov. 17, 2009.
| |
| U.S. and China announce “positive, cooperative and comprehensive” plan for collaboration on clean energy and climate changePosted: 17 Nov 2009 12:01 PM PST. Joe Romm. Climateprogress.org.“Very exciting day here in Beijing. There’s enormous interest in both governments in working together to fight climate change. The package announced today is far-reaching and can make a real difference in cutting emissions.”That’s an exclusive quote from David Sandalow, DOE’s Assistant Secretary of Energy for Policy and International Affairs, who just emailed me from China about the newly announced U.S.-China cooperation plan. Sandalow is going to be in Copenhagen, so I hope to have a real interview with him then. For details on this plan (with links) and what it means, here is analysis by Andrew Light and Julian L. Wongof the Center for American Progress. Note that the deal goes beyond “obvious” areas like efficiency and renewables to include things like shale gas, which appears to exist in abundance in China and could allow repowering of existing Chinese coal plants and more rapid medium-term reductions than people have thought possible. This morning, a comprehensive planfor U.S.-China cooperation on clean energy and climate change was announced in Beijing by President Barack Obama and President Hu Jintao. The overall plan is much more ambitious in scope and depth than we had anticipated and contains directives to create various institutions and programs addressing a wide array of cooperation on clean-energy technologies and capacity building, including very important efforts on helping China build a robust, transparent and accurate inventory of their greenhouse gas emissions.These efforts include cooperation in the following areas:1. Greenhouse Gas Inventory. A memorandum of cooperation between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and China’s National Development and Reform Commission sets out avenues for collaboration on capacity building in climate change, with an initial focus on helping China to develop a robust, transparent and accurate greenhouse gas emissions inventory.2. Joint Clean Energy Research Center. Originally announced this July, more details were provided on the joint center that will “facilitate joint research and development of clean energy technologies by teams of scientists and engineers from the United States and China, as well as serve as a clearinghouse to help researchers in each country.” Financial support from public and private sources of at least $150 million over five years, split evenly between the two countries, will be provided. The Center’s research will initially focus on building energy efficiency, clean coal including carbon capture and storage, and clean vehicles. (Factsheet)3. Electric Vehicles.Those initiative will “include joint standards development, demonstration projects in more than a dozen cities, technical roadmapping and public education projects.” (Factsheet)4. Energy Efficiency. Building on the Ten Year Framework on Energy and Environment Cooperation, government officials of both countries will “work together and with the private sector to develop energy efficient building codes and rating systems, benchmark industrial energy efficiency, train building inspectors and energy efficiency auditors for industrial facilities, harmonize test procedures and performance metrics for energy efficient consumer products, [and] exchange best practices in energy efficient labeling systems.” (Factsheet)5. Renewable Energy. The two countries will develop roadmaps for wide-spread renewable energy deployment in both countries. The Partnership will also provide technical and analytical resources to states and regions in both countries to support renewable energy deployment and will facilitate state-to-state and region-to-region partnerships to share experience and best practices. (Factsheet)6. 21st Century Coal. The two countries will “launch a program of technical cooperation to bring teams of U.S. and Chinese scientists and engineers together in developing clean coal and carbon capture and storage technologies.” The Presidents also welcomed a package of announcements on public-private partnerships in advanced coal technologies. (Factsheet) 7. Shale Gas. Under a new Shale Gas Initiative, the U.S. and China will “use experience gained in the United States to assess China’s shale gas potential, promote environmentally-sustainable development of shale gas resources, conduct joint technical studies to accelerate development of shale gas resources in China, and promote shale gas investment in China through the U.S.-China Oil and Gas Industry Forum, study tours, and workshops.” (Factsheet)8. Nuclear. The two countries reaffirmed the goals of the recently-concluded Third Executive Committee Meeting of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership to promote the peaceful use of civilian nuclear energy, and “ agreed to consult with one another in order to explore such approaches—including assurance of fuel supply and cradle-to-grave nuclear fuel management so that countries can access peaceful nuclear power while minimizing the risks of proliferation.”9. Public-private partnerships on clean energy. A new U.S.-China Energy Cooperation Program (ECP) will “leverage private sector resources for project development work in China across a broad array of clean energy projects, to the benefit of both nations.” The ECP, consisting of at least 22 founding member companies, will work on collaborative projects in renewable energy, smart grid, clean transportation, green building, clean coal, combined heat and power, and energy efficiency.In a joint statement, President Barack Obama and President Hu Jintao agreed on a common approach to achieve a successful outcome in international climate negotiations (emphasis added in bold):Regarding the upcoming Copenhagen Conference, both sides agree on the importance of actively furthering the full, effective and sustained implementation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in accordance with the Bali Action Plan. The United States and China, consistent with their national circumstances, resolve to take significant mitigation actions and recognize the important role that their countries play in promoting a sustainable outcome that will strengthen the world’s ability to combat climate change. The two sides resolve to stand behind these commitments.In this context both sides believe that, while striving for final legal agreement, an agreed outcome at Copenhagen should, based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, include emission reduction targets of developed countries and nationally appropriate mitigation actions of developing countries. The outcome should also substantially scale up financial assistance to developing countries, promote technology development, dissemination and transfer, pay particular attention to the needs of the poorest and most vulnerable to adapt to climate change, promote steps to preserve and enhance forests, and provide for full transparency with respect to the implementation of mitigation measures and provision of financial, technology and capacity building support.Taken together, these commitments and statements represent an important step forward towards agreeing on a protocol for accurate accounting and verification of China’s policies for achieving the necessary emissions reductions that science requires. They will also hopefully start to satisfy those skeptical that China will agree to a protocol for accurate accounting and verification of its impressive array of policies for achieving emissions reductions.The announcements also suggest that the United States and China are on the same page when it comes to both the necessity of aggressively moving forward on an affirmative agenda to reduce carbon pollution and create millions of new clean energy jobs. The agreement contains concrete measures for sustained and meaningful collaboration and demonstrates that the two largest emitters of greenhouse gases are prepared to move beyond the tired narrative of developed versus developing country responsibilities on climate action toward a more “positive, cooperative, and comprehensive” relationship on clean energy and climate change.We hope that the upcoming United Nations climate change summit in Copenhagen will follow this example and focus as much on bottom-up technological strategies for achieving real reductions in emissions as it will on top-down targets for carbon caps.JR: For more on shale gas and its implications for U.S. emissions reductions, see There appears to be a lot more natural gas than previously thought (Part 1) and therefore unconventional gas makes the 2020 Waxman-Markey target so damn easy and cheap to meet (Part 2). |
B) Joe Romm, Climateprogress.org, Nov. 20, 2009.
Energy and Global Warming News for November 20: Climate negotiating positions of top emitters
FACTBOX-Climate negotiating positions of top emitters
Russia toughened on Wednesday its goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions, saying it would target a 25 percent reduction from 1990 levels by 2020 compared with a 10-15 percent pledge previously.
Following are the negotiating positions of the top greenhouse gas emitters before a U.N. meeting in Copenhagen in December due to agree a new global climate deal.
1) CHINA (annual emissions of greenhouse gases: 6.8 billion tonnes, 5.5 tonnes per capita)
* Emissions – President Hu Jintao promised that China would cut its carbon dioxide emissions per dollar of economic output by a “notable margin” by 2020 compared with 2005.. The “carbon intensity” goal is the first measurable curb on national emissions in China. Hu reiterated a promise that China would try to raise the share of non-fossil fuels in primary energy consumption to 15 percent by 2020.
* Demands – China wants developed nations to cut their greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40 percent from 1990 levels by 2020 and to promise far more aid and green technology.
2) UNITED STATES (6.4 billion tonnes, 21.2 tonnes per capita)
* Emissions – President Barack Obama wants to cut U.S. emissions back to 1990 levels by 2020, a 17 percent cut from 2005 levels, and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
* Obama says he wants an accord in Copenhagen that covers all the issues and that has “immediate operational effect.”.
Legislation to cut emissions by 20 percent from 2005 levels had been approved by a Senate Committee but people few think it can become law before the Copenhagen talks.
* Finance – The United States says a “dramatic increase” is needed in funds to help developing nations.
* Demands – “We cannot meet this challenge unless all the largest emitters of greenhouse gas pollution act together,” Obama said.
3) EUROPEAN UNION (5.03 billion tonnes, 10.2 tonnes per capita)
* Emissions – EU leaders agreed in December 2008 to cut emissions by 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 and by 30 percent if other developed nations follow suit.
* Finance – EU leaders have agreed that developing nations will need about 100 billion euros ($147 billion) a year by 2020 to help them curb emissions and adapt to changes such as floods or heatwaves. As an advance payment, they suggest 5-7 billion a year between 2010 and 2012.
* Demands – The EU wants developing nations to curb the rise of their emissions by 15 to 30 percent below a trajectory of “business as usual” by 2020.
5) INDIA (1.4 billion tonnes, 1.2 tonnes per capita)
* Emissions – India is prepared to quantify the amount of greenhouse gas emissions it could cut with domestic actions, but will not accept internationally binding targets, Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh said.. India has said its per capita emissions will never rise to match those of developed nations.
* Demands – Like China, India wants rich nations to cut emissions by at least 40 percent by 2020. But Ramesh signalled room to compromise: “It’s a negotiation. We’ve given a number of 40 percent but one has to be realistic.”
6) JAPAN (1.4 billion tonnes, 11.0 tonnes per capita)
* Emissions – Cut Japan’s emissions by 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 if Copenhagen agrees an ambitious deal.
* Finance – Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama told the UN that Tokyo would also step up aid.
7) SOUTH KOREA (142 million tonnes, 2.9 tonnes per capita)
* Emissions – Cut emissions by 30 percent below “business as usual” levels by 2020, which is equivalent to a 4 percent cut from 2005 levels.
BRAZIL (111 million tonnes, 0.6 tonnes per capita)
* Emissions – Will cut its emissions by between 36.1 percent and 38.9 percent from projected 2020 levels, representing a 20 percent cut below 2005 levels.
9) INDONESIA (100 million tonnes, 0.4 tonnes per capita)
* Emissions – Aims to cut emissions by 26 percent by 2020 below “business as usual” levels.
Taking CO2 from deforestation into account, Indonesia is the world’s third largest emitter of greenhouse gases
———————————————————————————————————————————-
Recommended other key climate change news links (some of which have not made it to “links yet because the author/editor has not figured out how the heck to make “links” work. (I will ge there though):).
*COP15: http:// en.cop15.dk/news/
*Yahoo: http://uk.news.yahoo.com/fc/climate-change.html
*The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/carbon-emissions+copenhagen
*International Institute For Sustainable Development (IISD): http://www. IISD.org; Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB) for a detailed and rather technical analysis of UNFCCC negotiations at: http://www.iisd.ca/climate/ccwg7/; www. climate-L.org for insider daily listserve news and events.
*United Nations Framework Convention On Climate Change: http://www.UNFCCC.org for latest documents and news directly related to the negotiations
For real climate science (as opposed to propaganda), see, among others:
*This news compilation and analysis is created by Adam Zemans, JD, MA, Executive Director, Environment Las Americas/Bolivia. Copyright. This compilation may be freely copied and distributed with or without credit to author EXCEPT for my 2) Highlights and analysis. There, I want credit! ;]. This blog/listserve is new and the author seeks continual quality improvement. Any feedback in the continuing improvement of this document is encouraged, at:
zemansa@law.georgetown.edu
CREDITS: Thank you so much to: volunteers–Mark Schofield, Michelle Burkhardt and Robby Keisic for help in editing and blog dynamics; the author/editor’s Prescott College PhD mentor, Professor Ed Grumbine, who has helped teach the author/editor to love scholarship again; China expert Lic. Ximena Barrientos Sanchez, a lost soul to follow his passions for politics and climate change and become un mejor hombre professional :); and, most of all, my boys, for leading me back to my adopted home of Bolivia. Much appreciation also to my Bolivian climate change policy mentor. Without her, this maravilla would not be happening. ;)
GOAL: The goal of this weekly news compilation is to provide filtered, up-to-date information and events that are relevant to official United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiations leading to and beyond Copenhagen. Dozens of articles are read and the most relevant and high quality selected for this list.
CONTENT: This climate change negotiations news compilation consists of a variety of news and analysis selected among the following sources: a) climateprogress.org; b) google alerts; c) UNFCCC website; e) NGO websites. NGO information to be tracked at times includes: IISD, Center For American Progress, Pew Center, Carnegie Institute, Brookings Institution, World Resources Institute (WRI), World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and others. A weekly check- off list of sources utilized is elaborated at the end of the weekly brief.
FORMAT: The format is as follows: 1) Top of the news; 2) Highlights and analysis; 3) International, including, on occasion, Earth Negotiations Bulletin highlights; 4) National (Bolivia); 5) On occasion, selected new events (see UNFCCC website for full event list) ; 6) Attention-catching theoretical insights; 7) Selected articles in full-text. Note, finally, for the sake of imparting meaning quickly, the titles of the articles are often my own, not those of the authors ,and some standard citation data is left out. Authorship is attributed either through quotations or italics.
Facebook Share
November 26th, 2009
(including my speech/charla in Spanish at Interciencia’s Cochabamba, Bolivia Conference, Nov 6, #7 B below)
*This news compilation is created by Adam Zemans, Executive Director, Environment Las Americas/Bolivia, based in Cochabamba, Bolivia. Any feedback in the continuing improvement of this document is encouraged, at: zemansa@law.georgetown.edu*
GOAL. The goal of this weekly news compilation is to provide filtered, up-to-date information and events that are most relevant to official United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiations leading to and beyond Copenhagen. Dozens of articles are read and the most relevant and high quality selected for this list.
This climate change negotiations news compilation consists of a variety of news stemming from among the following sources: a) climate progress.org; b) google alerts; c) UNFCCC website; e) NGO websites. NGO information to be tracked at times includes: IISD, Center For American Progress, Pew Center, Carnegie Institute, Brookings Institution, WRI, WWF, UCS, TWN, Oxfam UK, Christian Aid and others. A weekly check- off list of sources utilized is elaborated at the end of the weekly brief, in the email format. Please send me an email request if you would like to be on the listserve. Just click on my email link above and shoot.
The format is as follows: 1) Highlights and analysis; 2) Top of the news; 3) International, including Earth Negotiations Bulletin Highlights; 4) National; 5) Selected new events (see UNFCCC website for full event list) ; 6) Attention-catching theoretical insights; 7) Selected articles in full-text; 8) Check-off list of sources utilized. Note, finally, for the sake of imparting meaning quickly, the titles of the articles are often my own, not those of the authors. In the full-text section, #7, the work of other author’s will not be quoted. In other section’s the work of other authors will be either quoted or italicized.
Recommended other key climate change news links:
*COP15: http://en.cop15.dk/news/
*Yahoo: http://uk.news.yahoo.com/fc/climate-change.html
*The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/carbon-emissions+copenhagen
*Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB) for a detailed and rather technical analysis of UNFCCC negotiations at: http://www.iisd.ca/climate/ccwg7/
*http//http://UNFCCC.org for latest documents and news directly related to the negotiations.
1) HIGHLIGHTS AND ANALYSIS
Over the past weeks, since I last reported, the early November Barcelona climate change conference has become less than a footnote in history–legally binding Copenhagen is dead. For the sake of our time, I will not address Barcelona here, therefore. ;]
Climate Change diplomats, get your motorcycle helmets on! I officially predict a rumble between the crowds outside and the diplomats inside COP 15 Copenhagen (mostly nonviolent). As a result in part of of this rumble and activism more generally, Bolivia and the Least Developed Countries and the Island States (AOSIS) will have an increasing voice; and China’s moral authority will diminish due to the increasingly clear case of its very problematic development strategy, about 70% of which is based on the burning of coal. [Clean Coal Technology is far from ready in spite of pilot projects. See #3, China section, below ].
President Obama will struggle to deflect mounting global criticism but yet might be able to gain ground against the Blue Dog Democrats and most Republicans in the US Senate by utilizing the commotion to his advantage. But the US Senate will not likely respond to the data through progressive measures, as the forces of nuclear and fossil fuels fight for their lives through the inclusion of provisions in the Senate legislation.
By the next climate change conference (COP 16) in Mexico in December of next year, a mediocre but better climate treaty will be signed than would have been the case at COP 15. Yet the one year delay will more than wipe out any advantages of this new treaty as the 2 degree limit becomes more clearly inevitable and a 4 Centigrade increase (very likely catastrophic) by as early as 2060 becomes more accepted by broader segments of the public (currently at 10% likelihood according to the British Met—see my article in #7 below regarding science and Bolivian policy and follow its citations).
As these events occur, I predict a descent into greater political and economic chaos until governments respond next year, with markets plummeting in the wake of Copenhagen. The death of Copenhagen’s legally-binding agreements will also give countries like Bolivia a better opportunity to strategize for COP 16 Mexico in December of 2010 and build political momentum. Yet, in the end, they will need to have more than one option at the negotiating table, and it will need to include carbon markets—which are the only “real games” on Earth, regardless of how unjust they might be.
2) TOP OF THE NEWS
–(This entry for Spanish readers in Bolivia): Ultimas noticias de la preservación de los bosques a traves REDD, Monica Oblitas de Bolivia. http://www.lostiempos.com/oh/actualidad/actualidad/20091115/bosques-ese-verde-negocio_45172_77924.html
–Lago Titicaca disappearing due to Climate Change, claims COP 15 news site. [Two Bolivian climate change experts report that this news is incorrect—they claim the drop of Lago Titicaca is due to overuse. Since she is a reliable source, I do not therefore endorse yet this news. http://en.cop15.dk/news/view+news?newsid=2595
--Get ready for a rumble (much civil disobedience) at Copenhagen! See Naomi Klein’s piece [Note: Bolivia on the cutting edge of this movement for better or worse]: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/nov/12/seattle-coming-age-disobedient-copenhagen
–Copenhagen climate change talks: no deal. We are out of time, Obama warns at APEC. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/15/obama-copenhagen-emissions-targets-climate-change
–New York Times reporting on APEC meeting in Singapore. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/world/asia/15prexy.html
–European Trading System working. Joe Romm. Climate Progress (see segment in #7 A below)
– See climateprogress.org, November 13, on the US government report regarding the creation of 8 million jobs in the US economy over 4 years due to green building and the SUCCESS of the European Trading System (ETS)! See full article #7 C below.
–Joe Romm. Climateprogress.org, November 11, 2009: The world beyond 450 ppm atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide — possibly even a world beyond 400 ppm — crosses carbon cycle tipping points that threaten to quickly take us to 1000 ppm. It is a world not merely of endless regional resource wars around the globe. It is a world with dozens of Darfurs. It is a world of a hundred Katrinas, of countless environmental refugees — hundreds of millions by the second half of this century — all clamoring to occupy the parts of the developed world that aren’t flooded or desertified.
In such a world, everyone will ultimately become a veteran, and Veteran’s Day and Memorial Day will fade into obscurity, as people forget about a time when wars were the exception, a time when soldiers were but a small minority of the population.
So when does this happen?
Thomas Fingar, “the U.S. intelligence community’s top analyst,” sees it happening by the mid-2020s:
*By 2025, droughts, food shortages and scarcity of fresh water will plague large swaths of the globe, from northern China to the Horn of Africa.*
For poorer countries, climate change “could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back,” Fingar said, while the United States will face “Dust Bowl” conditions in the parched Southwest….
3) INTERNATIONAL
ARGENTINA
–World Forest Congress, as reported by IPS in Spanish. Forests are much more than carbon deposits. http://ipsnoticias.net/nota.asp?idnews=93740
BRAZIL
– Brazil celebrates 45% reduction in Amazon deforestation. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/13/brazil-amazon-deforestation-climate-change-copenhagen
–Brazil supports UN REDD plan and goes for 40% reduction in forest CO2 emissions. http://cl.invertia.com/noticias/noticia.aspx?idNoticia=200910272046_RTI_1256676418nN27260030&idtel=
US
–How climate change politics does not work in the US—the case of democratic livestock and shipping interests and EPA funding and authority. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28818.html
–US bets on nuclear energy [I have to say: Oh dear, the Senate Democrats are getting desperate!]. http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18/20091115/tpl-nuclear-energy-high-on-senate-s-clim-10170b4_1.html
–Interview with Nobel Laureate Al Gore about his transition to climate change solutions http://www.tennessean.com/article/20091115/NEWS08/911150340/Al+Gore+sees+global+shift+on+climate+change
CHINA
Ordos, China’s leading role in CO2 production and carbon sequestration. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/15/china-coal-industry-mongolia-shaanxi
4) NATIONAL (BOLIVIA)
–The latest on REDD from Monica Oblitas. http://www.lostiempos.com/oh/actualidad/actualidad/20091115/galeria-foto-bosques-ese-verde-negocio_45172_77926.html
5) SELECTED NEW EVENTS.
–COP 16, Mexico, December 2010 or 15.5? http://en.cop15.dk/news/view+news?newsid=2596
6) ATTENTION-CATCHING THEORETICAL INSIGHTS. None this week.
7) SELECTED ARTICLES IN FULL-TEXT:
A)
Europe to easily beat Kyoto target — looks like the European Trading System has worked after all
November 12, 2009 Posted: 12 Nov 2009 04:47 PM PST. Joe Romm. Climate Progess.
Europe made a major commitment under the Kyoto Protocol that U.S. conservatives have been telling us for years it would never achieve. In fact, the Europeans are poised to surpass their targets under the terms of the Protocol. It is no longer plausible for those who don’t want a U.S. cap-and-trade system to point to the European Trading System (ETS) as a failure. Quite the reverse.
A report by the European Environment Agency released today shows that the European Union and all Member States but one [Austria] are on track to meet their Kyoto Protocol commitments to limit and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Whereas the Protocol requires that the EU-15 reduce average emissions during 2008–2012 to 8% below 1990 levels, the latest projections indicate that the EU-15 will go further, reaching a total reduction of more than 13 % below the base year.…
Looking further ahead, almost three quarters of the EU’s unilateral target to cut emissions to 20 % below 1990 levels by 2020 could be achieved domestically (i.e. without purchase of credits outside the EU).
The report highlights the importance of the EU ETS in helping Member States meet their targets.
That is today’s news release from the European Environment Agency. The full report is here. The report notes:
Five EU‑15 Member States (France, Germany, Greece, Sweden and the United Kingdom) have already achieved average GHG emission levels below their Kyoto target….
The EU ETS is expected to result in important reductions of domestic EU emissions.
The EEA analysis concludes the EU-15 will not need to rely on offsets to meet their Kyoto target and “foresees a variety of factors contributing to the EU-15’s total reduction of more than 13%”:
Existing policies and measures for the period 2008–2012 could account for 6.9 percentage points of the total reduction.
If Member States implement additional measures as planned, the total reduction could reach 8.5%, although this will largely depend on combined efforts in four main emitting countries (France, Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom).
The use of Kyoto’s flexible mechanisms by governments could contribute an additional 2.2 percentage points reduction.
Absorbing carbon dioxide through enhanced carbon sinks (e.g.improved forest management) will contribute with an additional 1 percentage point reduction.
Purchase of emission allowances and credits by EU ETS operators is expected to deliver a further 1.4 percentage point reduction.
No doubt some will try to ascribe this success to the global economic collapse, but as E&E News PM (subs. req’d) reported:
The emissions projections should be a sign to the rest of the world, said Andreas Carlgren, the environment minister of Sweden, which holds the bloc’s rotating presidency.
“E.U. emissions reductions far exceed our commitments,” Carlgren said in a statement. “This is taking place without the full impact of the economic crisis yet being evident in the figures. This shows that considered policies and concrete measures are effective in the fight against climate change.”
In fact, the Kyoto budget period covers 2008 to 2012, so it will extend over a period of significant economic growth, and much higher GDP than in the 1990 base period. The United States, by comparison, has also been hit by the same global economic downturn, and our emissions remain significantly above 1990 levels.
The EEA also reports the reductions of the broader EU-27:
The EU‑27 is making good progress towards its 2020 emission reduction target of – 20% and the implementation of planned additional measures is expected to bring domestic emissions down to 14 % below 1990 levels.
B) My own speech at Interciencia, November 6, 2009, on science and Bolivian climate change policy, in Spanish:
Medicina para la Emergencia del Cambio Climático: La Inmediata Necesidad de Liderazgo y Abogacía Científica en Bolivia
Adam Zemans, J.D., M.A.
Director Ejecutivo
Medioambiente Bolivia
Noviembre 6 de 2009
Conferencia de Interciencia
Cochabamba, Bolivia
Traducción: Lily E. Centellas Levy Maria de los Angeles Centellas S. y Dr. Adam Zemans (con algunos minimos cambios entre el inglés y españ
Saludos, y para aquellos que vienen de fuera, bienvenidos a Cochabamba. Muchas gracias a Drs. Reynaldo Cuadros, Mario Cordero, Augosto Sanchez ,Michel Bergeron y a todos los miembros de Interciencia y la Asociación Boliviana del Avance de la Ciencia (ABAC) por haberme invitado, como disertante, a esta importante conferencia. Como preámbulo a mi charla, deseo aclararles que la misma es una versión pre-publicada y que estoy abierto a sus comentarios y consideraciones antes de la publicación. Estaré feliz de de proveerles vía correo electrónico, citas específicas para aquellas personas que tengan dudas relacionadas con los datos que expondré. Igualmente, ustedes pueden acceder a muchas de las fuentes de los datos descargando mi reporte del doctorado, que recientemente escribí sobre la urgente necesidad de cooperación en cuanto a cambio climático, entre EE.UU. y China, a la luz de los últimos hallazgos científicos. Dicho documento fue publicado en el sitio web de Medioambiente Bolivia (www.medioambientebolivia.org), en julio de este año, en anticipación de los 100 días antes del Tratado de Copenhague.
A principios del 2005, yo fundé una organización de salud ambiental–Medioambiente Bolivia. Entre nuestro logros, hemos: 1) traído a Bolivia el documental de Al Gore, ganador del Premio Nobel “An Inconvenient Truth” (Una Verdad Incómoda) haciéndolo público a través de conferencias locales y nacionales, además de una serie de eventos y demostraciones; 2) co-dirigido la Campaña del Cambio Climático Global con la Liga De Defensa Del Medioambiente (LIDEMA) en 2006; 3) en 2008, se logro introducir cinco de nuestras seis propuestas ambientales en la nueva Constitución Política del Estado boliviana, entre las más relevantes puedo citar: el principio precautorio y la protección de futuras generaciones. En el transcurso del año pasado, Medioambiente Bolivia se ha focalizado especialmente en analizar la legislación y política del cambio climático, e impartir educación ambiental de lo mismo.
Ahora voy a dar lectura a mi ultimo trabajo, intitulado:
Medicina para la Emergencia del Cambio Climático: La Inmediata Necesidad de un Liderazgo y Abogacía Científica en Bolivia
Introducción
Ahora, hablo a ustedes, los protectores de las futuras generaciones, con tres objetivos en mente. Primero, quisiera llamarlos a la acción, como un grupo organizado de cientistas que sea capaz y responsable de ayudar a convertir este conocimiento científico en medicina política. Iré dando algunos ejemplos de los Estadas Unidos según su relevancia para la ciencia y la políticas bolivianas. Segundo, me gustaría compartir con ustedes algo de lo poco que sé sobre la política nacional e internacional de cambio climático que sostiene Bolivia. Finalmente, ofreceré recomendaciones tentativas para promover el diálogo entre los científicos y oficiales de gobierno, esto basado en mis experiencias en EE.UU. y en las políticas bolivianas de cambio climático en 2009.
Quisiera comenzar mencionando a Cochabamba, Bolivia. Estoy profundamente motivado a ayudar a mitigar el cambio climático en Cochabamba, a través de mis estudios de segundo doctorado y mi consiguiente trabajo, debido a que mis dos hijos, de 6 y 4 años, nacieron y están creciendo aquí. Ellos son cochabambinos y yo soy un “cochala” naturalizado. El futuro de mi familia será altamente determinado por el cambio climático en Bolivia y las políticas energéticas. La gran fortaleza de Cochabamba ha sido, tradicionalmente, nuestro clima, al cual estamos habituados. Afortunadamente para los cochabambinos, hemos vivido, hasta no hace poco, bajo cielos claros y temperaturas confortables.
Pero el clima está cambiando y nuestra salud y bienestar se están deteriorando tan rápidamente que es notorio para la mayoría de la gente. Más allá del incremento de las enfermedades físicas, sufrimos de lo que los psicólogos están llamando “trauma del cambio climático” y/o “negación del cambio climático”; estrés psicológico o negación de la realidad acarreada por una sensación abrumadora de que el más básico recurso público de nuestra existencia – el clima – está en peligro.[i]
Nuestras propias familias son la unidad más importante de análisis para comenzar a crear un plan de emergencia médico orientado a este reto holístico que estamos enfrentando. Necesitamos usar el cambio climático como una oportunidad de reevaluar qué deseamos para nuestras familias bajo tales circunstancias.
Las siguientes son algunas de dichas circunstancias:
Primero, las últimas proyecciones científicas revisadas nos dicen que los esfuerzos radicales de mitigación deben ser desarrollados entre este año y el siguiente con el fin de evitar un catastrófe en cambio climático cercano al año 2030; esto es menos de 21 años desde el presente.[ii] El gobierno británico efectuó un estudio sobre el incremento de emisiones de dioxido de carbono; el cual indica que posiblemente el planeta alcanzará un incremento de 4 grados centígrados sobre los niveles preindustriales en el año 2060; es decir menos del 51 años al presente. [iii] El Jefe Científico y ganador del Premio Nobel del Panel Intergubernamental del Cambio Climático de las Naciones Unidas (IPCC por sus siglas en inglés), Rajendra Pauchauri y el Programa de Medio Ambiente de las Naciones Unidas (UNEP por sus siglas en inglés) señalan que el Cuarto Reporte de Evaluacion del IPCC, elaborado en 2007, significativamente desestima el cambio climático.[iv]
Estas emisiones e impactos exceden los peores escenarios presentados en el IPCC, los cuales ya eran bastante catastróficos. (De hecho, leyendo la página 14 del Resumen de la edición de las políticas planteadas, es claro ver que todos los escenarios de mitigación en AR4 llevan a 2 grados centigrados de incremento en la temperatura para el año 2060). Más aún, aquí en Bolivia, el reporte del IPCC 2007 y otros antiguos datos científicos sobre impactos siguen siendo presentados como si fueran actuales. Además, la mitigación no es vista como una responsabilidad del país del Bolivia.[v]
En segundo lugar, no existen estudios científicos que muestren que la civilización, como la conocemos, será capaz de adaptarse a un incremento de 4 grados centigrados en la temperatura. Como ha planteado el Dr. Chris West, Director del Programa Británico sobre Impactos del Cambio Climático, la adaptación a 4 grados centigrados en la temperatura significaría “put your feet up and die” lo cual podriamos entender como (hagas lo que hagas igual vas a morir).[vi] Con un incremento de apenas 2 grados centigrados, tendriamos una gran posibilidad de un desenso en el sistema climatico mundial. [vii] Joseph Romm, como Secretario Asistente de Energía de la Administración del gobierno Estadounidense durante la presidencia de Bill Clinton, describe escenarios con “un extenso sistema de colapso económico” compuesto por extinciones masivas, medio billón de refugiados ambientales y “conflictos civiles alrededor del mundo”.[viii]
También es posible acceder al Museo de Ciencias británico mediante su mapa virtual interactivo y observar el posible incremento de 4 grados centigrados alrededor del mundo o escuchar al Jefe Científico del gobierno británico, Dr. John Beddington, refiriendo que, en sus días más calurosos la ciudad de Nueva York alcanzaría 50 grados centigrados.[ix] Si continuamos con los patrones de emisiones corrientes, según Beddington, una “tormenta perfecta” de caos económico y político (incluyendo la escasez de agua, comida y energía, así como las migraciones masivas) será el predecesor de un cambio climático catastrófico en la decada de los años 2020; esto es 11 a 20 años contando desde la actualidad.[x] Por ello, la comunidad mundial de naciones ha llegado a un conseno por un incremento máximo de 2º Centígrados o menos. Islas estado como las Maldivas y un grupo de aproximadamente 80 estados en vías de desarrollo están apelando por no sobrepasar un maximo de 1.5 grados en la temperatura y por retornar al limite de 350 partes por millón de las concentraciones de dióxido de carbono en la atmósfera.[xi]
Entonces, aquellas familias privilegiadas en Cochabamba que están habituadas al confort y al casi perfecto clima de la región, y muchos quienes son profesionales altamente capacitados, se deben preguntar no a qué universidad asistirán sus niños –aquí o en el extranjero– ; sino si estarán, siquiera, en la posibilidad de asistir a la universidad. “El Niño” fue culpado supuestamente por un descenso del 4% sobre el Producto Interno Bruto en Bolivia entre 2007 y 2008; tal fenómeno ahora pareciera ser una simple olita en la cima de la gigantesca ola de cambios climaticos, como esta reportada por la Agencia Oceánica y Atmosférica Estadounidense (NOAA por sus siglas en inglés).[xii]
Pronto descubrirán, si no lo han hecho ya, que el cambio climático en Cochabamba y en muchas ciudades latinoamericanas provocará que el preexistente fenómeno climático de “El Niño” sea algo insignificante comparando con los futuros cambios climaticos que estan por venir.
El liderazgo de los científicos de Interciencia y ABAC debería orientarse hacia la mitigación y no solamente a la adaptación al cambio climático o exclusivamente culpar a los paises desarrollados. Cuando yo estaba de investigador de visita en la Facultad de Derecho de Georgetown en Washington este anio, un asesor principal del presidente Obama en el campo de la energía y clima me dijo: “yo ni siquiera ya presto atención a la ciencia” debido según él a que las políticas de cambio climático (en particular del Congreso) “ estaban tan atrazadas en el entendimiento de la ciencia que no era util hablar del tema” y eso era “deprimente”. [xiii] La administracion de Bush censuro la ciencia de cambios climaticos e ignoro las advertencias y recomendaciones sobre cambios climaticos de los aliados.[xiv] Hizo al pueblo dudar de la credibilidad de los cientificos mas destacados del mundo. [xv]
De acuerdo con la Institución Brookings, la publicación científica y la diseminación ha desempeñado un rol crucial en los avances dentro la política del cambio climático. Recientemente, en este país, la comunidad de científicos se ha unido, rompiendo sus cadenas, y ha comenzado a ser más explícita a cerca de cambios climaticos a pesar de los riesgos potenciales que esto supone para su credibilidad y carreras.
Increíblemente, en junio de 2009, tres meses de haberme hablado mal de la politica de ciencia en los EEUU, el asesor de cambios climaticos y energia del Presidente Obama quien yo mencione focalizó sus esfuerzos en producir consenso en las políticas de cambio climático de EE.UU. sobre la base de reportes científicos que van más allá de la determinación del Cuarto Reporte de Evaluacion del IPCC’s en 2007.
La razón de dicho cambio de postura de este asesor, yo creo, fue que la ciencia sobre cambios climaticos en estos ultimos meses se ha hecho tan fuerte que ahora es muy dificil negar su validez. Afortunadamente, también, en la era del actual Presidente Obama, los riesgos de la creación de políticas, basada en argumentos científicos, han disminuido enormemente.
El 23 de marzo de 2009, algunos de los científicos que lideraron el IPCC escribieron a los líderes del Congreso americano explicando lo siguiente: 1) el rol inequívoco de los seres humanos en el cambio climático, así como los requerimientos para no sobrepasar el limite del incremento de 2 grados centigrados en la temperatura global, con respecto a los límites preindustriales; y 2) el rol de los cientificos de ayudar al Congreso a entender la magnitud de los riesgos que encaramos.”. Del mismo modo, enfatizaron que “la legislacion casi siempre requiere juicios [cientificos] frente a la incertidumbre de los impactos de cambios climaticos y los costos y beneficios de mitigacion y adaptación. La ciencia de cambios climaticos no es una excepcion, no tomar accion con el pretexto de no contar con informacion perfecta, es una decision propia…ya ha pasado la hora de actuar decisivamente” [xvi]
El 9 de marzo de 2009, el Presidente Obama remitió un Memorándum Presidencial a la Sede del Departamento Ejecutivo y de Agencias afirmando que el compromiso de su administración se dirigiría, a las medidas a favor de la integración de la ciencia dentro del proceso gubernamental. “El publico debe ser capaz de confiar en la ciencia y en el proceso cientifico informando acerca de las politicas publicas ” [xvii] El 21 de octubre de este año, 18 de las principales organizaciones científicas, incluyendo La Asociación Americana para el Avance de la Ciencia (AAAS por sus siglas en inglés) y La Sociedad Americana de Meteorología, entre otras, escribieron una carta a los Senadores Estadounidenses para reafirmar las acertadas conclusiones de la ciencia sobre el cambio climático y sus impactos severos. [xviii]
Aplaudo los esfuerzos de la AAAS y creo que los científicos de Norte y Latino América precisan jugar roles primarios y de continuo crecimiento como portadores de información, logrando clarificar los casos tanto para las élites como para el común de la gente. La decisión de los cientificos de actuar o no seria grandemente magnificada en los siguientes meses, a medida que entramos en la última mejor oportunidad de “salvar el planeta”, como bien puntualizó el Presidente Obama este anio.[xix]
En Bolivia, como sucedió en EE.UU. durante la administración del Presidente George Bush hijo, no es la ciencia sino la ideología la que domina las políticas del cambio climático. Y Bolivia, con su valiosa herencia indígena y un Presidente quien ha sido comparado con Nelson Mandela por el Presidente brasilero Lula da Silva, posee una enorme autoridad moral para detener los cambios climaticos.[xx] Por cierto, es importante notar que a pesar que Bolivia genera menos emisiones de dioxido de carbono de la mayoria de los países del mundo, los bolivianos son, supuestamente, los mayores contaminadores de carbón, per cápita, en Latinoamérica.[xxi]
Refiriéndonos a la política internacional sobre el cambio climático que maneja Bolivia, déjenme traer a la memoria noviembre de 2008 para hacer alusión a la carta dirigida a La Conferencia de Partidos de las Naciones Unidas (COP por sus siglas en inglés) llevada a cabo en Poznan, Polonia, escrita por el Presidente Evo Morales quien propuso una revolucionaria “medicina” boliviana al cambio climático: “Salvemos al Planeta del Capitalismo”. El Presidente Morales sostuvo que nuestra Madre Tierra está enferma gracias al capitalismo, el cual nos reduce a un estatus de meros consumidores. Esta es la causa de la diagnosis y los países desarrollados deberían pagar el precio por su responsabilidad histórica.
Según el Presidente Morales, el mercado es incapaz de sanar a la Tierra ya que sólo crea ganancias para sus agentes financieros y sus grandes corporaciones. La medicina para el cambio climático que ha sido propuesta por la administración del Presidente Morales se basa en la premisa “Vivir Bien” – en armonía con los otros seres humanos y la Madre Tierra. Dicha propuesta se introdujo como un tema central en el Plan Nacional de Desarrollo para 2006 – 2011.[xxii] En su carta dirigida al foro de Poznan, el Presidente de Bolivia propuso lo siguiente: 1) el planeta es mucho más importante que los bolsillos de los corredores de Wall Street, los recursos para el mundo y el cambio climático necesitan ser redistribuidos adecuadamente a nivel global; 2) las causas estructurales del cambio climático deberían ser atacadas, incluyendo el uso excesivo de los combustibles fósiles. Fuentes de energías alternativas deberían ser desarrolladas. Los combustibles de biomasa no deben ser incluidos en este grupo; 3) compromisos sustanciales para reducir las emisiones de gas invernadero deberían llevarse a cabo. Para el año 2012, las emisiones deberían ser reducidas en los países desarrollados en un 5% menos que los niveles de 1990, de acuerdo con el Protocolo de Kyoto. Para el 2020, las mismas deberían reducirse en un 40% en los países en desarrollo, los cuales no son responsables por las emisiones históricas. No se deberían repetir los errores de la salvaje industrialización y, al contrario, encontrar un camino sustentable; 4) para cumplir tales metas, los países industrializados necesitarán asistir financieramente al 1% anual del Producto Interno Bruto y transferir tecnología libremente; 5) la mitigación y la adaptación deberían focalizarse en la participación de la gente en lugar de los mercados; 6) REDD ((Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation – Programa de Reducción de Emisiones de Deforestación y Degradación de Bosques) debería operar mediante un financiamiento directo en lugar de a través de los mercados; y finalmente 7) Las Naciones Unidas deberían establecer una nueva organización medioambiental y transformar sus instituciones financieras para que puedan servir la justicia.
La humanidad, de acuerdo a la Administración del Presidente Morales, es capaz de salvar el planeta si recupera los principios de solidaridad, complementariedad y armonía con la naturaleza; en oposición al imperio de la competencia, la productividad y el consumismo en desmedro de los recursos naturales. En resumen, este programa para el cambio climático será, si resulta, el fin del capitalismo como lo conocemos. Bolivia está colocada frente a una ola de socialismo, visible en su diplomacia opuesta a los mecanismos basados en el mercado. Es una de las dos naciones, incluyendo Venezuela, opuesta a los mecanismos basados en el mercado dentro del tratado de Copenague.
Al contrario de la administración Bush, por un lado, felicito sinceramente a la Administración Morales por aceptar la ciencia basica del cambio climático y correctamente buscar justicia por el daño causado del modelo economico anti-ecologico, neo-liberal. Sin embargo, por otro lado al igual que la Administración Bush, la Administración Morales parece haber adoptado una mentalidad simplista y autoritaria – ‘o ustedes están con nosotros o en contra. Tal actitud podría facilitar facilmente la ruina de Bolivia. Contando con sólo algunos años para mitigar el cambio climático y establecer una transición de una economía antes y siempre basada en los combustibles fósiles hacia una basada en energía limpia. La nación simplemente no tiene suficiente tiempo ni dinero para seguir adoptando tan rígida e ineficiente postura.
En lo que se refiere a mitigación y adaptación al cambio climático, es esencial focalizarse en las Mejores Alternativas a los Acuerdos de Negocios (BATNAs), es decir, la más básica lección en teoría de negociación. Unas reglas del mercado de carbón debe ser construida en base a una negociación estratégica y cualquier influencia que Bolivia pueda ejercer. Bastantes años atrás, tuve la oportunidad de escribir un documento para la Agencia Estadounidense de Protección Ambiental (EPA) Oficina de Justicia Ambiental, referido a la interrogante sobre si las más pobres comunidades deberían negociar con grandes corporaciones o si pudiesen tener mejores resultados a través de la litigación (juicios). La respuesta fue que eso depende de cada caso en particular y de un análisis de poder sofisticada.. Bolivia no tiene opción más que negociar con conocimiento de causa, lo cual es necesario para participar en los mercados del cambio climático en una forma u otra. La actual política boliviana de cambio climático parece negar el análisis de caso por caso según la proyección del cambio climático. China y Cuba, a pesar de su filosofía parecida a la de Bolivia en muchos sentidos y amistad con Bolivia, no comparten su estrategia política. El gobierno tiene un enorme responsabilidad y oportunidad para negociar por la más justa y progresiva economía basada en energía limpia, reemplazando el mercado de los combustibles fósiles, del cual deriva mucho de su poder, por fuentes de energia más acordes a la cosmovisión indígena sobre la Madre Tierra.
La Administración Morales debe mirar hacia adelante, no hacia atrás; conduciendo a Bolivia hacia la nueva economía global a través del soporte a sus principales productos de mercado en el siglo 21 –por ejemplo la proteccion de los bosques bolivianos (que tienen el potencial de reemplazar con bonos de carbon los combustibles fósiles liderando la exportación) y los elementos que produzcan energía limpia que cuenten con un lugar en el mercado global como es el caso del litio.
Propongo que Interciencia y ABAC deben empezar su labor enviando una carta abierta al Presidente Evo Morales, sus Ministros, Embajadores (más importante, su Embajador en las Naciones Unidas, Pablo Solón, quien conduce mas que nadie en el pais la política de cambios climaticos) y al Congreso Boliviano, con la finalidad de enfocarse en la mitigacion tanto como en la adaptación al cambio climático, según las recomendaciones de la ciencia actual. El Presidente Morales y sus más cercanos concejeros tienen la obligación moral (la cual coincide con el conocimiento y la ética indígena ancestral) de tomar en cuenta las advertencias y peligros globales mientras luchan contra el capitalismo y se adaptan al cambio climático.
Subrayo que el más reciente consenso científico ha indicado que Bolivia no puede permitir que la ideología interfiera en la cooperación para la mitigación del cambio climático. La misiva dirigida al Presidente Morales debería clamar por una voz institucional para la ciencia que está al tanto de los retos del cambio climático.
La ciencia dentro del gobierno boliviano debería ser valorada institucionalmente para que existan cientificos gubernamentales capaces de facilitar el sustancial apoyo a los procedimientos de mitigación, adaptación y planificación, así como un Plan Nacional de Desarrollo que se centre en el cambio climático. Las oportunidades de mitigación podrían así ser incrementadas y los costos de adaptación bajarían en concordancia con la nueva Constitución Política del Estado, la cual enmarca el principio precautorio y la responsabilidad frente a las futuras generaciones.
La ciencia es el gran objetivo mediador. La mejor medicina es la necesaria para curar el calentamiento global. La “medicina” socialista indígena, de la cual el Presidente Morales dice extractar su política de cambio climático, apoya al conocimiento científico occidental y viceversa.[xxiii] La ciencia y el saber indígena han concluido que estamos al borde de una insostenible forma de vida.
Científicos como aquellos de Interciencia y ABAC deben asumir roles de liderazgo en un escenario de emergencia médica. Nuestra más noble propuesta es de sobrevivencia y no existen mejores alternativas que apropiarse del conocimiento científico, con toda su rapidez, y por todos los medios morales y legales necesarios.
Muchas gracias.
[NOTE: This citation formating is in error for technical reasons. For better citation numbering go to environmentbolivia.org/blog in PDF as of Nov 22 09].
[1] See Joseph Romm, “Dealing With Climate Change Trauma and Global Warming Burnout,” Climateprogress.org, May 11, 2009. Available at: http://climateprogress.org/2009/05/11/dealing-with-climate-trauma-global-warming-burnout-psychology/ (accessed July 6, 2009).
[1] See video interview of UK Chief Scientific Advisor, John Beddington. Christine McGourty “Global Crisis ‘To Strike by 2030,” BBC News. March 19, 2009. Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7951838.stm (accessed July 6, 2009). Under its A1 scenario (very rapid economic growth) even the 4th Annual Assessment IPCC, 2007 models a 2 degree celsius rise by approximately 2040. However, emissions levels are surpassing IPCC 2007 worst case scenarios. IPCC 2007: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning,Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Available at: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf. (accessed July 6, 2009); See Todd Stern, U.S. Special Envoy On Climate Change, “Todd Stern Remarks as Prepared 6/30/09 at Center for American Progress,” Washington, DC. Available at: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/06/stern_event.html (accessed on June 8, 2009).
As underlined by U.S. Special Envoy, Todd Stern, by 2030, on current emissions trajectories, China’s greenhouse gas emissions will reach 12 gigatons. By 2050, even with an 80% reduction in emissions by every other country in the world, under business-as-usual, China alone would force global carbon dioxide concentrations of 540 ppm and a 2.7 degree Celsius temperature increase, “far above what scientists consider safe.”[1] This is not only due to population growth. China emits “about 4 times as much the U.S. and about 6 times as much as Japan or the EU for every unit of GDP.” [1] Reasons for this include inefficiency, an economy heavily invested in energy intensive manufacturing rather than services and over-dependence on coal (for 70% of energy needs);
See also Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change, Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change, 14. Available at: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html (accessed July 6, 2009) ; See The 2 Degree Celsius Target. An Information Reference Document. Background On Impacts, Emission Pathways, Mitigation Options and Costs. St. James’s Palace Memorandum. EU Climate Change Expert Group. ‘EG Science, ” July 2008. Nobel Laureate Sympossium. University of Cambridge, Programme For Sustainability Leadership. Potsdam Institute For Climate Impact Research. May 28, 2009. Available at: http://extras.timesonline.co.uk/pdfs/sjp_memorandum_290509.pdf (accessed July 6, 2009); See also “20 Nobel Laurates Implore Leaders To Act To Prevent Temperatures From Rising More Than 2C by 2050,” Climate Change Law Practice Group Blog. June 4, 2009. Available at: http://www.davis.ca/en/blog/Climate-Change-Law-Practice-Group/2009/06/04/-Nobel-laureates-implore-leaders-to-act-to-prevent-temperatures-from-rising-more-than-C-by-(accessed July 6, 2009);
[1] “Four Degrees and Beyond.” British MET. September 28, 2009. Available at http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/news/latest/four-degrees.html (accessed November 1, 2009). Four degrees and beyond. International Climate Conference. 28-30 September 2009, Oxford, UK (implications of a global climate change of 4+ degrees for people, ecosytems and the earth-system). Avaialbe at http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/4degrees/ (accessed November 1, 2009). For some interpretations of leading scientists of what a 4 degree rise means, see also Stephen Leahy, “Four Degrees Of Devastation,” IPS. Sunday, October 9, 2009. Available at http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=48791 (accessed November 1, 2009): “In a four-degree warmer world, adaptation means ‘put your feet up and die’ for many people in the world, Oxford’s Chris West [Director, Climate Change Impacts Programme] said bluntly. ‘In accepting the many alarming impacts, we see that it (a four-degree C increase) is not acceptable.’”
[1] Recently, U.S. Special Climate Envoy Stern stated that trajectories are plainly “rising substantial faster than even the worst case scenarios” of the IPCC 2007 report. Todd Stern, U.S. Special Envoy On Climate Change, “Todd Stern Remarks as Prepared 6/30/09 at Center for American Progress,” Washington, DC. Available at: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/06/stern_event.html (accessed on June 8, 2009); See also Joseph Romm (citing Rajendra Pachuari), Climate Progress.org. November 11, 2007. Available at http://climateprogress.org/2007/11/17/must-read-ipcc-synthesis-report-debate-over-delay-fatal-action-not-costly/ (accessed July 6, 2009). Romm’s citation does not state where or when IPCC Chief Pachuari made this statement; See also Jennifer Rankin, “Stern Calls For Tougher Emissions Targets,” EuropeanVoice.com, May 13, 2009. Available at: http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/2009/05/stern-calls-for-tougher-emissions-targets/64854.aspx (accessed July 6, 2009). Rankin apparently quoted IPCC Chief Pachuari after his meeting with European Commission President, Jóse Manuel Barroso on May 13, 2009.
For an analysis regarding problems inherent in the IPCC process, see also Joseph Romm, Climate Progress.org. Has the IPCC Rendered Itself Irrelevant? Available at http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/15/ipcc-2014-fifth-assessment-irrelevant/ (accessed November 1, 2009).
[1] Two high-level Bolivian climate change talks in the last 3 months that I have attended in La Paz and Cochabamba only presented 2007 IPCC AR4, and I have not heard one Bolivian speaker talk about national mitigation efforts other than to dismiss them.
[1] Dr. Chris West as quoted by Stephen Leahy, “Four Degrees Of Devastation,” IPS. Sunday, October 9, 2009. Available at http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=48791 (accessed November 1, 2009): “ In a four-degree warmer world, adaptation means ‘put your feet up and die’ for many people in the world, Oxford’s Chris West [Director, Climate Change Impacts Programme] said bluntly. ‘In accepting the many alarming impacts, we see that it (a four-degree C increase) is not acceptable.’”
[1] Author’s estimate based on reading of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s “Greenhouse Gamble” graph and analysis. See Massachusetts Institute of Technology: The MIT Joint Program On Science and Policy Of Global Change. Available at: http://globalchange.mit.edu/resources/gamble; For the policy limits scenario, see, “Emissions Limits in The “Policy Scenario.” Avaiable at: http://globalchange.mit.edu/resources/gamble/scenario.html. Note that MIT’s emissions “with policy” reference is to stabilize CO2 at 550 parts per million (675 C02 equivilent including other GHG emissions) a total for the century of 4.2 trillion tons. Author’s note: this appeared to be a 50 percent reduction from “no policy” through examination of the references below; See also “Scenarios of Greenhouse gas Emissions and Atmospheric Concentrations”by U.S. Climate Change Science Program, contributing authors: L. Clarke, J. Edmonds, H. Jacoby, H. Pitcher, J. Reilly, R. Richels, “Sub-Report 2.1a of Synthesis and Assessment Product 2.1 by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research,” Department of Energy, Office of Biological & Environmental Research, Washington DC, 2007. Available at Available at http://globalchange.mit.edu/pubs/abstract.php?publication_id=513 See also Riley, J., M. Babiker, M. Webster, J. and M. Sarofim, Technical Note 2, July 2001.. http://globalchange.mit.edu/files/document/MITJPSPGC_TechNote2.pdf. For a good analysis of the MIT datas see Joseph Romm, “M.I.T. joins climate realists, doubles its projection of global warming by 2100 to 5.1°” Climate Progress. Available at http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/23/mit-doubles-global-warming-projections; See also David Chandler, “Climate Odds Much Worse Than Thought,” MIT News. May 19, 2009. Avaiilable at http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/roulette-0519.html (accessed July 7, 2009).
[1] Joseph Romm, Hell and High Water (New York: Harper Perennial 2007), see, for example of a 10 Farenheit scenario, page 236. Although this temperature is slightly higher than a 4 centigrade rise, such temperatures will be reached over land in many places under a 4 degree centigrade rise scenario.
[1] “Climate Map Shows World After 4C Rise,” [Access to Video with Government Chief Scientific Advisor, John Beddington and the British Foreign Secretary, David Miliband and Energy and Climate Change Secretary, Ed Miliband, describing 4C Climate Change Impacts. The Guardian. October 22, 2009. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/interactive/2009/oct/22/climate-change-carbon-emissions.
[1] See video interview of UK Chief Scientific Advisor, John Beddington, see Christine McGourty “Global Crisis ‘To Strike by 2030,” BBC News. March 19, 2009. Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7951838.stm (accessed July 6, 2009).
[1] Joshua Wiese, “Small Island States Call [AOSIS] For A Limit At 1.5C Warming To Ensure People’s Survival.” Adopt A Negotiator. [This site includes a video of Maldives’ President, Mohammad Nasheed speaking in New York. Today’s ‘AOSIS Declaration on Climate Change’ calls on the international community to ensure that the Copenhagen climate agreement peak global emissions by 2015, with a subsequent fall to 85% below 1990 levels by 2050.”] . http://adoptanegotiator.org/2009/09/22/small-island-states-call-for-limit-at-1-5%C2%B0c-warming-to-ensure-peoples-survival/ (accessed November 2, 2009).
[1] For Bolivian GNP decline, see Cambio Climatico—Centro Interdisciplario, Construyendo Consensos, Observancia. Available in hard copy from Observancia (www.observancia.org). 2009 (citing CEPAL 2007). See Joseph Romm, internatinonally award-winning climateprogress.org blog, which include a series of reports on El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO),. Therein, for example, see “El Niño-driven sea surface temperatures are soaring. Forecast: hot and then even hotter. November 3, 2009. Available at http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/03/el-nino-enso-sea-surface-temperatures/ (accessed November 3, 2009). For more in-depth information on El Niño, see also “State of the Climate, El Niño/Southern Oscillation Analysis June 2009. Available at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=enso&year=2009&month=6 (accessed November 3, 2009).
[1] Anonymous national leadership level climate change policy interview, Washington, D.C., March 18, 2009.
[1] Joseph Romm, Hell and High Water, op cit, FN 9.
[1] Ibid, 116.
[1] March 23, 2009 letter to Congressional leaders from leading authors of IPCC. USCAN Climate Action Network Materials. Distributed April 29, 2009, US–China Cooperation US Senate, Dirksen Building, Washington, DC.
[1] “Memorandum For The Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies. Subject: Integrity of Science.” White House Press Office. March 9, 2009. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Memorandum-for-the-Heads-of-Executive-Departments-and-Agencies-3-9-09/ (accessed November 2, 2009).
[1] “AAAS Joins Leading Scientific Organizations In Letter To Senators Reaffirming Scientific Consensus On Climate Change.” October 21, 2009. Available at http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2009/1021climate_letter.shtml (accessed November 2, 2009).
[1] Darren Samuelsohn, “Climate Bill Needed To ‘Save Our Planet’ says Obama” New York Times, February 25, 2009, Climatewire. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/02/25/25climatewire-emissions-bill-needed-to-save-our-planet–oba-9849.html. Retreived on July 6, 2009. See also, “The President’s full address,” The Whitehouse.gov. Feburary 24, 2009 at 7pm. Available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/02/24/The-Presidents-address-Excerpt/ (accessed July 6, 2009); David Chandler, “President Obama Lights Up MIT. Calls For America To Lead The World In Clean Energy,” October 23, 2009. Available at http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/obama-visit.html (accessed November 2, 2009); See also “Remarks By The President Challenging Americans To Lead The Global Economy In Clean Energy,” Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston, Massachusetts. October 23, 2009. Available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-challenging-americans-lead-global-economy-clean-energy (accessed November 2, 2009).
[1] “Lula: ‘Cuando veo a Evo me parece que veo a Nelson Mandela,” Agensur.info.Agencia de Noticias Del MERCOSUR. 23 de Agosto 2009. Available at http://www.agensur.info/redac5/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2824:lula-qcuando-veo-a-evo-me-parece-que-veo-a-nelson-mandelaq&catid=37:bolivia&Itemid=129 (accessed November 2, 209).
[1] Augusto De La Torre, Pablo Fajnzlyber, John Nash, Desarrollo Con Menos Carbono. Respuestas Latinoamericanas Al Desafio Del Cambio Climatico. Banco Internacional de Reconstrucción y Fomento. Washington, DC. 2009
[1] Ibid, 8. For a short additional but partial explanation of “Vivir Bien” from the point of view of someone in favor of the Morales Administration politics, see also Ernesto Wong Maestre, “Politica social revolucionaria del gobierno de Evo Morales: un balance positivo,” Agencia Bolivariana de Noticias,” Opinión. 2 de Noviembre 2009. http://www.abn.info.ve/go_news5.php?articulo=205406&lee=15 (accessed November 2, 2009).
[1] See, for example, International Indigenous Peoples Forum on Climate Change/ Foro Internacional de los Pueblos Indígenas sobre Cambio Climático. SUBMISSION TO Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advine forParties (SBSTA) ON ITEM 11 OF FCCC/SBSTA/2008/L.23, DRAFT CONCLUSIONS PROPOSED BY
CHAIR. [United Nations Framework Convention On Climate Change]. February 2009. Avaiable at: http://cwis.org/fwdp/GMOnline/pdf/292dp00002.pdf (accessed November 3, 2009). In regard to the climate solutions, one might see “indigenous” climate change positions differently, as more in line with Herman Daly and Joshua Farley’s ecological economics analysis. See Herman Daly and Joshua Farley. Ecological Economics (Island Press, Washington, DC, 2004). As Herman Daly would likely point out, the mainstream Western climate change policy debate does not consider the basic challenge of climate change: finite resources juxtaposed to the theory that infinite quantitative economic growth is necessary. The dominant world view continues to be one in which growth is necessary and technology will solve problems. Indigenous peoples, like President Evo Morales of Bolivia, are likely stuck between these mainstream and ecological economic perspectives, because ecological economics analysis does not include a pragmatic political plan for climate change mitigation or quantitative growth containment (Daly 2004 at least does not).
8) CHECK-OFF LIST OF SOURCES UTILIZED (Included in the email version. Can be requested via email).
——————————————————————————–
[i] See Joseph Romm, “Dealing With Climate Change Trauma and Global Warming Burnout,” Climateprogress.org, May 11, 2009. Available at: http://climateprogress.org/2009/05/11/dealing-with-climate-trauma-global-warming-burnout-psychology/ (accessed July 6, 2009).
[ii] See video interview of UK Chief Scientific Advisor, John Beddington. Christine McGourty “Global Crisis ‘To Strike by 2030,” BBC News. March 19, 2009. Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7951838.stm (accessed July 6, 2009). Under its A1 scenario (very rapid economic growth) even the 4th Annual Assessment IPCC, 2007 models a 2 degree celsius rise by approximately 2040. However, emissions levels are surpassing IPCC 2007 worst case scenarios. IPCC 2007: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning,Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Available at: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf. (accessed July 6, 2009); See Todd Stern, U.S. Special Envoy On Climate Change, “Todd Stern Remarks as Prepared 6/30/09 at Center for American Progress,” Washington, DC. Available at: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/06/stern_event.html (accessed on June 8, 2009).
As underlined by U.S. Special Envoy, Todd Stern, by 2030, on current emissions trajectories, China’s greenhouse gas emissions will reach 12 gigatons. By 2050, even with an 80% reduction in emissions by every other country in the world, under business-as-usual, China alone would force global carbon dioxide concentrations of 540 ppm and a 2.7 degree Celsius temperature increase, “far above what scientists consider safe.”[ii] This is not only due to population growth. China emits “about 4 times as much the U.S. and about 6 times as much as Japan or the EU for every unit of GDP.” [ii] Reasons for this include inefficiency, an economy heavily invested in energy intensive manufacturing rather than services and over-dependence on coal (for 70% of energy needs);
See also Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change, Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change, 14. Available at: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html (accessed July 6, 2009) ; See The 2 Degree Celsius Target. An Information Reference Document. Background On Impacts, Emission Pathways, Mitigation Options and Costs. St. James’s Palace Memorandum. EU Climate Change Expert Group. ‘EG Science, ” July 2008. Nobel Laureate Sympossium. University of Cambridge, Programme For Sustainability Leadership. Potsdam Institute For Climate Impact Research. May 28, 2009. Available at: http://extras.timesonline.co.uk/pdfs/sjp_memorandum_290509.pdf (accessed July 6, 2009); See also “20 Nobel Laurates Implore Leaders To Act To Prevent Temperatures From Rising More Than 2C by 2050,” Climate Change Law Practice Group Blog. June 4, 2009. Available at: http://www.davis.ca/en/blog/Climate-Change-Law-Practice-Group/2009/06/04/-Nobel-laureates-implore-leaders-to-act-to-prevent-temperatures-from-rising-more-than-C-by-(accessed July 6, 2009);
[iii] “Four Degrees and Beyond.” British MET. September 28, 2009. Available at http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/news/latest/four-degrees.html (accessed November 1, 2009). Four degrees and beyond. International Climate Conference. 28-30 September 2009, Oxford, UK (implications of a global climate change of 4+ degrees for people, ecosytems and the earth-system). Avaialbe at http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/4degrees/ (accessed November 1, 2009). For some interpretations of leading scientists of what a 4 degree rise means, see also Stephen Leahy, “Four Degrees Of Devastation,” IPS. Sunday, October 9, 2009. Available at http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=48791 (accessed November 1, 2009): “In a four-degree warmer world, adaptation means ‘put your feet up and die’ for many people in the world, Oxford’s Chris West [Director, Climate Change Impacts Programme] said bluntly. ‘In accepting the many alarming impacts, we see that it (a four-degree C increase) is not acceptable.’”
[iv] Recently, U.S. Special Climate Envoy Stern stated that trajectories are plainly “rising substantial faster than even the worst case scenarios” of the IPCC 2007 report. Todd Stern, U.S. Special Envoy On Climate Change, “Todd Stern Remarks as Prepared 6/30/09 at Center for American Progress,” Washington, DC. Available at: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/06/stern_event.html (accessed on June 8, 2009); See also Joseph Romm (citing Rajendra Pachuari), Climate Progress.org. November 11, 2007. Available at http://climateprogress.org/2007/11/17/must-read-ipcc-synthesis-report-debate-over-delay-fatal-action-not-costly/ (accessed July 6, 2009). Romm’s citation does not state where or when IPCC Chief Pachuari made this statement; See also Jennifer Rankin, “Stern Calls For Tougher Emissions Targets,” EuropeanVoice.com, May 13, 2009. Available at: http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/2009/05/stern-calls-for-tougher-emissions-targets/64854.aspx (accessed July 6, 2009). Rankin apparently quoted IPCC Chief Pachuari after his meeting with European Commission President, Jóse Manuel Barroso on May 13, 2009.
For an analysis regarding problems inherent in the IPCC process, see also Joseph Romm, Climate Progress.org. Has the IPCC Rendered Itself Irrelevant? Available at http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/15/ipcc-2014-fifth-assessment-irrelevant/ (accessed November 1, 2009).
[v] Two high-level Bolivian climate change talks in the last 3 months that I have attended in La Paz and Cochabamba only presented 2007 IPCC AR4, and I have not heard one Bolivian speaker talk about national mitigation efforts other than to dismiss them.
[vi] Dr. Chris West as quoted by Stephen Leahy, “Four Degrees Of Devastation,” IPS. Sunday, October 9, 2009. Available at http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=48791 (accessed November 1, 2009): “ In a four-degree warmer world, adaptation means ‘put your feet up and die’ for many people in the world, Oxford’s Chris West [Director, Climate Change Impacts Programme] said bluntly. ‘In accepting the many alarming impacts, we see that it (a four-degree C increase) is not acceptable.’”
[vii] Author’s estimate based on reading of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s “Greenhouse Gamble” graph and analysis. See Massachusetts Institute of Technology: The MIT Joint Program On Science and Policy Of Global Change. Available at: http://globalchange.mit.edu/resources/gamble; For the policy limits scenario, see, “Emissions Limits in The “Policy Scenario.” Avaiable at: http://globalchange.mit.edu/resources/gamble/scenario.html. Note that MIT’s emissions “with policy” reference is to stabilize CO2 at 550 parts per million (675 C02 equivilent including other GHG emissions) a total for the century of 4.2 trillion tons. Author’s note: this appeared to be a 50 percent reduction from “no policy” through examination of the references below; See also “Scenarios of Greenhouse gas Emissions and Atmospheric Concentrations”by U.S. Climate Change Science Program, contributing authors: L. Clarke, J. Edmonds, H. Jacoby, H. Pitcher, J. Reilly, R. Richels, “Sub-Report 2.1a of Synthesis and Assessment Product 2.1 by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research,” Department of Energy, Office of Biological & Environmental Research, Washington DC, 2007. Available at Available at http://globalchange.mit.edu/pubs/abstract.php?publication_id=513 See also Riley, J., M. Babiker, M. Webster, J. and M. Sarofim, Technical Note 2, July 2001.. http://globalchange.mit.edu/files/document/MITJPSPGC_TechNote2.pdf. For a good analysis of the MIT datas see Joseph Romm, “M.I.T. joins climate realists, doubles its projection of global warming by 2100 to 5.1°” Climate Progress. Available at http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/23/mit-doubles-global-warming-projections; See also David Chandler, “Climate Odds Much Worse Than Thought,” MIT News. May 19, 2009. Avaiilable at http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/roulette-0519.html (accessed July 7, 2009).
[viii] Joseph Romm, Hell and High Water (New York: Harper Perennial 2007), see, for example of a 10 Farenheit scenario, page 236. Although this temperature is slightly higher than a 4 centigrade rise, such temperatures will be reached over land in many places under a 4 degree centigrade rise scenario.
[ix] “Climate Map Shows World After 4C Rise,” [Access to Video with Government Chief Scientific Advisor, John Beddington and the British Foreign Secretary, David Miliband and Energy and Climate Change Secretary, Ed Miliband, describing 4C Climate Change Impacts. The Guardian. October 22, 2009. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/interactive/2009/oct/22/climate-change-carbon-emissions.
[x] See video interview of UK Chief Scientific Advisor, John Beddington, see Christine McGourty “Global Crisis ‘To Strike by 2030,” BBC News. March 19, 2009. Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7951838.stm (accessed July 6, 2009).
[xi] Joshua Wiese, “Small Island States Call [AOSIS] For A Limit At 1.5C Warming To Ensure People’s Survival.” Adopt A Negotiator. [This site includes a video of Maldives’ President, Mohammad Nasheed speaking in New York. Today’s ‘AOSIS Declaration on Climate Change’ calls on the international community to ensure that the Copenhagen climate agreement peak global emissions by 2015, with a subsequent fall to 85% below 1990 levels by 2050.”] . http://adoptanegotiator.org/2009/09/22/small-island-states-call-for-limit-at-1-5%C2%B0c-warming-to-ensure-peoples-survival/ (accessed November 2, 2009).
[xii] For Bolivian GNP decline, see Cambio Climatico—Centro Interdisciplario, Construyendo Consensos, Observancia. Available in hard copy from Observancia (www.observancia.org). 2009 (citing CEPAL 2007). See Joseph Romm, internatinonally award-winning climateprogress.org blog, which include a series of reports on El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO),. Therein, for example, see “El Niño-driven sea surface temperatures are soaring. Forecast: hot and then even hotter. November 3, 2009. Available at http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/03/el-nino-enso-sea-surface-temperatures/ (accessed November 3, 2009). For more in-depth information on El Niño, see also “State of the Climate, El Niño/Southern Oscillation Analysis June 2009. Available at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=enso&year=2009&month=6 (accessed November 3, 2009).
[xiii] Anonymous national leadership level climate change policy interview, Washington, D.C., March 18, 2009.
[xiv] Joseph Romm, Hell and High Water, op cit, FN 9.
[xv] Ibid, 116.
[xvi] March 23, 2009 letter to Congressional leaders from leading authors of IPCC. USCAN Climate Action Network Materials. Distributed April 29, 2009, US–China Cooperation US Senate, Dirksen Building, Washington, DC.
[xvii] “Memorandum For The Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies. Subject: Integrity of Science.” White House Press Office. March 9, 2009. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Memorandum-for-the-Heads-of-Executive-Departments-and-Agencies-3-9-09/ (accessed November 2, 2009).
[xviii] “AAAS Joins Leading Scientific Organizations In Letter To Senators Reaffirming Scientific Consensus On Climate Change.” October 21, 2009. Available at http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2009/1021climate_letter.shtml (accessed November 2, 2009).
[xix] Darren Samuelsohn, “Climate Bill Needed To ‘Save Our Planet’ says Obama” New York Times, February 25, 2009, Climatewire. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/02/25/25climatewire-emissions-bill-needed-to-save-our-planet–oba-9849.html. Retreived on July 6, 2009. See also, “The President’s full address,” The Whitehouse.gov. Feburary 24, 2009 at 7pm. Available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/02/24/The-Presidents-address-Excerpt/ (accessed July 6, 2009); David Chandler, “President Obama Lights Up MIT. Calls For America To Lead The World In Clean Energy,” October 23, 2009. Available at http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/obama-visit.html (accessed November 2, 2009); See also “Remarks By The President Challenging Americans To Lead The Global Economy In Clean Energy,” Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston, Massachusetts. October 23, 2009. Available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-challenging-americans-lead-global-economy-clean-energy (accessed November 2, 2009).
[xx] “Lula: ‘Cuando veo a Evo me parece que veo a Nelson Mandela,” Agensur.info.Agencia de Noticias Del MERCOSUR. 23 de Agosto 2009. Available at http://www.agensur.info/redac5/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2824:lula-qcuando-veo-a-evo-me-parece-que-veo-a-nelson-mandelaq&catid=37:bolivia&Itemid=129 (accessed November 2, 209).
[xxi] Augusto De La Torre, Pablo Fajnzlyber, John Nash, Desarrollo Con Menos Carbono. Respuestas Latinoamericanas Al Desafio Del Cambio Climatico. Banco Internacional de Reconstrucción y Fomento. Washington, DC. 2009
[xxii] Ibid, 8. For a short additional but partial explanation of “Vivir Bien” from the point of view of someone in favor of the Morales Administration politics, see also Ernesto Wong Maestre, “Politica social revolucionaria del gobierno de Evo Morales: un balance positivo,” Agencia Bolivariana de Noticias,” Opinión. 2 de Noviembre 2009. http://www.abn.info.ve/go_news5.php?articulo=205406&lee=15 (accessed November 2, 2009).
[xxiii] See, for example, International Indigenous Peoples Forum on Climate Change/ Foro Internacional de los Pueblos Indígenas sobre Cambio Climático. SUBMISSION TO Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advine for Parties (SBSTA) ON ITEM 11 OF FCCC/SBSTA/2008/L.23, DRAFT CONCLUSIONS PROPOSED BY
CHAIR. [United Nations Framework Convention On Climate Change]. February 2009. Avaiable at: http://cwis.org/fwdp/GMOnline/pdf/292dp00002.pdf (accessed November 3, 2009). In regard to the climate solutions, one might see “indigenous” climate change positions differently, as more in line with Herman Daly and Joshua Farley’s ecological economics analysis. See Herman Daly and Joshua Farley. Ecological Economics (Island Press, Washington, DC, 2004). As Herman Daly would likely point out, the mainstream Western climate change policy debate does not consider the basic challenge of climate change: finite resources juxtaposed to the theory that infinite quantitative economic growth is necessary. The dominant world view continues to be one in which growth is necessary and technology will solve problems. Indigenous peoples, like President Evo Morales of Bolivia, are likely stuck between these mainstream and ecological economic perspectives, because ecological economics analysis does not include a pragmatic political plan for climate change mitigation or quantitative growth containment (Daly 2004 at least does not).
Facebook Share
November 19th, 2009
* This news compilation is created by Adam Zemans, Executive Director, Environment Las Americas/Bolivia. Any feedback in the continuing improvement of this document is encouraged at: zemansa@law.georgetown.edu*
GOAL
The goal of this weekly news compilation is to provide filtered, up-to-date information and events that are most relevant to official United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiations leading to and beyond Copenhagen . Dozens of articles are read and the most relevant and high quality selected for this list.
This climate change negotiations news compilation consists of a variety of news stemming from the following sources:
a) climate progress.org;
b) google alerts;
c) UNFCCC website;
d) NGO websites. NGO information to be tracked at times includes: IISD, Center For American Progress, Pew Center, Carnegie Institute, Brookings Institution, WRI, WWF, UCS, TWN, Oxfam UK and Christian Aid. A weekly check- off list of sources utilized is elaborated at the end of the weekly brief.
The format is as follows:
1) Adam highlights and analysis;
2) Top of the news;
3) International, including Earth Negotiations Bulletin Highlights;
4) National;
5) Selected new events (see UNFCCC website for full event list) ;
6) Attention-catching theoretical insights;
7) Selected articles in full-text;
8) Check-off list of sources utilized.
Recommended other key climate change news links:
* COP15: http://en.cop15.dk/news/view+news?newsid=2216
* Yahoo: http://uk.news.yahoo.com/fc/climate-change.html
* The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/carbon-emissions+copenhagen
* Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB) for a detailed and rather technical analysis of UNFCCC negotiations at: http://www.iisd.ca/climate/ccwg7/
* UNFCCC.org for latest documents and news directly related to the negotiations.
1) ADAM HIGHLIGHTS AND ANALYSIS
That Nobel Committee is wise—way to get Obama to show up to Copenhagen for other than Olympic hopes! International negotiations ended poorly at the Bangkok climate change negotiations with the developed and developing world at odds. U.S. legislation looking up with bipartisan cooperation between Senators Kerry and Graham. Weather not looking too well these days, particularly in the Philippines and India ! However, Joe Romm informs us there is reason for hope—Artic methane emissions growth is stable. :] Thanks, Joe, for the hope. We need it.:] (see climateprogress.org)
2) TOP OF THE NEWS
– Problems emerge at Bangkok climate change negotiations. New York Times article.
– International Energy Agency says climate change control at 450ppm requires a 10 trillion dollar investment (500 billion annually).
– Article on Greenpeace campaign and the Philippines captures the spirit of Bangkok ’s failure.
– US Senate Climate Change Bill Might Revive From the Dead!: Yes We Can (Pass Climate Change Legislation). So important I will include full text from Joe Romm’s climateprogress here:
That is the stunning banner headline from a must-read op-ed in today’s NY Times by two unlikely legislative partners — Lindsey Graham, Republican senator from South Carolina , an ally of Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), and John Kerry, Democratic senator from Massachusetts , lead author of the recently introduced Kerry-Boxer bill aka the “Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act.”
The two Senators have a powerful message to the naysayers — and the status quo media which has prematurely written the obituary for both domestic and international climate action:
The message to those who have stalled for years is clear: killing a Senate bill is not success…
We are confident that a legitimate bipartisan effort can put America back in the lead again and can empower our negotiators to sit down at the table in Copenhagen in December and insist that the rest of the world join us in producing a new international agreement on global warming. That way, we will pass on to future generations a strong economy, a clean environment and an energy-independent nation.
The odds of a Senate climate bill just jumped through the roof. Now the Senate needs to get off its butt and get this done.
If the deal they describe can be done, and I’m confident it can be, that would probably mean at least four GOP votes in the Senate — Graham, McCain, and Maine ’s Snowe and Collins. But I suspect this deal brings within reach other gettable “Rs,” like Lugar of Indiana and Voinovich of Ohio and maybe even Lisa “the fiddler” Murkowski (R-AK), if she understands, as Graham and Kerry do, that the best way to avoid the problems inherent in EPA regulation is to pass this bill.
Failure to act comes with another cost. If Congress does not pass legislation dealing with climate change, the administration will use the Environmental Protection Agency to impose new regulations. Imposed regulations are likely to be tougher and they certainly will not include the job protections and investment incentives we are proposing.
The message to those who have stalled for years is clear: killing a Senate bill is not success; indeed, given the threat of agency regulation, those who have been content to make the legislative process grind to a halt would later come running to Congress in a panic to secure the kinds of incentives and investments we can pass today. Industry needs the certainty that comes with Congressional action.
Achieving that certainty is a key reason so many major businesses are fleeing the every-shrinking Chamber of Commerce.
If the bill can get 5 to 7 Rs then it should also be able to get virtually all of the Ds, hopefully at least 57, and maybe more for a cloture vote to stop the inevitable, immoral filibuster from the blinkered conservatives. And it would be terrific if this bill were not just genuinely bipartisan, but could actually get, say, 62 or more votes for cloture and close to that for the actual bill.
I have described elements of the deal recently — see Lindsay Graham (R-SC): “If you had a bill that would allow for responsible offshore drilling, a robust nuclear power title, I think you could get some Republican votes for a cap-and-trade system.” Having heard Kerry speak directly about the bill and his negotiations, seeing his passion to make this happen and his commitment to preserving a livable climate, I expect the final bill will have no deal-breakers for progressives. Quite the reverse. This is a deal-maker.
Here are more excerpts from this remarkable op-ed:
CONVENTIONAL wisdom suggests that the prospect of Congress passing a comprehensive climate change bill soon is rapidly approaching zero. The divisions in our country on how to deal with climate change are deep….
However, we refuse to accept the argument that the United States cannot lead the world in addressing global climate change. We are also convinced that we have found both a framework for climate legislation to pass Congress and the blueprint for a clean-energy future that will revitalize our economy, protect current jobs and create new ones, safeguard our national security and reduce pollution.
Our partnership represents a fresh attempt to find consensus that adheres to our core principles and leads to both a climate change solution and energy independence. It begins now, not months from now — with a road to 60 votes in the Senate.
It’s true that we come from different parts of the country and represent different constituencies and that we supported different presidential candidates in 2008. We even have different accents. But we speak with one voice in saying that the best way to make America stronger is to work together to address an urgent crisis facing the world.
This process requires honest give-and-take and genuine bipartisanship. In that spirit, we have come together to put forward proposals that address legitimate concerns among Democrats and Republicans and the other constituencies with stakes in this legislation. We’re looking for a new beginning, informed by the work of our colleagues and legislation that is already before Congress.
First, we agree that climate change is real and threatens our economy and national security. That is why we are advocating aggressive reductions in our emissions of the carbon gases that cause climate change. We will minimize the impact on major emitters through a market-based system that will provide both flexibility and time for big polluters to come into compliance without hindering global competitiveness or driving more jobs overseas.
Second, while we invest in renewable energy sources like wind and solar, we must also take advantage of nuclear power, our single largest contributor of emissions-free power. Nuclear power needs to be a core component of electricity generation if we are to meet our emission reduction targets. We need to jettison cumbersome regulations that have stalled the construction of nuclear plants in favor of a streamlined permit system that maintains vigorous safeguards while allowing utilities to secure financing for more plants. We must also do more to encourage serious investment in research and development to find solutions to our nuclear waste problem.
While I wouldn’t be thrilled with all conceivable provisions a nuclear title might have, the overwhelming majority are unlikely to have a significant impact or even cost the taxpayers much money, as long as nuclear power plants remain so damn expensive (see “Nuclear Bombshell: $26 Billion cost — $10,800 per kilowatt! — killed Ontario nuclear bid“).
Third, climate change legislation is an opportunity to get serious about breaking our dependence on foreign oil. For too long, we have ignored potential energy sources off our coasts and underground. Even as we increase renewable electricity generation, we must recognize that for the foreseeable future we will continue to burn fossil fuels. To meet our environmental goals, we must do this as cleanly as possible. The United States should aim to become the Saudi Arabia of clean coal. For this reason, we need to provide new financial incentives for companies that develop carbon capture and sequestration technology.
In addition, we are committed to seeking compromise on additional onshore and offshore oil and gas exploration — work that was started by a bipartisan group in the Senate last Congress. Any exploration must be conducted in an environmentally sensitive manner and protect the rights and interests of our coastal states.
Again, as I’ve now been quoted in the media pointing out, oil prices are going to soar in the coming years, likely blowing past $100 a barrel in Obama’s first term — and perhaps past $150 a barrel in what will hopefully be his second term (see “Deutsche Bank: Oil to hit $175 a barrel by 2016).“ When that happens, Dems are not going to be able to resist the demand for opening more area to drilling anyway — so they might as well get a climate deal in return now.
Fourth, we cannot sacrifice another job to competitors overseas. China and India are among the many countries investing heavily in clean-energy technologies that will produce millions of jobs. There is no reason we should surrender our marketplace to countries that do not accept environmental standards. For this reason, we should consider a border tax on items produced in countries that avoid these standards. This is consistent with our obligations under the World Trade Organization and creates strong incentives for other countries to adopt tough environmental protections.
Finally, we will develop a mechanism to protect businesses — and ultimately consumers — from increases in energy prices. The central element is the establishment of a floor and a ceiling for the cost of emission allowances. This will also safeguard important industries while they make the investments necessary to join the clean-energy era. We recognize there will be short-term transition costs associated with any climate change legislation, costs that can be eased. But we also believe strongly that the long-term gain will be enormous.
Even climate change skeptics should recognize that reducing our dependence on foreign oil and increasing our energy efficiency strengthens our national security. Both of us served in the military. We know that sending nearly $800 million a day to sometimes-hostile oil-producing countries threatens our security. In the same way, many scientists warn that failing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will lead to global instability and poverty that could put our nation at risk.
One final note: Ideally a bill would pass the Senate before the end of Copenhagen — and I urge all parties involved to work hard toward that — but logistically it may prove difficult. This bipartisan deal could and should, however, be cemented in November, and that alone could, as Graham and Kerry conclude, “empower our negotiators to sit down at the table in Copenhagen in December and insist that the rest of the world join us in producing a new international agreement on global warming.”
Kudos to Graham and Kerry for reaching across the aisle on this vital, yet divisive issue.
3) INTERNATIONAL
EARTH NEGOTIATIONS BULLETIN
– My Quote of the week from ENB, Thursday, October 6, 2009 (In The Corridors):
Several parties expressed dismay at progress made, with many developing countries arguing that they felt like “the train was going in the wrong direction” and that too many of the proposals were inconsistent with the Convention and the BAP [Bali Action Plan]. One went so far as to state that: “We are moving farther apart instead of closer together.” Several developed countries maintained, however, that not a single of their proposals was inconsistent with the Convention and the BAP, and one indicated that “if we
all had the same understanding of what we adopted in Bali , we would not need to be here now.” “It feels as if two worlds are colliding,” commented one veteran negotiator emerging from the meeting.
REDD
– REDD resistence by coalition of forest countries.
– Indigenous communities throughout Mexico meet to discuss REDD and climate change.
AFRICA
– Burkina Faso Environment Minister says 65 billion dollars needed to combat effects of climate change.
BRAZIL
– Cumbre Amazonica De Los Gobiernos Locales Concluye Carta de Manaus.[Amazon Government Summit Concludes Local Letter of Manaus]
CHILE
– Enaex recibe certificacion de la ONU para bonos de carbon [Enaex receives certification for carbon credits from the UN].
INDIA
– India ’s Floods Reveal Climate Change Specter.
US
– New York Times article regarding 100 business executives trip to the White House to call for cap-and-trade legislation leadership.
– GE opposes green trade protectionism.
CHINA
– New report from the Energy Institute in China states a low carbon economy will cost $220 billion per year.
– Climate Bigger Challenge Than Recession, China Says.
4) NATIONAL— BOLIVIA —none to announce.
5) NEW EVENTS—none to announce.
6) ATTENTION-GRABBING THEORETICAL INSIGHTS (POLICY AND SCIENCE)
– New Center For American Progress/UN Foundation Study highlighting advantageous cost-benefit of globally addressing climate change.
– Key World Bank World Development Report says climate change need not stifle development (from September 15)
7) SELECTED ARTICLES IN FULL-TEXT. See the only one—above under “TOP OF THE NEWS”
8) CHECK-OFF LIST OF SOURCES UTILIZED
| SOURCE/DATE |
Ending Sept 19 |
Ending Sept 25 |
Ending Oct 5 |
Ending Oct 11 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Google alerts and some searches |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
| Climate Progress |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
| IISD |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| UNFCCC |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| UNEP ( Bolivia search) |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| CAP |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
–
Facebook Share
October 14th, 2009
