All Messages

The use of renewable forms of ... in Evidence of climate change and ideas

Posted on Sep 11 2009 at 10:29AM by ClimateExperts

The use of renewable forms of energy, for electricity generation and for transport fuels in particular, is expected to grow substantially in the near future:  the share of renewables in global primary energy demand is expected to go from 7% to 10% between now and 2030. (these numbers exclude ‘traditional biomass use; the burning of  wood, charcoal and agricultural residues for heating, cooking and lighting, mainly in the developing world).
This trend is the result of better and cheaper renewables technology, increasing fossil fuel prices, and policy support (in the form of legislation that requires a certain proportion of renewable in the energy mix and/or subsidies). The cost of renewables is expected to continue to fall as they are more widely used: this allows for economies of scale and for lower investment costs.
Biomass is by far the most versatile renewable form of energy: (again, apart from its traditional uses) it can be used as a substitute for all fossil fuel based products: it can be converted to electricity, heat and biofuels. The costs compare well with wind and hydro, and are substantially lower than for solar energy. 
A growing share of energy from biomass comes from purpose-grown crops, mainly to produce biofuels: for example ethanol from maize and sugarcane, biodiesel from rapeseed. This in itself is often seen as a problem: do biofuels displace food production, especially in poorer countries? Do they accelerate deforestation? Will they compete for water once this gets scarcer?
The developments mentioned in the exchanges below are pertinent to the debate about how to generate better (and possibly cheaper) biofuels. This is important because biofuel use will go on rising: it is projected to meet 5% of the global road transport demand by 2030.
Algae seem to be one of the more promising source of biofuels, as they can be engineered to produce compounds which resemble the hydrocarbons present in conventional fossil fuels. Moreover, early results from research show that it may be possible to engineer algae which will release their oils into the medium in which they have been grown- cutting out the process of extraction. An additional win-win point is that the algae need CO2 to grow: if produced near an industrial CO2 source, they would effectively recycle that too.
However, before we conclude that this could be ‘the cheapest’ way to green energy, we need to wait until the results of the research mature into pilot projects, then into full scale plants etc.  We are still a long way from that now!
If you would like to know more, please have a look at
<http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14029874>
Claire

Read more on this topic »

Developing countries fully aware of the dangers of climate change in Politics and policy

Posted on Sep 11 2009 at 01:14PM by ClimateExperts

After all, they are the first ones to suffer from its impacts and are already seeing its consequences: floods, droughts, more frequent extreme events etc. They are therefore most interested in adaptation, and are demanding technical and financial assistance to adapt. This will be one of the main issues to be addressed at the forthcoming UNFCCC meeting in Copenhagen in December 2009, where a new climate regime will hopefully emerge.
Those developing countries which are industrializing fast, (such as China, India, Brazil, Mexico, South Africa…) also understand that they have to contribute to climate mitigation, i.e the global reduction of greenhouse gas emissions which cause climate change. These countries are therefore taking measures to produce fewer emissions than they have so far, in their energy production or industrial processes.  However, they do not want to compromise on their development effort. They want to continue their economic growth, but are  moving away from ‘business-as-usual’ emissions growth. This too will cost money, and they are also demanding technological and financial help for this.
The financial needs of the developing world for adaptation plus mitigation have been variously assessed, but a reasonable assumption is $300 billion per year by 2020. These costs will have to be borne by the developed world, which has a ‘historical responsibility’ for climate change. Honoring this responsibility by providing the assistance will hopefully be one of the undertakings of developed countries at Copenhagen. The developing world also needs to radically change its energy economy: the way it produces, transports, finances and uses energy. This is to use fewer of the natural resources, amongst others the ‘carbon space’, ie. the space there is to emit CO2 without causing dangerous climate change.
Claire

Read more on this topic »

The video you mention "carreralee" is indeed powerful... in Education and awareness

Posted on Sep 17 2009 at 08:58AM by ClimateExperts

The case for ‘doing something now’ is well argued. What the presenter could have added is that even in the (at this stage remote) possibility that climate change is not happening, and action was taken, many of the measures would be beneficial - they would reduce air pollution; increase energy efficiency and conservation (fossil fuels will run out at some point); protect and conserve ecosystems such as forests and the biodiversity that goes with them etc. A lot of measures taken to address climate change are ‘win-win’.
The presenter makes an excellent point when he says that since public policies have to be supported by civil society, it is essential to get as many voices demanding action against climate change. 
You may be interested in the forthcoming Wold Premiere of ‘The Age of Stupid’. I have borrowed the organisers’ introduction below to explain that it is about. In any case, the film is well worth seeing, and has already been screened  in a number of Parliaments in Europe and in Australia.
The Age of Stupid  (www.ageofstupid.net) utilizes dramatization that forecasts decades into the future detailing a life where the warnings of climate change were not heeded.  Pete Postlethwaite plays an archivist who takes us back through archival footage wondering, "Why we didn't stop global warming when we had a chance?" Thus the film's namesake: We're living in  The Age of Stupid . The archival footage is comprised of real current news clips (From CNN to BBC) weaved with personal stories from Nigeria to New Orleans - a la  Traffic .  See the trailer at: http://www.ageofstupid.net/video/trailer or on this page.
For the global premiere, scheduled for September 21st,  The Age of Stupid  will help launch the UN s Climate Week and will be an epic live event from a solar-powered cinema in New York City, complete with green carpet and celebs arriving via bike, boat, biodiesel car and more. We will be beaming the movie out through satellite links to over 440 theaters in the US and 700+ cinemas in 55+ countries all over the world. As well as performances by Thom Yorke, there will be live climate impact updates from climate scientists from the Arctic, Amazon rainforest, a Himalayan glacier and New Orleans. Afterwards, there will be a panel including Kofi Annan, Gillian Anderson, Mary Robinson, director Franny Armstrong, and star Pete Postlethwaite to discuss the film and the tasks ahead. Copenhagen delegates are all being given complimentary invites.
Claire

Read more on this topic »

Civil society has a key role to play in Politics and policy

Posted on Sep 17 2009 at 09:08AM by ClimateExperts

The urgency of acting against climate change is being argued loud and strong from the scientific community, from civil society, and from part of the political world as well.
What civil society can contribute is focused, well reasoned arguments in favour of the type action which it is also prepared to see through, with all that it implies: reducing energy consumption, travelling differently,  paying more for certain things, consuming differently etc.
The part of civil society that is already aware of climate change (its causes, its present impacts, its likely long-term effects etc) should do all it can to inform as many people as possible. This can be done at all levels, from the big NGOs distributing information on a large scale to the individual informing his/her family, neighbours and friends- there are still many sceptical and uninformed people around and every person we inform can in turn inform someone else, and ask him/herself what she/he will do to address the problem in daily life. 
To give them their due, a number of governments are running very effective information programmes and not only explaining the ins and out of climate change, but also what citizens can do about it.

Read more on this topic »

How is poverty eradication taken into account in the current UNFCCC negotiations? in Politics and policy

Posted on Sep 22 2009 at 12:31PM by ClimateExperts

Poverty is indeed a major problem, in itself of course, but also for its repercussions on how we can deal with climate change.
To prevent climate change from getting worse, all countries need to set off now on a low carbon pathway. That means two things:
(1) the developed world, as well as the developing countries who are sufficiently industrialized to emit a sizeable quantity of greenhouse gases, need to curb their emissions (mitigation); this will need important changes to their energy economies to make that possible and sustainable
(2) all developing countries – whether big or small, industrialized or not need to pursue their development plans and their poverty eradication strategies so as to consume and to emit less carbon, now and later. They need help- financial, technological- to develop along a low carbon pathway. (In addition, they will also need help to adapt to the now inescapable impacts of the climate change already happening and that will continue to happen until the trend can be reversed).
The UN negotiations towards a post 2012 global climate change regime are geared towards these objectives: the financial package to be made available to developing countries for mitigation and adaptation is one of the two key issues that is still to be resolved (the other one is mitigation targets for developed countries who have ‘historic responsibility’ for climate change ). Without the financial package in place, there will be no ‘deal’ on a new regime. A frightening prospect- so this week and next week, a number of very high level meetings are taking place in Washington (Major Economies Forum); New York (Secretary General’s Special event on Climate Change- to be attended by  Heads of State – and Pittsburgh (G20).  For more information and a good summary of issues, pls see:
 
Week of meetings could make or break climate effort Key meetings unfolding in Washington, New York and Pittsburgh in the coming week may determine whether a two-year effort to combat climate change will triumph or be written off as a flop of historic dimensions.  AFP
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090916/sc_afp/climatewarmingung20_20090916182636

Read more on this topic »

Ambitious targets are needed more than ever in Politics and policy

Posted on Sep 29 2009 at 09:28AM by ClimateExperts

The ‘350 ppm target’ has indeed been included in the negotiating text by some of the most vulnerable countries on the planet, in particular the small island developing states who negotiate in the UN under the banner of AOSIS (Association of Small Island States). So far, it has not caught on as a ‘mainstream’ goal- so far, the 450ppm put forward by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its 2007 Fourth Assessment Report is still the most widely accepted norm for ‘avoiding dangerous climate change’, notably because it has a reasonable probability of keeping the rise in average global temperature below 2⁰C over pre-industrial levels (you may remember that at the July meeting of the Major Economies Forum in Italy. The 17 most important emitters accepted 2⁰C as a limit not to be exceeded).
However, a report published on 28 September by the UK’s Met Office’s Hadley Center warns that global temperatures may be 4 degrees Celsius hotter by the mid-2050s if current greenhouse gas emissions trends continue. The study underlying the report found that climate changes were outpacing worst-case scenarios forecast in 2007 by the IPCC.
A global average increase of 4⁰C masks higher regional increases, including more than 15 degrees warmer temperatures in parts of the Arctic, and up to 10 degrees higher in western and southern Africa, the study found. It also indicated that rainfall may decrease in the course of this century by a fifth or more in parts of Africa, in Central America, in the Mediterranean, and in coastal Australia, which is "potentially more extreme" than the IPCC's findings in 2007
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/news/latest/four-degrees.html
Claire

Read more on this topic »

The zero target is unrealistic at the moment in Politics and policy

Posted on Sep 29 2009 at 10:08AM by ClimateExperts

I very much agree that at the moment, the ‘zero’ target looks unrealistic, as countries seem to find it very difficult already to agree on the necessary emissions cuts to abide by less stringent undertakings. At the moment, the most widely ‘accepted’ recommendation (if not the ways and means to get there!) is that by 2050 the global emissions should have decreased by 50%, and those of the developed world should have decreased by 80%. These figures were derived from the IPCC’s 2007 recommendations that the average CO2 concentration in the atmosphere should remain below 450ppm, because that has a reasonable probability of keeping the rise in average global temperature below 2⁰C over pre-industrial levels. You may remember that in July, the G8 countries did agree on the 80% goal for themselves and at the Major Economies Forum, the 17 most important emitters accepted 2⁰C as the limit not to be exceeded.
However, a report published on 28 September by the UK’s Met Office’s Hadley Center warns that global temperatures may be 4 degrees Celsius hotter by the mid-2050s if current greenhouse gas emissions trends continue. The study underlying the report found that climate changes were outpacing worst-case scenarios forecast in 2007 by the IPCC.
If you wish to read more about this, please see the discussion on the 350 CO2 target. http://www.connect2earth.org/topics/21/messages/2543
Claire

Read more on this topic »

The latest from the climate change talks in Bangkok in Politics and policy

Posted on Sep 29 2009 at 12:07PM by ClimateExperts

The aim of any agreement on climate change has to be the long term stabilization of atmospheric CO2 concentrations (as well as those of the other greenhouse gases). The ‘ultimate objective’ of the UNFCCC, the 1992 climate convention, is the ‘stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic (i.e. man made) interference with the climate system. Any successor agreement has to have the same goal.
As stated by the UN’s Secretary-General, Ban Ki Moon, at the climate change summit he convened in New York on 22 September, and reiterated yesterday by the UNFCCC’s Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer at the beginning of the Climate Change talks in Bangkok, a comprehensive deal in Copenhagen should comprise five essential elements:
1. Enhanced action to assist the most vulnerable and the poorest in the world to adapt to the impacts of climate change
2. Ambitious reduction targets for industrialized countries, in line with the science
3. Nationally appropriate mitigation actions by developing countries, with the necessary support
4. Significantly scaled up financial and technological resources to help the developing world to adapt and to mitigate
5. An equitable governance structure to manage and deploy that support.  
This is what delegations from over 190 countries are working on for the next two weeks here in Bangkok.  Significantly broadening the international carbon market as a result of setting ambitious emission reduction targets will certainly be part of a deal, as it is unlikely that the developed countries could undertake significant reductions without a functional carbon market.
Please note however that the exploitation of vegetal species and other such resources, which indigenous people maybe dependant on for their survival, is a matter dealt with by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) rather than by the Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 

Read more on this topic »

Towards better economic indicators... in Lifestyle and economic changes

Posted on Oct 09 2009 at 09:05AM by ClimateExperts

GDP measures economic activity in a society but makes no assessment of the nature of that activity.  So for example building a house, knocking down a house or clearing up the aftermath of a typhoon all counts as economic activity.  Obviously, firstly, this isn’t a measure of  “built” capital.  But perhaps more importantly, it does not account for resource use or for social impact, or what some people refer to as social and natural capital.
Some economists and others are looking for ways to measure the totality of a nations capital through new indicators which do take natural resources and social issues into account.  They want measures which would recognise the value changes in consumption of non-renewable resources, of re-investment in renewables (e.g. re-afforestation or, say, restoration conservation, and also in the gains or losses in educated people, social cohesion, social environment (high crime could theoretically be a + in GDP if the economic turnover could be recorded!) and so forth.  Just saying that demonstrates that its not easy, but the thinking is in the right direction.
For more on this, try the works of Robert Costanza (e.g.  Costanza, Robert (Lead Author); Cutler J. Cleveland (Topic Editor). 2008. "Natural capital." In: Encyclopedia of Earth. Eds. Cutler J. Cleveland (Washington, D.C.: Environmental Information Coalition, National Council for Science and the Environment). First published in the Encyclopedia of Earth February 26, 2007; Last revised July 31, 2008) – he has his critics but is a good place to start. Or explore the initiative known as Natural Capitalism on which the best book is by the Lovens brothers of the Rocky Mountain Institute (see http://www.natcap.org/).

Read more on this topic »

Climate induced migration happens as a ... in Politics and policy

Posted on Oct 13 2009 at 09:10AM by ClimateExperts

Climate-induced migration happens as a result of either a climate induced natural disaster (such as the floods recently seen in South-East Asia) or impaired or lost livelihoods due to climate change, for example farmers abandoning degraded land. As the impacts of climate change become more intensively felt, climate-induced migration is expected to become one of the major humanitarian and therefore policy challenges of this century.  In 2007, the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change (www.occ.gov.uk/activities/stern.htm) warned that by the middle of the century, 200 million more people may become permanently displaced due to rising sea levels, heavier floods, and more intense droughts’. At the moment, the world is ill equipped for that- and a number of organizations are advocating a planned and coordinated approach. UNEP, the International Organisation for Migration, the UN University and others have therefore formed the Migration and Environment Alliance.
The humanitarian community- notably the UN institutions dealing with Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief – are becoming dangerously stretched. They have had to address an increasing number of disasters in the past decade, a sizeable number of which were climate related.  The fear is that the problem will soon overwhelm the existing capacities and the financial resources available.
In addition to its humanitarian implications, migration is also a security risk. Weak states, which cannot develop and implement adaptation strategies, are particularly vulnerable to climate-induced migration. In turn, mass migration is a threat to political stability in vulnerable states. Conflicts, turning to violence, can result from competition for already scarce resources (food, water) combined with pre-existing ethnic or social tensions.
The draft negotiating text on adaptation, which Parties to the UNFCCC worked on in Bangkok last week, refers to adaptation action including:
Activities related to national and international [migration of] [displacement of] [planned
relocation of] individuals and peoples displaced by extreme climate events, the adverse
impact of climate change and the adverse impact of response measures.
(the square brackets indicate wording that has yet to be agreed or deleted). So, yes, the Copenhagen agreement may actually spur some action- and related funding- towards alleviating that problem.

Read more on this topic »

Climate change, coral reefs and the oceans in Evidence of climate change and ideas

Posted on Oct 13 2009 at 09:26AM by ClimateExperts

The oceans and the climate are inextricably linked and human activities that affect the climate also affect the oceans on a global scale.  Greenhouse gas emissions cause ocean warming and acidification.
Scientists have shown that at least one quarter of all the warming of the earth’s surface so far caused by greenhouse gas emissions has been absorbed by the ocean. This warming of ocean waters has a number of consequences: sea-level rise, increased intensity of cyclones, and changes in ocean stratification and currents.  It impacts on marine ecosystems and changes the distribution of marine species. All of these changes alter ocean productivity and can be a threat to human populations that rely on marine resources for income and food.
 The ocean also absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere; the more CO2 in the atmosphere, the higher the CO2 concentration in seawater. This leads to acidification, as CO2 combines with water to form an acid.  This, in turn, puts marine biodiversity and people at risk. Even optimistic future atmospheric CO2 concentrations (e.g., 450 ppm) could severely damage marine ecosystems.
As the reference in the post to which this is a reply points to, a striking example of the damage climate change is already causing to ecosystems is the mass coral mortality that has been caused on a wide geographic scale by temperature rises that started some time ago, when atmospheric CO2 levels exceeded 320 ppm. The present level is 387 ppm, and coral scientists believe that if CO2 levels are allowed to reach 450 ppm (due to occur by 2030–2040 at the current rates), reefs will be in rapid and terminal decline world-wide from the combined effects of temperature rises and ocean acidification.
Some further resources:
IGBP Newsletter 73: The Ocean in a Changing World - http://www.igbp.kva.se/documents/resources/NL-73_for-web.pdf
Natural Ocean CO2 sinks - http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/07/index.htm
Marine ecosystems and climate change
Barange M, Field J G, Harris R H, Hofmann E E, Perry R I, Werner C
2009 Oxford University Press

Read more on this topic »

Measures to combat climate change have ... in Climate - It's getting hot

Posted on Oct 29 2009 at 03:03PM by ClimateExperts

Measures to combat climate change have substantial co-benefits in terms of improved air quality and therefore health.
A study commissioned by the OECD and carried out by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency http://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/2009/Co-benefits-of-climate-policy.html shows that a climate change policy aiming at reducing the global emissions of greenhouse gases by 50% over 2005 levels by 2050 can significantly reduce the number of premature deaths from the chronic exposure to air pollution.
The combustion of fossil energy leads to climate change and to air pollution.  A strategy that either reduces the amount of fossil fuels combusted, or improves the way fossil fuels are used, addresses climate change and generates a net welfare benefit at the global level. This will yield results in the mid-term in the developed world, and will take a little longer in the developing countries, such as China. Moreover, a combined climate change- air quality policy will be initially more expensive than a directed air quality policy. So one could say that the combined tackling of climate change and air pollution is a win-win solution, it is an expensive one.
However, the combination of international pressure and self interest will most probably lead China to pursue a more ambitious climate policy in the next few decades – for example, China is already planning to substantially increase its renewable energy production (wind, nuclear). This in turn should have a beneficial effect on its air quality and , as you mention, that of other regions well beyond its borders.

Read more on this topic »

The points you make regarding resource ... in Climate - It's getting hot

Posted on Oct 29 2009 at 03:07PM by ClimateExperts

The points you make regarding resource appropriation and the rights of local communities are extremely valid: for REDD to work it needs to be embedded in sound social (as well as environmental) principles. IUCN has a long standing experience in forest governance issues (see http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/iucns_role_in_forest_governance_reform.pdf) and is therefore emphasizing the importance good governance in the negotiations on the REDD in the UNFCCC process. Among others, IUCN advocates that the REDD mechanism should provide for the full and effective active participation of local communities and Indigenous Peoples at all stages of REDD-plus actions, as well as the systematic incorporation of a gender perspective.
IUCN supports an operational mechanism for REDD that will clarify and recognize the rights of indigenous peoples and other forest dependent communities.
IUCN also participates in The Forests Dialogue (TFD), ‘an international multi-stakeholder dialogue process and platform for leaders to collaboratively pursue solutions to challenges related to sustainable forest management and conservation’. TFD has recently organised a series of dialogues on mechanisms for financing REDD and on ensuring its integrity. Among the recommendations that emerged:
- REDD-plus should lead to real reductions in CO2, enhance forest ecosystem functions and the supply of critical ecosystem services, protect and respect the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, and ensure equitable benefit sharing.
- In addition to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation REDD-plus finance mechanisms should also create incentives for additional actions in forest conservation, sustainable forest management, and the enhancement of carbon stocks.
- REDD-plus processes should allow the broad participation of all stakeholders, on equitable terms, at the national and international levels.
To know more on REDD, visit the IUCN REDD portal on
http://cms.iucn.org/knowledge/news/focus/2009_redd/
It has a good basic overview of what REDD and REDD+ mean and could achieve
From there, further links will direct you to more specialized reading

Read more on this topic »

From Barcelona to Copenhagen in Politics and policy

Posted on Nov 11 2009 at 01:32PM by ClimateExperts

The Climate Change Talks held in Barcelona (2-6 November) under the auspices of the UNFCCC ended with the Chairmen of the two main negotiating streams expressing confidence that ‘a strong outcome of COP15 at Copenhagen can be achieved that is balanced, fair, ambitious and effective’. However, at the same time, most negotiating groups are now playing down the probability that the initially hoped-for legally binding agreement will emerge in December. They admit that there is now a lack of time as well as a lack of progress. They prefer to refer to a ‘politically binding agreement’ (the meaning of which is less than clear) and to devoting 2010 to negotiating the details of a legal treaty- i.e. legally binding under international law.     
This shift in expectations is mainly (but not exclusively) due to the fact that the US administration does not expect Congress to pass climate change legislation in 2009. The US does not expect to be able to propose firm, nationally binding limits for emission reductions. However, during the last days of the Barcelona talks, their head of delegation Jonathan Pershing intimated that they might be able to come to Copenhagen with an indicative set of figures, based on the bills now adopted by the House and before the Senate.
The developing countries are getting increasingly impatient not only with the lack of emission reduction targets from the US but also with the fact that the targets put forward by the other developed  countries do not amount to the 25-40% reduction by 2020 advocated in 2007 by the IPCC. This caused the African group to boycott some of the negotiations under the Kyoto Protocol stream (where such targets are discussed) on Tuesday and part of Wednesday. Eventually, a compromise was found to bring them back to the table: more negotiating time on the ‘numbers’. However, the issue is not lack of time in the negotiations… it is the result of the developed countries facing the need for major changes in their energy economy and not being in a position to deliver sufficient change fast enough.
Another cause for lack of progress is a major disagreement between the developing countries (represented in the negotiations by the ‘G77 and China’ group and the developed countries (the EU + US and its main allies in the negotiations: Australia, Canada, Japan and Russia) on the form the post 2012 climate change regime should take. The G77 want an extension of the Kyoto Protocol for developed countries and no legally binding commitments for developing countries, plus substantial financial assistance for their emission reduction and adaptation efforts. The developed countries want the major economies among the developing countries to take on reduction commitments. The US and its allies also want one new treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol.
The intention is now for COP15 to agree on a "package of non-legally binding decisions that will bring clarity to critical areas" such as shared vision, global goals, finance and institutions. If all goes to plan, these will be accompanied by a list of some 20 individual 2020 emissions reduction targets for industrialized nations; a reflection of what developing countries will do to reduce their emissions and deviate from business-as-usual; what individual developed countries are prepared to contribute in terms of fast track finance (i.e. before 2013), on a voluntary basis- this will be a list of ‘pledges’ ; and a formula that can be used ‘over time’ (i.e. when the expected legally binding agreement is in place) to calculate how costs are going to be shared. There will also be a set of specific decisions on Adaptation, Mitigation, Capacity Building, Technology Transfer and REDD.
It is expected that COP15 will make decisions on a timetable for negotiating a legally binding agreement. 40 Heads of State have already announced that they will attend.

Read more on this topic »

I think this is an overly ... in Climate - It's getting hot

Posted on Nov 27 2009 at 09:24AM by ClimateExperts

I think this is an overly pessimistic view, both of the Copenhagen conference and of the prospects for mankind’s survival!
Let’s turn to that first: it is correct that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is higher than it has historically been and it is continuing to rise. (For the record, the pre-industrial level remained fairly constant at 280ppm; in October 2009 it was 384.38ppm). In 2007, when the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its 4th Assessment Report, the scientific consensus was that if the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases is stabilised at 450 ppmCO2eq an average global warming of 2ºC above pre-industrial levels has a 50% probability of being avoided. However, recent scientific findings show: (a) that the effects of the present and projected greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere have been underestimated, and that 450ppmCO2eq may well result in temperature rises that exceed 2⁰C and (b) a 2⁰C increase in average global temperature is now seen as an overly optimistic limit for avoiding dangerous climate change. So many people, and the most vulnerable countries like the small island states, are calling for a lower stabilisation concentration, e.g. 350ppm.
On the other hand, we currently have a situation whereby –unless rapid and robust action is taken- high greenhouse gas emissions will continue to rise, and then it is likely that global warming will exceed 4⁰C by the end of the century. (for more on this see  http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/news/latest/four-degrees.html). This amount of warming, averaged over the globe, translates into even greater warming in many regions, along with major changes in rainfall. In some areas warming could be significantly higher (10⁰C or more). We may just reach some of the ‘tipping points’ for the planet.
So there is no time to lose for global greenhouse gas emissions to be cut. Governments are aware of that, even if it is sometimes hard to convince the public and the captains of industry.  The big challenge is that to cut emissions, we need to transform the way we run the planet, from the generation of energy, to the way we transport goods and ourselves, to the building of homes and cities, to the shaping of the landscape. Rich countries will need to financially assist poor countries in the process, to the tune of up to €100bn a year by 2020. Such changes are not brought about easily, or rapidly. But they are being worked at now almost everywhere in the world. Humanity has never had such an urgent global challenge to address, but has risen to other, more ‘local’ ones, such as bringing back Europe on its feet after the 2nd world war (with the Marshall plan). We may need something like a mega- ‘Marshall Plan’ now…
We are not (yet) beyond the point of no return, but the situation is critical and action is urgently needed.
As for the Copenhagen Conference, I will imminently start a blog, commenting on the preparations and the foreseen outcome. I will continue that blog throughout the Conference, so please stay tuned!  

Read more on this topic »

Yes a lot of money will ... in Climate - It's getting hot

Posted on Nov 30 2009 at 09:54AM by ClimateExperts

Yes, a lot of money will be needed invested in developed as well as in developing countries to shift production and consumption towards low carbon alternatives, and to adapt to the already inevitable impacts of climate change.  In order to achieve results at the global scale,  the developed world will need to transfer some of its wealth to the developing world- and the ‘how, when and by whom, for whom’ of this is going to be one of the major issues for the discussion at Copenhagen.
The estimates of the amounts needed vary- it is difficult to quantify such large scale economic and technological shifts with any precision, and adaptation is a very open ended activity (when has one adapted ‘enough’? etc).  The European Union agreed last month on a set of conditional offers on climate for developing countries- the conditions are that other developed countries pay their fair share and that  developing countries show

Read more on this topic »