You are currently browsing the daily archive for July 9th, 2009.
The global recession has slowed progress on a climate change deal, but leaders must “fight the temptation toward cynicism” and push forward, President Barack Obama told a meeting of rich and emerging powers in L’Aquila, Italy, on Thursday.
09/07/2009 4:51:10 PM
While world leaders did not solve the problem, they “made some important strides forward,” Obama said, speaking at the conclusion of a forum on the environment, which he chaired.
Calling climate change “a defining problem of our time,” Obama said: “It is no small task for 17 leaders to bridge their differences on this issue.”
Progress could still be made before talks on a new UN climate change treaty in Copenhagen in December, he said.
The Group of Eight countries – Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United States – set the goal of reducing their greenhouse gas emissions by 80 per cent by 2050, with the global goal of a 50 per cent cut.
They also pushed the G5 countries at the summit – Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa – to commit to an agreement that an increase in global temperatures shouldn’t exceed two degrees Celsius.
“It would not be productive if European countries, Japan, the United States and Canada accepted cuts that are economically damaging while more than five billion people in other countries carried on as before,” said Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.
No commitment to specific reductions
However, earlier Thursday, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon criticized the G8’s plan on climate change, calling it unfair because it doesn’t help developing countries to fully cut their own emissions.
Ban suggested the G8 come up with a way to finance poorer nations to help them change their polluting growth pattern and adapt to the effects of global warming.
“The policies that they have stated so far are not enough, not sufficient enough,” Ban said on the sidelines of the G8 summit.
“This is the science. We must work according to the science. This is politically and morally imperative and a historic responsibility for the leaders for the future of humanity, even for the future of planet Earth.”
The emerging countries have so far refused to commit to specific reduction targets.
Some countries have balked at establishing further commitments ahead of the UN conference. They are also upset the industrialized nations have not been forthcoming with midterm emissions reductions.
Some countries have also said they first would like to see the economic powerhouses provide financial help and technology to the developing world to combat global warming.
Meanwhile, analysts have suggested Chinese President Hu Jintao’s withdrawal from the meetings may reduce the chances of moving ahead on the climate change talks. Hu returned early to China to deal with ethnic attacks occurring in the country’s western Xinjiang province.
‘Only the first step’
“Support from the G8 is only the first step in what is likely to be a long and difficult process,” said Guy Caruso, a senior adviser for the energy and national security program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think-tank in Washington.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper called the resolution a “much stronger statement” than last year’s G8 climate change communiqué, while British Prime Minister Gordon Brown called it “historic” and German Chancellor Angela Merkel said it was a “clear step forward.”
Speaking to reporters after Obama’s speech, Harper said “the important advance here is that we have a consensus among developed countries on targets.”
However, he added, “we’re still a long way from having everybody, including the large developing economies accept targets. That’s the next step that has to happen.”
Canadian Environment Minister Jim Prentice said achieving the lower emissions by 2050 is only an aspirational goal of the developed countries. But it meshes well with Canada’s plan to reduce its emissions by up to 70 per cent by 2050, he said.
Canada will not need to change its policies to achieve that goal, he added.
“They’re all within the framework of reducing our emissions by 20 per cent by 2020, 60 to 70 per cent by 2050,” he said.
Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff criticized the Conservatives’ progress on the issue.
“We have been laggards in this field,” said Ignatieff, speaking in London, England. “We should be leaders. We need to be in the forefront.”
While the G8?s 2050 goal was a step in the right direction, NDP Leader Jack Layton said he hopes Harper won’t just talk about the issue but will take action. ?We certainly know countries like Germany and the Nordic countries are miles ahead of where we are. They?ve understood the opportunities – to create green jobs, to fundamentally change the way we live,” Layton said.
Doha talks to resume
The economy also remained at the top of the agenda at Thursday’s meetings, with the G5 urging the other leaders to resume the stalled Doha trade talks, arguing that developing countries were particularly damaged by protectionist trends exhibited during the global economic crisis.
According to a draft statement obtained by The Associated Press, that goal has been agreed to.
The G5 is also calling for greater inclusion in international decision-making and is expected to raise the possibility of starting a new global reserve currency as an alternative to the U.S. dollar.
With files from The Associated Press
Source: http://news.sympatico.msn.cbc.ca/abc/world/contentposting.aspx?isfa=1&feedname=CBC-WORLD-V3&showbyline=True&date=true&newsitemid=g8-summit-italy-climate-change374
Today in L’Aquila, Italy, the Group of 8 (G8) Summit failed to pass unanimously a climate bill which would have mandated halving of global CO2 emissions by 2050 as part of the Group’s larger economic-stabilization plan. The Group – consisting of the United States, Japan, Germany, France, Great Britain, Italy, Canada, and Russia – believed passage of the bill would likely have broken the deadlock over sharing of the burden of cutting greenhouse gasses. The bill’s passage also would have laid the groundwork for an expected future U.N. climate pact in Copenhagen in December.
The Group encountered resistance to the bill primarily from leaders of India and China, who– like many developing countries–desired more financial support from richer countries before agreeing to the emissions goal.
In compromise, the Group agreed to cut emissions by 80 percent and limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. The Group also supported creation of a global carbon trading market and rich nation-sponsored carbon-reduction technology– although its plans for creating such a system were vague.
Thursday, the Group is to meet with the Major Economies Forum (MEF) to further discuss the bill along with broader economic and environmental concerns. The MEF includes the G8 countries and other, less developed ones. MEF approval of the bill is a prerequisite for passage in the upcoming December U.N. climate conference.
Source: http://www.triplepundit.com/pages/2-g8-urges-economic-stability-measures-f.php
By H. JOSEF HEBERT and DINA CAPPIELLO, Associated Press Writers H. Josef Hebert And Dina Cappiello, Associated Press Writers – Fri Jun 26, 7:37 pm ET
WASHINGTON – In a triumph for President Barack Obama, the Democratic-controlled House narrowly passed sweeping legislation Friday that calls for the nation’s first limits on pollution linked to global warming and aims to usher in a new era of cleaner, yet more costly energy.
The vote was 219-212, capping months of negotiations and days of intense bargaining among Democrats. Republicans were overwhelmingly against the measure, arguing it would destroy jobs in the midst of a recession while burdening consumers with a new tax in the form of higher energy costs.
The House’s action fulfilled Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s vow to clear major energy legislation before July 4, and sent the measure to a highly uncertain fate in the Senate.
Obama lobbied recalcitrant Democrats by phone from the White House as the debate unfolded across several hours, and Al Gore posted a statement on his Web site saying the measure represents “an essential first step towards solving the climate crisis.” The former vice president won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work drawing attention to the destructive potential of global warming.
On the House floor, Democrats hailed the legislation as historic, while Republicans said it would damage the economy without solving the nation’s energy woes.
It is “the most important energy and environmental legislation in the history of our country,” said Rep. Ed Markey of Massachusetts. “It sets a new course for our country, one that steers us away from foreign oil and towards a path of clean American energy.”
But Rep. John Boehner, the House Republican leader, used an extraordinary one-hour speech shortly before the final vote to warn of unintended consequences in what he said was a “defining bill.” He called it a “bureaucratic nightmare” that would cost jobs, depress real estate prices and put the government into parts of the economy where it now has no role.
The legislation would require the U.S. to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020 and by about 80 percent by mid-century. That was slightly more aggressive than Obama originally wanted, 14 percent by 2020 and the same 80 percent by mid-century.
U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels are rising at about 1 percent a year and are predicted to continue increasing without mandatory limits.
Under the bill, the government would limit heat-trapping pollution from factories, refineries and power plants and issue allowances for polluters. Most of the allowances would be given away, but about 15 percent would be auctioned by bid and the proceeds used to defray higher energy costs for lower-income individuals and families.
“Some would like to do more. Some would like to do less,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said in advance of the final vote. “But we have reached a compromise … and it is a compromise that can pass this House, pass that Senate, be signed by the president and become law and make progress.”
One of the biggest compromises involved the near total elimination of an administration plan to sell pollution permits and raise more than $600 billion over a decade — money to finance continuation of a middle class tax cut. About 85 percent of the permits are to be given away rather than sold in a ceoncession to energy companies and their allies in the House — and even that is uncertain to survive in the Senate.
The final bill also contained concessions to satisfy farm-state lawmakers, ethanol producers, hydroelectric advocates, the nuclear industry and others, some of them so late that they were not made public until 3 a.m. on Friday.
Supporters and opponents agreed the result would be higher energy costs but disagreed vigorously on the impact on consumers. Democrats pointed to two reports — one from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the other from the Environmental Protection Agency — that suggested average increases would be limited after tax credits and rebates were taken into account. The CBO estimated the bill would cost an average household $175 a year, the EPA $80 to $110 a year.
Republicans questioned the validity of the CBO study and noted that even that analysis showed actual energy production costs increasing $770 per household. Industry groups have cited other studies showing much higher costs to the economy and to individuals.
The White House and congressional Democrats argued the bill would create millions of “green jobs” as the nation shifts to greater reliance on renewable energy sources such as wind and solar and development of more fuel-efficient vehicles — and away from use of fossil fuels such as oil, gas and coal.
It will “make our nation the world leader on clean energy jobs and technology,” declared Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., who negotiated deals with dozens of lawmakers in recent weeks to broaden the bill’s support.
Pelosi, D-Calif., took an intense personal interest in the measure, sitting through hours of meetings with members of the rank and file and nurturing fragile compromises.
At its heart, the bill was a trade-off, less than the White House initially sought though it was more than Republicans said was acceptable. Some of the dealmaking had a distinct political feel. Rep. Alan Grayson, a first-term Democrat, won a pledge of support that $50 million from the proceeds of pollution permit sales in the bill would go to a proposed new hurricane research facility in his district in Orlando, Fla.
“This is revolutionary. This is a moment in history,” declared Markey, a co-sponsor of the bill.
Republicans saw it differently.
This “amounts to the largest tax increase in American history under the guise of climate change,” declared Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind.
___
On the Net:
American Clean Energy and Security Act: http://tinyurl.com/ph52vs
Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090626/ap_on_go_co/us_climate_bill
Global warming is man-made — and getting worse, scientists conclude
Last Updated Feb. 2, 2007
CBC News
Glaciers and icebergs of the Greenland ice cap are seen over Greenland on Aug. 17, 2005. Patterns show the ice is being pressed away from the middle of the island, with glaciers sliding slowly between mountains before breaking off into icebergs that float out of the fjords. Rising temperatures in Arctic regions is one of the likely scenarios of climate model predictions. (Associated Press)
For years, scientists have known the Earth was becoming a warmer place and at a faster rate in recent times: 11 of the highest average global annual temperatures recorded have come in the past 12 years. But despite growing evidence, the science behind our changing climate has continued to be hotly debated in legislatures and boardrooms around the world.
On Feb. 2, 2007, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a report — backed by 2,000 climate scientists from 113 countries — that attempts to put aside lingering doubts about the human role in the phenomenon.
The IPCC report says man-made activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and to a lesser extent intensive agriculture are “very likely” — more than 90 per cent certain — to be behind the hotter temperatures and rising sea levels.
The major findings of the report:
Global warming is ‘very likely’ caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions. Exisiting greenhouse gas levels will lead to rising temperatures, higher sea levels and more extreme weather such as heat waves, droughts and more intense hurricanes.
Average worldwide annual temperatures will increase between 1.8 and four degrees over the next century.
Sea levels will rise between 18 and 59 cm over the same time period.
(Source: IPCC Summary for Policy Makers)
The report represents the strongest language yet from the United Nations organization on climate change since it issued its first report in 1990.
It’s a stance reflective of a growing confidence within the scientific community in the depth, scope and predictive value of the research, said John Fyfe, a research scientist at Environment Canada’s Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis and one of the contributors to the report.
“All of these different lines of evidence are telling us the same story,” said Fyfe.
Here, we examine their findings and what they could mean for Canadians.
What does the report tell us?
The essence of the report is simple: the warming of the world’s climate is “unequivocal” and man’s fingerprints are all over the phenomenon, particularly through the emissions of carbon dioxide.
Global warming is the increase over time of the Earth’s average surface temperature. In general, it works like this: the sun shines on the Earth. Most of those rays pass through the Earth’s atmosphere, although some are reflected back into space. The planet’s surface — either the land or water — absorbs the energy. Some of that heat energy is re-emitted and travels back up into the atmosphere.
Greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere can trap that heat on the way up, however, warming up the Earth’s surface even more. The climate of the Earth has always been in flux, including periods of sustained warming and cooling, and greenhouse gases have played a role in those changes. Without naturally-occurring greenhouse gases, the Earth would be about 33 degrees Celsius colder than it is, a temperature hostile to human life.
“Carbon dioxide is by far the biggest contributor to warming,” said Fyfe. “Part of the reason is that it is so long-lived. Unlike aerosols, it can exist perpetually in the atmospheric system.”
The IPCC report’s findings have shown global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide were 379 parts per million in 2005, far above the natural range of between 180 to 300 ppm over the past 65,000 years and significantly higher than in the pre-industrial era. And levels of the gas in the atmosphere have continued to rise in the past 15 years alone.
The new analysis of the warming and cooling effects on the planet connects the rise in carbon dioxide to rising temperatures, with researchers saying with “very high confidence” that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming.
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising mean sea level,” the report states.
“We have said the warming is unequivocal,” said Ken Denman, a senior research scientist at the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis and one of the authors of the study.
“When physical scientists say something, they don’t like to say ‘certain,’ but I think that means certain,” he told CBC News.
Alarming predictions
The bones and a skull from dead cattle lie at a water hole in the village of Hadado in northern Kenya on Sept. 20, 2006. Climate models predict more severe droughts in subtropical regions. (World Food Program/Associated Press)
Even more disturbing are the report’s projection of the Earth’s climate 100 years from now.
The report predicts that, at current carbon dioxide levels, the global temperature will rise by 1.8 to 4.0 degrees Celsius — an increase that will be even greater at higher latitudes including Canada, according to René Laprise, a specialist in regional climate modelling at the University of Quebec in Montreal.
“These temperature increases could exceed 10 degrees [Celsius],” he told CBC News. “Warming on average in Canada would increase four to six degrees Celsius, with a smaller change in the south and an increase of 10 degrees in the north.”
The report also predicts sea levels will rise between 18 and 59 centimetres, a development that could be disastrous for island nations lying at low altitudes.
The prediction could be even worse if the melting of polar ice sheets continues to accelerate.
Among the other predictions:
- Increased atmospheric carbon dioxide will lead to increasing acidification of the ocean.
- Warming is expected to be greatest over land and at high latitudes, with some models predicting rises of 10 degrees Celsius in the next 100 years in the Arctic.
- Sea ice is expected to sink, with some projections predicting late-summer Arctic sea ice to disappear almost entirely in the latter part of the 21st century.
- Hot extremes, heat waves and heavy precipitation are highly likely to become more frequent.
- Hurricanes are likely to become more intense, though there is less confidence in whether they will decrease in number.
- Precipitation is very likely to move toward the poles, with an increase at higher latitudes and a decrease in subtropical regions.
How is this different from the last report?
The differences between the IPCC’s report six years ago and the latest findings come down to certainty.
The 2001 report said human activities were only “likely” to have an impact on global warming, a range of assurance that translates to 66 per cent certainty. The new report now puts our involvement as “very likely” or 90 per cent certain.
Many of the ranges for future projections have also been refined and in most cases narrowed. The changes in certainty reflect the growing maturity and resources of the scientific community, said Fyfe.
Scientists have observational data from a wider range of sources.
The carbon dioxide concentrations found in ice core samples provide an assessment of concentrations of the gas from thousands of years ago.
Balloon-borne and satellite measures of atmospheric warming rates have supplemented and helped correct inconsistencies in temperature trends gleaned mostly from data primarily taken from the surface of the planet.
And new investigations from a more widespread and diverse group of locales have provided a broader perspective on the changes in the planet, said Fyfe.
“It’s an explosion of observation,” he said.
Another development behind the increased confidence of the 2,000 climate scientists behind the report can be attributed to the success of past climate models.
Fifteen years ago, climate models were projecting global average temperature increases between 0.15 and 0.3 degrees per decade for the time between 1990 and 2005. The actual observed value of 0.2 degrees per decade falls in that range, strengthening confidence in these forecasts.
Adding to numbers suggesting today’s researchers are on the right track are greater resources in producing these models and greater access to the work of other groups, said Fyfe.
Where do we go from here?
Future reports from the IPCC in 2007:
April 6: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability
May 4: Mitigation of Climate Change
Nov. 17: The Synthesis Report
February’s report is the first of four IPCC releases expected in 2007. The others are expected to deal with vulnerable regions and recommendations for policy makers.
But while the United Nations group has substantial influence on policy makers throughout the world, translating its findings into action will fall to world leaders.
Under the Kyoto accord that went into effect in 2005, 141 nations have committed to reducing emissions by an average of five per cent below 1990 levels by 2012.
But the agreement does not include the world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gases — the United States — and also excludes developing countries like China and India.
U.S. Energy Secretary Sam Bodman downplayed America’s role as a greenhouse gas emitter, saying “we are a small contributor when you look at the rest of the world. It’s really got to be a global discussion.”
Prime Minister Stephen Harper said the report confirmed that “these changes are occurring, they’re serious and we must act.”
But Harper defended his government’s decision to move away from the Kyoto protocol and pursue “targets that can reached.”
“I think the first … realistic step in any such plan would be to try over the next few years to stabilize emissions. Obviously over the longer term to reduce them, but as I said before, realistically, the only way to get … reductions is to develop technologies,” Harper said.
Fyfe said climate models suggest our future is far from certain, as long as changes in greenhouse gases are addressed.
“We’re locked into a temperature increase of about 0.5 degrees by 2025 regardless of what we do, but the increases start to diverge depending on the levels of emissions when you look a hundred years from now,” said Fyfe. “So what we do now can make a difference.”
Source: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/climatechange/unreport-2007.html
Recent Comments