| Login |
This one-time registration is for participation in this blog.It
also enables you free access to all newnations.com reports and to receive newsletters.
If you are already registered with newnations all you now need to do is log-in.
Click Here to login/register
|
|
|
|
|
| Mission |
We tell
the world about the world
Our mission is to further the promotion of liberal democracy and the safeguarding
of the environment by the actions of accountable governments. To advance this
cause we report, without fear or favour, the affairs of nations that are in
transition, their politics, economics, business, finance and human rights -
and we tell it how it is, consistently, calmly, and objectively.
 |
|
|
|
Posted on Wednesday, December 16, 2009 - 12:22 PM
|
|
|
AFTER COPENHAGEN THERE IS NO PLAN 'B'
At the time of writing the first week of the
mammoth Copenhagen conference on Climate Change
has ended and after all the posturing, it will be
time to get down to work to see whether any
meaningful agreement is possible.
It is not overdramatizing the situation to say
that the life of the world, certainly of
humankind, may well depend on the outcome of this
meeting. Are we capable of saving ourselves
and what sacrifices (if any) are the world’s most
avaricious consumers prepared to accept as the
price of such change? While governments around the
world appear to have woken up to the need for
drastic action; in many places and especially the
Western democracies, their constituents are not
yet entirely convinced. Something could unravel in
the process. When tough and unpopular
decisions need to be taken, is the future trend
towards greater autocracy and less participative
government?
The sceptics may still seek to sow confusion
but make no mistake about it, the world’s weather
is changing as a response to atmospheric warming
and humans are responsible for it.
There is now a general consensus among the
scientists and the informed community that human
induced activity is responsible for the recent
rapid change although there is not yet a clear
consensus on what to do about it. Copenhagen is
supposed to fix that although whether it will or
not remains to be seen. Conferences, especially
those sponsored by the United Nations, are
notorious for their lofty pledges made while the
world’s media spotlights are on the leaders, but
what matters more is the commitment to
follow-through afterwards, and here the record is
not all that great.
We have known about global warming for the past
thirty years or so. What has given urgency
to the debate is the rapid increase in the rate of
warming and our ability to correlate this with the
rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), most
famously represented in what is known as the
“Keeling Curve” which shows the rapid exponential
rise in atmospheric carbon. Carbon concentration
rose from around 315 parts per million in 1960 to
370 ppm by the turn of the millennium and 383 ppm
by 2007. To put these numbers in context, in 1744,
at the start of the industrial revolution,
atmospheric CO2 was at 277 ppm. A level somewhere
between 450 and 550 ppm is generally agreed to be
the “tipping point” at which point the change
becomes irreversible.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
an international body that draws in leading
climate scientists from around the world. in its
2007 report concluded that “the warming of the
climate system is unequivocal”
Greenhouse gases, most notably CO2 from the
burning of fossil fuels are responsible.
Human induced activity generates around six
billion tons of CO2 annually. About half
of this is released permanently into the
atmosphere while the remainder is absorbed by the
world’s oceans which have become noticeably more
acidic over the past hundred years.
And these emissions continue to rise.
Atmospheric models related to carbon content
suggests that over the course of this century,
global temperatures are likely to rise between 1.8
and 4 degrees Celsius and sea levels will rise by
around 2 feet (61 cm). It gets worse. These
calculations factor in atmospheric CO2 absorption
but not the effects of melting ice. Yet ice is
starting to melt at an alarming rate. Greenland
has warmed by 4°C since 1991 and the ice caps of
both Greenland and Antarctica are melting, as are
the Himalayan, Alaskan and European glaciers. In
the summer of 2007, the Arctic Ocean had 23 per
cent les permanent ice cover than it did in 2005.
This not only means rising sea levels but also –
because of reduced reflectivity and greater
absorptive capacity – the rate of global heating
is increasing further. At present rates of decline
in the polar ice cap it will be possible to sail
to the North Pole during summer months by 2015.)
Global industries are blamed for most of
greenhouse gas emissions although studies have
shown that everyone is contributing to the problem
simply by driving a car or watching television at
home. Software companies such as Microsoft Corp.
are not spared from such criticism, and analysts
say Microsoft's recent Windows operating systems,
Vista and Windows 7, (combined with the phasing
out of support and patches for older operating
systems) has rendered millions of older computers
obsolete, creating a demand for new laptops and
desktops than can handle these new systems.
Building in obsolescence has consequences.
Outside of manufacturing, commercial
establishments, offices and service providers also
contribute to global warming, because they use
electricity generated by coal-fired power plants
and diesel generators, which emit hot gases to the
atmosphere. Transport companies and individual
cars, which run on gasoline and diesel, are also
major contributors to the problem.
A recent report from the US-based National
Geographic suggested that “if climate scientists
are right, humanity needs to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions by up to 80 percent by 2050.”
While governments need to take the lead in making
the implications of failure to act known and
accountable, the private sector too needs to
support the government effort in adhering to
global standards of energy efficiency as they
become available.
For the manufacturing sector this includes
ensuring that equipment runs at optimal efficiency
and that both lighting and air-conditioning is
consistent with “green” practices. For an office,
just the simple act of changing the thermostat on
air-conditioners and turning them off thirty
minutes before daily closure will have little
effect on employee comfort but will reduce
electricity consumption significantly. It also
means rethinking the design of upscale housing
developments and the propensity of families to
live in ever-larger single-family homes.
Looking at individual countries, the United
States and China have the largest carbon
footprints which is why the spotlight has been on
these two at the Copenhagen meeting. Other major
contributors to atmospheric CO2 include the Euro
area, Japan, China and Russia.
But a more telling measurement is the per capita
carbon footprint. Looked at through this prism,
the map looks quite different. Unsurprisingly
those living in the oil producing countries of the
Middle East have the highest footprints—residents
for Qatar by way of example, are each responsible
for around 56 tCO2e per person per year. At the
other end of the spectrum, many of the poorest
African countries have footprints of 0.1 tCO2e per
person per year or even less.
The United States, Canada and Australia are among
a small number of countries emitting more than 15
tCO2e per person per year, a reflection of the
high energy, high consumption lifestyles in these
countries (plus of course, being large countries,
the amount of energy consumed by the
transportation sector). Japan, Korea and much of
Europe (Luxembourg is an exception) fall in the
range 5–10 tCO2e while for the developing world –
and even the newly emerging economies – the
figures are much lower. The figure for China for
example is 4.6 while for India it is only 1.3.
This takes us to the heart of the dilemma and the
politics of the current debate. It threatens to
create a further divide between the ‘haves’ and
the ‘have-nots.’ Global warming is foremost
a consequence of industrialization and the
propensity to consume on the part of those living
in developed nations. It is a direct consequence
of the burning of fossil fuels for energy.
A secondary major cause is the clearance of forest
land in the developing world – particularly in the
Amazon Basin and in Indonesia for agriculture,
industry or human settlement.
But rich or poor, we will all be affected by the
changing climate. Nevertheless it will be
those living in developing countries or within
coastal communities even in developed countries
who are at greatest risk.
A 2007 report by London-based International Alert
divided the world into those regions likely to
experience moderate to significant climate change
as a result of global warming and those where the
changes would be serious to extreme. Asia is both
the most populous area of the world as well as
being among the most seriously affected.
(International Alert 2007).
This enables us to focus on another aspect of
global warming – it is not only rising
temperatures and sea levels that we have to
contend with but an increase in what has been
termed “extreme weather events.” Catastrophic
storms, sea surges and temperature extremes that
previously would have been described as “once in a
lifetime” events are now, in some places occurring
with much greater frequency. The
Philippines, by way of example, has been hit by
three typhoons (cyclones) in 2009 that were each
described as “once in a century occurrences.” In
Australia, damage to coastal communities from a
one metre sea level rise and increased extreme
weather occurrences is currently put at around
A$63 billion. The implications of this for the
insurance industry are obvious.
But while the present reaction of many in the
developed world to a changing climate may be the
inclination to turn up the air conditioner a
notch, those in the developing world are not as
fortunate. As the map shows us, for most of the
world, and almost the entire developing world, the
consequences of climate change will be severe to
extreme.
India, Africa and much of Southeast Asia is likely
to face declining agricultural productivity
combined with increased health risk and a
shortening of life expectancy, reversing much of
the gain made over the past half century.
Those individuals who are already integrated
into the global workforce will increasingly be
inclined to seek a permanent safe-haven for
themselves and their families in such places as
the United States, Canada, Australia and New
Zealand. For those at the poorer end of the
spectrum, many will be forced to migrate away from
their threatened communities to other would-be
safe havens through traditional nomadic migratory
patterns. Ethnic conflicts and tribal rivalries
will likely be exacerbated as a result. In such a
climate (no pun intended) can democracy survive or
will the constant state of crisis lead to an
upsurge in authoritarianism?
The future could be frightening unless the
developed world – and especially the high
footprint countries – are prepared to take the
lead at Copenhagen and in its aftermath support
measures at both the corporate and individual
level that would put a effective price on carbon.
It matters little that India has a higher
footprint overall than Australia. Do Australians
(or others in high consumption societies) really
expect the poor of India or Africa to tighten
their belts further so that they can have a third
car in their garage?
The real worry is that while most Western
governments appear to be prepared to bite the
bullet and take a resolute stand on emissions
trading schemes as well as funds to enable the
developing world to adapt, they may not be
bringing their constituents along with them.
A recent opinion poll conducted by one
Australian newspaper showed that far more
Australians believed that the evidence for
human-induced climate warming was inconclusive and
that more work needed to be done before
implementing an emission trading scheme, than
those who were prepared to accept it.
Somewhere the message is getting lost.
Contact information
Dr. Michael (Mike) Clancy
michaelclancy@rocketmail.com
Tel: 0420750171
Dr. Mike Clancy is a freelance writer and editor
who specializes in scientific, climate change and
labour issues. A physical scientist from Adelaide
University, he spent 15 years with the Australian
Department of Foreign Affairs before moving to
Asia where he ran his own consultancy business for
more than 20 years.
He is now living with his family in Southeast
Queensland.
|
|
|
|
|
Comments
There is another story to be told here.
Firstly, there is no scientific consensus on the science underlying Copenhagen - look at the following - http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport. Where hundreds of genuine active working scientists dispute the underlying science of anthropogenic global warming.
Secondly - even if we accept that man-made processes are causing global warming we cannot fine tune and reverse this by agreeing "cuts in emissions" - in other words treating the global climate system as a linear one.
A linear process is like a thermostat on a central heating system - if it gets too hot you turn it down and it gets cooler. The global climate like most natural processes is non-linear. Change sets up feedback systems which cannot be reversed simply by removing one of the determinants of the change.
The underlying science of emission cuts policy is flawed.
I am astonished to read that African nations in Copenhagen have been pressing for a 1.5 degree target for warming rather than a 2 degree cut by whatever date is in the field. As though global climate science were able to choose between such finely tuned alternatives.
The leader of any poor nation that feels threatened by - as an example - rising sea levels, should press for funds to build levees and not to cut CO2 emissions. Well built levees always work. CO2 cuts probably won't.
With just hours left, the historic Copenhagen climate summit is failing.
World leaders have begun the final hours of direct negotiations. The UK Prime Minister has directly appealed to Avaaz to build the tidal wave of public pressure needed to reach a deal that stops catastrophic global warming of 2 degrees.
Click below to sign the petition for a real deal -- the campaign already has a staggering 11 million supporters -- over the next 48 hours let's make it the largest petition in history! The name of every signer is being read out right now in the summit hall -- sign on at the link below and forward this email to everyone!
http://www.avaaz.org/en/save_copenhagen/97.php?cl_tta_sign=1da5d96e4de4b83c9eec589c9f7e2622
We are making history in Copenhagen. A group of young people have sat down in the middle of the summit and begun reading the names of every person who signs the petition for a real deal. Another group is doing the same 'petition reading sit-in' in the Canadian Prime Minister's office, and rumours are that more such actions will happen today. On an emergency conference call with 3000 Avaaz members today, UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown said:
"What you're doing through the internet around the world is absolutely crucial to setting the agenda. In the next 48 hours, don't underestimate your effect on the leaders here in Copenhagen"
Earlier, millions watched the Avaaz vigil inside the summit on TV, where Archbishop Desmond Tutu told hundreds of delegates and assembled children:
“We marched in Berlin, and the wall fell.
"We marched for South Africa, and apartheid fell.
"We marched at Copenhagen -- and we WILL get a Real Deal.”
Copenhagen is seeking the biggest mandate in history to stop the greatest threat humanity has ever faced. History will be made in the next 48 hours. How will our children remember this moment? Let's tell them we did all we could.
http://www.avaaz.org/en/save_copenhagen/97.php?cl_tta_sign=1da5d96e4de4b83c9eec589c9f7e2622
With hope and determination,
Ricken, Alice, Ben, Paul, Luis, Iain, Veronique, Graziela, Pascal, Paula, Benjamin, Raj, Raluca, Taren, David, Josh and the whole Avaaz team.
-------------------------
ABOUT AVAAZ
Avaaz.org is an independent, not-for-profit global campaigning organization that works to ensure that the views and values of the world's people inform global decision-making. (Avaaz means "voice" in many languages.) Avaaz receives no money from governments or corporations, and is staffed by a global team based in Ottawa, London, Rio de Janeiro, New York, Buenos Aires, and Geneva.
Click here to learn more about our largest campaigns.
Don't forget to check out our Facebook and Myspace and Bebo pages! You can also follow Avaaz on Twitter!
You are getting this message because you signed "Save Copenhagen: Real Deal Now!" on 2009-12-18 08:20:11 using the email address nelson@mews-walkabout.com.
To ensure that Avaaz messages reach your inbox, please add avaaz@avaaz.org to your address book. To change your email address, language settings, or other personal information, click here: go here"go here or simply click here to unsubscribe.To contact Avaaz, please do not reply to this email. Instead, write to us via the webform at http://www.avaaz.org/en/contact. You can also call us at 888-922-8229 (US) or +55 21 2509 0368 (Brazil).
Only logged in users are allowed to comment. register/log in