As governments gather in Durban for the annual UN climate change conference, climate change is worryingly low down the international agenda.
This is perhaps not surprising given the turmoil in the global economy. However, the stakes at Durban are very high. The meeting is the last real opportunity for governments to provide certainty on the future of the Kyoto Protocol and lay out a path to a future global climate agreement.
The meeting is overshadowed by two pressing deadlines;
The first is set by the inexorable logic of the climate science. At last year's meeting in Cancun, Mexico, governments agreed to keep the average rise in global temperatures to below the danger threshold of 2°C.
In November, the International Energy Agency made clear that without a bold change in policy direction, the world will miss this goal by a wide margin - and instead lock itself into an inefficient carbon-intensive energy infrastructure that will be costly or impossible to reverse. And last week, the UN Environment Programme confirmed that existing emission reduction pledges fall far short of what is needed. UNEP found that a strong focus on clean energy and stopping deforestation could get us back on track for a safe climate future - but only if governments take strong action now.
The second deadline is in the political process. The first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol comes to an end in just 12 months time, and a key question in Durban is whether governments can agree to a second commitment period. If not, we risk losing the world's only clear, robust legal framework to address greenhouse gas emissions. The alternative - a world of vague voluntary pledges, based on 'pick and mix' rules for accounting for emissions - will almost certainly take us to levels of warming of 4°C or more, with catastrophic consequences for people and nature.
The EU has stepped forward to offer to continue with a second Kyoto period, but only if other major economies take action. But some other developed countries such as Japan, Russia and Canada are refusing to support Kyoto.
Developing countries have made clear that agreement on continuation of the Kyoto Protocol is a bottom line for them. But unless developing countries are also willing to signal their readiness to take on legally binding commitments in the future, then it will be very difficult to find a solution to deal with runaway climate change.
WWF believes that a pathway through the maze can be found, with an agreement on Kyoto and a clear path to negotiate a comprehensive international treaty in 2015. But this will require real vision and leadership.
The other crunch issue at Durban is on the provision of finance to help developing countries cut emissions and cope with the impacts of climate change. Governments were expected to finalise plans for a UN Green Climate Fund, but these are hanging in the balance following objections from the USA and Saudi Arabia. Durban must also set out clear plans to make sure that the fund is not an empty vessel. Developed countries have pledged to deliver funding of $100 billion per year by 2020, but urgent progress is needed to identify clear and reliable sources for this money. A leading candidate is a mechanism to address international aviation and shipping.
Durban is therefore set to be a tipping point in the international response to climate change. Leaders can build on the progress achieved last year in Cancun and act to prevent runaway climate change, or they can allow short-term national interests to set us on a path towards warming of 3-4°C warming. And at the front of their minds should be that they will be making these choices whilst on African soil - a continent which is uniquely vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.
Asad Rehman: Durban: As Storm Clouds Give Way to Clear Skies, Is There Real Reason for Optimism?
Durban for Dummies: Your guide to the UN climate talks
Durban must move the world forward
Durban awaits the opening of CCR Expo
Huhne to pledge £1billion of British taxpayers money to help AFRICA fight ...
An Alternative Manifesto For The Durban Environmental Summit
'Muzzling' Abigail Borah and children everywhere when they speak truth to power cannot be allowed to stand. And yet it does stand. Perhaps change, change that allows the children to speak out and protect their birthright, will come to pass before it is too late for the human community to undo the desecration and damage that has been done by their greedmongering elders to their earthly home, the planetary home foolhardy elders are borrowing/stealing from them.
A Quartet on Thinking Globally and Acting Locally:
http://www.7billionactions.org/story/1187-steven-earl-salmony
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KkmFuM77qU
http://www.truth-out.org/marching-cliff/1323195281
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XQIxr4gRQM&%3Bfeature=player_embedded
We've already had Y2K, SARS, bird flu ... all events that the media told us would be unparallelled global disasters, but none of them really were.
So stop your Armageddon tone and get down to solutions, not scare talk and new taxes.
◘ That the earth is in fact 'warming' at all,
◘ That the contribution due to HUMAN BEHAVIOR is effectively being measured, and
◘ That assuming both of the above are true, there is any way to effect a change in human behavior in the countries guilty of the most violations.
Those are some huge assumptions. The best analysis of this that I've read on global warming was done by Michael Crichton in his extensive appendix to his novel 'State of Fear.' Crichton was anything but stupid; BA Summa in biological anthropology from Harvard (became a travelling Fellow and then taught same at Cambridge), then MD from Harvard and residency at the Jonas Salk Institute in LaJolla. (He published under pseudonyms during this period, and his writing awards are too numerous to list. He ended up a visiting writer at MIT.)
This appendix one of the most brilliant pieces of nonfiction writing I've ever seen: beautifully logical, flawless in catching loose ends, and extensively footnoted with reliable authority. IMHO, pro-GW advocates will have to work very hard to overcome Crichton's brilliant argument, and I haven't seen one that addresses it point by point.
There is, however, no doubt that GW has spawned an entire new industry which pays for regulations and increased engineering specs by the mile, and makes only the richest members of society better off. UK's austerity programs are destroying every socioeconomic class except the very rich, and OAPs have their pensions hit hard by QE inflation and fuel allowance cut, but Cameron's dad is making a fortune off useless wind technology (and annoying his neighbors.) Huhne's in the same position...and now throwing £333 Mn to rich SA to make sure they can handle GW (with of course few strings to make sure they spend it on GW initiatives.)
So whether GW is real or not, the issue is whether the money would be better spent on UK citizens who are vulnerable and in need, or on rich folks in or outside of UK to make them even richer while providing little energy at obscene cost.
The average UK Taxpayers pays MORE in "Green" Flight Tax than ANY OTHER EU nation; making our "two week" holiday abroad an even more expensive cost and something soon to become unatainable to many.
With Petrol costs rising; fewer of us are driving.
With Energy costs rising; fewer of us are turning on our heating.
With "Green" taxes rising; Our take home pay is getting smaller.
Yet for some reason, in the eyes of some; we are not doing enough?
Dont hold the UK "people" responsible! Enough money has been given to enough businesses, societies, organisations and experts to work toward solutions, ideas and programmes to deal with this on the WORLD stage. WE are not the bad people here!!!
No longer can politicians claim the 'the science is settled'. If Mr Chris Huhne saddles the British people with billions of debt in pursuit of windmills or wealth redistribution then he will be doing it in the sure knowledge that the whole thing is a hoax and should ultimately answer to the British people for green crimes.
No reasonable person can read the words of Micheal Mann, Proessor Phil Jones, et al., in the Climategate e-mails and seriously believe that climate change is other than a natural occurance.
CO2 is a trace gas, it could also be called the green gas - bringer of life.
The cost to all political parties in letting this deception continue, so clearly now exposed in climate gate 1 & 2, will be huge unless they have the courage to tear down this pathetic charade.
The common man is not stupid.Listen to voters, not NGOs such as WWF.
Actually I am a Chartered Environmentalist, and know my subject. CO2 constitutes 0.039% of greenhouse gases. Humans contribute just 3% of that CO2.
Climate changes, what we have seen is a quite normal change, as has happened countless times before. there has been no increase in global temperatures since 1998, there has therefore been no correlation between CO2 emissions and temperature rise, there is no link.
I hope that you are someone who, like me, thinks and questions. You are either being duped, or have a warmist agenda unrelated to the changing climate. I challenge you to read the climategate e mails and see whether you can really believe these so called scientists.
sorry - sky isn't falling in.