COPENHAGEN—Lisa Jackson, the administrator of theEnvironmental Protection Agency, pushed through a crush of visitors at the U.S.Center late this morning, stepped to the podium in front of a packed meetingroom, and became the first of President Obama’s senior advisors to appear atthe UN Climate Change Conference specifically to make the case that the UnitedStates is assuming its share of the global burden to cool the planet.

Whether delegates from 191 other nations represented here,and thousands of activists and journalists who’ve joined them in Copenhagen,will be convinced is not at all clear. Conference organizers and delegatesworried today that developing nations might walk out of the proceedings, adecision that would be spurred, at least in part, by assertions from poorcountries that rich nations are not doing enough to combat climate change.

Jackson’s appearance will be followed over the next week bythe secretaries of Interior, Commerce, Energy, Agriculture and the presidenthimself. All will speak from a script about the Obama administration’s workthis year to shift the federal government’s work on climate change fromBush-era denial to focused activism. The new administration narrative, much ofit to be staged at the 6,500-square-foot U.S. Center, is aimed at convincingthe world that a new reckoning with the planet’s dire climate situation is athand. Said Jackson: “2009 cements the place in history when the United Statesseized the challenge of dealing with greenhouse gas pollution. “

Different Than Bush There is no argument, by the administration’s supporters and its mostvociferous critics, that when it comes to a focused response to warmingtemperatures and increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, theU.S. has vastly improved its game. The persistent rumble of discontent at thesetalks, and others in the last year, is whether it’s enough.

A lot of nations say it’s not. A number of American NGOstaffers agree. The Obama administration, at war with the fossil industry andits allies in Congress, says it’s doing everything in its power to negotiate aclimate deal here that has authentic merit.

The mission for Jackson here today, and for the colleaguesthat follow her, is to break through the doubts. In her brief remarks, she tooknote of the progression of the EPA and the Obama administration’s actions toreduce climate-changing air emissions since the inauguration.

Last month, for instance, the president announced that theU.S. was prepared to make a commitment here to a reduction in greenhouseemissions in the “range of 17 percent” below 2005 levels, the first time theU.S. has issued such targets. Earlier this year Jackson and her agency issuednew vehicle emissions and efficiency standards, and a new rule requiring largepolluters to report their greenhouse gas emissions. In February, the presidentsigned the economic recovery bill that included - depending on how you count—$80 billion to $110 billion for climate gas-reducing clean energy technology,energy efficiency, public transit, and research investments.

And on Monday, on the same day that the climate conferenceopened, the EPA issued a formal finding that carbon dioxide and five othercompounds endanger public health and safety. The so-called “endangerment”finding, which was mandated by a 2007 Supreme Court decision, clears the wayfor Jackson and her agency to begin regulating greenhouse gas emissions.

Conference PresenceUpdated There’s also little argument that the American approach to this conference- visible, aggressive, and reliant on the administration’s political star power—also differs significantly from the previous global negotiations over thelast year in places like Bonn and Barcelona.

In those talks, the U.S. seemed continually on thedefensive. In Barcelona, where climate negotiators gathered in late October,the U.S. was greeted by serious challenge from big and small nations, rich andpoor, about its refusal to set targets on emissions and financial contributionsto developing countries. The early days of that negotiation were marked by somepredictions that the US position might push the talks to collapse.

Jonathan Pershing, the deputy special envoy for climate changeand the chief U.S. negotiator, tried to explain that the Obama administrationwas reluctant to repeat the ordeal of 1997, when the Clinton administrationsigned the Kyoto Protocol to limit emissions, but encountered such stiffresistance in the Senate that the treaty was never submitted for a vote.Delegates from other nations scoffed, saying Pershing’s defense of theadministration’s decision to withhold those two crucial numbers - emissionslimits and financial investment—was a matter of internal domestic politicsthat the U.S. needed to resolve, just like any other nation.

In Washington, ABattle Over Climate The ideological battle over clean energy and climate change has only gottenmore nasty. Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic Majority Leader, put off debateand a vote on a proposed Senate version of climate and clean energy bill untilthe spring. And a manufactured scandal by opponents to climate action,involving email messages stolen from an English climate research group, hasenergized allies of the fossil fuel industry in and outside government, andreached the doorsteps of the Bella Center, where the climate conference isbeing held.

But in the weeks since the Barcelona negotiations, theadministration has unfurled the results of the months of private climatenegotiations that the president and his aides have undertaken with U.S. allies.The president met with the leaders of China and India this fall. After thepresident announced the American emissions target, China and India announcednew targets of their own, the first time that has occurred.

The White House also announced that the U.S. had establishedthe U.S. Center at the Copenhagen Conference.  Along with the cabinet secretaries scheduled to speak here CarolBrowner, the coordinator of energy and climate policy, and Nancy Sutley, thechairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, will also make high-profilepresentations.

U.S. Center Planned AYear Ago A senior State Department official who participated in planning the U.S.Center, who asked not to be identified, confirmed that the U.S. Center was acenter piece of the American marketing strategy, developed at the start of theyear, to change how the administration and the country are viewed at climate conferences.

The official did not say when the administration decided toshowcase its top energy, environment, and natural resources officials here. Butthe planning appears to have coincided with the president’s own decision toattend the Copenhagen conference, which he originally scheduled for tomorrow,and then rescheduled to December 18, the conference’s last day. President Obamawill be one of 110 heads of state that are now expected to attend theconference, according to the United Nations conference organizers.

Yesterday, according to participants, Jackson received astanding ovation when she was introduced at a private meeting with American NGOactivists. US delegation members said they anticipate President Obama also willbe warmly embraced here. Very clearly, judging by the bounce in the steps oflower-level officials who’ve appeared at the U.S. Center, the president will begreeted by an energized staff that no longer feels like it needs to defend theAmerican position on the deteriorating climate.

Related Links:

iPhone Copenhagen App: COP 15 Navigator

56 Papers in 45 Countries Publish Joint Editorial

The EPA to the rescue?

Though Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, seems supportive of climate legislation, she remains a toss-up in the debate over the Kerry-Boxer bill. In this letter to a constituent, she appears to embrace “meaningful action” to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, though she argues that solutions must be “reasonable”:

Dear [Constituent],

Thank you for contacting me regarding climate change legislation.  I appreciate your letting me know of your support for the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act and Copenhagen climate negotiations.On September 30, 2009, the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act was introduced by Senators Kerry (D-MA) and Boxer (D-CA). This climate change bill includes a cap and trade system. The bill has been approved by the Environment and Public Works Committee, but many observers are expecting Senator Kerry to produce an alternative bipartisan bill with support from Senators Graham (R-SC) and Lieberman (ID-CT).Global climate change is the most significant environmental challenge facing our nation today, and we must develop reasonable solutions to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. I was an original cosponsor of bipartisan legislation last Congress that set a goal of reducing America’s greenhouse gas emissions by 70 percent over 2005 levels by 2050. Unfortunately, the bill failed to achieve the required votes needed to proceed to further debate.We must take meaningful action to respond to climate change. As the Senate continues to consider energy and environmental legislation, I remain committed to advancing effective climate change legislation during this Congress. Again, thank you for contacting me. I appreciate having the benefit of your views.

Senator Susan Collins

Here’s more on Collins and climate, as written by Kate Sheppard on 29 July 2009:

Sen. Susan Collins and her Maine colleague Olympia Snowe are the two Republicans considered most likely to vote in favor of a climate bill this year.

Collins was one of just seven Republicans to vote in favor of moving forward with the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act in 2008.  A strong supporter of environmental legislation over the years, she was the only Republican senator to get an endorsement from the League of Conservation Voters in 2008, and she got perfect marks on LCV’s scorecard in 2007 and 2008.

Collins is also one of the few Republicans who has demonstrated a willingness to work with the Democratic majority to shape and pass legislation this year. She played a crucial role in crafting the stimulus bill earlier this year (for better or worse), and was one of only three Republicans to vote for it.

This year, Collins has been adamant that she and other Republicans should play a role in shaping the climate bill, and she spoke out against the proposal to pass climate legislation as part of the budget reconciliation process. “It’s a bad mistake to try to cut out the Republicans and cut off debate and limit amendments on such an important bill, and I say that as a supporter of cap-and-trade,” she said.

Track the debate and take action >>>

Enviros like what they’re hearing from Collins.  “Climate change is the most significant environmental challenge facing our planet,” she told college graduates recently.

If backers of a climate bill can’t get Collins on board, you’ll know they’re in trouble.

Do you know more about this senator’s stance on climate legislation?  Tell us.

Find out about other senators by clicking on their names in the right column.

Related Links:

The EPA to the rescue?

The physics of Copenhagen: Why politics-as-usual may mean the end of civilization

As Copenhagen kicks off, a Good News roundup

Any deal at the Copenhagen climate summit will be more about politics than science. President Obama should stay away

With the publication of damaging emails from a climate research center in Britain, the radical environmental movement appears to face a tipping point. The revelation of appalling actions by so-called climate change experts allows the American public to finally understand the concerns so many of us have articulated on this issue.

"Climate-gate," as the emails and other documents from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia have become known, exposes a highly politicised scientific circle – the same circle whose work underlies efforts at the Copenhagen climate change conference. The agenda-driven policies being pushed in Copenhagen won't change the weather, but they would change our economy for the worse.

The emails reveal that leading climate "experts" deliberately destroyed records, manipulated data to "hide the decline" in global temperatures, and tried to silence their critics by preventing them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals. What's more, the documents show that there was no real consensus even within the CRU crowd. Some scientists had strong doubts about the accuracy of estimates of temperatures from centuries ago, estimates used to back claims that more recent temperatures are rising at an alarming rate.

This scandal obviously calls into question the proposals being pushed in Copenhagen. I've always believed that policy should be based on sound science, not politics. As governor of Alaska, I took a stand against politicised science when I sued the federal government over its decision to list the polar bear as an endangered species despite the fact that the polar bear population had more than doubled. I got clobbered for my actions by radical environmentalists nationwide, but I stood by my view that adding a healthy species to the endangered list under the guise of "climate change impacts" was an abuse of the US Endangered Species Act. This would have irreversibly hurt both Alaska's economy and the nation's, while also reducing opportunities for responsible development.

Our representatives in Copenhagen should remember that good environmental policymaking is about weighing real-world costs and benefits – not pursuing a political agenda. That's not to say I deny the reality of some changes in climate – far from it. I saw the impact of changing weather patterns firsthand while serving as governor of our only Arctic state. I was one of the first governors to create a subcabinet to deal specifically with the issue and to recommend common-sense policies to respond to the coastal erosion, thawing permafrost and retreating sea ice that affect Alaska's communities and infrastructure.

But while we recognize the occurrence of these natural, cyclical environmental trends, we can't say with assurance that man's activities cause weather changes. We can say, however, that any potential benefits of proposed emissions reduction policies are far outweighed by their economic costs. And those costs are real. Unlike the proposals China and India offered prior to Copenhagen – which actually allow them to increase their emissions – President Obama's proposal calls for serious cuts in our own long-term carbon emissions. Meeting such targets would require Congress to pass its cap-and-tax plans, which will result in job losses and higher energy costs (as Obama admitted during the campaign). That's not exactly what most Americans are hoping for these days. And as public opposition continues to stall Congress's cap-and-tax legislation, Environmental Protection Agency bureaucrats plan to regulate carbon emissions themselves, doing an end run around the American people.

In fact, we're not the only nation whose people are questioning climate change schemes. In the European Union, energy prices skyrocketed after it began a cap-and-tax programme. Meanwhile, Australia's parliament recently defeated a cap-and-tax bill. Surely other nations will follow suit, particularly as the climate email scandal continues to unfold.

In his inaugural address, President Obama declared his intention to "restore science to its rightful place." But instead of staying home from Copenhagen and sending a message that the US will not be a party to fraudulent scientific practices, the president has upped the ante. He plans to fly in at the climax of the conference in hopes of sealing a "deal." Whatever deal he gets, it will be no deal for the American people. What Obama really hopes to bring home from Copenhagen is more pressure to pass the Democrats' cap-and-tax proposal. This is a political move. The last thing America needs is misguided legislation that will raise taxes and cost jobs – particularly when the push for such legislation rests on agenda-driven science.

Without trustworthy science and with so much at stake, Americans should be wary about what comes out of this politicised conference. The president should boycott Copenhagen.

This article was originally published on washingtonpost.com.
© The Washington Post Company 2009

Washington Post article urging Barack Obama to ditch conference is perfectly timed, but poorly argued

It would be interesting to know what Sarah Palin, sworn enemy of the polar bear, would make of this slideshow of a bear eating a young cub.

Palin, with her usual perfect timing for launching herself at an issue just as it is reaching media saturation, has a piece in today's Washington Post on the UN's Copenhagen climate change summit.

She calls on Barack Obama to boycott the summit because of the controversy over the hacked emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit. Palin first made the demand on her Facebook page late last month. Obama signed on for the meeting anyway.

The article is classic Palin in her willingness to smear her political opponents.

So a huge international meeting of 100 prime ministers and presidents, countless bureaucrats, scientists, lawyers and business leaders in Palin-speak is rendered a sideshow of the "radical environmental movement". The scandal of the hacked emails – though certainly politically damaging – becomes in Palin's words evidence of a "tipping point" in the credibility of climate change science.

And my favourite line: "I've always believed that policy should be based on sound science, not politics."

Palin goes on to recap her decision as governor of Alaska to deny the polar bear protection as an endangered species. Those "radical environmentalists" – scientists, environmentalists, and sections of the Bush administration – were concerned that the polar bear traditional hunting grounds were vanishing as quickly as the melting Arctic sea ice.

Palin wasn't. The polar bear population was healthy, she writes.

I got clobbered for my actions by radical environmentalists nationwide, but I stood by my view that adding a healthy species to the endangered list under the guise of "climate change impacts" was an abuse of the Endangered Species Act.

Now turn to the slide show of an adult male polar bear dangling the bloodied head of a cub in its jaws.

On Monday, the first day of Copenhagen, the EPA announced that it has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases, which is a none-too-thinly-veiled warning to Congress that if it doesn’t act the EPA may. Since EPA’s regulatory powers under the Clean Air Act are quite extensive, many businesses view the cap-and-trade legislation, for which they can wield tremendous influence, as a lesser of evils. The game of chicken that is now underway between the EPA and Congress as to which body will ultimately set the terms of greenhouse gas regulation is a fascinating case study in political economy and gamesmanship.

The conventional wisdom seems to be that Congress will not want to cede the authority to the EPA and that the proposed cap-and-trade legislation will pass in some form (even if severely weakened) in 2010. While many in the environmental community rightly view this is a potential historic victory in the making (relative to the last eight years of obstruction under the Bush Administration), a weak cap-and-trade bill may actually do more harm than good.

This is because the investments that need to be made in order to make the major reductions in emissions required after 2020 are extensive, and will likely not be spurred by the low price of carbon (and other greenhouse gases) that is predicted should cap-and-trade pass. If the price of carbon were allowed to rise significantly as the cap tightened, perhaps reaching $75-100 per ton, this might be sufficient to unleash the market forces necessary for the push towards 80 percent reductions by 2050. However, it is highly unlikely that politicians would allow the price to get even close to this amount; all types of escape clauses are already built in or are being proposed for the current legislation.

It is not difficult to envision a scenario under which cap-and-trade passes and industry does what is necessary to reduce emissions in the range of 15 percent by 2020 by exploiting all of the “low hanging fruit” (e.g. energy efficiency and switching from coal to natural gas), but does not invest in the major infrastructure projects and economy-wide restructuring that is needed to take the big steps beyond that will get us to 40 percent, 50 percent, and ultimately our 80 percent reduction targets.

With another decade of lost, and politicians unwilling to let the price of carbon rise significantly, the U.S. could get stuck with very hard choices as to how, if at all, to proceed.Which brings us the issue as to whether letting the EPA take the lead now would ultimately lead to a better outcome.

The EPA has the power to enforce strict renewable energy requirements, absolute caps on emissions at individual facilities, and vehicle fuel economy standards (including electric vehicle mandates). In essence, the EPA could, if it wanted to, begin the paradigm shifting measures required to truly decarbonize the economy.

The more I learn about the imperfections in the current cap-and-trade legislation, and the potential for abuse in the carbon offset markets, coupled with the impossibility of passing a significant greenhouse gas tax, the more I believe that the EPA may be better suited to the task ahead.

I now find myself in the odd position of hoping that the dysfunction Senate calls the EPA’s bluff and refuses to pass a bill, and that the EPA responds with the type of measures I’ve outlined above. Or perhaps best case scenario, the Senate passes a bill and the EPA decides to complement it with these measures (some of which, to be fair, are already being considered in the proposed cap-and-trade legislation).

Here’s hoping the EPA uses its power and comes to the rescue.

P.S. It now appears that the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling giving the EPA the regulatory authority to regulate greenhouse gases may turn out to be the biggest environmental victory in the history of humankind.

*Special thanks to my colleague Jim Williams, Associate Professor at the Monterey Institute, who inspired this post.

Related Links:

U.S. Charm Offensive at Copenhagen Climate Conference: Will it Work?

Susan Collins (R-Maine) [UPDATED]

World Meteorological Organization and NOAA agree

As I boarded my flight back to California in Brisbane, Australia, last Wednesday, I received an email alert that the Australian Senate had just defeated the Labor government’s climate change legislation. Only days earlier victory seemed all but assured, allowing Australia to go to Copenhagen with an iron-clad, albeit weak, agreement in hand to reduce the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions, which per capita are among the highest in the world.

New Liberal Party leader Tony Abbott.Photo courtesy cinephobia via Flickr Then in the course of 24 hours the conservative opposition Liberal Party sacked its leader—who had pledged to pass the government’s cap-and-trade legislation—and replaced him with a one-time global warming denier and quickly voted down the government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

The defeat gives Prime Minister Rudd the trigger for an early election that would largely be fought over climate change. (If Parliament twice rejects a government bill, the prime minister can ask that the legislature be dissolved and a snap election called.)

In August, after the Senate first rejected the center-left government’s cap-and-trade legislation, I wrote in Grist that the defeat reflected the peculiarities of the Australian political system rather than the viability of a cap-and-trade system.

I’m not so sure any more after watching the latest reversal unfold during a visit to the Lucky Country.

Just as Australia is the proverbial canary in the coal mine for the environmental affects of climate change, a national election waged over cap-and-trade will offer a preview of voters’ willingness to pull the lever for action on climate change.

The new Liberal Party leader, Tony Abbott, immediately made clear how he’ll fight climate change legislation at the polls, repeatedly labeling cap-and-trade as “a great big new tax.”

That, of course, is the line taken by opponents of the cap-and-trade bill now before the U.S. Congress and has been an effective bludgeon in both countries when used against complicated issues.

Whether that will fly in Australia where climate change is a daily reality is another matter.

Driving through the parched landscape of southwest Queensland last week, ABC Radio’s live coverage of the Liberal Party coup alternated with updates of bush fires burning in north central Queensland and the neighboring state of New South Wales as well as a report on a rural town down to its last eight hours of water after a heat wave dried up its reservoir. Another story reported on the plight of farmers in Far North Queensland affected by floods that ravaged the region earlier this year at the same time firestorms incinerated swaths of the state of Victoria, killing nearly 200 people.

Which is why Abbott, known as the Liberal Party’s ideological “head kicker,” took pains to acknowledge the reality of climate change.

“This is not about climate-change science, this is about the mechanism for dealing with it,” said Abbott after winning the leadership battle by a single vote in a party caucus. “We will have a strong and effective new climate change policy, it just won’t involve a great big new tax.”

Or any tax, for that matter. Abbott subsequently said his new yet-to-be-revealed climate change policy will not involve cap-and-trade or a carbon tax.

The man Abbott deposed as party leader, Malcolm Turnbull, on Monday called such a policy “bullshit.”

“Any suggestion that you can dramatically cut emissions without any cost is, to use a favourite term of Mr Abbott, ‘bullshit.’ Moreover he knows it,” Turnbull, the environment minister in the last Liberal government, wrote on his blog. “As we are being blunt, the fact is that Tony and the people who put him in his job do not want to do anything about climate change. They do not believe in human caused global warming. As Tony observed on one occasion ‘climate change is crap.’ “

The internecine battles within the Liberal Party aside, it’s unclear how the tax issue will fare with the Australian electorate. The Australian economy survived the global meltdown relatively unscathed. While exports in this commodity-dependent country suffered, Australia never got hooked on subprime mortgages and its housing market remains strong. In fact, on the day of Abbott’s ascension Australia’s central bank raised interest rates for the third month in a row.

The conventional wisdom among the Australian commentariat is that the Labor government, which must call elections by the end of 2010, will crush the Liberals in a fight over climate change.

For now, though, the Rudd government says it will re-introduce its emissions trading scheme early next year, sticking to the agreement it made with Turnbull to exempt agricultural from cap-and-trade and increase subsidies to polluting industries. The legislation calls for Australia to reduce its emissions by a minimum of five percent below 2000 levels by 2020.

Abbot’s rise to party leader was good news for Australia’s coal and power industries. Coal is a major export and coal-fired power plants supply about 86 percent of the country’s electricity.

But the continuing uncertainty over cap-and-trade has stunted development of a new energy economy as Australian green tech startups fail or decamp for California and other more hospitable climes.

As the government’s climate change legislation blew up, I checked in with Mike Zimmerman, an American expat who recently left his Sydney venture capital firm to start BuildingIQ, a firm that has developed energy management technology for commercial buildings.

“Having a price put on carbon emissions would really increase the return we and other companies focused on energy efficiency provide to customers,” he said in an email. “Instead of basing [return on investment] on cost savings from reduced energy charges and having the ‘soft return’ from decreased emissions, we would actually be able to quantify the dollars saving from the emissions side.  It would also open up new revenue opportunities as our customers start to play in the trading ecosystem.”

One Silicon Valley green tech startup that has entered the Australian market seems to have learned how to play the Aussie game. Shai Agassi, founder of electric car infrastructure company Better Place, has shown himself an astute observer of local politics when negotiating deals in various countries.

Better Place Australia hired as its chief executive a former Labor legislator, Evan Thornley, and as its marketing executive a former aide to the premier of New South Wales, Ben Keneally. (On Friday, Keneally’s American-born wife, Kristina Keneally, became the new premier, or governor, of Australia’s most populous state.)

Which goes to show that as the climate change debate moves from the legislature to the electorate, green tech companies’ political savvy will increasingly become as important as their technological know-how.

Spread the news on what the føck is going on in Copenhagen with friends via email, Facebook, Twitter, or smoke signals.

Related Links:

U.S. Charm Offensive at Copenhagen Climate Conference: Will it Work?

iPhone Copenhagen App: COP 15 Navigator

56 Papers in 45 Countries Publish Joint Editorial

The main site is called "Information is beautiful" and like Robert Rhode's Global Warming Art, it provides a compelling and beautiful graphical presentation of an otherwise rather dry and technical topic.

What do people think? Too simplistic? Too technical for a lay audience?

The main site is called "Information is beautiful" and like Robert Rhode's Global Warming Art, it provides a compelling and beautiful graphical presentation of an otherwise rather dry and technical topic.

What do people think? Too simplistic? Too technical for a lay audience?

Police detain 200 activists at their Copenhagen accommodation and seize items they claim could be used for acts of civil disobedience

Danish police last night raided a climate campaigners' accommodation centre in Copenhagen, detaining 200 activists and seizing items including paint bombs and shields which they claimed could be used for acts of civil disobedience.

About 200 police arrived at the shelter on Ragnhild Street, in the Nørrebro district of Copenhagen, at 2.30am. They locked activists into the building for two hours, and searched some of the nearby properties. Campaigners say they took away various items including a power drill, an angle grinder, and some wooden props. No arrests were made.

Police confirmed the raid took place and issued a statement saying among the items they had found were "58 fluorescent tubes containing a mixture of paint and oil, closed in both ends with candle wax, 193 riot shields, nine metal cages measuring 4x2m, which are capable of rolling and constructed inside with milk cartons, which could be used for staircases."

A spokeswoman for Climate Justice Action (CJA), one of the activist groups, said: "People were enormously frightened and alarmed. We really don't know why the police handled it like this: the Danish government has provided this accommodation for activists and now the police are acting unnecessarily. We'll be asking for the items they confiscated back."

The centre on Ragnhild Street is one of a handful of sleeping spaces provided by the government for the protesters who are expected during the course of the summit. Activists estimate that between 30,000-40,000 protesters may arrive over the next couple of weeks. Hundreds of small-scale actions are planned, and three large-scale peaceful protests are also due to take place on Saturday, Sunday, and Wednesday.

Police have said that although they will facilitate peaceful protest, they fear that an international extremist network may come to Copenhagen to join the peaceful protests then break away to commit acts of violence.

The head of the Police Intelligence Service (PET), Jakob Scharf, has said that "violent extremists will try to abuse and get a free ride on the peaceful activist involvement in the climate debate."

Scharf said he feared that peaceful protesters may end up in a battle zone between extremists and police.

Some activists have privately conceded that there may well be trouble at some of the upcoming demonstrations. But most strongly refute the idea that troublemakers are descending on Copenhagen. "We've found that to be a myth put about by people who are seeking to undermine the genuine reasons people are protesting," said Mel Evans of CJA. "We've issued a call out for people to take peaceful action on climate change and that's why they're coming here."

The petition called on the WVU president to “reject future donations from coal corporation CEOs Bob Murray and Don Blankenship, and demand that the WVU College of Engineering and Mineral Resources chair be named in honor of the miners who made the ultimate sacrifice, and not Murray, whose criminal negligence caused their death.”

You might recall a post in September:

Thanks to Charleston Gazette/Coal Tattoo journalist Ken Ward, we learned last week that West Virginia University quietly announced on September11 that it had established the Robert E. Murray Chairmanship in MiningEngineering, “in honor” of a $1 million donation from coal baron BobMurray. (The donation went through the West Virginia Foundation, a 501(c) 3 tax-deductible organization.) 

According to WVU President James P. Clements,the contribution is part of the state’s Research Trust Fund that “willsupport research on safer, more efficient, and cost effective ways touse fossil fuels.”

Should the Crandall Canyon mine disaster be uttered in the samesentence as “safer ways to use fossil fuels?” Does the WVU presidentunderstand Murray’s history of mine safety violations in Utah and across the country?

A few months ago, West Virginia University also collected a cool $500,000 from infamous Massey CEO Don Blankenship to demonstrate “the company’s commitment to ensuring a bright future for young West Virginians.”

Bright future of mountaintop removal and coal sludge, really?  Even on the heels of the NY Times investigative report on coal slurry violations and subsequent disease among coalfieldchildren, and the continuing agony of Massey’s mountaintop removalshadow over Marsh Fork Elementary School students?

The WVU Sierra Student Coalition has been actively involved in the mountaintop removal fight. On Oct. 15, at the Army Corp of Engineers hearing on the Nationwide Permit 21 in Pittsburgh, WVU student Joe Gorman and other Sierra coalition members took the lead in addressing the issue of mountaintop removal at the public forum.  Gorman declared: “Given the wording of Nationwide Permit 21, theillegality of Nationwide Permit 21 for mountaintop removal isirrefutable.” WVU student and SSC member Surya Manivannan made remarks that “clean, safe drinking water is a human right.”

Thanks to some bitingly funny videos and effective actions, the Sierra Club’s Campuses Beyond Coal campaign has spread across the nation. Here’s a glimpse:

Related Links:

New data paints a more toxic picture of TVA coal ash spill

Climate advocates should build ties with the public-health community

Coal: clean it up or move on?

Despite anger from developing countries over the leaked document, the negotiations are still on track for success

Rob Bradley, director of international climate policy, World Resources Institute

Behind the raw passions that only a sketchy leaked document can unleash, what impact does this have on the negotiations, and the prospects for a deal? The chair of a conference is supposed to help countries explore areas of compromise, to help them strike a deal. Indications are that the Danish government has taken several shots at this – that the leaked document is one of several Danish proposals, albeit from the prime minister's office.

That said, some aspects of the situation are certainly novel. The president of the COP is actually the outgoing Danish climate and energy minister Connie Hedegaard, not the PM's office. Given the round-the-clock globe-trotting diplomacy that Hedegaard has pursued all year, the fact that texts are emerging from other parts of the host country government has raised eyebrows. Second, the chairs of the various UN negotiating groups now worry about being rendered irrelevant. Third, developing countries are understandably anxious when they see a text so in tune with US demands.

But it is important to remember that this kind of drama — the "leaking" of furtive texts, the kneejerk outrage – are part of the routine of climate negotiations. What happened yesterday will not derail the high-level talks in which so many countries have invested so much.

James Cameron, vice-chairman of Climate Change Capital

Let's not overreact. The leaked text prepared by the COP15 hosts with other delegations is already 12 days old. Since then we have witnessed some of the most dramatic progress in the history of climate change negotiations, with recent emission reduction commitments from the US, China, India, South Africa and Russia. The chances of securing a good deal at Copenhagen are now much higher than they were when this leaked text was being drafted. The draft text merely reflects the state of the negotiations at a specific time and it is fortunate that more now seems possible.

Moreover, if a host government failed to produce such working drafts based on the positions various countries have taken, it would be a serious dereliction of duty. We are dealing with some of the most complex issues ever negotiated at an international level and it's vital to have effective drafting support from the host nation, the UN and key delegations.

There will already be new and significantly altered draft agreements circulating and there will be countless more before the end of Copenhagen. We mustn't let these distract us from what really matters - which is what leaders commit their nations to do on the final day and then the critical follow through process that will need to occur.

Bryony Worthington, founder, Sandbag.org.uk

Many will simply dismiss the current storm over the "secret document" as all part of the theatre of international negotiations. Of course there is a document in circulation. Official documents still run over a hundred pages with innumerable square brackets around undecided text. Yet ministers and world leaders arrive next week and they need something to sign. Everyone concedes that the UN process is unwieldy and sadly, as far as the world outside is concerned, time has run out for this negotiation.

So the Danes did what they had to do – drafted something they hoped ticked most of the boxes and then set about consulting on it. The question is what happens next? Hopefully after the outrage has died down, the process of knitting together a document that both the G77 and China and the US, Europe and the rest of the industrialised nations are happy with will begin.

The main sticking point in the new text is the laissez-faire approach to developed country targets. The text implies that targets will be derived from the pledges made by countries rather than by any top down science led formula. In that sense it reflects the political reality of the situation. But there is also no mention of any compliance mechanism which is a serious omission guaranteed to undermine trust .

These are the issues developing countries now need to focus on, as well as ensuring that all developed countries — most notably Europe — commit to at least the upper end of their target ranges.

Something like the Danish text has to emerge at the end of this process. It will be in no one's interest, least of all the poorest nations, to abandon hope of producing a clear, intelligible text indicating the way forward.

Nick Mabey, chief executive E3G

The leaked Danish text provoked only ritualistic reactions from most developing country governments. This is unsurprising. Many of them had already discussed these ideas directly with the Danes.

The real message of "leakgate" is hopeful. If these negotiations were really doomed to failure then the leak would have been seized on as an opportunity to stall the talks. This did not happen. In fact the head of the G77 group of developing countries explicitly rejected walking out as a response. This means countries are serious about getting a deal at Copenhagen. They do not intend to be distracted by mischievous interventions and leaks, events which will only proliferate as the negotiations progress. Chinese newspapers correctly focused on the inadequacy of the US emission reductions target, not the Danish leak.

The biggest action in Copenhagen today was a dispute between the small island states and the big developing countries over whether China and India should accept legally binding obligations at Copenhagen. This did result in the suspension of negotiations, but because of a dispute over a vital pillar of the climate regime not a newspaper story.

This mature attitude by negotiators bodes well for success at Copenhagen. As the fog of war thickens we all have a responsibility to focus on the issues that really count for people and the planet. Exaggerating differences between countries only benefits those who don't want an ambitious agreement to be reached at Copenhagen.

Antonio Hill, Oxfam climate adviser

Like ants in a room full of elephants, poor countries are at risk of being squeezed out of the climate talks in Copenhagen. As the talks ramp up and the big players put forward their proposals for the deal it is vitally important that vulnerable countries are part of the debate.

The Danish proposal must not distract from the job at hand. There must be a laser like focus on the official text of the agreement over the next five days. With just a handful of days to go before a deal is signed all countries need to focus their efforts on the official process which offers the best chance of a fair, ambitious and binding deal.

The Danish proposal falls far short of emissions cuts needed, and remains vague on the climate cash. One positive aspect is that it would put an end to the spaghetti bowl of channels which poor countries have to negotiate for financial help that mean only a fraction of the money available gets to those in need.

A proposal from China and other emerging economies offers a more balanced vision of a deal — but also needs significant work if it is going to serve the needs of the world's poorest people and prevent a climate catastrophe. We need a strong deal that delivers the $200bn in new money every year that poor countries need to adapt to a changing climate and reduce their emissions and sharp emissions reductions from rich countries.

Despite this, resident Ahmed Tejan Barry, 24, said: “I love Kroo Bay and Kroo Bay loves me.”

He describes the floods: “The entire community gets washed. Everybody is going to try and survive they are not thinking about property, which is going to be damaged.” Livestock is lost, homes are destroyed and sometimes people lose their lives. The real danger is when the flood happens at night.

This September, the local government suggested relocating the whole community, an idea met with hostility from locals.

Student Ahmed, who lives with his wife and two children in one room, said: “My grandfather was born in this community. We don’t want to go anywhere. We want to stay in Kroo Bay.”

What the residents of Kroo Bay want instead, is better drainage channels to prevent their homes being flooded. But this will involve moving some homes built in existing channels. And if sea levels continue to rise Kroo Bay will become increasingly unsustainable as a residential area. Tidal surges in the bay already prevent water draining out to sea contributing to the flooding problem. Still, people continue to move to the bay—attracted by cheap rent and its proximity to the markets in the centre of Freetown.

Floods are not the only problem this community faces, 70 percent of 16-35 year olds are unemployed, and people wake up every day not knowing if they are going to be able to scrape enough money together to eat that day.

Vocational training programmes haven’t had much success because the NGOs are unable to offer an allowance to attend the courses, so the drop out rate is high and of the people who finish the course, less than one in ten find employment. As Ahmed said, life is hard in Kroo Bay and with rising sea levels things are only going to get harder.

Related Links:

$200 a day - why Sierra Leone will get screwed at Copenhagen

Satellite data suggests “that EAST Antarctica is losing mass”

Weather Channel expert on Georgia’s record-smashing global-warming-type deluge

Danish text raised 'trust issues' between rich and poor countries but won't derail deal, says UN secretary-general

The United Nations secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon, has re-asserted ownership over the Copenhagen climate change meeting after the "trust issues" between rich and poor nations were exposed by a leaked draft agreement. He said he was confident of getting a deal for immediate action on global warming.

In an interview with the Guardian, Ban said he believed the negotiations remained on course for a strong deal, sweetened with the early release of

$10bn in aid to poor countries and set down in international law within six months.

He was also adamant that deal would hinge on the core elements of the Kyoto protocol, which developing countries feared was being sabotaged in the so-called Danish text leaked to the Guardian yesterday. The text, prepared in secret by the Danish hosts, was interpreted by developing nations as favouring the rich nations they hold responsible for global warming.

The UN chief sees a climate change deal as his legacy, and has insisted on drawing world leaders into the negotiations, betting they have the authority to make the hard choices on the environmental future for their countries. But some have criticised negotiations that are going on outside the official UN forum.

Ban was determined to set a firm six-month deadline for any political deal agreed in Copenhagen to be given the full force of international law. The timing mirrors an appeal by the UK prime minister, Gordon Brown, in the Guardian this week. The push for a six-month deadline indicates growing unease about allowing the climate change negotiations to drift, once the summit is over.

The crucial element of reaching an agreement was $10bn in short-term aid for the countries that would suffer the worst consequences of climate change. "We have been talking a lot most recently with developing countries and small island developing states. They are the most concerned countries and they seem to agree to this idea of $10bn," he said.

Ban admitted that the uproar over the leaked Danish text had exposed the distrust between the industrialised and developing countries. But he downplayed its repercussions, noting he had been in constant contact with the Danish prime minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, and that he had been easing matters over with developing countries. "I have been very consciously engaging with developing countries," he said. "Even if there have been some trust issues, we have been bridging this gap as much as we can. This is what I am going to continue to do."

He was also adamant that the essence of the Kyoto agreement — that industrialised countries take responsibility for global warming — would survive. "What is know as common but differentiated responsibility principle will be maintained in Copenhagen," Ban said.

Next week brings the climate change negotiations to their moment of truth, with the arrival of more than 100 world leaders in Copenhagen. Ban said he was waiting for the rich industrialised countries to promise steeper emissions cuts. But he specifically ruled out further action from America because of Barack Obama's difficulties with Congress. "Now we are approaching this end-game and I am sure people will come out with more serious targets," he said. "Not all developed countries have come out with ambitious targets."

But in an important shift, Ban acknowledged that rapidly emerging economies like China, India, Brazil and Indonesia, which will be the major sources of future emissions, no longer slot neatly into the Kyoto view of the world. Kyoto divided the world into the industrialised countries, which were responsible for global warming, and the developing countries, which would suffer its worst effects.

"China, India and South Korea have made it quite clear that they will have domestic regulations," he said. "This is quite important even if they will not be internationally bound I am sure they will be domestically bound."

Developing countries have split between those who favour a new protocol proposed by Tuvalu and others who want to continue with the Kyoto agreement

Negotiations at the UN climate summit in Copenhagen dramatically broke down today after developing countries split between those who favour a new protocol and others who want to continue with the legally binding Kyoto agreement.

The crisis, partly precipitated by revelations yesterday that the host country Denmark had proposed a text which could have seen the death of the Kyoto protocol, threatens to divide the powerful G77 plus China group of 130 developing countries.

Tuvalu, a Pacific island state politically and financially close to Australia, proposed a new protocol which would have the advantage of potentially forcing deeper global emission cuts, but could lead to other developing countries - rather than rich nations - having to make those cuts.

Many developing nations cherish the legally binding commitments that Kyoto places on industrialised nations and fiercely oppose proposals that would change this.

Tuvalu was immediately supported by other small island states, including Grenada, Trinidad and Tobago and several African states. But it was opposed by 15 countries, including the powerful nations of China, Saudi Arabia and India. One of the two negotiating tracks was then suspended for several hours as no consensus could be reached.

Civil society groups including the TckTckTck campaign and 350.org demonstrated outside the meeting in favour of Tuvalu, chanting: "Tuvalu is the new deal."

Observers said a G77 plus China rift at this early stage in the conference was a serious setback for the big developing countries. Small island states, least developed countries and Africa have so far worked together in public with the G77.

In a separate development, a new draft text prepared by Denmark and other rich countries is known to make several compromises to developing countries. Sources close to the Danish prime minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, today indicated that the text contains a commitment to complete a legally binding agreement by December 2010. This is significantly more time than is wanted by the UK prime minister, Gordon Brown, and the UN secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon, but is thought to be necessary to complete the legal work.

The new text also also says that countries will work towards agreeing a new commitment period for the Kyoto protocol. This has been holding up talks because developing countries fear the Kyoto protocol will be abandoned. The document also makes reference to the present negotiations, in an apparent move to deflect criticisms that the UN process is being undermined by back-room manouevering.

Elsewhere today, Britain, Mexico, Norway and Australia tabled a paper that strongly backs a major new climate fund for developing countries. This would be run by a board which would be accountable to the UN, where priority would be given to spending in the poorest and most vulnerable countries. It addresses the vexed question of how cash for developing countries to adapt to climate change should be raised and distributed.

Britain has proposed that an fund of $10bn (£6.2bn) be set up immediately to pay poorer nations between 2012 and 2015. Developing countries want $400bn (£246bn) to come on stream a year by 2020.

While the voices of climate sceptics have largely been drowned out in Copenhagen, former vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin has intervened in the debate, saying President Barack Obama's "cap and tax" plan for cutting US greenhouse gas emissions would be an economic catastrophe. In a Washington Post article, which made no mention of climate change, she said Obama's plan would outsource energy supplies to China, Russia and Saudi Arabia. Obama's fiscal stimulus package gave $94bn for green measures in the US, second only to China.

fossil of the day.jpg

Summit watchers will recall Canada's past domination of the Fossil of the Day competition - a race for the bottom in which the poorest performers in UNFCCC climate summits are singled out for their efforts to block, obstruct, degrade or otherwise louse up the climate talks.

Canada has appeared on the podium for the first three days of the conference - claiming the honour today for advocating a "base year" of 2006 instead of 1990, the year enshrined in the protocol and one still approved by 190 of the 192 signatories. (Croatia shared the prize today for being Canada's partner in distraction.)

<!--break-->The base year refers to the year in which countries agree to measure their "original" carbon dioxide emissions, from which level they agree to cut by different percentages going forward. The world agreed on 1990 in Kyoto, but Canada promptly blew its budget for decades to come by INCREASING its greenhouse gas emissions by 24 per cent in the next 15 years, rather than cutting them by six per cent per our promise in Kyoto. Now, the Canadian government wants to start fresh, while (most of) the rest of the world wants to honour the Kyoto standard.

The other exception (besides Croatia) is the United States. U.S. Head of Delegation Todd Stern told a news conference today that the U.S. also wants a later base year, and that his country is determined to stay out of the Kyoto Protocol, which it signed but never ratified.

Will the EPA’s greenhouse-gas decision affect the Copenhagenclimate talks?

On Monday, as expected, the U.S. EPA officially declared that greenhousegases are a threat to public health (the so-called endangerment finding), which means the agency is now “now authorized andobligated to make reasonable efforts” to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. 

We asked our expert panel what this means as it relates to ongoing international climate negotiations:

Is this going to have any effect on the Copenhagentalks? On the one hand, it enables Obama to show that he’s going toregulategreenhouse gases no matter what Congress does. On the other, aregulatory solutionis somewhat more fraught than a legislative solution, and could bereversed by the next president. On the (ahem) third hand, does theinternational community really understand the in’s and out’s of U.S.governanceenough to appreciate what this means?

Here are edited excerpts from their responses:

Neil Tangri Director of the Waste and Climate Change campaign at the Global Anti-Incinerator Alliance

I don’t think the EPA finding will have much effect simply because it’s not news; everyone has expected this for months. Clearly, the timing is designed to give Obama more leverage in Copenhagen. But in order to get any mileage out of it, Obama will have to show that he is willing to make good on his threat to regulate in lieu of legislation. So far, that piece is still missing.

——-

Jessy TolkanExecutive director of the Energy Action Coalition

While exiting the Bella Center in Copenhagen on Monday, I got a call on my cell phone from EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, informing me of the news on the endangerment finding and thanking me and the youth climate movement for refusing to give up our demands—that this administration strive for more, strive to be better. For the thousands of American youth that gathered at EPA hearings around the country and submitted their testimony, and the nearly 100,000 youth that have been pushing this administration through the “It’s Game Time, Obama” campaign over the past six months, this does mean something, and it means something big. It may have been the result we all saw coming, it may feel too perfectly timed, but I refuse to let this moment pass without capturing the boost of momentum that I think it offers. In my conversation with Jackson, I heard someone who wanted to do far more than just serve this president; I heard someone really looking to change the equation.

Over the past few weeks, I’ve been among the harshest critics of the president and his administration for their unwillingness to go far enough on climate, but I’ve cautioned myself and others of being so set in our belief that we’re on a path to nowhere that we miss the chance to get on a more promising one.

I was happy to assure Jackson that she’d only seen the beginning from us, and we expected this only to be the beginning from the EPA, and more broadly from the United States. I say this changes things, and it’s in our court to make it as big of a game changer as possible.

——-

Joe MendelsonDirector of global warming policy at the National Wildlife Federation

Ten years! Ten years! That is how long it has been since Ifiled the original legal petition that became the Massachusetts vs. EPA case and the endangerment finding. It seems just like yesterday I was watchingJustice Breyer’s spittle land on my notes during oral argument.  This is big for me, so forgive me if I waxnostalgic.

The decision does allow the president to have morecredibility heading into the negotiations. No longer can countries say that the “around 17 percent”reduction from 2005 levels is not firm because Congress still needs toact.  Obama can use the endangermentfinding as a clear statement that he will meet a 2020 target regardless ofCongress.  He can even trumpet the futureopportunities to set CO2 performance standards for stationary sources in thenext year with the timeline for implementation being sometime in 2012, rightwhen an international agreement kicks into gear.

Putting forth the endangerment effort is also a step towardlocking in U.S. action. It would be extremely hard for the next administrationto come in and overturn the finding because it would have to be a wholesalerepudiation of the science used to make the decision.  Stolen emails aside, I just don’t see thathappening or being upheld by any court in the country. More likely, a hostileadministration would take a posture on regulations and standards-setting thatwould lead to the weakest implementation possible, setting off another greatwave of environmental litigation.

A significant effort needs to be made to ensure there is nota false understanding that the U.S. can go either wholly with the Clean Air Actor with comprehensive legislation. There has always been a need for both.  It is doubtful any future administration willbe willing to walk down the regulatory path to the extent that we’ll get thelevel of reductions needed out of regulation. The existing authority can get uspart of the way there, but legislation that mandates long-term reductions withmechanisms that pay for that transition domestically and provide consistent(i.e not appropriated) funds for our international financing commitments isstill essential.

I find it unlikely that these complexities have penetratedmany of the Copenhagen delegates’ thinking.

——-

Kenneth P. GreenResident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute

Given the timing, I suspect that the EPA move is more about domestic politics than international politics. Nevertheless, the timing of the EPA decision was hardly a coincidence, and is clearly intended to strengthen the Obama administration’s negotiating position in Copenhagen.

Previously, Obama’s ability to deliver on any target he committed to (such as his target of 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020) was contingent on Congress enacting climate legislation. That’s still a dicey proposition, given his sinking poll ratings, America’s increasing skepticism about climate science, doubts about cap-and-trade, and a still-dreadful economy that will dog him into the mid-term elections. Now, he can claim that he can deliver on his target simply by ordering the EPA to institute command-and-control regulations that would achieve the same result, whether Congress goes with him or not.

I would have to disagree with this Grist statement: “On the other, a regulatory solution is somewhat more fraught than a legislative solution, and could be reversed by the next president.”  I’d say you have that one precisely backward. For anyone to “reverse” the EPA’s endangerment finding, and its intent to regulate greenhouse gases at this point, Congress would have to amend the Clean Air Act. A future president could not “reverse” a previous EPA determination without being sued left, right, and sideways. By contrast, the Clean Air Act has stood up to legal challenges before, and Congress has always shown great reluctance to amend any environmental regulation in a meaningful way.

——-

Rhiya TrivediClimate activist and first-year student at Middlebury College 

From what I could feel during opening statements inCopenhagen on Monday, promises of future action from the U.S. will simply not be good enough. TheAlliance of Small Island States, Small Island Developing States Network, LeastDeveloped Countries, African Group, and G-77/China shared commonthemes today:

Survival was the other common theme; this is a fight for some parties’ lives, and they will not acceptdelay on any of these terms.

For the U.S., pulling the EPA out of its back pocket will do little to abate this urgency—the need to get itdone here and now in Copenhagen. The developing world is hungry for immediately scaled-up ambition from the U.S., Canada, and other developed parties.

——-

Gillian Caldwell Campaign director for 1SkyThere is no doubt in my mind that the EPA’s long-awaited endangerment finding is game-changing and critical. It’s the reason that 1Sky has been fighting so hard to preserve the EPA’s authority in the Kerry-Boxer bill and beyond.  And it’s one more example that the Obama administration is approaching the challenge of climate change from many angles—fuel economy standards, the EPA, $87 billion in green recovery investments, and, of course, the somewhat disappointing congressional progress. At the same time, I am reflecting here in Copenhagen on the ongoing challenge I see many U.S. NGOs facing—on the one hand, how to describe U.S. action and progress so as to increase the likelihood of a fair, ambitious, and binding treaty, and on the other hand, how to continue to be advocates for more rather than to come off sounding like spokespeople and/or apologists for the government and its very weak targets and lack of congressional action coming into these negotiations.  Many if not most U.S. enviro groups have opted to continue advocacy behind closed doors while presenting a more positive perspective publicly. As we head toward the lowest common denominator in the Senate, 1Sky urges stronger and more publicly driven advocacy. 

Spread the news on what the føck is going on in Copenhagen with friends via email, Facebook, Twitter, or smoke signals.

Related Links:

$200 a day - why Sierra Leone will get screwed at Copenhagen

The ‘leaked draft’ non-story and Copenhagen journo-hype

Republicans vow to rain on Copenhagen parade

[link]

mt ]]> http://rankexploits.com/news/2009/12/re-somebody-claiming-to-be-sarah-palin/feed/ 0 http://rankexploits.com/news/2009/12/climategatetv-deniers-start-their-own-station/ http://rankexploits.com/news/2009/12/climategatetv-deniers-start-their-own-station/#comments Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:12:16 +0000 Richard Littlemore 4286 at http://www.desmogblog.com The Deniers have rustled up their own TV station, an offshoot of the right-wingy Corbett Report called ClimateGate TV. The site has everything you could possibly want in terms of hyperventilating and belligerent commentary about the emails stolen from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. The only thing missing is even the tiniest hint about who's paying the the bills for the new "service."

<!--break-->Featuring video podcasts from a host of non-experts - from Christopher Monckton to Tim Ball - the site is cleaner, snappier and much more professional-looking than interviewer James Corbett's original website. It also offers the full variety of denier coverage at the Copenhagen climate summit, including some tape of the weekend "alternative conference."

More embarrassing, perhaps, is a series of commentaries from the dean of discredited Canadian deniers Tim Ball. In the interview featured above, he renews old complaints about what he has described repeatedly as a scientific conspiracy to keep people like him from publishing his research. (His lifetime publication record amounts to a disappointing total of four peer-reviewed articles.) While Ball claims censorship here, he has acknowledged in the past that he never personally submitted an article for publication that was rejected by a peer-reviewed journal. It turns out the reason he didn't publish more wasn't censorship; it was that he hasn't done the work.

The snappy new TV station demonstrates again the energy and dollars behind the stolen email story - which continues to dominate the conversations in Copenhagen and news coverage arising from the event. Part of the reason for media enthusiasm about the story is the unceasing promotion from the denier community. And part is the lack of a clear alternative story out of Copenhagen. There have been dustups over a leaked early text, drafted and ill-advisedly circulated by the Danes. There was a compelling demonstration organized all but instantly by TckTckTck after the threatened Island State of Tuvalu walked out of negotiations.  But for the most part, the negotiating action is occurring in closed sessions among subject area experts tidying up all the fine details possible before the high-level delegates show up for the show down over actual targets and commitments.

So, media is left with a gap, and the deniers continue, tirelessly and with a steady flow of resources, to fill that gap with Tim Ball's casual email-oriented slander of the entire scientific community. Expect more in the week to come.

The Rutschbanen roller coaster.Photo courtesy wikimedia commonsCOPENHAGEN—The Danish capital’s famous Tivoli gardens boasts an equally celebrated roller coaster. Built in 1914, it is the oldest all-wooden one still operating in the world; being at the climate summit here over the last two days has felt like taking as ride on it.

In truth, the 15,000 people from over 190 nations attending the summit were always in for a series of stomach-wrenching ups and downs as the vital talks proceeded, with hope alternating with despair. But few expected that the roller coaster ride would start so violently and so soon.

The summit opened with more optimism than I can remember for any similarly difficult negotiations over the last 40 years, with a widespread and growing belief that a worthwhile agreement to get global warming under control could be struck by over 100 heads of government when they arrive towards the end of next week. But within just two days the hopes were being dashed by a revolt by the world’s poorest countries against the very basis of the proposed deal.

But better to start by focusing on the hope. The delegates arrived at the cavernous concrete Bella Center on the outskirts of Copenhagen with the wind at their backs, both figuratively and literally. But if anything, the warm zephyr of momentum towards a deal was blowing even more strongly than the bitterly cold winds blowing across the flat land of Denmark all the way from the Russian steppes.

Over the past few weeks, remarkable progress had been made on the two most difficult issues facing the summit -– rapidly reducing the world’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, and providing finance for the world’s poorest countries to help them cope with the devastating effects of climate change.

Country after country had put offers on the table to cut emissions (in the case of rich nations) or to reduce their rate of growth (in the case of fast-growing countries in the developing world). Though the pledges do not yet add up to enough to avert dangerous climate change, they come in at far more than was expected -– particularly at a time of recession—only a few months ago.

The UN Environment Programme and Britain’s Grantham Research Institute, chaired by Lord Stern, jointly published a study (.doc) the day before the meeting opened which concluded that the best offers by rich countries to cut emissions and by industrializing ones to reduce their rate of growth already amounted to up to 80 percent of what was needed to meet the lower end of what scientists say will be required. Much of the difference, it added, could be made up of measures to reduce the felling of forests and to reduce pollution from shipping and aviation.

And Yvo de Boer, the top official in change of the negotiations, reported “encouraging” progress on agreeing on a $10 billion a year emergency fund to help poor countries. The United States, Australia, Japan, and the EU have all supported it.

Lars Lokke Rasmussen, Prime Minister of Denmark—the man who will chair the summit of more than a hundred heads of governments when they arrive next week—said that “intensive consultations” with the leaders had revealed that “without exception” they backed “an ambitious agreement to halt global warming.” Connie Hedegaard, his minister for energy and climate, added; “I have never seen anything like it when it comes to political willingness.”

While stressing the many obstacles ahead, she described a deal as “do-able.” Gordon Shepherd of the WWF International put it more colorfully: “We are within spitting distance, but its a very long spit!”

By Tuesday evening, however, the spitting had begun in earnest, and it was directed at the very foundations of the agreement itself. The catalyst was the leak of a draft text for the agreement drawn up by the Danish government in consultation with other rich countries and gradually being circulated among industrializing developing ones.

The text contains provisions that the Third World does not like—downplaying the existing Kyoto Protocol, to which they are attached, and giving powers to the World Bank (which rich countries control) at the expense of the United Nations. But these were less important than the fact that it brought to a head growing frustration among poorer nations that a deal was being made behind their backs.

Any deal would aim to keep global warming below two degrees centigrade, a goal agreed by rich and rapidly industrializing countries at a special summit in L’Aquila, Italy, last summer. But the poorest countries have been becoming increasingly convinced that only a much lower increase (1.5 degrees) would give them a chance of avoiding disaster.

On Tuesday evening the growing pressure caused an explosion. Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping, chief negotiator for the Group of 77, which represents developing countries, said the two-degree target “exposes over 100 countries to suffering and devastation,” leading to the disappearance of low-lying island nations and “certain death” for Africa.

He added that, in supporting the deal, President Obama was condemning “the cousins and extended family of his own daughters to be destroyed to preserve the interests of the few.” And he said that the $10 billion-a-year fund, promoted by UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, would not be enough “to buy the poor nations the coffins.”

His remarks resonate so strongly because scientists say the world is already on course for a rise of 1.5 degrees. Meeting his demand, therefore, would mean a rapid phase out of emissions, plus active measures to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. There is no way that rich countries—or even the industrializing ones—will agree to that in Copenhagen.

No doubt, hopes will rise again in the next few days; the summit is still at the stage when initial negotiating positions are being staked out. There will be many ups and downs on the roller coaster before the hair-rising ride comes to a conclusion next weekend.

Spread the news on what the føck is going on in Copenhagen with friends via email, Facebook, Twitter, or smoke signals.

Related Links:

U.S. Charm Offensive at Copenhagen Climate Conference: Will it Work?

iPhone Copenhagen App: COP 15 Navigator

56 Papers in 45 Countries Publish Joint Editorial

[link]

mt ]]> http://rankexploits.com/news/2009/12/re-planet-3-0-2345-somebody-claiming-to-be-sarah-palin/feed/ 0 http://rankexploits.com/news/2009/12/leaked-copenhagen-document/ http://rankexploits.com/news/2009/12/leaked-copenhagen-document/#comments Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:00:23 +0000 Jeff Id http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/?p=6789 ]]> http://rankexploits.com/news/2009/12/leaked-copenhagen-document/feed/ 0 http://rankexploits.com/news/2009/12/advice-for-the-white-house-travel-team-by-greg-pollowitz/ http://rankexploits.com/news/2009/12/advice-for-the-white-house-travel-team-by-greg-pollowitz/#comments Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:00:22 +0000 Greg Pollowitz http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OGYyYzcxYTgwMTI4NmJiYThhMTQyNjg3NWJhNjY0Nzk= Make sure to pack warm clothes for the president's trip to the global-warming summit in Copenhagen.

[link] ]]> http://rankexploits.com/news/2009/12/re-klotzbach-et-al-2009-contd-2/feed/ 0 http://rankexploits.com/news/2009/12/copenhagen-talks-break-down-as-developing-nations-split-over-tuvalu-protocol/ http://rankexploits.com/news/2009/12/copenhagen-talks-break-down-as-developing-nations-split-over-tuvalu-protocol/#comments Wed, 09 Dec 2009 16:46:08 +0000 John Vidal http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/09/copenhagen-tuvalu-protocol-split

Developing countries have split between those who favour a new protocol proposed by Tuvalu and others who want to continue with the Kyoto agreement

Negotiations at the UN climate summit in Copenhagen dramatically broke down today after developing countries split between those who favour a new protocol and others who want to continue with the legally binding Kyoto agreement.

The crisis, partly precipitated by revelations yesterday that the host country Denmark had proposed a text which could have seen the death of the Kyoto protocol, threatens to divide the powerful G77 plus China group of 130 developing countries.

Tuvalu, a Pacific island state politically and financially close to Australia, proposed a new protocol which would have the advantage of potentially forcing deeper global emission cuts, but could lead to other developing countries - rather than rich nations - having to make those cuts.

Many developing nations cherish the legally binding commitments that Kyoto places on industrialised nations and fiercely oppose proposals that would change this.

Tuvalu was immediately supported by other small island states, including Grenada, Trinidad and Tobago and several African states. But it was opposed by 15 countries, including the powerful nations of China, Saudi Arabia and India. One of the two negotiating tracks was then suspended for several hours as no consensus could be reached.

Civil society groups including the TckTckTck campaign and 350.org demonstrated outside the meeting in favour of Tuvalu, chanting: "Tuvalu is the new deal."

Observers said a G77 plus China rift at this early stage in the conference was a serious setback for the big developing countries. Small island states, least developed countries and Africa have so far worked together in public with the G77.

In a separate development, Britain, Mexico, Norway and Australia tabled a paper that strongly backs a major new climate fund for developing countries. This would be run by a board which would be accountable to the UN, where priority would be given to spending in the poorest and most vulnerable countries. It addresses the vexed question of how cash for developing countries to adapt to climate change should be raised and distributed.

Britain has proposed that an fund of $10bn (£6.2bn) be set up immediately to pay poorer nations between 2012 and 2015. Developing countries want $400bn (£246bn) to come on stream a year by 2020.

While the voices of climate sceptics have largely been drowned out in Copenhagen, former vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin has intervened in the debate, saying President Barack Obama's "cap and tax" plan for cutting US greenhouse gas emissions would be an economic catastrophe. In a Washington Post article, which made no mention of climate change, she said Obama's plan would outsource energy supplies to China, Russia and Saudi Arabia. Obama's fiscal stimulus package gave $94bn for green measures in the US, second only to China.

I think a hilarious example to illustrate this absurd result would be to feed President Obama's declining poll numbers, or the declining jobs numbers, into the Mann procedure and watch them miraculously curve up. See? We just needed to "trick" the numbers!

Unlike Gallup employees who use crayons, CRU folks are real scientists and manipulate their data the fancy way with computers and such.

A rejected VP named Al Gore
Desperately needed a score
He said I'll get mine
If you hide the decline
Then I won't be a loser no more

B.B. is also in a limericky mood:

There once was a man from Tennessee

Who lectured on the rise of the sea

He said, "Large homes and yachts

and trips to Europe's hot spots.

Are pleasures for me, not for thee!"

Further to the posting below, I have now heard from Myriam Marquez, the Miami Herald's editorial page editor, who has explained why a sentence mentioning the US senate was deleted.

"The explanation is pretty simple", she writes. "There was a last-minute sentence that was added to the editorial on Friday by the group that Ian Katz was coordinating.

"At that point, the Herald's editorial-page space was maxed out - I had already trimmed about four inches from the editorial to accommodate the sig (a globe with all the newspaper names, which ran with the editorial).

"The content of the additional sentence was a crucial point based on the breaking stories last week about the scientists' e-mails. Readers would have wondered why we weren't dealing with the e-mail controversy.

"I received the additional sentence and the logo/sig for the editorial by email from The Guardian on Friday, shortly after noon. Our deadline for the Sunday issues and ideas section is early on Friday, so I quickly added the sentence we all agreed on:

The American public understands plainly that any treaty MUST be with the consent of the U.S. Senate, and some agreements require the entire Congress.

The controversy over e-mails by British researchers that suggest they tried to suppress inconvenient data has muddied the waters but failed to dent the mass of evidence on which these predictions are based.

"And I deleted the sentence in the next paragraph about the US Congress because it wasn't anything our readers don't already know. The American public understands plainly that any treaty MUST have the consent of the US Senate, and some agreements require the entire Congress.

"Our newspaper, as with many other US papers, also endorsed the Kyoto treaty and blasted the Senate for not moving on it under Clinton, and later criticised Bush for ignoring it.

"So we have a long history of endorsing reduced carbon levels, and a very long history of supporting environmental causes and absolutely no qualms about giving our strong opinion."

So there you have it - the full explanation. (And apologies for the delay in posting this).

His Excellency Ban Ki Moon
Secretary-General, United Nations
New York, NY
United States of America

8 December 2009

Dear Secretary-General,

Climate change science is in a period of ‘negative discovery’ - the more we learn about this exceptionally complex and rapidly evolving field the more we realize how little we know. Truly, the science is NOT settled.

Therefore, there is no sound reason to impose expensive and restrictive public policy decisions on the peoples of the Earth without first providing convincing evidence that human activities are causing dangerous climate change beyond that resulting from natural causes. Before any precipitate action is taken, we must have solid observational data demonstrating that recent changes in climate differ substantially from changes observed in the past and are well in excess of normal variations caused by solar cycles, ocean currents, changes in the Earth's orbital parameters and other natural phenomena.

We the undersigned, being qualified in climate-related scientific disciplines, challenge the UNFCCC and supporters of the United Nations Climate Change Conference to produce convincing OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for their claims of dangerous human-caused global warming and other changes in climate. Projections of possible future scenarios from unproven computer models of climate are not acceptable substitutes for real world data obtained through unbiased and rigorous scientific investigation.

Specifically, we challenge supporters of the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused climate change to demonstrate that:

1. Variations in global climate in the last hundred years are significantly outside the natural range experienced in previous centuries;
   
2. Humanity’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other ‘greenhouse gases’ (GHG) are having a dangerous impact on global climate;
3. Computer-based models can meaningfully replicate the impact of all of the natural factors that may significantly influence climate;
4. Sea levels are rising dangerously at a rate that has accelerated with increasing human GHG emissions, thereby threatening small islands and coastal communities;
5. The incidence of malaria is increasing due to recent climate changes;
6. Human society and natural ecosystems cannot adapt to foreseeable climate change as they have done in the past;
7. Worldwide glacier retreat, and sea ice melting in Polar Regions , is unusual and related to increases in human GHG emissions;
8. Polar bears and other Arctic and Antarctic wildlife are unable to adapt to anticipated local climate change effects, independent of the causes of those changes;
9. Hurricanes, other tropical cyclones and associated extreme weather events are increasing in severity and frequency;
10. Data recorded by ground-based stations are a reliable indicator of surface temperature trends.

It is not the responsibility of ‘climate realist’ scientists to prove that dangerous human-caused climate change is not happening. Rather, it is those who propose that it is, and promote the allocation of massive investments to solve the supposed ‘problem’, who have the obligation to convincingly demonstrate that recent climate change is not of mostly natural origin and, if we do nothing, catastrophic change will ensue. To date, this they have utterly failed to do so.

Signatories here.

Some 125,000 new boilers and doubling of commitment to carbon capture and storage included in Alistair Darling's speech

Householders will be able to trade in their old boilers for newer, more efficient models under plans announced today by the chancellor, Alistair Darling.

The cash is part of a package of environmentally friendly measures (pdf) unveiled in the government's pre-budget report.

Announcing funding for carbon capture projects and tax breaks for those generating their own electricity, the chancellor said that Britain had to conserve more energy to cut carbon emissions.

An extra £200m will go into helping people make their homes more energy-efficient through measures such as insulation, supporting around 75,000 households. "This will go alongside further requirements from the energy companies, up to £300m overall, to provide discounts on energy bills to another 1m low-income households," Darling said.

Paul King, the chief executive of the UK Green Building Council, welcomed the energy-efficiency moves. "They help raise the profile of home energy efficiency and provide some support to the emerging low carbon refurbishment industry. However, we're still just tinkering around the edges of what is possible. Householders need help refurbishing their whole home, not just their boiler."

There are around 4m G-rated gas boilers in the UK, according to Philip Sellwood, the chief executive of the Energy Saving Trust. "If these were all replaced with A-rated boilers it would save almost 4.5m tonnes of CO2 per year, the equivalent of 830,000 household's emissions, so the scheme announced today has real promise," he said. Upgrading to an A-rated condensing boiler could save a household £310 a year in bills.

Homeowners with wind turbines or solar panels will also benefit from feed-in tariffs starting next April, which will guarantee a price for any electricity fed into the national grid. The government said it could provide an average of £900 - tax free - per year, for a household generating green power.

Darling said the government will also invest in low-carbon sectors such as wind power and increase its commitment to carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The CCS money will fund four demonstration projects in the UK.

Darling said the environmental sector was an opportunity to produce create new high-skilled, highly paid jobs for the UK. "Today I can redirect existing funding, and invest in wind power, renewable energy and other green industries," he said.

"Through the Innovation Investment Fund and the Carbon Trust's venture capital scheme, we will support at least £160m of public and private investment in low-carbon projects. We will also invest £90m in the European Investment Bank's new 2020 fund, which will enable €6.5bn of finance for green infrastructure projects."

Greenpeace's executive director, John Sauven, said a bold move would have been to scrap the UK's Trident nuclear weapon system, which could have saved £100bn, and use the money to create a green investment bank. "This would help British companies invest in clean technology, and bring thousands of new jobs and much needed energy security to the UK. Instead we've got a few tax breaks and lots of rhetoric, but words alone won't build a low-carbon economy."

Kyoto's ineffectiveness was due to lack of scientific clarity and lack of public understanding: none of these excuses now apply

Few people outside Japan would have heard of Kyoto prior 1997, its Katsura palace or famous spring blossom. Mention the city now and it is immediately associated with the closest thing we have to an adequate global response to the global climate problem.

As delegates meeting in Copenhagen this month well know, the Kyoto protocol set legally binding requirements for developed economies to achieve emissions reductions by 2012.

But the deficiencies of the protocol are also well known. To name only three: the reductions required are small when compared to what climate science is now telling us; the most rapidly developing economies are not required to achieve any measurable emissions reductions, and it provides no real guidance to business needing to plan for the long term.

It isn't as if the world has been blind to these deficiencies. Since the United Nations climate conference in Bali in 2007, over the past two years climate negotiators from more than 190 countries have been meeting to overcome these constraints and establish a more effective global climate treaty. And this task is meant to conclude in less than 10 days at the UN climate conference in Copenhagen.

Already the Scandinavian city made famous by Hans Christian Andersen is becoming shorthand for the success or failure of our collective efforts to combat climate change. If Copenhagen ends in "success" then we will have succeeded in avoiding the danger of global warming and climate destabilisation; if it is a "failure" then we too will have failed to address this most wicked of problems.

If only it were so simple. If only tools such as text and agreement actually achieved the measureable, reportable and verifiable emissions reductions that all economies must achieve over the coming years. For Copenhagen can only be a beginning: the start to investment in modern low emissions technology and infrastructure and the imposition of costs on the old, polluting industries of the past.

The stakes at Copenhagen are high. The peer reviewed science has only firmed since Kyoto. There is now a consensus that the level of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that the atmosphere can bear before warming triggers unpredictable and potentially catastrophic changes to the global climate system is considerably lower. Climate scientists who only a decade ago would have argued that the amount of greenhouse gas should be 550 parts per million, now argue that even 450pmm may be too much.

Our understanding of the climate problem and our experience of developing effective climate policy have progressed enormously over the past twelve years. The world is now a lot clearer about the policies and incentives that can reduce emissions, maintain economic growth and get our carbon cycle into greater balance. Prior to 1997 no one could refer to the learning from an emissions trading system in Europe, or the rapid move to renewable energy in Germany.

And perhaps more important than all of this is how public sentiment, and with it our politics, has shifted. Kyoto was before An Inconvenient Truth , the Stern review, hurricane Katrina, the 2003 European heatwave and Australia's worst drought on record. In many countries climate change is now an issue which bridges the standard political divide. Some of the most progressive leaders on the issue come from the right of politics: Angela Merkel, Nicolas Sarkozy and even an actor turned politician not known for his warm hearted roles: Arnold Schwarzenegger. Climate change is now a fixed agenda item for any meeting between heads of state: how to maintain economic growth, energy security and reduce emissions. And no longer is the President of the United States sceptical of the problem: in Barack Obama the White House is occupied by a man who has made tackling climate change a core part of his political narrative.

In accounting for Kyoto's ineffectiveness, in 1997 one could easily cite the lack of public understanding; a lack of clarity in the science; a lack of effective politics or an immaturity in our experience of effective climate policy. None of these excuses now apply.

Whether the final chapter in a story that started in Bali two years ago is one of resolution and joy, or confusion and despair, remains unknown. An unambiguous political agreement establishing how the new binding international rules can be agreed may still mean that Copenhagen becomes shorthand for describing when a new and powerful approach to tackling this most wicked of global problems was begun. That would be cause for celebration by this and all future generations.

• Erik Rasmussen is the founder of the Copenhagen Climate Council.

Professor Tim Flannery is chairman of the Copenhagen Climate Council and author of The Weather Makers

One of the biggest problems with the issue of climate change is that many of those who are talking the most are actually doing the least to make changes in their own lives.  This was evident in the past as hundreds of private jets were chartered to usher celebrities around for a concert raising money for climate change.  Al Gore makes an Oscar winning documentary about global warming but lives in a mansion and routinely uses private jets and limos.  Celebrities have been known for their hypocrisy for a long time, lecturing the rest of us to cut emissions while they hob knob around the globe in private jets and live in houses that have the carbon equivalent of a whole neighborhood.

This hypocrisy will once again be on full display at the United Nations summit on climate change which will soon take place in Copenhagen.  As world leaders gather to try to find ways for the rest of us to cut emissions, they themselves will be flown in private jets and driven in limos.  So far more than twelve hundred limos have been ordered for the event with more expected, and according to airport officials in Copenhagen more than one hundred and forty private jets have already been chartered for the event in which the world is supposed to take a hard stand against emissions.

So as our fearless leaders gather to lecture the third world and normal citizens of western countries how they are killing the planet, they themselves will be creating more than forty thousand tonnes of emissions, which is the same amount a city of 500,000 would produce in the same amount of time.  Sometimes irony and hypocrisy aren’t strong enough words.

Meanwhile, in the Christiania Freetown, a semi-autonomous neighborhood to the north of downtown Copenhagen, an alternative climate forum is being held in a big blue circus tent just half a block away from an open air hash and marijuana market. This climate forum, called the “Climate Bottom Meeting” tackles the climate change issue from the ground up with workshops on sustainable cities, eco-village initiatives, and radical non-profit oriented solutions to the environmental and economic crisis. Check it out here.

This is not complicated. We know that our planet is enveloped in a blanket of greenhouse gases that keep the Earth at a comfortable temperature. As we pump more carbon-dioxide and other greenhouse gases into that blanket from cars, buildings, agriculture, forests and industry, more heat gets trapped.

What we don’t know, because the climate system is so complex, is what other factors might over time compensate for that man-driven warming, or how rapidly temperatures might rise, melt more ice and raise sea levels. It’s all a game of odds. We’ve never been here before. We just know two things: one, the CO2 we put into the atmosphere stays there for many years, so it is “irreversible” in real-time (barring some feat of geo-engineering); and two, that CO2 buildup has the potential to unleash “catastrophic” warming.

When I see a problem that has even a 1 percent probability of occurring and is “irreversible” and potentially “catastrophic,” I buy insurance. That is what taking climate change seriously is all about.

If we prepare for climate change by building a clean-power economy, but climate change turns out to be a hoax, what would be the result? Well, during a transition period, we would have higher energy prices. But gradually we would be driving battery-powered electric cars and powering more and more of our homes and factories with wind, solar, nuclear and second-generation biofuels. We would be much less dependent on oil dictators who have drawn a bull’s-eye on our backs; our trade deficit would improve; the dollar would strengthen; and the air we breathe would be cleaner. In short, as a country, we would be stronger, more innovative and more energy independent.

There is no need to call it by the PR campaign name. It plays right into
their tactic.

There is no scandal. There is, however, a Swift Boat smell to it. ]]> http://rankexploits.com/news/2009/12/re-planet-3-0-2350-fwd-pushing-back-on-climategate-by-introducing-swifthack-com/feed/ 0 http://rankexploits.com/news/2009/12/maybe-global-warming-causes-dyslexia-by-greg-pollowitz/ http://rankexploits.com/news/2009/12/maybe-global-warming-causes-dyslexia-by-greg-pollowitz/#comments Wed, 09 Dec 2009 15:00:55 +0000 Greg Pollowitz http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZjIzM2YyNDNjYzJlMTg0YWRkNjkzYzAxODFjNzUzMWE=

Himalayan glaciers melting deadline 'a mistake'

The UN panel on climate change warning that Himalayan glaciers could melt to a fifth of current levels by 2035 is wildly inaccurate, an academic says.

J Graham Cogley, a professor at Ontario Trent University, says he believes the UN authors got the date from an earlier report wrong by more than 300 years.

He is astonished they "misread 2350 as 2035". The authors deny the claims.

Leading glaciologists say the report has caused confusion and "a catalogue of errors in Himalayan glaciology".

you are describing subdivision development, where the focus is on slapping
them up in a hurry to pay the notes and receive the profit. This is very
common in the US, and where the IBC code comes in: building to a high
standard. Spec or custom homes generally don't have the issue of
slapped-up-lucky-if-its-well-b uilt as McSuburbs do. ]]> http://rankexploits.com/news/2009/12/re-planet-3-0-2343-re-as-long-as-im-being-difficult-green-jobs/feed/ 0 http://rankexploits.com/news/2009/12/global-warming-skepticism-101/ http://rankexploits.com/news/2009/12/global-warming-skepticism-101/#comments Wed, 09 Dec 2009 14:55:59 +0000 Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. http://www.drroyspencer.com/?p=1298 http://rankexploits.com/news/2009/12/global-warming-skepticism-101/feed/ 0 http://rankexploits.com/news/2009/12/clean-coal-aep-ups-expectations-for-carbon-capture-and-storage/ http://rankexploits.com/news/2009/12/clean-coal-aep-ups-expectations-for-carbon-capture-and-storage/#comments Wed, 09 Dec 2009 14:48:08 +0000 Keith Johnson http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/12/09/clean-coal-aep-ups-expectations-for-carbon-capture-and-storage/ http://rankexploits.com/news/2009/12/clean-coal-aep-ups-expectations-for-carbon-capture-and-storage/feed/ 0 http://rankexploits.com/news/2009/12/re-planet-3-0-2342-cru-stolen-emails-identify-two-papers/ http://rankexploits.com/news/2009/12/re-planet-3-0-2342-cru-stolen-emails-identify-two-papers/#comments Wed, 09 Dec 2009 14:41:22 +0000 Things Break http://groups.google.com/group/planet30/browse_thread/thread/ec6419e74d81ab61/aa99bd4ae1c18b04?show_docid=aa99bd4ae1c18b04 [link]

the guess is Timo Hameranta:

"The 'mad Finn' is very likely to be Timo Hameranta, a finnish lawyer, who
for years regularly sent out hundreds of clippings of supposedly anti-GW
abstracts to all and sundry." ]]> http://rankexploits.com/news/2009/12/re-planet-3-0-2342-cru-stolen-emails-identify-two-papers/feed/ 0 http://rankexploits.com/news/2009/12/hack-from-u-s/ http://rankexploits.com/news/2009/12/hack-from-u-s/#comments Wed, 09 Dec 2009 14:36:40 +0000 BigCity Lib http://groups.google.com/group/planet30/browse_thread/thread/051c9afd4f9bc9a8/3ded6704290c4052?show_docid=3ded6704290c4052 [link]

I think I've reconstructed the argument correctly, but am not really competent to judge it. All about UNIX timestamps.

PS The Van Storch site is half insight, half crap recycled from WUWT.

______________________________ ______________________________ _____ ]]> http://rankexploits.com/news/2009/12/hack-from-u-s/feed/ 0 http://rankexploits.com/news/2009/12/more-video-from-heartland-by-greg-pollowitz/ http://rankexploits.com/news/2009/12/more-video-from-heartland-by-greg-pollowitz/#comments Wed, 09 Dec 2009 14:30:43 +0000 Greg Pollowitz http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTk1ZmU2YmZiNzEyYTRlM2FkNDQ0ODg1ZGRhZDc3MzQ=

Lou ]]> http://rankexploits.com/news/2009/12/re-is-this-guy-and-his-work-known-to-some-of-us/feed/ 0 http://rankexploits.com/news/2009/12/winterization-watch-by-edward-john-craig/ http://rankexploits.com/news/2009/12/winterization-watch-by-edward-john-craig/#comments Wed, 09 Dec 2009 14:00:33 +0000 Edward John Craig http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M2E0YmNjYjRlZDQ0YmE0YWQzMjU3YzFmZmJlODc4OTI= Media Blog for Greg's updates on the winterization boondoggle.

And here I thought global warming was the problem the president would be throwing all our hard earned money at.

Thatcher was the first leader of a major country to take climate change seriously. Cameron can continue that legacy

The increasing concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will, if unchecked, inevitably lead to dangerous and possibly irreversible climate change. Yet no country is individually taking sufficiently drastic measures to reverse the rise in greenhouse gas emissions and collectively the world's response is feeble.

One problem is that the debate has concentrated too much on long-term targets. It's easy for today's politicians to commit to cutting emissions by 2050 because they will all be retired or dead by then. But unless substantial progress is made in the next decade it may be too late to avoid global average temperature rises of 4C or even more.

All that is lacking is political will and leadership.

Twenty years ago Margaret Thatcher was the first head of government of any major country to address climate change seriously. Throughout the 1990s Britain's greater understanding of the issue gave it an influential role in determining the world's response. In the last decade however, Britain, and notably Tony Blair, have been better at rhetoric than action. We now lag behind other countries in generating electricity from low-carbon sources, in the standards required of our buildings and in our use of low-carbon transport.

Happily there is still time for these trends to be reversed. The hideous financial legacy that the Cameron government will inherit next year may be the main preoccupation for many people and sorting out the financial mess is certainly necessary. However, getting the response to climate change right will be judged by history to be an even more important and worthwhile achievement.

The solution to climate change has four pillars – decarbonising electricity generation, buildings and transport, and ending deforestation. The first pillar is by far the most important. As well as making energy savings, there needs to be a rapid switch to low-carbon sources of electricity generation. Faster development of renewable energy, including onshore and offshore wind, tidal and wave power, biomass and so on, is essential. Getting this done involves swifter planning decisions and a substantial improvement in grid connections and transmission capacity.

To decarbonise buildings, simple steps to increase energy efficiency, namely implementing tougher building standards and creating tax incentives for owners, landlords and tenants to invest in improvements, must be taken. Decarbonising transport requires a broader approach, from incentivising low-carbon travel choices, including vast increases in the tax incentives for road users to use low-emission vehicles, to greater use of technology, such as video conferencing, to reduce journeys.

Finally, we must halt the rapid destruction of the rainforests by removing the environmentally perverse economic incentives that reward people for cutting down forests. In addition, we should outlaw effectively the illegal timber trade and create a funding mechanism for developing countries to enable them to adopt forest-friendly policies.

It is essential both to understand the urgency of the task ahead and to believe in the possibility of success. Achieving these goals doesn't require rocket science but simply the commonsense application of existing technology and information.

As the Arctic ice melts before our eyes, the remaining flat-earthers who say that nothing is happening are being silenced. Overwhelmingly, the scientific community agrees on climate change. Although the recent hacking of climate change emails breathed new life into the naysayers and the vested interests that support them, this only increases the responsibility on us to dispel the myths they peddle.

On climate, the world is drinking in the last-chance saloon. The challenge can be met and those who respond first will enjoy considerable financial rewards as well. A big responsibility rests on the politicians who guide their nations and the world through the next decade when decisions are made that will determine how pleasant a world we leave behind for the children being born today.

Britain under a Conservative government can and must quickly resume leadership of the international response. David Cameron is committed to tackling climate change. Greg Clark has outlined policies to tackle climate change during the recession and environmental concerns are visible in a range of areas, such as in our international development policies. Cameron must turn his commitment into concrete action and make climate change a priority in government. He has a great deal of support from within the party, such as from the Tory Reform Group, and he must not be distracted by the few voices within the Conservative party who seek to push him off course.

• This is an abridged version of Tim Yeo's essay in the Tory Reform Group pamphlet Copenhagen and Beyond: What Next for Environment Policy, published yesterday

Danish officials may play down a document implying a stitch-up between rich nations. But their impartiality as hosts looks shaky

The Guardian's publication of a leaked Danish government paper has made headlines on the pages of Danish newspapers. It has also provoked sharp reactions from Danish and international environmental NGOs. Kim Carstensen, the leader of WWF's climate delegation, says: "This shows an elitist, selective and non-transparent approach to the negotiations. We understand the developing nations' frustration with the Danish government." Greenpeace's Martin Kaiser agrees: "The document is hurting negotiations and shows Danish prime minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen's lack of good leadership. It is creating mistrust."

Actually, the document dates back to November 27. It is as such already old news in terms of the now ongoing negotiations, and the Danish prime minister on November 30 distanced himself from the now leaked document (the contents of which were already familiar back then). "We have not come with any proposals," Lars Løkke Rasmussen stresses. Meanwhile the new European climate commissioner and former climate minister, Connie Hedegaard, claims that the document was just a draft paper and should therefore not be seen as anything else. Danish officials are trying their best to play down the significance of the paper in question.

However, the document does raise problems when it comes to the Danish hosts' ability to remain neutral during the complicated and probably difficult process of getting the developing world to agree to an economic deal with the developed world. This is not the kind of publicity Rasmussen and his team has been looking for – far from it. There were always worries that the relatively inexperienced Danish state leader, heading a very small country, might not be up to the enormous and crucial job of hosting such a summit. Now, before the real negotiations have actually begun, it would appear that the Danish government has been trying to establish some kind of underlying consensus among the big western players. This will not warm the delegates from the developing world to the already cold and wet experience of being in Copenhagen, and certainly not make Rasmussen's already difficult task any easier.

The Danish hosts now need to come clean about their intentions. The Danish foreign secretary, Per Stig Møller, stressed yesterday that it is crucial the poorer countries get economic support from the rich to make any climate deal work. But these noble intensions sound a bit hollow in the wake of the leaked document. Denmark needs to establish that the hosts are as much on the side of the poor as they are the buddies with the major economic players, whose leaders' arrivals at the summit – notably President Barack Obama's – seem to be as much anticipated as any result obtained in Copenhagen. It is only natural that a small nation, such as the Danish, should be a bit star-struck by the overwhelming attention the city of Copenhagen is getting this fortnight. By 18 December, the word Copenhagen will probably have been spoken as often in just 14 days as it has in the past 200 years.

Rasmussen and the rest of the Danish host team needs to rise above the occasion and show true unbiased leadership. Denmark could still prove a good host nation because the Danes have a good track record on development aid and traditionally have a good relationship with the developing countries in question. The last thing the hosts want is to be seen as the henchman for dubious deals done by Obama, Brown etc. Although the leaked document certainly does point in that direction.