Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Kyoto Protocol on Life Support
DURBAN, South Africa - The United States has become the major stumbling block to progress at the mid point of negotiations over a new international climate regime say civil society and many of the 193 nations attending the United Nations climate change conference here in Durban.
Immediate funding for adaptation and mitigation will help countries to confront climate change. (Credit:Tinus de Jager/IPS) "The U.S. position leads us to three or four degrees Celsius of warming, which will be devastating for the poor of the world," said Celine Charveriat of Oxfam International.
"They are proposing a 10-year time out with no new targets to lower emissions until after 2020," Charveriat said.
At COP 15 in Copenhagen the U.S. committed to reducing its emissions 17 percent from 2005 by 2020. This is far short of what is widely agreed as necessary: cuts in fossil fuel emissions 25 to 40 percent below those in 1990 by U.S. and all developed nations.
Scientists have repeatedly warned that global emissions must peak by mid-decade and then decline every year thereafter. But U.S. negotiator Jon Pershing said their Copenhagen emission reduction pledge is sufficient until 2020.
"There is a huge failure of ambition. Nothing here will keep us out of catastrophic climate change," said Jim Leape, Director General of the World Wide Fund for Nature International. The U.S. has already suffered record- breaking losses due to severe weather this year with only 0.8 degrees Celsius of warming, Leape said.
"If they (U.S.) won't moderate this stance they should step aside," Leape.
That sentiment was echoed by Greenpeace's Kumi Naidoo who also said: "Delegates must listen to the people not to certain corporate interests."
The Obama White House is betraying the American people, as well as the municipalities and companies in the U.S. who are taking serious action to reduce their emissions, Naidoo said.
Pa Ousman Jaru of The Gambia, a delegate representing the Least Developed Countries block, also asked the U.S. to step aside and stop blocking progress for the rest of the final week.
Jaru reiterated the developing world's commitment to a second phase of the Kyoto Protocol after the first one expires in 2012. Under the Kyoto Protocol all industrialised nations, with the exception of the U.S., are legally bound to reduce emissions five percent from 1990 levels.
Canada's emissions are close to 30 percent higher than in 1990 and said they will not participate in a second phase. Japan and Russia will also not participate leaving the Kyoto Protocol to regulate only about quarter of current global emissions.
There had been expectations that the Kyoto Protocol would die here in Durban but United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change climate chief Christiana Figueres said it would live on.
Nadioo agreed that the Kyoto Protocol would live but it would be on "life support for the next two years" of additional negotiations.
Jaru said that the other "track" of negotiations to regulate and reduce the remaining 75 percent is vitally important and must result in ambitious reductions. That is the track the U.S. is reluctant to participate in beyond its Copenhagen commitments because China, the world's largest carbon emitter, refused to agree to binding reductions for itself.
Now, for the first time China said it will agree, a move that Figueres called "very positive". She said it was part of the progress being made in Durban, which she expected to escalate with the arrival of ministers for the high level negotiations beginning Tuesday.
Another major issue includes the establishment of a Green Climate Fund, which is to scale up to 100 billion dollars a year in funding to help developing countries adapt to climate change. That is bogged down in how to set up and structure the fund. The more difficult issue of where the money is going to come from is on the back burner.
There was progress on talks to reduce deforestation, a major source of emissions. The U.N. programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries (REDD+) negotiation focused on thorny details of how to verify reductions with progress expected by end of the week. Decisions on financing for REDD+ have been postponed until COP 18 in Qatar next year.



76 Comments so far
Show All3.5 C by 2100
The BBC's Richard Black has an excellent summary here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16052262
Manysummits
=======The prediction of 3.5°C warming by 2100 comes from Climate Action Tracker, a joint project of Climate Analytics, Ecofys and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. Here's an excerpt from the CAT breifing paper, distributed at Durban:
From this passage, it's apparent that CAT is employing the standard fast-feedback climate sensitivity (called the Charney sensitivity) of 3°C per doubling of CO2 (from preindustrial 285 to 570 ppm). The warming projections we hear are usually in these terms, though all climate scientists know that the Charney sensitivity significantly understates the full response. From an SkS article on climate sensitivity:
Bottom line: the full climate sensitivity is about double the Charney sensitivity, so the full response to 690 ppm of CO2 would be closer to 7°C. We don't know what proportion of the slow feedbacks will come into play by 2100, but probably enough to take the Earth well past 3.5°C of warming.
A recent paper in Science found that when the ice sheets started to form 33 million years ago, it was in response to atmospheric CO2 dropping below 600 ppm. This implies that greenhouse forcings above 600 ppm of CO2 would be sufficient to completely melt the ice sheets eventually.
Drop in CO2 Levels Led to Antarctic Ice Sheet, Study Finds
I wrote this a few years ago on the BBC World News 'Earthwatch'.
It seems appropriate to paste it here:
167. At 01:37am on 03 Jun 2009, manysummits wrote:
\\\ Equations of State ///
(A New Tack; First Draft - input requested, including scholarly revision/refinement)
1) Business as usual = 1000 ppmv CO2
2) 1000 ppmv CO2 = With high confidence, the transformation of planet Earth into a new and stable hot state, at least five to six deg C warmer than at present.
3) New Hot State = Irreversible disintegration of the Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheets, with consequent rise in sea level of approximately ten meters; massive desertification of land areas at the present productive of food; massive desertification of the oceans and destruction of the world ocean fishery; possible massive losses of CO2 dependent and oxygen producing phytoplankton. The net probable result will be the destruction of many forms of life, both plant and animal and microbial, and the needless death of hundreds of millions of people, perhaps even half the current population of the world. Abrupt climate swings as we approach the new stable hot state are likely, and possible ocean stratification.
4) Possible Ocean Stratification = Oceanic anoxic events and multiple mass extinctons, which could very possibly include homo sapiens sapiens. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anoxic_event
-----------------
We are now witnessing the early stages of the unravelling of our global economy. The "Limits to Growth", first put forth coherently by the Club of Rome in the early 1970's, and presaged by Malthus, are now upon us, and have been exceeded on a number of fronts.
We now have a choice to make:
We can continue with 'business as usual', in which case our planet will soon change states, eliminating many species as it does so, including a significant portion of the human race. This massive cull is the natural response to such a planetry change of state, documented repeatedly in the geological record.
Or we can change state, using our very considerable cultural abilities to adapt to changing conditions. In this event, it is time for we individuals, utilizing the many and varied talents and gifts which we undoubtedly possess, to lead the way, and for our governments at every level to follow our lead.
Truly it has been said:
"It is not the function of the governmemt to keep the citizen from falling into error, it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error." - United States Supreme Court Justice Jackson.
\\\ Manysummits, Calgary ///
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/05/across_the_...
Well, we could park our cars and use public transit, emergencies excepted; agree to ration gasoline on a must needs basis; buy necessities, and leave the rest to gather dust. We could socialize, share food together, rebuild our families, and give up the rat race. We could aim high.
=========Certainly that is the case so far.
But maybe, since nothing is going our way, maybe it's time to just lay out a few seemingly outlandish ideas, but from the heart? Not in the expectation that they will work, or be adopted, but because it might serve to make us all more human, and might even allow new ideas to emerge?
I am told that Klaus Lackner's CO2 direct extraction is unrealistic. Maybe that's true - in an engineering sense. But it is possible to extract CO2 directly from the atmosphere, and bring CO2 levels down to Hansen's 350 ppm.
It isn't clear if this would actually reverse the damage, so to speak. For one, the nature of Earth's chaotic climate system may be such that responses in a scenario where CO2 is going up differ significantly from a scenario where CO2 is going down. For two, the world ocean will continue to transfer its increased acidity to the deep water, and the life response in the oceans to all the extra surface acidity now present is not known well enough, at least yet.
We are effectively talking science fiction's idea of terraforming, something we are just realizing we have been inadvertently doing, and now, with this brand new tech-toy, we talk seriously of fashioning the planet to our own fancy, a designer planet if you will, and of course only the fabulously wealthy nations are even capable of funding this.
It all seems more than a little surreal, and might account for my own state of mind just now as I survey the scene.
Population must and will come down, of this I am fairly sure. Will we discuss things and make it so, have it imposed on us by those same wealthy nations, or will nature remove us in quantity?
Maybe society is just too complex, and unsatisfying? Then again, we just found an Earth like planet six hundred light years from the Sun, with a surface temperature in the habitable range.
Are we to give up on exploring, and settle for an age of - what?
What do we want to do? I know this is a meaningless question for the billions now hungry and trying merely to survive - or is it?
"Where there is no vision, the people perish."
========We could all go vegetarian or vegan, that will make more of a difference than anything else the average citizen can possibly do. Also, we start treating other sentinent creatures we share this planet with with m a tad more compassion and respect. If you're not vegetarian (better vegan because then you eliminate also the CO2 emissions from the dairy industry) then you really can't grumble. If tyou can;t be vegetarrian, just having a few meat free days is better than nothing. If everyone did that, it would make a sizeable emission reduction.
Excuse me, but you have no basis for your fantasy statement that if the US demanded action other countries would have followed. If other countries weren't as corrupt as the US they could have taken action, and the US would be forced to follow. They could threaten sanctions against the US, pulled out of military alliances, trade pacts, refuse to export jobs and buy goods from countries that don't curb emissions, etc. The US didn't make them ignore the Kyoto treaty they signed. Give me a break.
I'm not defending "poor little scape goated USA." The US is undoubtedly the most destructive, evil force on the planet. It attained that status because it has the strongest, most stable economy, largest market and the only country that can print dollars. If just about any other country had all that going for it, they wouldn't hesitate to usurp the US as the world's most unabashed kiss my ass.
If the US can muzzle opposition at climate talks by island nations scheduled to disappear by rising waters by paying the right people in their governments a few million, that makes it a species thing. If throughout history, humans have always stuffed their governments with corrupt sociopaths, that makes it a species thing. If there's no opposition to the unspeakable horror of the US president flying to conferences in a doomsday 747, so he can destroy life on the planet within a few minutes, that makes it a species thing. Keep in mind we're not fighting space aliens for the survival of life on this planet. We're fighting other humans. It's a species thing. And I, for one, am not proud to be a part of this self destructive, evil species.
Exactly right. This should have been obvious as it's so elementary, for anyone to grasp right away.
Forget China and India for a moment. Canada has long cited the non-participation of the US as its single biggest reason for defaulting on its Kyoto commitments, being tied to the US by NAFTA and all. Only in recent times Canada has started pointing the fingers at China and India.
The "principle of common but differentiated responsibilities" clearly acknowledges the cumulative effect of carbon emissions. The rich countries had long ago used up the "spare capacity" in nature to absorb all this additional carbon emissions. The result has been an accelerating increase in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. This "spare capacity" of nature to absorb minor increases in carbon emissions and to restore the carbon balance rightfully belongs to the whole of humanity, and to all of life! The rich nations had used up this "spare capacity" by their reckless burning of fossil fuels in 200+ years. So they are the ones who need to take the first major step before bringing others on board, especially given the vast differences in the standards of living and the per capita emissions today.
And the USA is not just "one country", but for the most part, the single biggest polluter too. Non-participation by the US in an international treaty has been the single biggest factor that is threatening life on earth. This should be elementary and obvious to all!
Well evidently, it is to confront the MASSIVE military build up of China, whose military spending will soon be more than 1/20th (one twentieth) of that of the USA.
Rich Nations 'Give Up' on New Climate Treaty Until 2020
>>"...I thought you might be interested in a report that the Worldwatch Institute did in response to "Livestock's Long Shadow" -- NOT refuting the "long shadow" at all, but stating that the FAO did not go nearly far enough, and underestimated or overlooked many indirect sources of emissions from livestock. They estimate that meat eating accounts for not 18%, but 51% (!) of all GHG emissions!
The report (PDF file) is called "Livestock and Climate Change"<<
I checked that link, and guess what, you are right! Here's the relevant excerpt from that report:
>>"Livestock’s Long Shadow, the widely-cited 2006 report by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), estimates that 7,516 million metric tons per year of CO2 equivalents (CO2e), or 18 percent of annual worldwide GHG emissions, are attributable to cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats, camels, horses, pigs, and poultry. That amount would easily qualify livestock for a hard look indeed in the search for ways to address climate change. But our analysis shows that livestock and their byproducts actually account for at least 32,564million tons of CO2e per year, or 51 percent of annual worldwide GHG emissions.
This is a strong claim that requires strong evidence, so we will thoroughly review the direct and indirect sources of GHG emissions from livestock. ... "<<
Giving up meat and dairy by a majority of the population worldwide is the single action that has an immediate potential to turn things around. PEOPLE!!! Please read up on this and take action, PLEASE!
"WaldenPond"
The Harper government is also the same as a US democrat government.
Corporations own both major US parties. Harper is Obama in white-face.
Why not just think of President Obama as a man, a human being, who is damn near as poor a president as Bush Jr. was... The major difference is, Obama is intelligent and doesn't need Dick Cheney to tell him what to say and how to say it.
It is a damn shame that our 536 DC elected by the most part are friggin stupid.... Now there is an opiniion I don't need to post a link or a reference to firm it up, because it is clearly obvious.
And when we point a finger at the US, use a finger on the other hand to point at China... They are being just as ignorant, obtuse an stupid about the global warming/climate change issue as our 536 DC elected are.
The fact is, if humans (world wide) don't stop burning coal and replace burning coal with clean energy, not nuclear energy,, and do that very, very soon, we are all screwed and not fun screwed... Bad screwed,, very bad!
China has already passe the US in greenhouse gas emmissions, the reductions they have pledged in regards to the Copenhagen agreement are zip to do any good anyway... And I am not saying the US is guiltless.. What Siouxrose posted here in that respect is very appropriate.
And if any believe the goods China manufactures are only for the US they are delusional... China is well on the way to having more vehicles on their roads than we do and their vehicle engines' are not anywhere near carbon free as ours are, that's one reason we don't see Chinese automobiles and pickups on the market here, at least not very many if any... The same as the VW Beetles still being manufactured in Mexico.
And one major reason China is now producing so much "stuff", is because our brain damaged government leaders made it easy and very profitable for business to outsource our jobs.
The most serious issue by far is burning coal to power electrical power plants. That must be stopped and replaced with solar, geothermal, tidal and wind power and we all know that isn't going to happen soon enough if ever, to prevent runaway, totally out of control and (*irreversable*) global warming.
That soon to arrive disaster of runaway GW will end with no life as we understand life on the Planet... Think Venus or Hades... And we do not have until the years 2100,, or 2050,, or 2030 to attempt to reverse what we have done to our atmosphere and oceans.
Consider that within the next three years, methane gas, CH4, will release from the Arctic's rapidly thawing permafrost,, at the tune of an (*equivelant*) Co2 emmissions of at least (I,000,000,000,000 (*trillion tons*),, and the intellligent scientists are very concerned about an annual (44 billion tons) of Co2 being emmitted world wide from human activity. That trillion tons of Ch4 is only a fraction of what will eventually release from the Arctic.
Don't want to hear about it? __Tough, it's gonna happen anyway unless some very smart scientists very soon figure out a safe way to prevent it.
Due to human activity causing the current episode of Earth's global warming,, Mother Nature is going to show us just what GW really means,,, and it is not going to be fun.
What a facile understatement. Drop the word 'poor' completely. Climate Change is like Death. It doesn't care if you are rich or poor, it's effects will devastate equally, kill just as effectively, without passion or malice.
2) "Delegates must listen to the people not to certain corporate interests."
The Dustbin delegates have been very methodically selected by pro-Corporate interests to ensure endless debate and deadlock, thereby assuring business-as-usual with no meaningful cuts or action. Greenpeace no longer has a legitimate voice, as they have been utterly co-opted and compromised by 'playing nice' with their Corporate and PR firm sponsors.
3) Reducing GHG emissions to any amount recorded in the 20th Century is meaningless. We need to cut said emissions to ZERO, IMMEDIATELY worldwide, with an utter ban on any future emissions if we want the planet to be capable of supporting any mammalian life larger than a rat. Yes, I know that means the end of all the shiny iCrap and techno=toys, and the utter collapse of technological 'civilization', and the deaths of millions, if not a two or three billion people. So be it.
And don't go screaming about 'genocide'. That's bullshit anthropocentrism and you know it.
Humans are animals, and part of nature.
Denying that is insanity. Denying that we can die off due to natural limitations is insanity.
It's time to grow up, people.
While people blithely dismiss the Kyoto Protocol as inadequate, they go right past the fact that the US was not willing to take even this inadequate first step. It is on such occasions that I seriously wonder if many of the people who call themselves the "left" or "progressives" are just hypocrites and are just as arrogant as any right-winger on this matter. Either that or they're just too thick to see this basic, glaring contradiction. It's like the biggest criminal who refuses to cut down his own crime rate then blaming the law as "no good" because the crime rate never went down!