

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
The ongoing debate as to how much responsibility rich nations should take for their outsized contribution to global warming was reignited this week as the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) prepared to release the third installment of their landmark report.
Delegates from 194 countries met in Berlin for negotiations prior to the Sunday release of the IPCC's "Summary for Policymakers" of solutions to fight global warming. In addition to the text itself, reporting of the interactions between officials highlighted critical insights regarding countries' commitment to climate change.
According to the Guardian, objections from rich nations saw the "complete removal" of a section that recommended that "hundred of billions of dollars a year would have to be paid by developed countries to developing countries, to ensure they grow their cities and economies in a non-polluting way."
Another dispute erupted, the Associated Press reports, over whether to include charts that showed emissions from large developing countries, such as China and India, are rising the fastest as they expand their economies.
"Developing countries said linking emissions to income growth would divert attention from the fact that historically, most emissions have come from the developed nations, which industrialized earlier," AP reports. The charts were removed from the summary but remain in the report, which will be published later this week.
"This is the first step for developed countries of avoiding responsibilities and saying all countries have to assume the responsibility for climate change," said Diego Pacheco, the head of Bolivia's delegation.
Further, objections from major fossil fuel producing nations including Saudi Arabia "led to the weakening of statements that ending the huge subsidies paid for oil, gas and coal would help reduce emissions," the Guardian added.
Earlier this week, a leaked version of the draft revealed that, despite the 2008 economic downturn, greenhouse gas emissions grew in the first decade of the 21st century at a rate almost double that of the previous 30 years.
This latest installment of the IPCC report highlights the "relatively modest" cost of addressing climate change and the imperative of switching to renewable sources of energy such as wind, hydropower and solar.
"The longer we delay the higher would be the cost," IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri told AP in Berlin. "But despite that, the point I'm making is that even now, the cost is not something that's going to bring about a major disruption of economic systems. It's well within our reach."
AP continues:
The IPCC [...] projected that shifting the energy system from fossil fuels to zero- or low-carbon sources including wind and solar power would reduce consumption growth by about 0.06 percentage points per year, adding that that didn't take into account the economic benefits of reduced climate change. "The loss in consumption is relatively modest," Pachauri said.
However, included in the IPCC's tally of low-carbon sources are other controversial sources such nuclear energy and bioenergy with carbon capture and sequestration (BECCS). Following leak of the draft, Dr. Rachel Smolker, co-director of Biofuelwatch, slammed the panel for recommending "largely untested" and "very risky" technologies that are likely to "exacerbate" climate change, agricultural problems, water scarcity, soil erosion and energy challenges, "rather than improving them."
_____________________
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
The ongoing debate as to how much responsibility rich nations should take for their outsized contribution to global warming was reignited this week as the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) prepared to release the third installment of their landmark report.
Delegates from 194 countries met in Berlin for negotiations prior to the Sunday release of the IPCC's "Summary for Policymakers" of solutions to fight global warming. In addition to the text itself, reporting of the interactions between officials highlighted critical insights regarding countries' commitment to climate change.
According to the Guardian, objections from rich nations saw the "complete removal" of a section that recommended that "hundred of billions of dollars a year would have to be paid by developed countries to developing countries, to ensure they grow their cities and economies in a non-polluting way."
Another dispute erupted, the Associated Press reports, over whether to include charts that showed emissions from large developing countries, such as China and India, are rising the fastest as they expand their economies.
"Developing countries said linking emissions to income growth would divert attention from the fact that historically, most emissions have come from the developed nations, which industrialized earlier," AP reports. The charts were removed from the summary but remain in the report, which will be published later this week.
"This is the first step for developed countries of avoiding responsibilities and saying all countries have to assume the responsibility for climate change," said Diego Pacheco, the head of Bolivia's delegation.
Further, objections from major fossil fuel producing nations including Saudi Arabia "led to the weakening of statements that ending the huge subsidies paid for oil, gas and coal would help reduce emissions," the Guardian added.
Earlier this week, a leaked version of the draft revealed that, despite the 2008 economic downturn, greenhouse gas emissions grew in the first decade of the 21st century at a rate almost double that of the previous 30 years.
This latest installment of the IPCC report highlights the "relatively modest" cost of addressing climate change and the imperative of switching to renewable sources of energy such as wind, hydropower and solar.
"The longer we delay the higher would be the cost," IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri told AP in Berlin. "But despite that, the point I'm making is that even now, the cost is not something that's going to bring about a major disruption of economic systems. It's well within our reach."
AP continues:
The IPCC [...] projected that shifting the energy system from fossil fuels to zero- or low-carbon sources including wind and solar power would reduce consumption growth by about 0.06 percentage points per year, adding that that didn't take into account the economic benefits of reduced climate change. "The loss in consumption is relatively modest," Pachauri said.
However, included in the IPCC's tally of low-carbon sources are other controversial sources such nuclear energy and bioenergy with carbon capture and sequestration (BECCS). Following leak of the draft, Dr. Rachel Smolker, co-director of Biofuelwatch, slammed the panel for recommending "largely untested" and "very risky" technologies that are likely to "exacerbate" climate change, agricultural problems, water scarcity, soil erosion and energy challenges, "rather than improving them."
_____________________
The ongoing debate as to how much responsibility rich nations should take for their outsized contribution to global warming was reignited this week as the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) prepared to release the third installment of their landmark report.
Delegates from 194 countries met in Berlin for negotiations prior to the Sunday release of the IPCC's "Summary for Policymakers" of solutions to fight global warming. In addition to the text itself, reporting of the interactions between officials highlighted critical insights regarding countries' commitment to climate change.
According to the Guardian, objections from rich nations saw the "complete removal" of a section that recommended that "hundred of billions of dollars a year would have to be paid by developed countries to developing countries, to ensure they grow their cities and economies in a non-polluting way."
Another dispute erupted, the Associated Press reports, over whether to include charts that showed emissions from large developing countries, such as China and India, are rising the fastest as they expand their economies.
"Developing countries said linking emissions to income growth would divert attention from the fact that historically, most emissions have come from the developed nations, which industrialized earlier," AP reports. The charts were removed from the summary but remain in the report, which will be published later this week.
"This is the first step for developed countries of avoiding responsibilities and saying all countries have to assume the responsibility for climate change," said Diego Pacheco, the head of Bolivia's delegation.
Further, objections from major fossil fuel producing nations including Saudi Arabia "led to the weakening of statements that ending the huge subsidies paid for oil, gas and coal would help reduce emissions," the Guardian added.
Earlier this week, a leaked version of the draft revealed that, despite the 2008 economic downturn, greenhouse gas emissions grew in the first decade of the 21st century at a rate almost double that of the previous 30 years.
This latest installment of the IPCC report highlights the "relatively modest" cost of addressing climate change and the imperative of switching to renewable sources of energy such as wind, hydropower and solar.
"The longer we delay the higher would be the cost," IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri told AP in Berlin. "But despite that, the point I'm making is that even now, the cost is not something that's going to bring about a major disruption of economic systems. It's well within our reach."
AP continues:
The IPCC [...] projected that shifting the energy system from fossil fuels to zero- or low-carbon sources including wind and solar power would reduce consumption growth by about 0.06 percentage points per year, adding that that didn't take into account the economic benefits of reduced climate change. "The loss in consumption is relatively modest," Pachauri said.
However, included in the IPCC's tally of low-carbon sources are other controversial sources such nuclear energy and bioenergy with carbon capture and sequestration (BECCS). Following leak of the draft, Dr. Rachel Smolker, co-director of Biofuelwatch, slammed the panel for recommending "largely untested" and "very risky" technologies that are likely to "exacerbate" climate change, agricultural problems, water scarcity, soil erosion and energy challenges, "rather than improving them."
_____________________