Tomado del blog

 http://noelpallais.wordpress.com/category/climate-change/

Posted in Climate Change on January 12, 2010 by Noël Pallais    

Climate Change Meetings: Copenhagen

7-18 Dec 2009

Noël Pallais    

Introduction

Much was reported by many professional journalists of the world about the two-week meeting on Climate Change held in Copenhagen in December 2009. This report attempts to offer a different, closer and personal insight.

Objective

The purpose of my participation in COP15 was to enhance personal perspective on the theme of Climate Change; and thus, effectiveness in conducting training workshops (2010) for increasing the capacity of regional journalists to cover public and private responsibilities on Climate Change issues. These workshops will be aimed at journalists of Latin-American, particularly from the north of Peru.

Abstract

The meeting in Copenhagen was about the final negotiations leading up to an expected legally binding international agreement for curbing and eliminating greenhouse emissions as soon as possible, which did not materialize. Insights are here provided aiming to clarify the (here proposed) essential causes behind this unexpected result, i.e., the unnecessary “transparency” stumbling block posed by US and EU on China, and the muddled figures being used by the representatives of UN parties in the negotiations.

Nonetheless, thanks to the fruitful negotiations related to Climate Change initiatives, such as REDD (Reduction of Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation), the global effort to save the planet is moving forward. National action plans to reduce emission reductions had already been in progress, and all developed countries, together with China and India, pledged and described their carbon emission reduction strategies in Copenhagen.

Not merely by the unprecedented presence of heads of state but more importantly by their personal engagement in the final discussions, COP15 was a solid step to veer away from our destructive fossil fuel path. Yes, COP15 failed to produce a legally binding accord. But the basis and experience was thereby obtained to solidify the Will of—nearly all—parties to prevail. There is little doubt that an international legally binding accord will be signed in Mexico 2010.

The role of the local Press will be extremely important in spurring local governments to follow through on their commitments. Moreover, as in the case of the peculiar position of Peru in COP15; a well motivated Press will be required to dissect the government’s actions. The ultimate purpose being to motivate the public to face up to their personal responsibilities with respect to environmental degradation in their every day actions. Thereby instilling the necessary self-righteousness in the electorate for their determined application of the required pressure on their elected officials to face the urgency and importance of solving local regional environmental issues.

Salient reflections

There I was, a plant scientist—with no experience whatsoever in journalism—holding a most coveted press accreditation at the Bella Center in Copenhagen. This unique privilege allowed me to mingle for two weeks among the best 3500 journalists of the world. All this, while they were adamantly covering the largest meeting of heads of state ever held on the planet. Needless to say, my personal enrichment was constant and I am still recounting my invaluable lessons.  For this experience, I am most thankful to the Soros Foundation and INTERNEWS.

The claim akin to God’s truth that COP15 was a failure is true when judged with narrow 20^th Century spectacles; because there was no “legally binding” accord—to break sometime in the future. Indeed, to leave a better world for our descendants—instead of the ruins we shall if we continue our present fossil fuel energy development path—we must lift our mental anchors and cross the paramount enslaving barriers in our thinking.

The first thing I learned upon arrival to Copenhagen on Monday evening of the first COP15 week was, the smallest and least populated country in the world was rising up a storm in the negotiations. After learning in Wikipedia the country of “Tuvalu” has a population of 12,177 people spread out over nine small islands, I knew COP15 would require a different looking-glass to appreciate its significance.

It was not a joke, the most populated (China) and the last populated (Tuvalu) countries in the world had to sit down to negotiate on equal footing at COP15 to resolve a key strategy issue of the accord. This alone should feed our imagination about the different sort of world we need to build in this century. At any rate, the smallest and least populated country of the world showed its heart in Copenhagen. If the fundamental naysayers would have only tried as much to make COP15 the success they hoped for…

Among the new knowledge gained at COP15, stands out the peculiar and outstanding talents of well-regarded international media reporters. Sharp mind, and good legs ready to go anywhere at any time and after getting there patiently waiting and waiting, survive and function on little sleep, awesome capacity to capture and send the headline to HQ immediately, incredible rapidity to summarize one hour in three sentences or less, soft-spoken, low-key and unpretentious; among other attributes. I was totally impressed…

Next is my newly discovered and now unrivaled admiration for the Danish people. I was dumbfounded by their consistent gentle and honest warmth (and they think they are cold). Their exemplary way of life particularly with respect to energy conservation, is deign example of what the solutions entail to reduce our dependance on fossil fuels. The Danish are the happiest nation in the world; behind Costa Rica, which doesn’t really count when considering the weather in Denmark and in Costa Rica. Perhaps, the relatively high suicide of the Danish is partly due to their totally incorrect self perception of being cold.

SOUL, PASSION AND COMMITMENT

My experience in Copenhagen obliges me to give evidence for defacing current popular wisdom about COP15. To begin with, in addition to 47,000 people of which more than 90% truly care about saving the planet, there was unique soul, passion and commitment at the Bella Center in Copenhagen.

Yes! COP15 had a unique SOUL which journalists have generally failed to dispel. No matter what all the headlines in the world have narrowly claimed about COP15, in less than five minutes of watching and listening to Desmond Tutu, Bishop of South Africa you will become convinced that COP15 had a special SOUL.

The following two short clips should also evidence that in addition to soul, COP15 also had unique PASSION and COMMITMENT

Key issues of COP15

Among the substantive key issues deserving reflection as derived from my participation are: ideology, US transparency position and China’s emission space occupation concept, the confusing basis for the COP15 negotiations, and the REDD initiative (Reduction of Emissions by Deforestation and Degradation).

IDEOLOGY

A personally embarrassing COP15 reflection was the concerted reliance on ideology demonstrated by a few Latin American countries (ALBA), whose presence was most felt at the Bella Center. They diligently attempted to convince the Press that Climate Change could be easily solved by eliminating capitalism and US imperialism.

The glaring contradictions thereof were crude. China shares social ideology with the ALBA group; Venezuela, Cuba, Ecuador, and “Sandinista”. Yet China refused to hop along the COP15 ideology ride led by the president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez.

The president of Bolivia, Evo Morales, expressed his adamant opposition to the carbon market initiative, in which China is the principal country involved. I must confess; however, I sympathised with his pause in disbelief at the carbon market solution. But China wants to end poverty and realizes this requires energy. China has plenty of cheap dirty coal and knows carbon markets are one of the solutions for reducing carbon emissions.

Climate Change has nothing to do with ideology; in my opinion, ideology—as well as all the dogmas that serve to separate humanity—is one of the key chains of the 20^th century that we need to get rid of.

US TRANSPARENCY POSITION AND CHINA’S EMISSION SPACE OCCUPATION CONCEPT

I was thrilled to witness the charm and charisma of the US Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton during her unannounced Press Conference. Hillary clearly presaged what was by then a rumor among the press; China was not going to agree to the US and EU “transparency” clause.

When you doubt your partner you insist on mechanisms to enforce transparency. Paradoxically, this week among the annual list of words that should be banned is “transparency“. The Lake Superior State University contributors to this list said this word is typically used when the situation is anything but transparent.

In general, for a legally binding agreement it is easy to accept the logic behind the insistence in a clause related to transparency. But Hillary’s insistence on transparency in her Press Conference was not productive for the goal of legally binding agreement. To begin with, the United States can hardly claim to be the patron of world transparency; particularly not, after its recent invasion of Iraq.

More importantly, however, the generic concept of transparency must be examined in detail—from the perspective of China and India—to understand just how it applies to the COP15 negotiations. The past is the key.

I doubt Hillary really believes—as she had the nerve to imply (see link above)—the past should play no role in Climate Change negotiations. But apparently the US did insist on this fundamental error; as per the brilliantly brief description of the world’s emission space occupation concept by Qingtai Yu, China Chief Representative in COP15.

The United States together with the a few other well-developed countries are largely responsible for the about 100 ppm increase in CO₂ in our atmosphere due to combustion of fossil fuels since the Industrial Revolution. Indeed, the relative per capita occupation by US of the atmospheric space that belongs equally to all inhabitants of the world is a pernicious new species of colonialism. Therefore, the subsequent “take it or leave it” attitude in Obama’s speech was probably a lethal blow to the slight possibility the Chinese might agree to foreign inspections of its hinterland.

Nonetheless, China presented a perfectly reasonable detailed argument for refusing to accept the transparency clause “as defined by the US and EU”. This should become more clear after carefully listening to the following video containing the uncut response of China to the allegations of their refusal to accept the transparency clause in the COP15 agreement.

The position of China may be summarized as follows: The US refused to adhere to the principle adhered in Bali of “common [problem] but differentiated responsibilities.”  The US has used up all of its allowable carbon emission space and is presently occupying a large part of the world’s emission space. China has been patient with the US, though; it considers the industrialization period of the US should be over. Nonetheless, China is offering without preconditions its national emission reduction targets which will be attained irrespective of COP15. Since China is not exchanging emissions reductions, inspections (“on this regard”) then should not be mandatory for China. On the other hand, China is willing to accept all transparency conditions on verification of any other aspects of the proposed legally binding agreement (such as REDD).

On this point, I must agree with Hugo Chavez. I think the US bears a large share of the blame for the failed COP15 binding accord.  I believe China was earnestly looking forward to a legally binding accord at COP15, and more so than the US. Moreover, I think China would be justified in reasoning the CIA was behind the extreme importance of “transparency” in the position of the USA.

The US overplayed the “Transparency Card” in Copenhagen. The US could and should have taken China for its word. How difficult would it really be anyway to discover later through less openly intrusive means they did not comply? After all, it’s usually much better and easier—in many ways—to catch your partner cheating when you are trusting than when you are always suspecting. And China deserves to be treated with trusting respect; instead of “dealing with China” the US must be begin to “relate with China”.

In the 21^st century the planet needs the most CO₂ polluters of the world to become partners in solving the problem. Undoubtedly, the leaders of China and the US are earnestly wanting and searching to address Climate Change, but they are both continuing to approach each other as if they were still in their 20^th century adversary role. But the world could soon no longer be able to sustain the effects from adversary roles among the most powerful countries.

The US and China have different systems of government, but both wish to increase the livelihood of their populations. Communism, socialism, liberalism, neo-liberalism, market fundamentalism, democracy, etc. after all, are mere fallible gods of the 20^th century. Remnants if a past Age that we must discard if we are to advance to a different more advanced Age. Nobody is right or wrong; the outcome of human relations only depends upon the motivations and values of the participants.

COP15 Negotiations and IPCC

One of the principal functions of COP15 was to avoid further rampant atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂) accumulation by the burning of fossil fuels. About 200 years ago the earth’s CO₂ atmospheric content was about 280 ppm; and about 380 ppm is the current CO₂ content. Consequently, I was expecting COP15 negotiations would initially be narrowed to ascertaining the individual responsibility of developed nations for the about 100 ppm of excess manmade carbon; in my air.

What actually happened may also be partly to blame for the lack of a legally binding accord in Copenhagen. There were various “targets” being thrown around at COP15, and it was confusing. Though it was well-known that the impact of higher temperature would be different in different regions of the world, the negotiations among parties (UN) were narrowed to bargaining quite precise numbers of associated degree temperatures. Some were insisting on 1.5°C as maximum acceptable further global warming, while others preferred 2°C. The negotiators seemed to have a hard time handling the science. The Co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) supports (link below) my contention that negotiations would have been easier on the basis of atmospheric carbon content instead of dealing with temperature increase associations.

I was looking forward to the sessions with the IPCC. Unfortunately, I was disappointed with the manner in which they dismissed the recent clouds borne from the untimely email disclosures. Though I must admit their strategy worked “like a charm” on the Press. But frankly, I was expecting evidence, such as, showing the “medieval warming period” is a fabrication of scientists funded by special interests.

Finally, the sense of extreme urgency in reducing greenhouse gas emissions with a legally binding agreement at COP15 was due to the extremely dangerous possibility that increasing CO₂ in the atmosphere above a specific level (400 ppm has been proposed) would trigger a series of unstoppable positive feedback loop events related to added large amounts of methane (greenhouse gas) released from the melting permafrost. COP15 negotiations, however, were based on “the incorrect assumption there is a known safe level for manmade temperature increases”; as Dr. John Schellnhuber from the Swedish Environmental Research Institute points out in the following video. Dr. Schellnhuber also felt the feedback loop hypothesis is a most important aspect of Climate Change but unfortunately nobody at COP15 seemed to be addressing this serious key issue.

REDD

From a recent preceding Climate Change meeting emerged the bold international initiative called REDD; which is principally aimed at reducing CO₂ emissions caused by deforestation and forest degradation. Positive results of REDD are already self-evident in Brazil where the key issues of governance and land tenure—which are paramount preconditions for REDD—have been duly resolved. Indeed, the REDD strategy appears to be a significant step being taken in the right direction.

Nonetheless, the not so simple relationship of forest conservation and reforestation with the principal emission reduction purpose of REDD was an important theme elegantly debated at COP15. Environmental organizations such as World Vision and Global Justice were apparently successfully in their refusal to accept the exclusion from the final document of the right’s of indigenous peoples.

But apparently they were not successful in excluding the term “sustainable forest” as part of the REDD initiative. The argument is based on the fundamental position of these environmental organizations that REDD funds should not be used to promote the world’s continued dependency on paper products by providing incentives to the timber and logging industry.

The only sustainable wealth—natural forests—of many poor nations will very soon be depleted by deforestation unless something new “that actually works”—since just about everything has been attempted in vain— is put in place to protect all natural forests; and yesterday. But this will not even happen tomorrow unless we quickly discover and apply a magical formula that eliminates corruption, lack of governance, poverty, and perhaps more importantly, our ever-increasing voracious demand for wood products. After all, the latter is a significant cause of both corruption and lack of governance, which in turn, are essential ingredients of poverty.

From the REDD discussion at COP15 one might deduce the obvious: It is not to the benefit of potential REDD funding countries to even think about investing to reduce the demand for paper products, let alone to develop alternatives to paper. Forty-two per cent of the world’s industrial wood harvest goes to the production of paper, and 87 per cent of that paper is used by industrialized western nations like the United States and Canada.

Despite its pristine appearance, paper is anything but Green. The process to turn wood pulp into paper results in a number of harmful chemical by-products such as carbon monoxide, ammonia, nitrogen oxide, mercury, nitrates, methanol, benzene, chloroform, and dioxins. Certainly the public needs to be educated about their personal responsibility on earth degrading impacts caused by common wasteful practices in this vein; and solutions, such as recycling must become the norm of our Brave New World.

Should REDD funding be considered for these purposes or even for futuristic research to make the world stop its never-ending consumption of wood products? I think so. After all, if we are going to make it to the next century— and even if we manage to half our present rate of world population increase—we will have to have found alternatives for the essential cause of deforestation.

REDD representatives, however, seem to base their thinking strictly on to the need consider net CO₂ emission reductions, while “pragmatically” facing up to an ever-increasing population explosion with its ever-growing demand for wood products. Again, the chains of 20^th thinking are making us lose focus on the bottom line of what really needs to be done to stop destroying our planet.

My previous suggestion of conducting general COP15 negotiations based on atmospheric carbon amounts—instead of dealing with associated temperature changes—results in adding much difficulty to the REDD initiative. The complications are derived from figuring out and verifying all the numbers that should be accounted.

Indeed, placing a high importance on atmospheric CO₂ content makes sense for attempting to analyse the potential anthropomorphic effects and relative accountability of associated impacts. Quantitative aspects are imperative in any reasonable international agreement. But insisting on basing REDD acceptability to projects “solely” based on positive estimations of net carbon exchange—which seems to be REDDs irrevocable philosophy— seems misguided.

What about the importance of Biodiversity, in itself? For example, the rapidity of the destruction of the natural forests in Nicaragua don’t amount to hill of carbon to REDD’s philosophy based on net exchange. And yet, in Nicaragua the northern pine belt ends, which clearly show these largely unexamined forests where northern and southern biodiversity coalesce, may contain unsuspected yet to be discovered natural wealth. It doesn’t take too much imagination to realize that at least 200 new species of yeasts should be found.

Positions of three Latin American countries at COP15

Ecuador and Panama went to Copenhagen with the purpose of joining the effort to save the last remaining rain forests in their respective countries. Ironically, the current ideologies of these two countries are on the opposite sides (left and right, respectively) of the 20^th century fence. Appropriate governance, correct motivations of public officials in these two countries is obviously similar and consequently similar benefits were obtained by these two countries from the REDD initiative at COP15.

With help from Germany and Norway, Ecuador and Panama took solid steps towards protecting their biodiversity during the Copenhagen meetings. Was COP15 failure? Certainly not for Ecuador and Panama, but fundamental naysayers will probably disagree so below please find the following two video clips, which speak for themselves.

The minister of Environment of Peru, however, obviously went to Copenhagen because he diplomatically felt obliged to do so. Alan Garcia, the president of Peru had previously publicly declared he would not be travelling to Copenhagen because COP15 would be “blah, blah, blah.” This extra official attitude was clear when the minister of Peru lost his patience upon a question which implied Peru might do well in emulating the example of Ecuador by receiving a subsidy from REDD in exchange for precluding exploitation of oil and gas in the amazon forests.  Nonetheless, the minister provided much information about ongoing environmental projects that need to be followed up, and will also aid in organizing the themes of the Workshops for journalists in Peru.

Final Reflections

“You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.” Bob Dylan

In the 22^nd Century—if we manage to survive and protect our planet during the 21^st Century— COP15 will be referred to as a historical moment in which the world first tried to face a common planetary dilemma, together.

The essential function is to grow and improve as a civilization in harmony among nations into the 22nd century without destroying our planet. In human relations it is expected to find error continuously. In fact, the quest to expose social errors is essential to persist in improving our points of view. But, this cannot be the case in Science, because the scientific testing method precludes the possibility of the antithesis.

Greenhouse gases impede a portion of the energy arriving to the earth’s surface from the Sun to be reflected back and away from our atmosphere; and CO₂ is undoubtedly a natural greenhouse gas. The amount of CO₂ has increased within the last 200 years from about 280 to 380 ppm principally because of the fast level of industrialization based on combustion of fossil fuels in the most developed countries.

No scientist would deny there would be an expected warming effect due to a 25% increase in greenhouse gases. The scientific controversy is based squarely on the specific significance of this anthropomorphic warming effect on average world temperatures. Scientists differ only with respect to the peculiarity of the present warming trend when compared to past records. If we deny this scientific controversy exists, we are not different from an ostrich.

And the root of this controversy stems from the simple fact that temperature records before 1850 are based on estimations using indirect methods. And here is where the human influence has a bearing on the conclusions. Indeed, we may each be justified in believing the warming effect from the extra 100 ppm of CO₂ (manmade) is from potentially small to catastrophic for our planet. The latter possibility is supported by the feedback loop hypothesis, which proposes that increases of CO₂ above a certain level (too close to the present for comfort) would spark the release of large amounts of methane gas from melting permafrost.

I do worry about the feedback loop hypothesis and I was disappointed this issue was not addressed at COP15. But I totally agree with Bob Dylan on this one: “I don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows”. I am against the extra emissions of carbon in my atmosphere because in addition to its artificial and threatening effect on our climate, I see a direct relationship with the destruction and pollution of our planet from our reliance on fossil fuels for the growth and development of our civilization.

I also see special interests taking advantage of the error (in my opinion) of placing too much certainty on the precise determinant effect of higher CO₂ concentrations on average global warming. Higher CO₂ in our atmosphere is a byproduct of the pollution and destruction caused to our planet.I would be against the extra carbon in my air even if greenhouse gases worked in reverse with respect to temperature, and instead the earth was heading to another ice Age.

And, I would care less if plants became more productive in a CO2 enriched atmosphere, or if it were proved that it is better to breathe air with more carbon. It would still not be worth it because we are destroying our planet by relying on the energy obtained from fossil fuels. I see our last clean water sources being depleted and polluted and our biodiversity being fast eliminated due to the exploitation of fossil fuels. How could two degrees up or down be more important than having no more clean water?

Shining by absence at COP15

Upon reflective pondering, I am also surprised by the lack of enthusiasm displayed by world leaders from developed nations about the potential of bold concerted action in research and development of clean alternative sources of energy. I was hoping Obama would give a Kennedy like speech at COP15 on this regard. For example, he could have promised to advance the imminent arrival of Nuclear Fusion from 30 years to within the next decade.  I was expecting the theme of his COP15 speech would be akin to; “let us have tomorrow, NOW!”

Indeed, in my opinion the negotiations were held at a level that displayed little vision, even about what we already know will happen in about 30 years with present level of R&D investment.  In the 22nd century, if make it until then, the prevalence of energy sources will be derived Solar, Wind and Nuclear Fusion and Fission energy. Also, all nations of the world will be dealing with each other on the basis of trust and common goals. Different paths and no path will be considered as the very THE best path. A common understanding will be that only values and public-good motivations of the humans involved in the various paths determines the relative success or failure of whatever social endeavor humanity may embark upon.

Somebody once said that a bad law is better than a good law when the bad law is administered by a good man and the good law is administered by a bad man; it may have been Aristotle. The essential function is to grow and improve as a civilization in harmony among nations into the 22nd century without destroying our planet. The formula for the latter is quite simple and clear: GREEN PLANET. And at COP15, all 193 countries agreed upon the urgent need to stop deforestation and to stop choking the planet with development based on fossil fuels. Now, we must all individually do our share, because in the end we are all culprits in the destruction of our planet