natural sounds

I didn’t link to updates on what’s happening in Bonn, Germany this week in yesterday’s post. A lot of what goes on at these meetings isn’t really clear until far after the ink dries. Nevertheless, I’m not real sure what to make of Yvo de Boer’s interview with Deutsche Welle yesterday. de Boer is head of the IPCC and moderator of the UNFCCC talks.

The proposals from representatives of more than 30 of the world’s richest nations meeting in the former West German capital amount to a reduction in the range of 17 percent to 26 percent of 1990 levels by 2020.

“This is not enough to address climate change,” de Boer said. …

Scientists have urged diplomats to adopt policies that would limit global warming to two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) by the end of this century, saying any more might prove disastrous for life on earth. At the start of the Bonn talks, de Boer said he was confident that the Copenhagen meeting would succeed, although “there are some tough nuts to crack.”

“Tough nuts!” Haha.

Top story: The US’s New Line

Interesting words from President Barack Obama this week, as the world’s top climate negotiators were meeting in Bonn, Germany.

At a press conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel last week, a reporter asked Obama about the US role in climate negotiations. Obama responded:

“In terms of climate change, ultimately the world is going to need targets that it can meet. It can’t be general, vague approaches. We’re going to have to make some tough decisions and take concrete actions if we are going to deal with a potentially cataclysmic disaster. And we are seeing progress in Congress around energy legislation that would set up for the first time in the United States a cap and trade system. That process is moving forward in ways that I think if you had asked political experts two or three months ago would have seemed impossible.

So I’m actually more optimistic than I was about America being able to take leadership on this issue, joining Europe, which over the last several years has been ahead of us on this issue.”

The president’s words were preceded by an interesting interview in the Guardian, where his top environmental policy analyst, Nancy Sutley, said Obama was willing to trade political capital for stronger climate legislation. But that even the watered-down Waxman-Markey bill may be tough enough for the president.

Obama has also signaled that he may travel to Copenhagen for the December talks. It would be the first time a US president has attended climate negotiations since Bush 1 traveled to Rio for the world’s first climate talks in 1992.

Meanwhile, bilateral talks between the US and China have heated up over the last two weeks, with a congressional delegation headed by Nancy Pelosi visiting Beijing last week.

“This is going to be one of the most complex diplomatic negotiations in the history of the world,” said Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), co-sponsor of an energy bill being debated in the House.

And, from the SF Chronicle: Climate change game-changer for China relations, by Nancy Pelosi

“The challenge of the global climate crisis must be met with openness, transparency, respect for the rule of law, and the government must be accountable to the people. The principle of environmental justice must be upheld, especially when poor people are more adversely affected by drastic environmental changes than others.”

This week, Obama’s top climate negotiator Todd Stern is in Beijing for high-level talks.

Meanwhile, in Bonn, the negotiations are underway. Early signs are very mixed:

“Specifically, the Obama administration said the document lets developing countries off the hook. China, India, Brazil and the G-77 group of developing states claimed it’s not harsh enough on cuts in emissions by the rich, highlighting the nagging rift between wealthy and poor nations.“

Back home, even the LA Times, the US daily newspaper perhaps most concerned about climate, is questioning the wisdom of any international agreement that might come from Copenhagen:

“The specifics have yet to be determined, but so far it appears that poor countries are placing such extravagant demands on wealthy ones that no American president, even a strong environmentalist like Barack Obama, could possibly accede. It’s not too late to salvage the situation, but given the extraordinary complexity of the treaty and the political challenge of drafting it, Obama should be ready to pursue an alternative strategy.”

Next week: reading the tea leaves on China’s new approach.

Other stories of note:

IPS: Climate Change: Four Tough Nuts To Crack
“The four essentials, as he termed them, are: clarity on how much industrialised countries would reduce their emissions up to 2020; clarity on what developing countries would do to limit the growth of their emissions; stable finance from industrialised nations for the developing world to mitigate climate change and adapt; and a “governance regime”. “

The Windsor Star: Canada: The Kyoto ‘bully’
“Foreign Affairs briefing notes obtained through an Access-to-Information request indicate a “deliberately provocative” Canadian strategy in negotiations to replace the Kyoto accord in Copenhagen in December, says Dale Marshall, climate change policy analyst with the David Suzuki Foundation. “It suggests that Canada doesn’t mind exacerbating tensions between developed and developing countries and wouldn’t mind if that led to a failure in the discussions.”

Reuters: Technology seen key to oil sands: Chu
“Chu told the Reuters Global Energy Summit that the balance between the environmental impact from the huge energy resource in northern Alberta and its importance to U.S. energy supply is a complicated one that will require solutions from the industry.”

BusinessGreen: UN: Global renewables investment up despite financial crisis
“Over $13.5 bn of new private investment went into companies developing new low-carbon energy technologies, while $117 bn was invested in the development of 40GW of capacity from established renewable technologies, such as wind, solar and biofuels — representing 40 per cent of all new power generation capacity built last year.”

Reuters: Climate change turning seas acid: scientists
“”To avoid substantial damage to ocean ecosystems, deep and rapid reductions of carbon dioxide emissions of at least 50 percent (below 1990 levels) by 2050, and much more thereafter, are needed,” the academies said in a joint statement.”

Financial Times: Age of scarcity: Resource shortages yield investment opportunities
““Banks and investment houses that understand how climate change will affect business will have a competitive advantage, enabling them to invest in the right areas and avoid the wrong ones,” says David Symons, director of corporate services at WSP Environmental.”

Guardian: Peru declares curfew after bloody clashes in Amazon jungle
“The violence plunged the government into crisis and left a question mark over the fate of billion-dollar deals with foreign multinationals, including the Anglo-French oil company Perenco, to develop the rainforest.”

Grist: Former Republican Sen. George ‘Macaca’ Allen shills for dirty energy
Worth clicking just to watch the utterly bizarre video of George Allen trying to rally America behind fossil fuels.

Top Story: UNFCCC “Road to Copenhagen” meeting this week in Bonn, Germany (June 1-12, 2009)

Major talks start this week in Bonn, Germany on the “Road to Copenhagen,” — the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change meetings leading up to the global summit in Copenhagen, Denmark December 7-18, 2009.

Copenhagen is where world leaders hope to sign a far-reaching, international agreement to bring down carbon emissions — the so-called “Kyoto 2” treaty. The summit is seen by many scientists, government and business leaders as a “make or break” opportunity to ensure global food and fresh water supplies far into the 21st century, avoid mass species extinctions / preserve plant and animal diversity, and avoid widespread geopolitical instability.

Andy Revkin at the NYTimes dot-earth blog had a good post summarizing the hairiness of the treaty negotiating work:

“As with any proposed contract, the devil is in the details, particularly when the {contract}{treaty}{agreement} involves {possible}{binding} {restrictions}{limits} on gases produced by every basic human activity, from driving to deforestation.”

He goes on to excerpt the proposed language on most major conflicts. A good read.

Surprisingly, the two countries thought to be the biggest stumbling blocks at Copenhagen — China and India — have, over the past month, announced a new willingness to join the treaty. Provided it has teeth.

Sydney Morning Herald: China pans US over climate demands
“A LEADING Chinese strategist on climate change has declared “there will be a deal at Copenhagen” to replace the Kyoto Protocol, but he has belittled the carbon-reduction proposals of the Obama Administration and the [Australian] Rudd Government as inadequate.”

Reuters: India says US domestic policy crucial to climate deal
“”Each one is hearing the other side so it is not a dialogue of the deaf in that sense, but the real dialogue where you start talking to each other. That will start now,” Patnaik told Reuters ahead of the June 1-12 meeting in Bonn. “I am very optimistic. If we can narrow it down to 10 percent differences, 90 percent agreement, it is a huge success.”

Two other wild cards at Copenhagen are Russia and the world business community.

The Russian Duma ratified a new “doctrine” on climate change just last week recognizing the “severe risks” of anthropogenic climate change and requiring “immediate” action.

Nature News: Russia makes major shift in climate policy

Similarly, a meeting of global business leaders in Copenhagen last week found some surprising statements coming from global CEOs: widespread support for a carbon tax and/or cap and trade programs.

AP: Global CEOs back greenhouse gas cuts, carbon caps

The question now leading most discussion — especially after the many amendments to the American Clean Energy and Security Act (aka The Waxman-Markey Climate Bill) — is whether the United States will do as President Obama stated back in November, 2008: lead on climate change. After the president’s lack of involvement with the bill, some are now wondering what are the administration’s real goals and plans?

Treehugger: Where Does Obama Stand on Climate Legislation?

Also: the big question of the week — will tomorrow night’s 2-hour ABC-TV event “Earth2100” be super cheesy or an interesting “new approach” to news and climate journalism? Tune in to watch and find out!

Other stories of note:

NYTimes: Plant-derived fuels could be certified for flights within a year, says Boeing exec
“In the past year and a half, commercial airlines have flown four successful test flights using a variety of biofuel-jet fuel blends. “We’ve proven the technical capability of biofuel as a drop-in replacement,” Glover said. “It meets all jet fuel requirements and then some.””

Climate Progress: Energy Secretary Chu: Paint roofs white to fight global warming
“Making roads and roofs a paler colour could have the equivalent effect of taking every car in the world off the road for 11 years, Chu said. It was a geo-engineering scheme that was “completely benign” and would keep buildings cooler and reduce energy use from air conditioning, as well as reflecting sunlight back away from the Earth.”

Solve Climate: Florida Renewable Energy Plan a Job and Economy Juggernaut
“In all, it found that implementing the full Climate Action Plan could add almost 150,000 new jobs and bring almost $40 billion in increased economic activity to the Sunshine state. “

Yale 360: Adaptation Emerges As Key Part Of Any Climate Change Plan
“”“My view is that we’ll be lucky if we can stop CO2 at 600 ppm,” says Wallace Broecker, a geoscientist at Columbia University’s Earth Institute. “There’s no way we’re going to stop at 450. Impossible. If we’re going to double CO2, we’d better prepare what we’re going to do about it.””

Nature: Hot times ahead for the Wild West
“An increase in the frequency of temperature extremes could affect crops, river flow and electricity consumption in the western states. For example, regions with the climatic conditions suitable for premium wine grape production might shift, shrink or even disappear with rising temperature extremes.”

This is the time between worlds, floating in the infinite oceans, waiting for the universe to remake itself:

And this is how the new world begins:

Source. (thanks, John!)

Top Story: “The Sixth Extinction?”

Elizabeth Kolbert’s latest for the New Yorker (May 24, 2009) is not for the faint of heart.

The piece, “The Sixth Extinction?” is about a conclusion that biologists around the world are coming to that we are in the midst of “the sixth great extinction event,” also called by some, “The Holocene Extinction Event” (the Holocene is a geological epoch which began approximately 11,700 years ago).

The article is not available online, but the abstract is here.

Kolbert’s piece was also featured on the New Yorker podcast.

The earth has already witnessed five great extinction events, stretched over millions and millions of years (biologists estimate that 99% of all life on earth has gone extinct) and the scholarship on why those events have occurred is still developing and not all together settled. Until the 1980s, scientists believed that all the major extinctions were caused by climate change (on the scale of thousands or millions of years).

In the 1980, Luis Alvarez and Walter Alvarez proposed that an asteroid hit about 65 million years ago caused one of the great extinctions, the latest one. This controversial idea was accepted by the early 1990s, leading paleontologists to search for other “kill mechanisms” for the other great extinctions. That search continues with few results.

Theories have this sixth and current extinction starting about 10,000 years ago as humans began spreading around the globe and the first of the “megafauna” — the great mammals, think mastodons, saber-toothed tigers, polar bears — began dying off.

The extinctions seem to have picked up a lot of steam in the 20th century, with estimates ranging from 20,000 and 2 million species extinctions in the past 100 years alone. Some scientists are predicting that by the end of the 21st century, 50% of the plants, animals, fungi and algae living on the planet now will be extinct.

In the New Yorker Podcast, the interviewer cities Kolbert’s three children and asks her how she can remain optimistic about their future.

Kolbert replies: “I’m not. I’m not optimistic. How can you be optimistic after you look at all this data. I do have kids. We’re evolutionarily programmed to believe in the future and I hope the future for my kids is not as bleak as what some of these figures seem to be pointing toward. But when you just look at all the data, it’s hard to be optimistic.”

Other stories of note:

Guardian: ‘Why don’t we stop hurting the planet?’
“I was forever troubled by a central question: what is the right age to tell a child about climate change? And, furthermore, how do you go about discussing a subject that will be an increasingly impactful and predominantly negative presence in their lives? If there had been enough room on the insides of my eyelids to write it, I would probably have squeezed in another pertinent quote: “War is never so ugly as when you explain it to children.””

LATimes: Dust storms speed snowmelt in the West
“The storms leave a dark film on snow that melts it faster by hastening its absorption of the sun’s energy. That, coupled with unseasonably warm temperatures, has sped up the runoff here, swelling rivers to near flood stage, threatening to make reservoirs overflow and fueling fears that there will not be enough water left for late-summer crops.”

Reuters: Big business says needs cash to cut CO2 emissions
“”This is not about capability, it’s about cost,” said Tony Hayward, chief executive of British oil company BP. “The issue is the gap between the energy that is provided today and the energy that we’re talking about and which today is more expensive.””

NYTimes: Hippies, Hollywood and the Flush Factor
“The “yellow mellow” adage is hardly new , and was purportedly coined by hippies in the early days of the environmental movement. “It’s a reasonable conservation measure that has no negative health impacts,” said Mr. Hershkowitz. “The Colorado River is at the lowest levels ever recorded. Lake Mead is half empty. To take drinking water and use it in our toilets doesn’t make sense.””

Scientific American: Carbon capture success in Wisconsin
“Capturing the carbon dioxide that wafts up the smokestack after burning coal (or any other fossil fuel) is a critical technology to help keep the lights on while combating climate change. And now there has been a successful demonstration that the technology to capture that CO2 from flue gas might actually work.”

Science Daily: Rapid Climate Change Forces Scientists To Evaluate ‘Extreme’ Conservation Strategies
Humans as Planetary Gardiners: “Among these radical strategies currently being considered is so-called “managed relocation.” Managed relocation, which is also known as “assisted migration,” involves manually moving species into more accommodating habitats where they are not currently found.”

And because it wouldn’t be a weekly update without some very bad news about Australia:

The Australian: Cost of water tipped to rise by 100%
“Although recent rains have raised southeast Queensland’s dams to 73%, and Sydney’s are currently at 58% capacity, southern Australia remains very dry. Melbourne’s dam level is just 26.6% …  Perth’s dams are at 29 per cent, and its desalination plant now supplies 17 per cent of the city’s water needs. Mr Young said Perth was actually planning for a future that did not rely on dam-water supplies.”

The Telegraph: Australia’s east coast a disaster zone after severe floods
“The floods follow a once-in-a-century heatwave in southeastern Australia, in which more than 2,000 homes were razed by major wildfires and 173 people died. Meteorologists have warned the extreme temperatures and downpours – a common feature of Australian summers – would only increase as a result of climate change.”

Top Story: CNA Institute’s Military Advisory Board Report: Powering America’s Defense: Energy and the Risks to National Security.

Two years ago, the CNA Institute (a private military think tank which grew out of the Center for Naval Analysis) published a ground breaking report, National Security and the Threat of Climate Change. Then, a group of retired generals and admirals from all branches of the US armed forces met to asses the global security consequences of climate change.

This report stood out because of the Bush Administration’s policy prohibiting US agencies from planning or discussing anthropogenic climate change. It was the first major American admission that climate change is not only real but could result in an overwhelming threat to overall global security.

CNA’s 2007 National Security and the Threat of Climate Change

Now, CNA has published a new study outlining how the military’s own policies and procedures are helping this threat come to life. Major findings:

1. The nation’s current energy posture is a serious and urgent threat to national security.
a. Dependence on oil undermines America’s national security on multiple fronts.
b. The U.S.’s outdated, fragile, and overtaxed national electrical grid is a dangerously weak link in the national security infrastructure.
2. A business as usual approach to energy security poses an unacceptably high threat level from a series of converging risks.
3. Achieving energy security in a carbon-constrained world is possible, but will require concerted leadership and continuous focus.
4. The national security planning processes have not been sufficiently responsive to the security impacts of America’s current energy posture.

The study is available at the link above.

Coverage of the study has not exactly been front page news, but considering the importance of the 2007 report, this is likely to be a game changer for the Pentagon. Couple this with the energy efficiency standards that Gates has already put into place — contractors now must include the price of fueling vehicles in their contracts, which is a huge deal for DoD — and there is the potential here for transformation.

The New York Times focused on that bottom line price tag in its coverage. Reuters went for the sensationalist global threat. Climate Progress sees real potential in military transformation.

NYT: Addressing the Military’s Energy Inefficiency
Reuters: Continuing Current U.S. Energy Policy Called ‘Perilous’
Climate Progress: The Real Patriot Act, pt 1

Meanwhile, Alex Steffens at World Changing links this report to numerous others that have come out in the last week and sees a potential for a coalition here, as movement to fight climate change now seems to be starting to cut across old partisan divisions.

“This all reinforces something I’ve been thinking more and more lately, which is that not only would addressing climate change yield more direct economic benefits than losses, but that the failure to do so will have societal costs orders of magnitude more costly. Given what we’re learning, there is simply no credible position to be found in opposing climate action on economic terms.

“Which is the basis of my problem with the whole debate around the Waxman-Markey bill (which would introduce a very limited cap-and-trade system to the U.S.): that debate is surreal. It bears no relationship to reality. At very least, we need a widespread recognition that the politically possible in D.C. is at odds with what is in the real world scientifically grounded and necessary in practical terms.”

World Changing: Latest to Sound the Climate Alarm: Doctors, Lawyers, Generals, Bankers and Diplomats

Other stories of note:

Guardian: China and US held secret talks on climate change deal
“Chandler said he and Holdren drew up a three-point memo which envisaged: Using existing technologies to produce a 20% cut in carbon emissions by 2010; Co-operating on new technology including carbon capture and storage and fuel efficiency for cars; The US and China signing up to a global climate change deal in Copenhagen. “We sent it to Xie and he said he agreed,” said Bill Chandler, director of the energy and climate programme at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.”

Climate Progress: Exclusive: Have China and the U.S. been holding secret talks aimed at a climate deal this fall?
“I’ve known Bill since my DOE days, so I called him to get the scoop.  He says the story is mostly true — and thus a true potential breakthrough that may well lead to a major announcement in the fall — but it has inaccuracies, including the nature of the deal being discussed.”

ScienceDaily: Climate Change Odds Much Worse Than Thought
“The most comprehensive modeling yet carried out on the likelihood of how much hotter the Earth’s climate will get in this century shows that without rapid and massive action, the problem will be about twice as severe as previously estimated six years ago – and could be even worse than that.”

The Australian: Drought and floods cut rice harvest back to 5%
“The rice harvest has been ravaged by both drought and flooding, with the NSW Riverina expected to deliver just 5 per cent of its normal output. About 65,000 tonnes are expected to be harvested this year in the nation’s rice growing heartland – down from 1.2 million tonnes in a typical year – while trial crops in northeast NSW have been destroyed by heavy rainfall.”

Univ. of Washington: Any way you slice it, warming climate is affecting Cascades snowpack
“There has been sharp disagreement in recent years about how much, or even whether, winter snowpack has declined in the Cascade Mountains of Washington and Oregon during the last half-century. But new research leaves little doubt that a warmer climate has a significant effect on the snowpack, as measured by water content on April 1, even if other factors keep year-to-year measurements close to normal for a period of years.”

Foreign Policy in Focus: Cities Can Save the Earth
“The climate crisis won’t be solved by changing light bulbs and inflating your tires more, planting a tree and driving a little less. It’s going to require a truly fundamental shift in how we build our cities and live in them.”

NYT: As Alaska Glaciers Melt, It’s Land That’s Rising
“As a result, the region faces unusual environmental challenges. As the sea level falls relative to the land, water tables fall, too, and streams and wetlands dry out. Land is emerging from the water to replace the lost wetlands, shifting property boundaries and causing people to argue about who owns the acreage and how it should be used. And meltwater carries the sediment scoured long ago by the glaciers to the coast, where it clouds the water and silts up once-navigable channels.”