No Meaningful Agreement in Copenhagan. No Surprise.

Let’s see if we can grasp the so-called agreement reached in Copenhagan.

  1. Many of the Developed Countries (the North) have promised to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions as much as they (comfortably) can in the future. These are not binding commitments; just promises to make a best effort. And, they are all over the place in terms of the cuts they represent compared to past and present CO2 emission levels. A number of Developing Countries (the South, including China) have now promised to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. Again, nothing binding and wildly inconsistent targets and timetables. And, even if you add up all the promises, you won’t come close to getting the world on track to stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions at a (350–450 ppm) level by 2050 sufficient to forestall the worst effects of climate change over the rest of the century and beyond.
  2. The North has promised to come up with $30 billion over the next three years to help the South “fight” climate change. It’s not clear, though, how this money will be used or where it will come from. Presumably, some of it will be used to reduce CO2 emissions (although it is not clear what the best way to do that is or how such efforts should be prioritized). Some of it will have to be used to help countries adapt to sea level rise, increased storm intensity, periods of drought, adverse effects on biodiversity, and other disasters. (Which forms of adaptation should be pursued, are not clear.) Also, it is not obvious how this money will be administered or who will get it (presumably a disproportionate share should go to the poorest countries in Africa). The North says it will try to raise $100 billion by 2020, but, again, it is not clear where the money will come from, how it will be administered, or who will get it. Finally, these are just informal promises, not binding commitments.
  3. There was almost a new forest agreement, but at the end it got dropped. In Kyoto, the question of how to define and protect “sinks” (i.e., forests and oceans that absorb CO2) was not addressed. In Copenhagan, the leaders agreed that halting deforestation is “crucial.” Funds to pay countries, like Brazil, to conserve their forests are now supposed to be forthcoming. Note that rich nations like this idea because they want to count the funds they donate for this purpose toward “carbon credits” (thereby reducing the CO2 reductions they have to make in their own countries). It is not yet clear, though, how this system of carbon credits and forest preservation would work.
  4. As with all global treaty negotiations, there was a lot of uneasiness when the topic of monitoring and enforcement came up. No country can really force another to do what it doesn’t want to do—even if it has signed a treaty. Countries are sovereign. Most global agreements require countries to report regularly. But, in this case, if the reports don’t seem accurate, all the Climate Change Secretariat can do is ask for more information or clarification. It can’t double-check the data that countries submit or take independent measurements of its own. The South agreed for the first time, however, to report domestic CO2 emissions on a regular basis. There was some language discussed regarding “provisions for international consultation and analysis.” That’s as close as we’ll get to verification. Some observers had hoped that a new global panel of experts might have access to all monitoring equipment, data and technical specialists in each country so that suspect reports could be verified, but that didn’t happen.
  5. The so-called “Statement on Temperature” agreed to in Copenhagen says that the nations agreed that any global increase in future temperature should be kept to under two degrees Celsius. Since the new agreements specifies no targets, timetables, enforcement mechanisms, provisions for technology sharing between the North and the South, or ways of enhancing capacity building, it’s hard to take such a statement seriously. Saying it should be done, but not saying how, is tantamount to saying nothing.
  6. None of the promises made in Copenhagen are binding. Maybe, in the next year or two, a formal Protocol will be drafted that explains how implementation of these various commitments is supposed to happen. Until then, though, we’ll be operating under the Rio Climate Change Convention and the Kyoto Protocol.

What happens when the Kyoto agreement runs out in 2012? It appears that we will have no binding targets in place to bring global greenhouse gas emissions to a level (450 ppm? by 2050) needed to forestall dangerous temperature increases. We certainly won’t have the level of cooperation between North and South required to tackle the climate change problem over the long haul. Many countries in the South resent the way they were (once again) left out of the last minute wheeling and dealing in Copenhagen. And, tossing money at them, no matter how many billions, without ever agreeing in principal that the North is responsible for the climate change mess we are currently in, just puts off the day we can achieve the global collaboration required to address the problem effectively. Small island nations face total destruction. The numbers of international refugees that will have to move from low-lying coastal areas devasted by meterological events is sure to increase markedly. Unfortunately, nothing will be done to jump-start Southern efforts to achieve more sustainable patterns of development. In short, after Copenhagen, the climate change problem will continue to get worse at an even faster clip.

What should have been done and what can still be done to turn this situation around? First, we need to alter the system of global treaty drafting. Each region of the world should bring together governmental and non-governmental interests on a specific multi-year timetable to produce a draft global treaty that takes account of its needs and sort out its responsibilities for achieving proportionate greenhouse gas mitigation efforts sufficient to reach the required 450 ppm goal by 2050. Two or three countries in each region should immediately mobilize such efforts. Using a common template—developed by the Climate Change Secretariat which still has a 160±country mandate—each regional caucus should spell out ten year incremental reduction targets sufficient to meet the 450 ppm goal by 2050, explicit strategies that countries can use to meet these targets if they have to, the cost implications of meeting such targets (netting out the costs of not meeting them as well), ways reasonable data reporting and verification responsibilities might be met, institutional capacity building requirements, financial forecasts likely to have an impact on implementation, and possible financial or in-kind contributions each country needs or could provide). This needs to be done in eight to ten regions of the world. Each regional “caucus” should draft its suggested version of a new global agreement to meet greenhouse gas reduction requirements responsibly and designate five members from its caucus to participate in a global treaty-making council with responsibility for reconciling the differences among the proposed regional drafts. The Global Congress would have to be mediated by an international panel of skilled facilitators acceptable to all the regions. A Congress of 40–50 regional representatives would need a year or more to prepare a meaningful treaty the takes account the differences among all the regional drafts. The final version of the treaty would then be sent to each national legislative body to ratify (not at another Copenhagan-style type fracus). When a minimum of 2/3 of the countries in each region ratifies it, and a minimum of 2/3 of the regions ratify it, it would come into force. If 2/3 of the countries in 2/3 of the regions ratified the treaty, those 130 countries would be in a position to take action (under a range of trade and other treaty regimes) to pressure any and all hold out countries to ratify the new Climate Change treaty. If a county won’t sign the new treaty, they ought not be eligible to participate in international trade regimes. If they don’t sign, they ought not be eligible for assistance from any multinational banks. Since all the same countries are part of all these regimes, the climate change treaty signers would have sufficient numbers (and through the process I am describing) sufficient legitimacy, to make this happen.

Let’s get to work.

Climate Sleep-Out in Boston pays off

Green PRCs Picture of Boston Common by Ian Maclellan for The Leadership Campaign For the past seven weeks, college students from around the region have been camping out on Boston Common on Sunday nights calling for Massachusetts to run entirely on clean energy by 2020. After a final, snowy sleep-out last Sunday, the demands of The Leadership Campaign were answered, sort of.

On December 7, state officials introduced a bill to create a task force charged with proposing ways to get Massachusetts to 100% clean electricity by 2020.

The resolution seems like a nice way of saying we’ve heard you, now bugger off, but then again Massachusetts relies on coal for only 25 percent of its electric power (about half the national average) and has set a goal of 20 percent renewable electricity production by 2020.

I wonder what it would take for the state to get to 100 percent “clean electricity”—the Leadership Campaign seems to include fossil fuel plants that use waste heat capture and recycling in its definition of clean—by 2020.

Image Credit: Ian Maclellan for The Leadership Campaign

Free tickets for the Museum of Science

Museum of Science CEA has received a number of tickets for free general admission to the Museum of Science, and is making them available to interested parties. They will be available for pick-up from CEA’s offices beginning at noon on Friday 9/25, which should be staffed until 7PM on that date. Note: The tickets expire Wednesday 9/30.

Alas, this windfall comes a little late for you to catch Manufactured landscapes, and too early for Running the Numbers: Portraits of Mass Consumption. However, the museum has a number of other interesting exhibits—including several related to energy—as well as a special showing of the new film Food, Inc. on Wednesday at 2; advanced registration required.

The tickets were donated by The WhizKids Foundation, a Cambridge-based non-profit that works with local schools to improve STEM education.

Cambridge Climate Emergency Hearing: September 24th

Cambridge.City.HallThe Cambridge City Council is holding a special meeting on the Climate Emergency at City Hall on Thursday, September 24th at 5:30pm and will be broadcast on Cambridge cable TV channel 8.  This proceeds the council passing a policy order resolution recognizing the existence of a climate emergency on May 11, 2009.  The resolution obligates the city of Cambridge to lead in responding to Climate Change and to direct the appropriate city departments to increase the City’s responses to a scale proportionate to the emergency and consistent with the city’s own Climate Protection goals for 2010 and beyond.  A seven minute clip from the Cambridge city council hearing can be viewed on CCTV.

The city of Cambridge has taken a proactive role in addressing climate change and in December 2002 it adopted the Climate Protection Plan with the goal of reducing the emission of greenhouse gases (GHG) city-wide 20% below 1990 levels by 2010. Despite the efforts of City staff and others the City has fallen short of this goal.  The Climate Emergency Hearing provides the opportunity for experts to weigh in on the current state of climate change and potential ways the city can address the crisis.

Speakers will include Dr. Melanie Fitzpatrick of the Union of Concerned Scientists, Dr. Jill Stein of Physicians for Social Responsibility, Dr. Frank Ackerman of the Stockholm Environmental Institute at Tufts University and Dr. John Sterman of MIT Sloan School of Management.  Scientists will discuss the mounting evidence of climate change exceeding the worst-case IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) scenario projections and the increasing risk of abrupt or irreversible climatic shifts.

For more information see http://greencambridge.wikispaces.com/Calendar+of+Events

The Age of Stupid

DUH

Although the name “The Age of Stupid” brings to mind Gary Larson’s strip “Awkard Age,” or Mike Judge’s “Idiocracy,” the film is a docu-drama about global warming. In it a mid-century man looks back and wonders why did not act more swiftly. Tomorrow is the world premiere, with a simulcast if the festivites and interviews of prominent figures, plus a showing of the film itself. Alas, it does not seem to be entering wide circulation afterwards?! Luckily, there are a number of showings in the area.

Continue reading

Summer Canvass Begins

p1000042-small1This week, the Cambridge Energy Alliance (CEA) launched an ambitious community outreach and education program to help Cambridge residents save money and reduce their carbon footprint. Eight dedicated climate heroes arrived in Cambridge Massachusetts after completing a 90 mile bike ride that began in Deerfield, MA. Cambridge is the riders’ the first stop on the Massachusetts Climate Summer tour to raise awareness about climate change by biking from community to community, promoting sustainability.

Over the next month, the climate heroes will bike throughout Cambridge, MA, speaking one-on-one with up to 3,000 residents about energy efficiency programs and services. The Climate Summer riders will visit Cambridge neighborhoods from the 17th of June to the 7th of July, offering a unique opportunity for residents to connect to information and resources to make their homes more comfortable and efficient.

During the door-to-door visits, residents will also learn about CEA’s services and programs. CEA helps residents access free and low-cost home energy audits, where an energy professional investigates opportunities to save energy and water for homeowners and tenants.

The CEA-sponsored door-to-door visits will have an immediate impact. Residents visited by the riders will receive a free energy efficient light bulb in exchange for an incandescent bulb from their home. The 5,000 light bulbs were donated by TCP, Inc. of Cleveland, Ohio. The light bulb swap will reduce carbon emissions by over 2.5 million pounds over the lives of the bulbs.

Cambridge Forum in Harvard Square

Cambridge Forum is one of public radio’s longest running public affairs programs. The program is recorded live every week in Harvard Square, before being broadcast on WGBH.

Next week, noted futurists Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus from the Breakthrough Institute will be speaking on the topic “Beyond the Pollution Paradigm: Why We Can’t Leave Saving the Planet to Environmentalists” 

As you can probably tell from the forum topic, these guys don’t follow anyone’s lead–or pull any punches–in suggesting how we can fix our environment and secure our energy future. They have been labeled as infidels and pariahs by everyone from the Sierra Club to Al Gore for their pro-growth, pro-technology environmental ideas. 

Warm Home Cool Planet will be there. What about you?

Time & Date: 7:30pm – May 6, 2009
Location: First Parish: 3 Church St., Cambridge, MA

Report from the Summit

logo

Cambridge, MA-Friday, April 24: Over 300 people, including your faithful Warm Home Cool Planet correspondent, assembled in Walker Memorial Hall at MIT to hear from some of the major players and most provocative thinkers in the field of sustainability. Unlike the content you’ll find here, which stretches all the way from global energy policy to insulating your water pipes, the Sustainability @ MIT conference was exclusively focused on the big picture.

Continue reading

MIT Sustainablility Summit Friday April 24th

Just another reminder of the MIT Sustainability Summit-Starting this Friday:

Location: Walker Memorial Building 50 142 Memorial Drive Cambridge, MA 02139
Click here for more details
Description: The MIT Sustainability Summit, Discovering New Dimensions for Growth, brings together students, engineers, business leaders, academics, environmental activists, and public servants to discuss how we can most effectively support each other as we face the opportunities and challenges of transitioning to a sustainable world.

For questions contact:
Catharina Lavers clavers@MIT.EDU
Start Time: 9:30
Date: 2009-04-24