U.S. President Barack Obama said on Tuesday next month’s climate talks in Copenhagen should cut a deal with “immediate operational effect”, even if its original aim of a legally binding pact is not achievable.
Obama was speaking after talks with Chinese President Hu Jintao in which he said the world’s top two greenhouse gas emitters had agreed to take “significant” action to mitigate their output of carbon dioxide.
“Our aim (in Copenhagen) … is not a partial accord or a political declaration but rather an accord that covers all of the issues in the negotiations and one that has immediate operational effect,” Obama said.
Denmark, host of the Dec. 7-18 climate talks, welcomed Obama’s comments and said it expected the United States and all developed nations to promise firm emissions cuts and new cash to help the poor cope with global warming, even if no treaty text could be agreed.
Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen won backing on Sunday from Obama and other leaders at an Asia-Pacific summit for his scaled-down plan for a politically binding deal, with a legally binding one delayed until 2010.
“The American president endorsed our approach, implying that all developed countries will need to bring strong reduction targets to the negotiating table in Copenhagen,” he told about 40 environment ministers meeting in the Danish capital.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel was also keen that the momentum for a deal should be maintained.
“We will make very clear that we continue to support ambitious goals for Copenhagen,” she told reporters before a cabinet meeting.
“We must do everything to ensure that we move quickly to get a binding agreement. Even if this can’t be reached in Copenhagen, it can’t be pushed back forever.”
Greens candidate Clive Hamilton says global warming sceptics will prove to be not just worse than Holocaust deniers, but deadlier than the Holocaust’s genocidal killers. After all, Hitler killed only 17 million people:
Instead of dishonouring the deaths of six million in the past, climate deniers risk the lives of hundreds of millions in the future. Holocaust deniers are not responsible for the Holocaust, but climate deniers, if they were to succeed, would share responsibility for the enormous suffering caused by global warming… So the answer to the question of whether climate denialism is morally worse than Holocaust denialism is no, at least, not yet.
Wow. Faced with such unfettered madness, I can’t even get angry. I knew Hamilton was strange, but now the only question left is what such a hysteric is doing as a Professor in our universities?
Odd that Hamilton is the one to raise the Nazi analogy, given, first, that his own totalitarian instinct seems oddly familiar:
President Barack Obama and other world leaders agreed today that next month’s much-anticipated climate change summit will be merely a way station, not the once hoped-for end point, in the search for a worldwide global warming treaty.
The 192-nation climate conference beginning in three weeks in Copenhagen had originally been intended to produce a new global climate-change treaty. Hopes for that have dimmed lately. But comments by Obama and fellow leaders at a hastily arranged breakfast meeting here on the sidelines of an Asia-Pacific summit served to put the final nail in any remaining expectations for the December summit.
“There was an assessment by the leaders that it is unrealistic to expect a full internationally, legally binding agreement could be negotiated between now and Copenhagen which starts in 22 days,” said Michael Froman, Obama’s deputy national security adviser for international economic matters.
The prime minister of Denmark, Lars Loekke Rasmussen, the U.N.-sponsored climate conference’s chairman, flew overnight to Singapore to present a proposal to the leaders to instead make the Copenhagen goal a matter of crafting a “politically binding” agreement, in hopes of rescuing some future for the struggling process.
A fully binding legal agreement would be left to a second meeting next year in Mexico City, Froman said.
Obama backed the approach, cautioning the group not to let the “perfect be the enemy of the good,” Froman said. Addressing the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum later, Obama talked of the need to limit greenhouse-gas emissions “in Copenhagen and beyond.”
Froman said the Danish proposal would call for Copenhagen to produce “operational impact,” but he did not explain how that would work or to what it would apply.
Despite the cooperative-sounding words, the two-year process of crafting a landmark treaty has been stymied by deep distrust between rich, developed nations and poorer developing nations such as India, Brazil and China.
The developed nations hold that all countries must agree to legally binding targets to reduce heat-trapping gases. Developing countries say they can make reductions a goal but not a requirement, and they want more money from wealthy nations to help them make the transition.
A major bill dealing with energy and climate in the U.S., a domestic priority of Obama’s, is bogged down in the U.S. Senate with scant hope it would be completed by next month, giving the American president little to show in Copenhagen.
Between that and the developments in Singapore, there may be little reason for Obama to travel there. White House aides had been saying privately that the outcome of talks during Obama’s weeklong Asia trip, including a three-day visit to China that starts Sunday night, would help determine whether Obama might go to Copenhagen.
Obama arrived late Saturday night in Singapore for the annual 21-nation APEC summit that had begun without him early that morning. In remarks to the group today, Obama reached out by announcing that he would host the 2011 gathering in his native Hawaii.
Once again, take this story with a grain of salt. They may well press ahead with a full-blown treaty and a politically binding” agreement can cause all kinds of havoc as well. – GCS Editior
Control: The House and Senate climate bills contain a provision giving the president extraordinary powers in the event of a “climate emergency.” As chief of staff Rahm Emanuel says, a crisis is a terrible thing to waste.
If you thought the House health care bill that nobody read has hidden passages that threaten our freedoms and liberty, take a peak at the “trigger” placed in the byzantine innards of both the House-passed Waxman-Markey bill and the Kerry-Boxer bill just passed by Democrats out of Sen. Barbara Boxer’s Environment and Public Works Committee.
As Nick Loris of the Heritage Foundation points out, the Kerry-Boxer bill requires the declaration of a “climate emergency” if the concentration of carbon dioxide and other declared greenhouse gases in the atmosphere exceeds 450 parts per million (ppm). It was at about 286 ppm before the Industrial Revolution and now sits at around 368 ppm.
That figure was picked out of a hat because the warm-mongers believe that’s the level at which the polar ice caps will disappear, boats can be moored on the Statue of Liberty’s torch and dead polar bears will wash up on the beaches of Malibu.
The Senate version includes a section that gives the president authority, under this declared “climate emergency,” to “direct all Federal agencies to use existing statutory authority to take appropriate actions … to address shortfalls” in achieving greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions.
What the “appropriate actions” might be are not defined and presumably left up to the discretion of the White House. Could the burning of coal be suspended or recreational driving be banned? Sen. David Vitter, R-La., asked the EPA for a definition and received no response.
Competitive Enterprise Institute scholar Chris Horner says “this agenda transparently is not about GHG concentrations, or the climate. It’s about what the provision would bring: almost limitless power over private economic activity and individual liberty for the activist president and, for the reluctant leader, litigious greens and courts” packed by liberal Democrat appointees.
IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri accuses Indian environment ministry of ‘arrogance’ for its report claiming there is no evidence that climate change has shrunk Himalayan glaciers
By Randeep Ramesh
A leading climate scientist today accused the Indian environment ministry of “arrogance” after the release of a government report claiming that there is no evidence climate change has caused “abnormal” shrinking of Himalayan glaciers.
Jairam Ramesh, India’s environment minister, released the controversial report in Delhi, saying it would “challenge the conventional wisdom” about melting ice in the mountains.
Two years ago, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN agency which evaluates the risk from global warming, warned the glaciers were receding faster than in any other part of the world and could “disappear altogether by 2035 if not sooner.”
Today Ramesh denied any such risk existed: “There is no conclusive scientific evidence to link global warming with what is happening in the Himalayan glaciers.” The minister added although some glaciers are receding they were doing so at a rate that was not “historically alarming.”
However, Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the IPCC, told the Guardian: “We have a very clear idea of what is happening. I don’t know why the minister is supporting this unsubstantiated research. It is an extremely arrogant statement.”
Ramesh said he was prepared to take on “the doomsday scenarios of Al Gore and the IPCC.”
“My concern is that this comes from western scientists … it is high time India makes an investment in understanding what is happening in the Himalayan ecosystem,” he added.
The government report, entitled Himalayan glaciers (pdf), looks at 150 years’ worth of data gathered from the Geological Survey of India from 25 glaciers. It claims to be the first comprehensive study on the region.
Vijay Kumar Raina, the geologist who authored the report, admitted that some “Himalayan glaciers are retreating. But it is nothing out of the ordinary. Nothing to suggest as some have said that they will disappear.”
Alarming predictions that climate change will lead to the extinction of hundreds of species may be exaggerated, according to Oxford scientists.
They say that many biodiversity forecasts have not taken into account the complexities of the landscape and frequently underestimate the ability of plants and animals to adapt to changes in their environment.
“The evidence of climate change-driven extinctions have really been overplayed,†said Professor Kathy Willis, a long-term ecologist at the University of Oxford and lead author of the article.
Professor Willis warned that alarmist reports were leading to ill-founded biodiversity policies in government and some major conservation groups. She said that climate change has become a “buzz word†that is taking priority while, in practice, changes in human use of land have a greater impact on the survival of species. “I’m certainly not a climate change denier, far from it, but we have to have sound policies for managing our ecosystems,†she said.
The International Union for the Conservation of Nature backed the article, saying that climate change is “far from the number-one threat†to the survival of most species. “There are so many other immediate threats that, by the time climate change really kicks in, many species will not exist any more,†said Jean Christophe Vie, deputy head of the IUCN species program, which is responsible for compiling the international Redlist of endangered species.
He listed hunting, overfishing, and destruction of habitat by humans as more critical for the majority of species.
However, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds disagreed, saying that climate change was the single biggest threat to biodiversity on the planet. “There’s an absolutely undeniable affect that’s happening now,†said John Clare, an RSPB spokesman. “There have been huge declines in British sea birds.â€
The article, published today in the journal Science, reviews recent research on climate change and biodiversity, arguing that many simulations are not sufficiently detailed to give accurate predictions.
In particular, the landscape is often described at very low resolution, not taking into account finer variations in vegetation and altitude that are vital predictors for biodiversity.
A key Senate committee today approved a plan to impose the nation’s first-ever caps on greenhouse gas emissions blamed for global warming, over the objections of panel Republicans who have blocked work on the measure.
The Environment and Public Works Committee voted 11-1 — with seven Republican members skipping the vote — to approve the climate change legislation drafted by Chairwoman Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.
Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., was the lone Democrat to vote against the measure, primarily because of his objections to the bill’s mandate that by 2020, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions be 20 percent less than they were in 2005. Baucus wants a less-rigorous 2020 emissions cap of 17 percent — with the option of raising it to 20 percent only if other countries impose similar limits.
Although today’s vote advances the Kerry-Boxer bill out of the main panel that has a role in vetting it, that is likely to be the high-water mark for the legislation this year. At least five other committees are expected to weigh in on the issue before Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., can merge their proposals into a single global warming bill for floor debate.
Under the rosiest of scenarios for bill backers, debate on global warming legislation likely would not begin until next spring. And Sen. John Rockefeller, D-W.Va., told reporters this week that “some people are talking about not doing it until after the 2010 election.â€
Beyond the timing concern, Baucus’ “nay†vote today underscores the challenges facing proponents of capping greenhouse gas emissions. A moderate Democrat whose support is key on any climate bill, Baucus also has a platform to push for changes as chairman of the powerful Senate Finance Committee.
Bill backers also have to find a way to navigate any measure around a host of regional concerns and their advocates on Capitol Hill — including senators worried about the vitality of manufacturing, members from coal-reliant regions and others concerned legislation will encourage U.S. refiners to move operations overseas.
“As a landmark bill moves — not an easy bill, but a landmark bill — at each stage, you have to find a new sweet spot,†Boxer said. “And each stage requires a little bit of a different emphasis. And that is played out as everybody gets involved.â€
Kerry is already working separately with Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Joseph Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut, to write a new bill combining emissions caps with incentives for nuclear power and a plan for new domestic oil and gas drilling.
Boxer pushed the bill out of her environment committee by relying on a rarely used interpretation of panel rules that allow it to be sent to the full Senate even without members of the minority party.
Committee Republicans, led by James Inhofe of Oklahoma, objected to the move they had dubbed the “nuclear option.â€
Inhofe said he was “deeply disappointed†by Boxer’s decision to violate the “longstanding precedent of the committee.†“We have not been able to find a time when a bill has been marked up without minority participation,†Inhofe said.
But panel Democrats said it was essential to send a signal to the world that the U.S. is on a path to capping the carbon dioxide and other emissions blamed for global warming before international climate change negotiations next month in Copenhagen.
Binding agreement not expected in Copenhagen
Administration working towards treaty next year
America refuses to rush into reaching a climate change deal in Denmark
By Suzanne Goldenberg and John Vidal
The US has given up hope of reaching a global climate change treaty at Copenhagen and is working towards a deal late next year, the Obama administration said today. The decision ends hopes of a legally binding deal being sealed next month.
“We have to be honest in the process and deal with the realities that we don’t have time in these four weeks to put the language together and flesh out every crossed t and dotted i of a treaty,” said John Kerry, who chairs the Senate foreign relations committee.
Todd Stern, the state department climate change envoy, agreed. “It doesn’t look like it’s on the cards for December,” he said. “We should make progress towards a political agreement that hits each of the main elements.”
The scaling back of US ambitions follows a growing international consensus that a binding legal agreement on global warming could not be reached at Copenhagen – now just 32 days away. The US shift resets expectations for what will be accomplished at Copenhagen, once billed by the UN as a last chance to avoid catastrophic global warming.
Editor’s note: The treaty isn’t dead yet, and despite this story, it, or domestic cap and trade laws could still be just around the corner. Remain vigilant. This story (and ones like it) could even be a smokescreen to throw people off guard.
Democrats are deeply divided on climate change legislation, and Republicans boycotted the hearings this week, which leaves little hope for passage of legislation this year.Â
The Senate Environment Committee held three days of hearings on the climate bill last week -Â it goes to committee debate today. Â
Democrats from the Midwest, South and Rocky Mountain West are concerned about the impact of the legislation on industry and consumersÂ
Democratic leaders, along with the Obama administration, are attempting to persuade at least six Republicans to vote in favor by compromising on nuclear plants. So far, not one Republican seems interested.
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) says she will begin the mark up on climate legislation regardless of the fact that all 7 Republicans on the Committee plan to boycott the proceedings.
Republicans say Boxer can’t do a markup without at least two Republicans present. Boxer countered that a provision would allow her to proceed as long as a majority of committee members are present. Democrats outnumber Republicans 12 to 7.
“We urge Ranking Member Inhofe, with the utmost respect, to bring the committee Republicans back to work on this issue. We will give them the opportunity, as we proceed this week, to reconsider their decision,” she added. “We look forward to working with them if they decide to participate, but if they do not, we will move forward in accordance with the rules of the Senate and of this committee.”
On Monday afternoon, all six ranking Republicans on committees with jurisdiction over climate change legislation sent a letter to Boxer (PDF) asking her to delay consideration of the bill until a full economic analysis is performed. Two of the GOP senators Democrats have been eyeing as possible backers of a cap-and-trade bill — Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Richard Lugar (Ind.) both signed the missive, which states, these sort of “analyses are worth the time and resources not only to get them done, but to get them done right.”
“The EPW Republicans would like a markup of the Kerry-Boxer bill, but are disappointed that the majority seems intent on moving forward with a markup before receiving a full analysis from the EPA,” he said. “Given the sheer size and significant economic impacts of the bill on the American people, we feel it is our duty to insist on having the analysis before members are to vote on the bill.”
If members of Congress need yet another reason to kill the Waxman-Markey bill, the Obama administration’s economy-suffocating, job-destroying energy program, Princeton University’s Tim Searchinger and his colleagues have a humdinger: Carbon reduction laws encourage widespread deforestation as trees and other vegetation are harvested to produce energy from biomass to replace oil and gas. The problem is that in long run, this process actually increases greenhouse gas emissions, which cap-and-trade is meant to reduce, according to Searchinger.
The Princeton researcher’s paper, published Oct. 23 in Science, points out that almost all prior global warming studies failed to take into account the carbon emissions that result from converting cropland and forests to energy production. This accounting error treats all bio-energy as carbon-neutral, the authors say, despite the fact that burning wood and clearing land actually releases quite a large quantity of carbon into the atmosphere.
“By using a worldwide agricultural model to estimate emissions from land-use change, we found that corn-based ethanol, instead of producing a 20% savings, nearly doubles greenhouse emissions over 30 years and increases greenhouse gases for 167 years,” the Princeton authors say. “Biofuels from switchgrass, if grown on U.S. corn lands, increase emissions by 50%.” Neither the Kyoto Protocol, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, nor existing European cap-and-trade programs have taken into account widespread deforestation as farmers worldwide respond to the new economic incentives, Searchinger added.
Feeling guilty about your carbon footprint? You understand percent, which could be called parts per hundred. You’re almost there to understanding parts per million, which is the way trace gases are described. You are in for a big surprise!
By Chris Buckley and Alister Doyle
By Jennifer Loven, AP
If members of Congress need yet another reason to kill the Waxman-Markey bill, the Obama administration’s economy-suffocating, job-destroying energy program, Princeton University’s Tim Searchinger and his colleagues have a humdinger: Carbon reduction laws encourage widespread deforestation as trees and other vegetation are harvested to produce energy from biomass to replace oil and gas. The problem is that in long run, this process actually increases greenhouse gas emissions, which cap-and-trade is meant to reduce, according to Searchinger.
Entries (RSS)