Live aus Kopenhagen – oder forward, forward always backwards

Die Stimmung ist gespalten, aber das Momentum ist da. Während die Zivilgesellschaft langsam aus dem Heim der Klimakonferenz, dem vielgenannten Bella Center vertrieben wird, gehen die politischen Verhandlungen in die heiße Phase.

Die Mitgliedsstaaten fahren dicke Geschütze auf und sorgen damit für Bewebung. Nur nicht immer vorwärts, wie der BBC Korrespondent Black beschreibt (link). So hat Präsident von Äthiopien im Namen der Afrikanischen Union einem Deal zugestimmt, dem seine Kollegen nun etwas missgestimmt sind.

Weiterhin haben die G77 anscheinend bis um 7.00 Uhr am Mittwoch an einem Entwurf gearbeitet, der durch eine Neufassung der dänischen Regierung annulliert werden könnte.

Mittlerweile nimmt das High-level Plenum an Imposanz zu. Gerade hat Gordon Brown richtig bemerkt, dass “Copenhagen will be blessed or blamed for generations to come”.

Es bleibt auf Hopenhagen zu hoffen!

Hubertus (Twitter)

Climate Lecture 2009 – Lord Nicholas Stern: “The Economics of Climate Change”

4. November 2009, 3 – 5pm, TU Berlin

Lord Nicholas Stern of Brentford opened this year’s Climate lecture at the Technical University of Berlin with a presentation on “The Economics of Climate Change”, mainly drawing on his famous “Stern Report” from 2006.

Being a well-known economist and policy advisor, he is especially praised for his ability to bridge science and policy-making in the area of climate change. With his 2006 report he, for the first time, quantified what is at stake in the face of climate change and with that he put climate change high up on the international agenda. His main point is the adoption of a target approach, stating 2° C as the maximum global mean temperature increase and he covers the following 4 issue areas:
1. The estimation of costs of (in)action→ “the social costs of carbon”
2. Taking into consideration the effects of today’s policies on future generations → justice and fairness, ethical reasoning
3. Technological change
4. Institutional change

I have summarised a few points I feel are worth noting of this, to my mind, very interesting lecture, which ended with standing ovations for Lord Stern. The following is therefore no complete outline and single points can seem a bit unrelated.

The world faces 2 main problems today: poverty and climate change. They are unavoidably linked and therefore we can only succeed or fail on them together.

The poor countries will be hit earliest and hardest by the consequences of climate change.

The climate problem begins and ends with people: The earth cannot absorb all the emissions produced by mankind (flow-stock problem) and the consequences of the change of the climate affect peoples’ life – although to a different extent – everywhere on this planet. The effects are usually connected to water or the shortage thereof, for example in the form of droughts, floods, sea level rise etc.
Emissions are mainly caused by high economic activity and deforestation. Eight countries produce 2/3 of all global emissions! The per capita emissions of rich countries are much higher than for poor ones, but those of the developing countries have a higher growth rate. Nevertheless, the per capita emissions of the rich countries remain around three times as high in comparison to developing countries.

The inequity characterising the comparison between developing and developed countries is striking: rich countries got rich because they grew carbon-intensively, but now all countries have to cut emissions and – even worse – the poor countries are hit harder and earlier by the already occurring consequences of climate change.

If we go on with ‘business as usual’, there is a 50% chance that there will be a 5° C temperature increase by 2050, which would be a temperature change the world has not seen for 30 million years! The effects for mankind would be catastrophic.

There is a 50/50 chance of achieving the maximum 2° C temperature rise goal and this can be achieved by an 80% emissions reduction on the part of the big emitting countries. How does this number come about?
First of all, the emissions have to peak before 2020 in order to be able to bring them down sufficiently. At the moment we are close to 50 Giga (or billion) tons, we have to be below 35 Gt by 2030 and below 20 by 2050. Below 20 Gt by 2050 means 50% below 1990 levels. The G8 countries agreed on this goal on their meeting in Heiligendamm in 2007. Assuming a world population of 9 billion in the year 2050, this means a reduction of ca. 2 tons per capita (20 Gt divided by 9 billion people). Considering the 10-11 tons per capita we have in the industrialised countries today, this means a reduction of 80% of emissions as a result of the 2° C goal.

Concerning financial commitments, a global deal has to include 100bn $ each for mitigation and adaptation between 2020 and 2030. But against the background of the upcoming Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, also goal-formulation for the nearer future – 2015 – is important. Especially on the part of the rich industrialised countries, the level of their external support must be clear in order to ensure the credibility of their promises. A 50bn $ commitment would parallel 0.1% of rich countries’ GDP. An amount that seems feasible. In addition to the financial commitments of rich countries, their targets for 2020, especially that of the US, have to be included in the deal in order to ensure its tenability.

Early action has to be achieved in the area of energy efficiency, the halting of deforestation – especially in the tropics – and in innovation and development of low-carbon technologies.

Despite the highlighted European leadership in climate change mitigation, efforts taken and promised by other actors should not be forgotten. Japan, for example, posed a 25% emission reduction goal on 1990 levels by 2050, China announced to decrease its emissions by a “notable” margin. Also India and Brazil promise new initiatives to tackle the climate issue. The US remains a difficult case due to the problems of getting legislation through Congress.

Copenhagen entails the possibility of a global momentum! Europe’s task is to keep the dynamic of the climate change topic alive in the last few weeks before the Climate Change Conference. It should also talk about the 30% emission reduction not as a remote, but a likely target.
The role of Germany within the European climate change approach has to be emphasised; its leadership is central to European leadership. The biggest EU country has been a pioneer in big parts of the story, an example being renewable energy promotion and the crucial role Angela Merkel played during the 2007 Spring Council that decided on the 20% emission reduction target.

Only Annex I countries have committed to binding reduction targets, not the developing countries. Therefore, countries like India or China will most probably not accept binding targets in Copenhagen. They will rather accept conditions under which they are willing to commit, so it will be about ‘committing to commit’. Those conditions will involve technology transfer from rich to developing countries and financial assistance.


Kathrin

Copenhagen - A party without guests? (blog action day)

Copenhagen will be the venue of the showdown of the year. More than 10,000 participants and activists are expected - but the crucial 20 players haven't yet decided whether they will come or not: the G20 head of states.

As whatseuropinion argues, the EU is not going to have a strong Commissioner to represent this important economic bloc. Nor will Germany have an environment minister with experience to attend the conference. But crucially, it is clear already now that the head of states will need to step in to save the conference from failure. Even if a compromise could be prepared during the week, the head of states would need to fly in to seal the deal - too much is at stake and too grave are the differences in interests.

Obama himself will receive the Peace Nobel Price shortly before the end of Copenhagen. That is, he will be in Scandinavia anyhow. He hasn't yet ruled out coming to Copenhagen - but for protocol reasons it is clear that he wouldn't attend unless other head of states would do so. Merkel, to name just another head of state, hasn't yet ruled out coming as well. So why not asking the head of states to step by in Copenhagen for a nice pyjama party? Obama, let's throw a proper party with the truely important guests!

Jonas - with greatings to the other 9,000+ blogs on blog action day

Energy vs. Climate?

www.blogactionday.org

When experts hold a presentation on, let’s say, “The Economic Challenges of Climate Change” they usually divide their PowerPoint presentation into two parts: one for energy and one for climate change issues. Unfortunately, mostly a third part is missing that puts the picture together!

Energy

In order to satisfy the growing energy demand of a growth-oriented world politicians and economic experts emphasise the growing necessity to extract new energy resources in the face of energy scarcity. The solution is – as everyone agrees – growing investment in and development of renewable energy resources like wind, solar or biomass. But experts emphasise that these innovations, investments and developments take time – they usually calculate in decades – before those alternative energy resources actually pay out and become a sufficient substitute for conventional energy means like oil and gas. In that sense, it is argued that besides the investments in renewable energies money should also be poured into the exploration of new oil and gas resources.

Climate

The latter conclusion contradicts somehow the statements usually made by the same experts that in close connection to the energy problem, climate change issues have to be in the centre of attention, mainly in the form of carbon emission reductions. It is claimed that we have to act now in order to remain within the temperature rise that still prevents a global catastrophe. But the demand to develop new exploration fields for oil and gas seems to run counter to the emission reduction targets we should pursue. As an example: the extraction of the oil stored in the Canadian sand banks will become economically profitable with a high enough oil price despite the huge costs connected to the digging up and processing of the sand. Not calculated hereby is the huge amount of greenhouse emissions this will produce together with a tremendous amount of energy and water needed for the process, not to speak of the environmental damage to the land of the region. Another example is the increasing economic attractiveness of (especially gas) resources in the Arctic Ocean, which puts this vulnerable region in danger of unsustainable exploration and irreversible environmental damage.

Dilemma

So is there a trade-off? Does the Arctic have to be “sacrificed” and the increasing emissions through Canadian oil sand extraction be accepted in order to bridge the time until renewable and sustainable energy resources are sufficiently developed in order to replace conventional energy resources? What would the experts suggest?

Kathrin

It gets warm in the High North

www.blogactionday.org

The Arctic or High North will be one of the regions being considerably affected by climate change. Temperatures are expected to rise more and quicker up there than anywhere else. Studies like the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) predict a temperature rise between 4 and 7 degrees Celsius in the Arctic at the end of this decade. Other models predict an ice-free Arctic Ocean already during the summer months of 2040.

This development points to the considerable economic and political potential of the High North, including great possibilities and numerous challenges. Most striking is the growing importance of energy in the Arctic region as the area becomes more accessible for the exploitation of Arctic hydrocarbon resources. Technical advances and high energy prices corresponding with increasing demand for energy worldwide make such an endeavour profitable. The development of new sea navigation routes through climate change will help to secure access to energy for Arctic petroleum extraction and will considerably shorten the distance between Europe and North America to Asia. Besides the increasing possibilities for energy exploitation, transport and fishing the environmental dangers connected to the increased human activity and economic interests in the area have also to be taken into account, not least the effects of climate change threatening the traditional livelihoods of the indigenous populations. In that sense the European Union Commission’s Communication emphasises that the exploitation of Arctic hydrocarbon resources and the opening of new navigation routes can be of benefit, provided it is done in full respect of the highest environmental standards. (“Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council: The European Union and the Arctic Region”, Brussels 20 November 2008, p. 7)
The supply of more natural resources through the reduction of Arctic sea ice could also lead to heightened rivalry between various actors, for example concerning sovereignty issues between the eight Arctic states (US, Canada, Russia, Sweden, Finland, Denmark (Greenland), Norway, Iceland). Furthermore, in connection with Russia’s renewed self-assertiveness European states are increasingly concerned about threats to the stability and security of existing supplies of energy and are therefore looking for alternative measures for securing their energy demands. The High North might offer alternative and safer supplies.
The growing interest in the High North is not limited to the countries possessing soil in the area. Rather numerous actors on the international scene including states and private interests show increasingly keen interests in the High North. Consequently, in order to secure the sustainable exploration of natural resources in the Arctic in due respect of the indigenous livelihoods a multilateral approach encompassing all main actors (countries, organisations, interest groups etc.) has to be the main aim.

Kathrin

24.10. Klimaaktionstag

Der 24.10.2009 wird ein globaler Aktionstag um auf die Kopenhagenverhandlungen aufmerksam zu machen. Koordiniert über tcktcktck und 350.org, werden Aktivisten weltweit für den Klimaschutz demonstrieren. 350ppm (parts per million) steht für die CO2-Konzentration, die für die Welt kein Problem darstellt. Zur Zeit liegen wir bei 380ppm, und 450-550ppm ist mehr als wahrscheinlich, wenn sich nichts ändert.

Allein in Berlin werden viele interessante Aktionen starten:
- ein Dönerladen (oder ähnliches) wird von einem carrotmob besucht: carrotmobs sind flashmobs, bei denen ca 400-500 Kunden auf einmal kommen. Der Gewinn, der durch den Konsum entsteht, geht komplett an den Besitzer. Dafür muss er einen Anteil (ca 30%) in nachhaltige Investitionen stecken, z.B. in neue Isolationen.
- DJ Motte wird eine silent disco mit 350 Tänzern veranstalten: Jeder hat Kopfhörer auf und tanzt zu der Musik, die sonst niemand hören kann.
- Auch sonst werden verschiedene Demonstrationszüge durch Berlin ziehen und sich irgendwann treffen.

Jonas

Silent revolution

Robert Webb und sein Team haben 2005 quiet revolution gegründet, eine Firma in Großbritannien, die uns eine dezentrale Versorgung mit Windenergie ermöglichen will.

Noch ist die Firma damit beschäftigt, ihre Erfindung kleiner Windräder für unsere Dächer für den Massenmarkt anzupassen. Aber die ersten Räder sind bereits erhältlich: 30.000€ kosten sie, und können zwei Niedrigenergiehäuser versorgen.

Bild von: quietrevolution.co.uk