Don't Miss the Motorcade

Have to admit, that last “on air” comment by President Obama after his Copenhagen press conference continues to nag at me, despite my contention that the Copenhagen Accord was a success, largely because of President Obama’s leadership (see previous post, Why Copenhagen was a Success).

To those who view the Accord as a failure, knowing that the President and his U.S. entourage was hustling out of Copenhagen to beat an epic snowstorm did little to change their minds about the U.S. reluctance to do the hard work necessary to combat global warming. How ironic, of course, that the U.S. Capitol would see a record snow storm – more snow in a 24-hour period than the region typically gets in an entire winter.

And of course, the usual “so much for global warming” comments from those who don’t understand that this kind of storm is what we’ll see more of in the future. A warming atmosphere brings more moisture which means more rain (aka Florida) and more epic snows. “Worse storm on record” will be words we should all get used to hearing. This snow storm is a harbinger of things to come and completely in line with the climate science that warns of more extreme and severe weather.

Who knows what more would have happened if President Obama and the traveling press corps had been “snowed in” in Copenhagen. Likely negotiators from low-lying island countries, and sub-Sahara Africa would have welcomed hearing of the inconvenience, noting how global warming is wrecking havoc in their homelands.

“Don’t miss the motorcade” isn’t what they were hoping to hear…

Why Copenhagen was a Success

Reading accounts from the European press, and from some U.S. ngos, multiple adjectives such as “abysmal” sit in front of the word, failure, when describing the Copenhagen Accord. And while we have no time to lose spinning our wheels in negotiations that don’t get us closer to binding commitments to reduce carbon pollution threatening lives and economies, we need to recognize the significance of what did happen. We also need to remember that a binding agreement was not the goal at Copenhagen. It was a step in a two-step process to get to a binding agreement.

Larry Schweiger, President of National Wildlife Federation got it right when he said, “We’re not done yet.” And yet, if we are truly realistic about the work ahead, we should recognize we’ll never be done. From now and for the foreseeable future, we will have a never ending list of “To Dos” to get us to the low carbon economy we need to survive. And every one of those to dos, will build a healthier, stronger economy, improve our national security and protect the planet for future generations.

So why was Copenhagen a success? First, all the emerging economies now have a “To Do” list of their own. Without China, India, Brazil and South Africa agreeing to emissions reductions and a system of verification, Copenhagen would have been a failure – with them, the world community has now moved to a new level of engagement and collective responsibility to address global warming.

Secondly, China shifted. Difficult for us to get our heads around the significance of this. China is a closed society -- a commitment to participate in a verification process is transformational. Without President Obama’s leadership in convincing China to step up and step into this new world of transparency, nearly half of the world’s carbon pollution would have been ignored. And that would have been a failure the planet could not have endured.

Third, developed countries for the first time agreed to take responsibility for the global warming impacts our standard of living will cause on poor countries. This is an admission that developing countries have long awaited. Because of Copenhagen, there is no turning back to the days of ignoring our own complicity. We are now addressing not only the causes of global warming, but also the effects, and the solutions.

The financing plan of $100 billion includes accelerating the availability of energy efficiency and clean energy technology. As President Obama pointed out, millions of people in the developing world are still living in abject poverty without electricity. Clean energy technology will give millions a better standard of living without contributing to a worsening of the climate crisis. Bringing these technologies to a mass market is where America can, and should lead. That choice is up to us.

Fourth, the world community has finally tackled deforestation. For the first time, there are substantive agreements to reduce deforestation – one of the most cost-effective and common sense solutions to reducing carbon emissions. Tropical deforestation accounts for nearly 20% of carbon emissions, and reducing deforestation will also provide multiple benefits for indigenous cultures, local economies, watersheds, and wildlife.

Fifth, thanks to President Obama, the United States was a leader in these negotiations, not an observer whining on the sidelines. President Obama spent hours in one-on-one negotiations with the Chinese and in meetings with other world leaders. This level of involvement was unprecedented and absolutely essential to the final outcome.

Last, and certainly not least, let it be clear that the science of global warming was never in doubt. In fact, the agreement to not let global temperatures rise more than 2◦ C wasn’t good enough for many developing countries that insisted it be 1.5 degrees (and for good reason). President Obama signaled to the world that while there is more work to be done, we all should understand that what we do will “ultimately be dictated by the science.”

Show Us the Money

As the last days of the Copenhagen climate change negotiations wind up (not winding down yet), we’ll be hearing a lot of chatter about protecting our own interests here in the U.S. Those bent on generating fear will try to convince Americans that the U.S. Constitution has been hijacked, we’re letting China and India off the hook, we’re willing to spend money “over there” while we continue to wreck havoc on our economy “over here" ....

Would be nice if those spewing out this rhetoric, and those listening to it, would go around their homes and offices and count the number of items that have a “Made in China” label on them – and don’t miss that third or fourth TV in the kids’ rooms, or the bathroom. Let’s face it, China’s carbon pollution is our carbon pollution.

And hey, let’s take another look at the numbers: the U.S. accounts for 5% of the world’s pollution and we’re responsible for 20% of the carbon pollution that is putting millions of people in harm’s way because of the impacts of global warming on their homelands, their food, and water supplies. Why should those least responsible for global warming be left to fend for themselves against the worst impacts of global warming?

A central issue now facing the delegates from 192 countries is “climate financing” – how much money developed countries will provide to boost development of energy efficiency and clean energy technology, reduce deforestation and provide humanitarian relief to those developing countries on the front lines. The Group of 77 (a coalition of developing nations established in 1964 and now numbering 130 countries) are standing firm that the U.S. and other industrialized countries should pony up. Today in Copenhagen, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced support for a $100 billion global fund.

The World Bank estimates the costs of unchecked climate change in developing countries at $75-100 billion per year.

There’s plenty of ways to generate the kind of financing needed – from public as well as private sources. Most immediately we can stop the wasteful habit of giving the fossil fuel industry government subsidies. In the U.S. we spend $ 10 billion a year on giveaways to this carbon polluting industry -- (worldwide its $300 billion.) The U.S. also spends $1 billion a day on foreign oil –$350 billion per year!

It’s time the U.S. and the world redirect this money toward a future we can all live with: a low-carbon economy future that invests in a healthier planet instead of more pollution.

Down to the Wire on Climate Talks

With three days left to the conclusion of the Copenhagen climate negotiations, we begin to see the inevitable challenges of setting the framework for an international agreement that the developing and developed world can accept.

We are now at a “very distinct and important moment in the process.”

And yet, it’s not that distinct. Doesn’t it always comes down to this: developing vs. developed; or industrialized vs. emerging; or large vs. small. Or perhaps most precisely, the haves and the have nots.

Once again, for those of us who live in a country where we have more than we could ever need, and the carbon emissions to show for it, we look to other countries who strive to catch up with our standard of living to make sacrifices that we’re just not willing to make ourselves.

The climate debate is more complex than denial versus skepticism, according to Stewart Brand. To the deniers, and skeptics, he adds the “warners” and the “calamatists.” What he missed was the “realists” – those among us who know that we can’t continue business as usual because our natural resources won’t keep pace with our greed. In fact, restoring America’s economic health is linked to restoring the health of our natural systems – and that means reducing global warming pollution.

It’s why decisions at Copenhagen to reduce global deforestation are so critical – clear cutting forests accounts for 15% of all carbon emissions globally. Doug Boucher, director of the Union of Concerned Scientists' Tropical Forests and Climate Initiative tells us that "Assuming we get a treaty or a treaty framework in Copenhagen, REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) will be part of it and will be one of the biggest successes of the climate summit.”

Jonathan Lash, President of World Resources Institute got it right when he wrote that, "No generation before ours had enough information to understand the urgent need for action to avert climate catastrophe. No generation after ours will have the opportunity – it will be too late to avert terrible harm. We have the evidence to prove that action is necessary. We have the technology to shift to a low carbon economy. We may still have the opportunity to avert catastrophic warming. It is an historic moment. The question is whether we have the wisdom and the will to act."

Three days and counting….

Thanks for the Reminder

What the criminals who illegally hacked into private emails at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit didn’t know is how much their calculated actions right before the start of the international climate change negotiations in Copenhagen would do for the cause. The cause of science that is.

If anything, the story has lit a fire under many of us in the community to get back to the basics of communicating the science about global warming. It’s always been a story in three parts. We’ve tended to focus on the benefits of strong climate and energy legislation to improving the economy (millions of new jobs) and our national security (let’s stop sending $1 billion overseas to buy oil), with the science of global warming -- sometimes taking a back seat. Thanks to the hackers, that’s all changed.

We’ve now had more than three weeks and counting of coverage on what’s really happening to the only planet we have. Scientists are now front and center telling us that the body of evidence that human activity is the dominant cause of global warming is overwhelming. And that global warming is not only real, but a growing threat to society. We’ve been reminded of all the places we can go to get more details on the science. You can start with the U.S. Global Change Research Program, on the impacts here in the U.S., or check out the Copenhagen Diagnosis. Or, let’s just stick to the basics:

• Temps this decade have been higher than any other decade on record
• Ocean temperatures this summer were hotter than ever previously recorded
• Stable sea ice in the Arctic melted to its lowest recorded levels this summer -- declining more than 60% since the 1980s and 1990s.
• Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere for 2009 (387 parts per million) are the highest they have been in about 15 million years.
• 8.7 billion tons of carbon were added to the atmosphere in 2008 from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas -- a 41% increase from 1990.

Ironic as it is, thanks to the criminals, science is back in the front seat where it belongs.