Chinese whispers at Bali Climate Conference

I heard on the radio that the Chinese are giving the developed world a bollocking over their emissions targets. Fair call. They have more people that will be affected than anyone else.

So I trotted over to China Daily (I'm becoming a regular these days), and found out that,..

China is well on its way to acquiring fully 15 percent of its energy from renewable sources by the year 2020, while the United States is dragging its feet on transitioning away from fossil fuels...

... but no bollocking. And that,..

Asia, home to 60 per cent of the world's population, will bear the brunt of global warming as more extreme climatic changes take place within the region.

... but still no bollocking. Nevertheless they had a pretty good run down on the conference to date.

Bali climate talks advance despite squabbling

(Agencies)
Updated: 2007-12-04 23:19

Yvo de Boer, the UN's top climate official, praised the December 3-14 meeting of 10,000 participants for progress towards a goal of launching formal talks on a long-term climate pact to succeed the UN's Kyoto Protocol.

"But in this process, as in so many, the devil's in the detail," he cautioned at a beach-side conference centre on the Indonesian island.

Governments set up a "special group" to examine options for the planned negotiations meant to bind the United States and developing nations more firmly into fighting climate change beyond Kyoto.

The meeting also agreed to study ways to do more to transfer clean technologies, such as solar panels or wind turbines, to developing nations. Such a move is key to greater involvement by developing nations in tackling their climate-warming emissions.

The Kyoto Protocol now binds 36 rich nations to curb emissions of greenhouse gases, mainly from burning fossil fuels, by an average of 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2008-12 in a step to curb droughts, floods, heatwaves and rising seas.

Canada said in a submission to the talks that "to be effective, a new international framework must include emission reduction obligations for all the largest emitting economies." It did not mention deeper cuts for rich nations beyond 2012.

And Japan on Monday called on all parties to effectively participate and contribute substantially.

"Canada and Japan are saying nothing about legally binding emission reductions for themselves after 2012," said Steven Guilbeault of environmental group Equiterre. "They are trying to shift the burden to China and India."

Then I found some promising stories. One about the Chinese delegate Su Wei, essentially saying developing nations had more at stake in the fight against climate change than developed nations. This exposes the threadbare logic of deniers claiming there is no sense in western nations doing anything about global warming, based on the rationale China is just about to overtake the US in emissions output.

Mr Wei also telegraphed China's attitude to Son of Kyoto — more of the same. This leae the US less room to spoil for 2012.

Su said the future arrangement to address climate change should focus on enhancing implementation of current provisions of the Convention and its Kyodo [sic] Protocol, and further strengthen those provisions in accordance to the latest scientific assessments.

Latest scientific assessments. Perhaps the US will start to consider them too, now that they have rediscovered what military intelligence is used for.

Global Warning Climate Change Energy

Blogging yer Bali Conference

Kyoto Kevin, Rudd the Ratifier, well done! Kevin Rudd made good his election promise by triggering the instrument that sets in process the Australian Government ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, as his first act of Government. It was signed hours after the new Labor cabinet was sworn in by the Governor-General, Sir Michael Jeffrey. Bizarre that the English Queen still has a hand in all this — but there you go.

China Daily noted it. They bloody like our Kevin. They love 'im. The headline of following link leads to a glowing write-up in China Daily today, and leaves one wondering just what they really thought of John Howard for 11 years. :::[A man of reason and foresight takes the reins]

And the UN Climate Conference delegates assembling in Bali now loved it, giving Australia a rousing applause for ratifying, that would make an AA convention blush.

Spontaneous applause erupted for Australia as hundreds of delegates at the Bali climate change conference lauded Canberra's decision to ratify the Kyoto protocol.

[....]

Indonesia's Environment Minister and the new president of the UNFCCC, Rachmat Witoelar, told the conference he spoke for everyone "giving a sigh of relief" on Australia's change of position.

After the initial reaction, Witoelar invited delegates to offer a second round of applause, which they enthusiastically did. Some delegates even rose to their feet.

UNFCCC executive secretary Yvo de Boer later told reporters: "I think that it was an emotional and spontaneous reaction to a very significant political decision on the part of the Australian government to ratify the Kyoto protocol".

"The long applause in fact reflects people's appreciation for the courage shown by Australia to take this dramatically different position, to engage even more strongly with the international community on the question of climate change."

Witoelar told reporters Australia would be given a seat at the negotiating table and invited to fully participate in talks for a new global warming treaty from 2012, when the Kyoto pact expires.

Leaves one wondering what they previously thought of us. Climate pariahs, apparently, according to The Australian.

So what happens next, and what does it all mean? That's what I'll be trying to work out, as I blog the UN Bali Conference over the next 13 days or so.

Global Warning Climate Change Energy

World's big companies want clear climate outcomes from Bali

clipped from www.ajc.com Forty-six of the world's biggest corporations on Friday laid out their "road map" for reducing global warming, putting an emphasis on market-based ways to cut emissions. "Climate change is a serious threat," said Peter Darbee, chairman and chief executive of PG&E Corp., a San Francisco-based energy company. "The time for all of us to step up is now." "We're committed to going to Bali and discussing with countries there the way ahead on climate change," Gordon Johndroe, spokesman for the National Security Council, said at a briefing Friday in Crawford, Texas. The Kyoto agreement assigned binding targets for 36 countries to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases that contribute to global warming. The United States, Australia and many developing countries refused to ratify the treaty, but are participating in discussions over its successor. Many business and environmental leaders believe the need for global action is growing as economic development spurs the use of fossil fuels

Rudd wins Australian Federal Election on Green vote

Well, that is it. The Australian electorate so convincingly repudiated the meanness and pettiness that became there trademark of the Howard Liberal government. Some rejected Howard's attack on refugees, and their inhumane detention centres. Some rejected the lies, and broken core-promise/non core-promise distinctions. Some rejected the way Hicks was treated in Gitmo Bay. WMB. Many rejected the way we went into the Iraq war, and as many rejected the unneeded assault on workers conditions going by the Orwellian Worchoices name.

For me, it was some of the above, but mainly, mainly because Australia will finally ratify Kyoto, and take our place among the responsible nations of the world committed to taking on the challenge of climate change. All the other stuff will seem like the trivial concerns of humans if we don't take up the fight to minimise global warming, and win.

Global Warning Climate Change Energy

GHG set to rise by 57 percent by 2030 — that's 3 degrees C

We have to peak by 2012, or...

clipped from www.terradaily.com Emissions of greenhouse gases will rise by 57 percent by 2030 compared to current levels, leading to a rise in Earth's surface temperature of at least three degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit), the International Energy Agency (IEA) said on Wednesday. The IPCC said that to limit the average increase in global temperatures to 2.4 C (4.3 F) -- the most optimistic of any of its scenarios -- the concentration of greenhouse gases would have to stabilise at 450 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. To achieve the 450ppm target would mean that CO2 from energy sources would have to peak by 2012, and this would require a massive drive in energy efficiency and switch to non-fossil fuels, the report said. "Exceptionally quick and vigorous action by all countries and unprecedented technological advances, entailing, substantial costs, would be needed to make this case a reality." the IEA said

IPCC Synthesis "...abrupt or irreversible climate changes and impacts..."

Heart-heavy reading, with an impact like the doctor telling you that you have a very serious problem:

clipped from abc.net.au Global warming could be irreversible: IPCC Posted 2 hours 48 minutes ago — AAP The UN's Nobel-winning panel on climate change completed a draft report that said the consequences of global warming could be "irreversible". The report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) encapsulates a massive review of the global warming issue, with the goal of guiding policy-makers for the next five years. Human activities "could lead to abrupt or irreversible climate changes and impacts," the agreed text said. The so-called synthesis report summarises the main points from three massive documents issued this year covering the evidence for climate change; the present and possible future impacts of it; and the options for tackling the peril. After Saturday, attention will shift to a meeting in Bali, Indonesia, next month. Governments will try to set down a 'roadmap' for negotiations that will end in a deal to cut carbon emissions and help developing nations adapt to climate change.

2:39 AM: Well, that was the ABC carrying AAP. A quick Google shows that the Brisbane Times are the only other media to pick up this story so far. There's a lot more detail, starting with the death-knell for climate change denialism:

The IPCC experts agreed that the rise in Earth's temperature observed in the past few decades was principally due to human causes, not natural ones, as "climate skeptics" often aver.

The impacts of climate change are already visible, in the form of retreating glaciers and snow loss in alpine regions, thinning Arctic summer sea ice and thawing permafrost, according to predictions in the three IPCC reports issued earlier this year.

By 2100, global average surface temperatures could rise by between 1.1 C (1.98 F) and 6.4 C (11.52 F) compared to 1980-99 levels, while sea levels will rise by between 18 and 59 centimetres (7.2 and 23.2 inches), according to the IPCC's forecast.

Heatwaves, rainstorms, drought, tropical cyclones and surges in sea level are among the events expected to become more frequent, more widespread and/or more intense this century.

As a result, water shortages, hunger, flooding and damage to homes will be a heightened threat.

"All countries" will be affected, says the IPCC. Those bearing the brunt, though, will be poor countries which incidentally bear the least responsibility for creating the problem.

Yan Hong, deputy secretary of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), one of the IPCC's two parent bodies, warned on Monday that climate change bore "potential implications for world peace" by intensifying squabbles over water, food and energy.

"It could also lead to massive population resettlement, especially to urban areas that may not have capacity to shelter, feed and employ them," he said.

The IPCC won this year's Nobel Peace Prize alongside climate campaigner and former US vice president Al Gore.

The panel, comprising specialists in atmospheric chemistry, ocean biology, glaciation, economics and many other disciplines, issues regular reviews, called assessment reports, on global warming.

It has been widely praised for the impartiality and objectivity of its reports, although this year some experts have said its review process may be too conservative and slow-moving to assess what now transpires to be a fast-moving problem.

This year's is the fourth assessment report since the IPCC was established in 1988 by the WMO and UN Environment Programme (UNEP).

© 2007 AFP

UK law mandates 60% emissions cuts by 2050

Good effort by the UK Government under Gordon Brown — becoming the first nation in history to put carbon emissions reductions into law.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown has committed the UK to reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 60% before 2050 to help tackle global warming.

While the bill will also enforce reductions of greenhouse gas emissions of between 26% and 32% by 2020, Mr Brown previously said he would consult the new committee to see if bigger reductions were required.

Most of world ready to combat global warming. Someone tell the politicians

A major change in how we tackle climate change is around the corner, if a new BBC Poll is on the money...

the poll suggests that in many countries people are more willing than their governments to contemplate serious changes to their lifestyles to combat global warming.

Overall, 83% of respondents throughout the world agreed that individuals would definitely or probably have to make lifestyle changes to reduce the amount of climate-changing gases they produce.

READ THE FINDINGS

BBC World Service poll results in full [1.40MB]

clipped from news.bbc.co.uk

Most ready for 'green sacrifices'

The poll suggests the public are more ready than politicians Most people are ready to make personal sacrifices to address climate change, according to a BBC poll of 22,000 people in 21 countries. Four out of five people indicated they were prepared to change their lifestyle - even in the US and China, the world's two biggest emitters of carbon dioxide. Opinion was split over tax rises on oil and coal - 44% against, 50% in favour. Support would rise if the cash was used to boost efficiency and find new energy sources, the poll suggested.

How much scientific abuse can a polar bear?

A favourite deceit of AGW sceptics is to present Bjorn Lomberg as a "scientist." He isn't. His PhD is in Political Science — a humanity.

There are different methodologies between those used in "hard" and social sciences. Social sciences don't really use the scientific method. This is clearly demonstrated through out a recent Salon.com interview with Bjorn, and was especially telling in the discussion of Bjorn's use of polar bears.

Here is a response to the writer quoting one expert's opinion (a front-line researcher in polar bears).

"OK. But I've talked to a different expert that's up in Greenland, who works for the Danish government, and he has looked over my chapter, and said that it's OK."

If only all experts were equal.

Bjorn's referencing of another expert is supposed to counter the point, but he never makes a commitment on which has the better data and the better hypothesis — a fundamental step in hard science.

clipped from www.desmogblog.com Bjorn Lomborg's new book attacked by a polar bear 31 Aug 07 It seems there may be a bit of last minute damage control over at the Bjorn Lomborg camp. A heavy piece of the marketing campaign for Lomborg's new book Cool It was the author's claim that polar bear populations are increasing. Lomborg uses this as evidence of his argument the consequences of global warming are more hype than reality. And the marketing of Lomborg's contentious claim seemed to be working. That is until Salon.com's Kevin Beger took Lomborg to task over the claim. Beger levels the polar bear claim leaving Lomborg's only defense to say: "OK. But I've talked to a different expert that's up in Greenland, who works for the Danish government, and he has looked over my chapter, and said that it's OK." Now, Lomborg's book review on Amazon no longer carries any mention of polar bears, but the google entry for Amazon still has the original polar bear claim here for all of us to see. It is too late for a correction.

Vote 1 — responsible approach to climate change

The main question for me in the Australian Federal Election, with three weeks to go (thank god) is, "who now has the best climate change policy?" Of course the economy is important, but how can anyone not see that the economy is but a sub-system within a larger environment? A failing environment will ultimately cause a failing economy. Health, education — they are all up there for me — but they will nay amount to a hill-o-beans for our kids and grandkids, if we don't arrest the development of more extreme scenarios modelled in IPCC 4.

I predicted that this would be a green election, and thus it has turned out.

It's the 2020 emissions reductions targets, stupid.

John Howard has set targets for 2050, and so has Rudd. Only the Greens have set intermediary targets for 2020.

• reduce greenhouse emissions by 30% by 2020 (80% by 2050)

Life is a long game. I see a big future for the Greens with policies like that. Howard still hasn't got it. Labor lost my interest when they re-nuanced Garrett's declaration that Labor would not wait for China to sign the Kyoto Protocol before signing.

I have a lot of respect for Garrett, politically, and as the activist musician of yesteryear — it's his call to diverge from his stated principles and stick to Labor's changing party line — but they lose my confidence. I'm pleased that The Greens and Labor have agreed to swap preferences.

Vote 1 The Greens in the Senate

The ideal outcome for me would be to see Labor throw this deceitful government out, with the help of the Greens, who go on to secure the balance of power in the Senate. The preference swap is one step towards this. Don't know who I'll vote for in the house, but it won't be Barry O'Farrell, not that I will make a dent in Bradfield. Wish I still lived in Wentworth, what with all that barristerial battering of the current member. I do like Turnbull for the most part, though, he just picked the wrong party, and approved the wrong pulp-mill in the wrong way.

Global Warning Climate Change Energy

10 year old boy masters 10 languages using CD-Roms

One boy's amazing gift keeps on giving — for ten countries so far.

clipped from www.mirror.co.uk A boy genius of 10 has stunned teachers by learning to speak 10 languages. Arpan Sharma taught himself French, Spanish, German, Italian, Swahili, Mandarin, Polish, Thai and the difficult Lugandan language of Uganda. He also learned Hindi from his mum and dad. The gifted primary school pupil from Oldbury, West Mids, studied using CD-roms. He learned Italian fluently at seven, German at eight, and Spanish when he was nine. But he admitted: "Learning Swahili was probably one of the biggest challenges I've faced and Mandarin Chinese was hard too." Deputy Headmaster Richard Lynn, of Blue Coat School, Edgbaston, Birmingham, said: "Arpan is a language genius, a natural when it comes to listening to an exact pronunciation and repeating it perfectly." Arpan wants to be a surgeon and work in hospitals abroad and speak each country's tongue.

Californian dreaming of massive plankton CO2 sequestering

Global warming is going to be fought and solved in myriads of ways, and enterprise is going to be one one the the major players. Here is one possible way to fight global warming developed by a Californian eco-restoration firm, Planktos — by restoring marine plankton levels to 1980 levels.

clipped from www.positivenews.org.uk A Californian firm has found a way of re-oxygenating the world’s oceans, which it firmly believes will help combat global warming. Using the latest technology, leading eco-restoration firm, Planktos, is planning to replenish the sea’s floating plankton forests, which absorb half the Earth’s carbon dioxide and generate half the Earth’s oxygen. Simply restoring the marine plankton that has been lost since 1980 could sink and sequester billions of tons of carbon dioxide each year. It can also regenerate billions of tons of lost ocean nourishment for collapsing fisheries, birds and whales.

Things we can learn from flies

A fly goes into a barn and sees a fresh cow pat on which he immediately begins to gorge himself, to extent that he is unable to fly. Seeing a rake leaning against a wall he reasons that if he climbs up the handle and flies off he should become airborne. He does this but crashes to his death.

Moral of story: Don’t fly of the handle when you’re full off shit!

Arctic melt drives Alaskan Walrus onto land

The Warlus are shifting onto the land. "The Big question is, whether they'll find sufficient prey where they are looking".

Clip stolen from Pokkets:

clipped from www.mail.com By DAN JOLING Thousands of walrus have appeared on Alaska's northwest coast in what conservationists are calling a dramatic consequence of global warming melting the Arctic sea ice Alaska's walrus, especially breeding females, in summer and fall are usually found on the Arctic ice pack. But the lowest summer ice cap on record put sea ice far north of the outer continental shelf, the shallow, life-rich shelf of ocean bottom in the Bering and Chukchi seas Walrus feed on clams, snails and other bottom dwellers. Given the choice between an ice platform over water beyond their 630-foot diving range or gathering spots on shore, thousands of walrus picked Alaska's rocky beaches "It looks to me like animals are shifting their distribution to find prey," said Tim Ragen, executive director of the federal Marine Mammal Commission. "The big question is whether they will be able to find sufficient prey in areas where they are looking." Walrus need either ice or land to rest they cannot swim indefinitely

Polar bears on the way out

U.S. Ge­o­log­i­cal Sur­vey sci­en­tists do not hold out much hope that car­bon di­ox­ide can be turned around in time to help the po­lar bears...

clipped from www.world-science.net Report: Most polar bears to die out by 2050 Two-thirds of the world’s po­lar bears will be killed off by 2050 — and the en­tire popula­t­ion gone from Alas­ka — be­cause of thin­ning sea ice from glob­al warm­ing in the Arc­tic, U.S. gov­ern­ment sci­en­tists fore­cast Fri­day. Only in the north­ern Ca­na­di­an Arc­tic is­lands and the west coast of Green­land are any of the world’s 16,000 po­lar bears ex­pected to sur­vive through the end of the cen­tu­ry, said the U.S. Ge­o­log­i­cal Sur­vey, which is the sci­en­tif­ic arm of the In­te­ri­or De­part­ment. USGS pro­jects that po­lar bears dur­ing the next half-cen­tu­ry will dis­ap­pear along the north coasts of Alas­ka and Rus­sia and lose 42 per­cent of the Arc­tic range they need to live in dur­ing sum­mer in the Po­lar Ba­sin when they hunt and breed. A po­lar bear’s life usu­ally lasts about 30 years. Sci­en­tists do not hold out much hope that car­bon di­ox­ide can be turned around in time to help the po­lar bears.