Forget ‘climategate’; amid the rows, the world is still undergoing climate change!

The Telegraph blogger James Delingpole today writes:

As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

The Guardian yesterday

The emails stolen from the University of East Anglia in November have cast an uncomfortable light on the behind-the-scenes actions of some of the most senior and respected climate scientists in the world. The affair raises serious questions about access to data and the way scientific peer review can be used to stifle dissent. But is the science of climate change fatally flawed by the climategate revelations? Absolutely not. Nothing uncovered in the emails destroys the argument that humans are warming the planet.

MY VIEW: 

MY VIEW: The blogger James Delingpole, lauded as ‘writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything’, cuts into the ’climate-gate’ as a bit of joyful attack on scientists. We uses – or more to the point, ‘misuses’ his blog, to comntinue the ‘war of words’ that has become know as ’climate-gate’   

Re The Guardian I couldn’t agree more! The ‘climategate’ furor this week, over emails and reports,  surprised and disappointed. These unhelpful discussions – as well as distracting from the key messages – also assisted the ‘climate skeptics’ accusation that climate change was not happening. Indeed, if it was so, that predicted rates were inaccurate, and therefore the science was in question, the whole debate was also ‘hot air’.  

The reality is this: amid the rows, one truth: the world is warming.  We, as humanity in all its guises, need to take steps to change our lifestyles, through policy and behaviour, to become more sustainable – as individuals, as a society, as nations together.  

The media was fixated about emails and reports based on un-peered articles, to the extent that a hole Newsnight programme was dedicated to stirring up unnecessary and potential conflict between two scientists.  

From The Guardian article in full: 

The emails stolen from the University of East Anglia in November have cast an uncomfortable light on the behind-the-scenes actions of some of the most senior and respected climate scientists in the world. The affair raises serious questions about access to data and the way scientific peer review can be used to stifle dissent. But is the science of climate change fatally flawed by the climategate revelations? Absolutely not. Nothing uncovered in the emails destroys the argument that humans are warming the planet.

None of the 1,073 emails plus 3,587 files containing documents, raw data and computer code upsets the 200-year-old science behind the “greenhouse effect” of gases like carbon dioxide, which traps solar heat and warm the atmosphere. Nothing changes the fact that carbon dioxide is accumulating in the atmosphere thanks to human emissions from burning carbon-based fuels like coal and oil. Nor the calculations of physicists that for every square metre of the earth’s surface, 1.6 watts more energy now enters the atmosphere than leaves it.

And we know the world is warming as a result. Thousands of thermometers in areas remote from any conceivable local urban influences tell us that. The oceans are warming too. And we have the evidence of our own eyes. The great majority of the world’s glaciers are retreating, Arctic sea ice is disappearing, sea levels are rising ever faster, trees are climbing up hillsides and permafrost is melting. These are not statistical artefacts or the result of scientists cherry-picking their data.

Equally, many of the most widely publicised claims from sceptics about what is in the emails are demonstrably unfounded. There is no conspiracy to “hide the decline” in temperatures. Nor that a lack of warming in the data is a “travesty” – still less of attempts to fix the data.

But, within the narrower confines of assembling a reliable history of global temperature, the emails have done significant damage to the credibility of scientists. They show that in their desire to give the world a clear message that humans are heating the planet here and now, a group of scientists cut corners and down-play uncertainties in their calculations. Their opponents charge that they then covered their tracks by being secretive with their data and suppressing dissent.

Taken with the recent revelations about shortcomings in reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), this suggests a wider problem of scientific sloppiness, but not of outright fraud. Many scientists believe their community has to own up to that, and put its house in order.

Part of the problem is secrecy in science. Climatologist Judy Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, who has been trying to make peace between her colleagues and the sceptics, says the various data sets connected to the famous “hockey stick” temperature graph and Phil Jones’s thermometer data sets “stand out as lacking transparency”. Science is too much of a closed shop, she says. Outsiders need to be let into the ivory towers for the good of science itself. “Einstein didn’t start his career at Princeton, but rather at a post office.” Bring on the bloggers. Maybe there’s an Einstein among them.

The doors of the labs are being opened whether scientists like it or not. The Information Commissioner’s office last week released a statement saying that the University of East Anglia had “not dealt with [FoI requests] as they should have been under the legislation”. There is evidence in the emails that some scientists at the Climatic Research Unit wanted to delete files rather than hand them over – although it is not clear whether any deliberate deletions actually happened.

Probably nobody anticipated that a law intended to unwrap state secrets might end up freeing data from scientists’ computers. But the science community now urgently needs to figure out how to respond to this altered landscape – or scientists will end up in court before long.

The need to open up science is made all the greater by the question raised in the emails about the “gold standard”, the peer review system. In many fields of research, peer review creates serious conflicts of interest in which, as the emails have revealed, senior researchers can act in a way that could have the effect of blackballing the research papers of their critics. The dangers are all the greater when, again as the emails show, the conventions of anonymity in peer review are not rigorously upheld.

Finally, “climategate” raises questions about the IPCC report-writing process, in which many of the emailers have been involved. Governments set up the IPCC 20 years ago to get scientists to speak with one voice on climate change. But often there is no clear consensus. Scientists are trained to disagree. That’s how science advances. The tensions created by the pressure to agree are clear in dozens of the emails.

One of Jones’s colleagues at the University of East Anglia, climatologist Mike Hulme, says: “Climate scientists will have to work harder to earn the warranted trust of the public – and maybe that is no bad thing.” And he thinks the IPCC may have run its course.

While science gets its house in order, we need some perspective. In the midst of a cold winter it may be hard to convince ourselves, but the world is still warming. Humanity is still to blame. And we still, urgently, need to do something about it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/05/climate-change-hacked-emails

Geoffrey Lean, Telegraph blog

Geoffrey Lean is Britain’s longest-serving environmental correspondent, having pioneered reporting on the subject almost 40 years ago.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/author/geoffreylean/

I like the Japanese, but not their whaling practices… remember The Cove

The Independent  On Sunday today reports the Japanese at it again … whaling that is!

MY VIEW: When I saw the hard-hitting film ‘The Cove’, some local  Japanese folk were askedif they ate whale meat? The answer – no/they did not like it. Research has even suggested whale meat contains high levels of toxins which are poisonous, especially if ingested by children had damaging results to health.

Why, then, do the Japanese continue to go against  world opinion and keep slaughtering whales  - just because they can!

The IoS: Western politicians lose nothing domestically by not budging an inch on Japanese whaling. Their Tokyo counterparts can condemn Western “cultural imperialism” and bask in the reputation as defenders of Japan’s right to the “sea commons”.

THE JAPANESE ARGUMENTS: ’It’s our right /to check stocks.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

The full story    

In an annual ritual as seemingly unstoppable as the tides, Japan’s whaling fleet is again ploughing the Southern Ocean hunting and killing whales. Bitterly criticised, harried by eco-warriors on Sea Shepherd’s ships and tracked by the world’s media, the fleet may be slowed but it won’t be stopped. On its return to port in April, the refrigerated holds are likely to be stuffed with the meat from 850 minkes and 50 fin whales. Next year, 50 endangered humpbacks could be added to the list.

 Japan has so far been largely inoculated from debate on the annual cull, but that may be about to change. Next month sees the first public hearing in the trial of Greenpeace activists Junichi Sato and Toru Suzuki, accused of trespass and theft in their attempt to expose the embezzlement of whale meat by crew members on board the fleet, who sold it for personal gain. Activists believe the so-called Tokyo Two case could put the entire whaling programme in Japan on trial.

Japan’s stubbornness on whaling is one of the mysteries of world diplomacy. Why does the country turn angry and unyielding when it comes to whaling?

Why does it continue to snub one of the environmental movement’s few lasting triumphs: the 1986 moratorium on commercial hunts? Oddly, very little is known about the dynamics of whaling in Japan, probably because foreign media do such an awful job of reporting it. Without an explanation, Japan’s taste for “whale blood” (as The Independent once put it) seems irrational and barbaric, fuelling racist stereotypes that the Japanese do not deserve.

Clearly, it is not because Japan’s citizens love whale meat. A 2006 Greenpeace survey concluded that 95 per cent of Japanese had “never or very rarely eaten” it. Outside of a handful of local ports, fresh whale is as rare as, say, veal, in the UK. Pro-whalers respond that it is so only because foreign pressure has made the meat so expensive to harvest. But even after the 1986 international whaling moratorium and the start of Japan’s “scientific” whaling, 70 tons of whale meat was left unsold from a catch of 1,873 tons after the fleet returned to port in spring 2001 – a fraction of the 230,000 metric tons consumed in the peak whaling year of 1962. Although some middle-aged citizens remain fond of it, most youngsters would rather eat almost anything else. The mass consumption of whale meat, and the industry that supports it, was essentially forced on Japan by a lack of alter-native resources half a century ago.

So, boring as it sounds, Tokyo’s relentless drive to reverse the whaling ban is essentially political, and understanding why means casting our minds back to how the ban came into being. The Japanese Fisheries Agency (JFA), which controls the nation’s whaling policy, feels that it was bamboozled and blackmailed into abandoning commercial hunts by the US-led West.

One date, in particular, is for ever burned into the JFA’s collective consciousness. On 30 June 1979, anti-whaling protester Richard Jones, who later became an Australian senator, dumped red paint over Japanese delegates at the International Whaling Commission’s (IWC) conference in London. Caught up in the growing environmental movement, the bureaucrats professed no idea why they were being blamed for the destruction of whale stocks, when historically the US and Europe had hunted far more whales.

In the 1980s, as a bitter trade war raged between Japan and the West, Washington came under pressure to limit access to its coastal waters, which yielded nearly a million tonnes of fish per year to Japanese boats. In a deal struck in the middle of the decade, Japan agreed to withdraw its objections to the IWC whaling moratorium in return for a US pledge to keep this access open. But months after Japan formally agreed to the ban in July 1986, its US fishing quota was halved. Two years later, it had fallen to zero and an angry JFA responded by kick-starting the now infamous practice of “scientific whaling”.

The JFA knows it has zero chance of winning a two-thirds majority to overturn the IWC ban. It also knows there is no chance of reviving the commercial industry, which is kept alive on government life-support. What the agency can do is fight for the symbolic right to whale sustainably, and occasionally skewer Western hyp-ocrisy, which it does quite well. Why do American hunters kill five million “beautiful, Bambi-eyed deer” annually, wondered Japan’s top whaling diplomat Joji Morishita at a January press conference. “I’ve no problem with that, as long as it is sustainable.”

For some Japanese politicians, the appeal of the pro-whaling campaign is quite clear: Japan can let off steam in the foreign political arena.

Fixing what is basically a case of wounded national pride should be straightforward, but after two decades the pro- and anti-whaling camps are deeply dug in and have little reason to compromise. Western politicians lose nothing domestically by not budging an inch on Japanese whaling. Their Tokyo counterparts can condemn Western “cultural imperialism” and bask in the reputation as defenders of Japan’s right to the “sea commons”.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/japans-whalers-are-at-sea-again-harvesting-meat-that-few-will-eat-1884359.html

Haiti needs Western help; the world can learn from this disaster

The editorial of Church of England newspaper 

 http://www.churchnewspaper.com/Editorial.aspx

‘It is savage irony that Haiti was the richest agrarian economy for her Spanish and French slave masters, producing immense wealth from its sugar plantations as well as goldmines. Haiti is indeed a stain on the conscience of the West.’

MY VIEW:

Haiti’s earthquake have put the country into the headlines, of course for all the ‘wrong’ reasons. But it has raised many questions and issues that needed to be asked; more than the answers, our discussions, deliberations and ethical responses are what are important. 

Haiti seems to be one of those countries, like many other Carribean and Pacific islands, refereed in case studies of primary or high school geography. Though I am a geographer, I knew near-t0-nothing about Haiti.  Before, of course, the earthquake made it front page news. Are we, using this tragedy, to understand from the past and learn to better assist in helping the Haitians themsleves shape their own future.    

A quick check regarding background:  

‘The French colony, based on forestry and sugar-related industries, became one of the wealthiest in the Caribbean, but only through the heavy importation of African slaves and considerable environmental degradation.’ http://geography.about.com/library/cia/blchaiti.htm

So what now? What should be done?

* The world, esp the US and the West needs to assist Haiti – with aid food, water, medicines now; with medium and long term support of the economic and political structures.

* Tourism is vital for the island - see Simon Calder’s aricle below.

* The west needs to work with the future Haiti government, to help it to realise its own, very real potential.

Simon Calder In The Independent this week  

 http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/simon-calder/tourism-is-vital–to-this-wrecked-islands-recovery-1871976.html

Guilt makes awkward baggage for the holidaymaker. From self-reproach about the impact on the planet of a flight to the sunshine, to the twinge of remorse about supporting human rights abuses by visiting China, many of us would prefer to leave our consciences at home. But in a part of the world that has fallen victim to a humanitarian disaster, should the very notion of tourism be abhorrent? One in five respondents to an online poll conducted yesterday by CruiseCritic appears to think so. They described the return to Haiti’s Labadee Beach of cruise ships as “in poor taste”.

 Now, from an ethical perspective you can criticise cruise lines for reducing tourism to a caricature. A vessel the size of a housing estate drifts around the Caribbean, her kitchens serving up absurd quantities of food in a region where many go hungry. She destabilises communities by delivering thousands of visitors at the start of the day then scooping them up before dark, before embarking on the next futile arc in the never-ending circle of indulgence.

Avatar is not a metaphor on the environment, but historical truth!

Avatar is about our battle for earthly resources reflected in how we view the natural world, its cultures and ourselves. As a film experience, it uses latest special effects to show a adventure ‘about’, ‘in’ and ‘for’ the environment; however it does so much more than this, in the way it very intelligently develops a series of themes on a number of levels.

A US Marine, Jake Sully, is tasked with finding out about what seems at first an alien environment, getting to know its inhabitants, and thereby enable his military bosses to discover how to conquer it for the precious mineral and so rescue Planet Earth from an energy crisis.      

With the help of his new companion Neytiri, a girl of the Na’vi people, he struggles, but eventually succeeds, in learning about the natural world around, how he can not only tolerate it, but work and play within it, and gain to respect it. Animals and plants that at first are appear hostile, are shown to be defensive, just as he was first. Through gaining and consolidating his skills and knowledge, Jake learns how to source the basics – food, water and warm – by a growing understanding of the rhythms of nature. There are strong resonances here with regards to children’s desire to ‘be outdoors’ and the bush experiences encouraged as part of outdoor education, so often lacking in what has become known as ‘nature deficit disorder’ in many highly urbanized young people.

This ‘fish out of water’ feeling is highlighted when he comes across animals and plants that glow at night, when disbelief and uncertainty are replaced by wonder and ‘being’ in the moment. Disbelief makes way for ‘taking charge’ when Jake must choose his own animal to ride. Here the animal might kill if he shows fear, but accepts his rider when they none. An animal in the natural state can ‘smell’ fear and reacts negatively to it; a false move – running – might mean death for the person, as a mistake!

These experiences give way to a fresh awareness of the fragility and sacredness of all life, so values now come to the fore. When killing an animal, Jake is seen to make peace with its spirit – acknowledging a new concept that he had likely not considered before he came to Pandora.  

With all this new-found awareness, of the natural world, all of its many aspects and the tribe’s connectedness to it – Jake realizes that the very people who brought him to Pandora, and their technology, seek only to take what they want and move on with it.

This same technology, which provided the ‘way in’ to this other world by way of the Avatar Programme, now threatens its very existence. The invasion of men and machines – for the minerals and resulting wealth, and against the indigenous peoples and their sacred lands – is no less a metaphor than a historical truth. Whether it is the American Indians versus the US Government, or the prospectors going into the Amazon Basin – or indeed, some would argue, the Iraq War – this game of White invader going after local people for their natural resources, is a pattern all too familiar. However, familiarity does not breed contempt as some have argued, since history keeps on repeating, yet we are not listening!

Despite reaping deep and massive destruction to the landscape and ecology – if not unlike a nuclear, than certainly similar to the Amazon burning! – an invasion is ostensibly halted with Nature’s help.

Avatar holds a candle to our entire approach to the natural world, drawing in historical presumptions that block our potential understanding of the future us and our relationship with the planet, and through this, everyone who calls it home. Only those with the true and growing understanding of Nature and our range of responses, can we see our way forward to a life lived in harmony on our planet.

If the world of Pandora is so easily likened to our burning habitats, invading countries and displacing indigenous peoples now, Avatar – for its make-believe take – is uncomfortably more real than we would like!

Earth scientists use expert knowledge to help Haiti people…

In The Times online

‘As rescue efforts work around the clock to pull survivors from the rubble, geologists around the world have put their day-to-day calculations and lab meetings on hold and are already sifting through seismic data collected at the time of last night’s earthquake in Haiti.

This isn’t a case of clinical academic curiosity. Predicting what is likely to happen in the next hours and days is vital for a well run rescue operation. Following an earthquake of this magnitude, aftershocks are to be expected and people in the region will need to know where, when and what size tremors they face.

The magnitude of the quake (7.0 on the Richter scale), which occurred at 21.53 GMT, was not extraordinary. But it’s proximity to Port-au-Prince – 15km (10 miles) – and that it occurred at such a shallow depth - 8km (5 miles) - were a unusually destructive combination. “Closeness to the surface is a major factor contributing to the severity of ground shaking caused by an earthquake of any given magnitude. Furthermore, shaking tends to be greatest directly above the source,” said Dr David Rothery, a planetary scientist at the Open University.

MY VIEW: Scientists with instrumentation may appear ‘absent-minded professor-types’ but their work and awareness is not only vital to understanding of the Earth, but how and when it is safe to respond the very real and tragic consequences such as Haiti’s earthquake.

Excerpts from The Times online:  http://timesonline.typepad.com/science/2010/01/haiti-earthquake-scientists-and-rescue-workers-1.html

‘The reasons for depth being an issue are twofold. First, the energy from the quake spreads out in a spherical wave into the surrounding area, meaning the closer you are to the source, the less dissipated the force. Second, deeper beneath the earths surface the temperature and pressure is so great that the rocks bend and squash rather than rupturing. An analogy can be made with toffee – it bends when its warm but shatters when cold.

The earthquake was caused by a similar type of movement that occurs on the San Andreas fault: A sideways slip occurred on a fault that marks part of the northern edge of the Caribbean Plate and the North American Plate. Geologist Chris Rowan illustrates the tectonics in this posting on the Highly Allochthonous blog. http://scienceblogs.com/highlyallochthonous/2010/01/tectonics_of_the_haiti_earthqu.php

A magnitude 7.0 earthquake struck Haiti this evening, causing extensive damage to the capital, Port-au-Prince, and probably causing many casualties. The map below shows where the main shock occurred (red), as well as the epicentres of the numerous aftershocks (orange) that occurred in the following 5 or 6 hours (and continue even as I write).

Did you see The Cove – would you do this to a friend?

The Telegraph today says Free flipper! argues scientist

Dolphins should be treated as “non-human persons” and merit special rights above other animals because they are so bright, scientists claim.

Researchers argue that it is morally unacceptable to keep such intelligent animals in captivity or to kill them for food.

Dolphins have long been recognised as among the most intelligent of animals but many researchers had placed them below chimps, which some studies have found can reach the intelligence levels of three-year-old children.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/6927152/Free-flipper-argues-scientist.html

MY VIEW: I have always been highly unconvinced that marine parks and aquauria were the best places for dophins. Ever since seeing them in relatively tiny pools in small marine centres in New Zealand, I have felt sorry for them! Also, viewing dolphins and whales in the wild where they are naturally spectacular. Recently seeing the film The Cove – has convinced me not only that such amazingly intelligent creatures deserve better, perhaps they should be counted as ‘friends’ just like man’s ‘best friend’ – the dog!

The Telegraph today says Free flipper! argues scientist

Dolphins should be treated as “non-human persons” and merit special rights above other animals because they are so bright, scientists claim.

Researchers argue that it is morally unacceptable to keep such intelligent animals in captivity or to kill them for food.

Dolphins have long been recognised as among the most intelligent of animals but many researchers had placed them below chimps, which some studies have found can reach the intelligence levels of three-year-old children.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/6927152/Free-flipper-argues-scientist.html

MY VIEW: I have always been highly unconvinced that marine parks and aquauria were the best places for dophins. Ever since seeing them in relatively tiny pools in small marine centres in New Zealand, I have felt sorry for them! Also, viewing dolphins and whales in the wild where they are naturally spectacular. Recently seeing the film The Cove – has convinced me not only that such amazingly intelligent creatures deserve better, perhaps they should be counted as ‘friends’ just like man’s ‘best friend’ – the dog!

Does blaming China for these resources makes for easy headlines.?

‘The Independent’ reports Neodymium is one of 17 metals crucial to green technology. There’s only one snag – China produces 97% of the world’s supply. And they’re not selling.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/concern-as-china-clamps-down-on-rare-earth-exports-1855387.html

MY VIEW: How convenient it is to ‘blame’ a country eg. China , rather than seeling for alternatives sources of this resource . If these earth metals are really in such incredibly scarce supply, we should be putting high priority into resreaching for the next levelof other options. Or, as we can just blame another nation! Again!

Copenhagen put the environment on the map; now for the mud-slinging

MY VIEW: Copenhagen did not produce the measures regarding climate change that people and nations wanted and expected, so now the mudslinging has begun in earnest! It’s very easy to take sides and cast blame, which also so easily smacks of near-racism in my book. The good news is that the issues were raised as never before and humanity has, in my opinion, turned an importamt corner. Climate change - and the environment – is very muhc back on the political agenda and is theere to stay!

Blame Denmark, not China, for Copenhagen failure – by The Guardian’s Martin Khor

It’s been several days since the chaotic end to the Copenhagen climate conference but the aftershocks from its failure are still reverberating. As John Prescott points out in his letter to the Guardian, the pointing of fingers in the blame game does not help the regaining of trust needed for the positive resumption of talks early next year and to complete them by December 2010, the new deadline agreed to in Copenhagen.

Copenhagen: time to stop the finger-pointing by John Prescott

Mark Lynas’s article (How do I know China wrecked climate deal? I was in the room, 23 December) contrasted vividly with the views on the opposite page from experts. In my Council of Europe role, I held talks in Washington and Beijing, speaking to Premier Wen the day after his discussions with Obama, asking him to heed Gordon Brown’s call to attend Copenhagen. All parties were disappointed there wasn’t a legal agreement. But there wasn’t one at Kyoto either.

However, Lynas’s comments will sour future COP discussions to implement the necessary measures to limit the increase in global temperature to 2C. We require a more objective assessment of the Copenhagen accord, especially the relationship between the world’s two major polluters – China and the US.

At Copenhagen the US climate change special envoy Todd Stern said emissions weren’t about “morality or politics”, they were “just maths”, with China projected to emit 60% more CO₂ than the US by 2030. But Stern ignored the more transparent measure of pollution per capita; the US emits 20 tonnes per person every year, compared to China’s six tonnes.

President Obama’s Copenhagen speech was also clearly critical of China. Moreover, he described a period of “two decades of talking and no action”. That might have been true in America, which refused to sign up to Kyoto, but not in the case of China or Europe, which followed a lot of that protocol’s policies. The challenge for all parties is now to stop pointing fingers and focus on turning the accord at Bonn and Mexico into the global climate change agreement we desperately need.

John Prescott

Council of Europe climate change rapporteur

• The dynamics of the select group of countries negotiating the Copenhagen accord is only part of the story. I was in the G77 plus China group meeting, advising a delegation, of which more than half the 120 countries complained that they had not seen any text from this group. We left to attend the plenary to obtain the text, only to see Obama on the TV screens outside the room telling us that the deal was done. People were astonished and furious. The Danish failure to explain the process of making decisions and Obama’s press conference did untold damage to future negotiations. It wasn’t all China’s fault. The test of success of the accord and any future treaty is simple. Solving climate change requires keeping fossil carbon out of the atmosphere. With current technology that means keeping fossil fuels in the ground. Will the Copenhagen accord dissuade anyone from investing in developing a new oilfield or coal mine? No. What should properly be called the Copenhagen discord was a failure.

How do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal? I was in the room – the full article by Mark Lynas

Copenhagen was a disaster. That much is agreed. But the truth about what actually happened is in danger of being lost amid the spin and inevitable mutual recriminations. The truth is this: China wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful “deal” so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame. How do I know this? Because I was in the room and saw it happen.

China’s strategy was simple: block the open negotiations for two weeks, and then ensure that the closed-door deal made it look as if the west had failed the world’s poor once again. And sure enough, the aid agencies, civil society movements and environmental groups all took the bait. The failure was “the inevitable result of rich countries refusing adequately and fairly to shoulder their overwhelming responsibility”, said Christian Aid. “Rich countries have bullied developing nations,” fumed Friends of the Earth International.

All very predictable, but the complete opposite of the truth. Even George Monbiot, writing in yesterday’s Guardian, made the mistake of singly blaming Obama. But I saw Obama fighting desperately to salvage a deal, and the Chinese delegate saying “no”, over and over again. Monbiot even approvingly quoted the Sudanese delegate Lumumba Di-Aping, who denounced the Copenhagen accord as “a suicide pact, an incineration pact, in order to maintain the economic dominance of a few countries”.

Sudan behaves at the talks as a puppet of China; one of a number of countries that relieves the Chinese delegation of having to fight its battles in open sessions. It was a perfect stitch-up. China gutted the deal behind the scenes, and then left its proxies to savage it in public.

Here’s what actually went on late last Friday night, as heads of state from two dozen countries met behind closed doors. Obama was at the table for several hours, sitting between Gordon Brown and the Ethiopian prime minister, Meles Zenawi. The Danish prime minister chaired, and on his right sat Ban Ki-moon, secretary-general of the UN. Probably only about 50 or 60 people, including the heads of state, were in the room. I was attached to one of the delegations, whose head of state was also present for most of the time.

What I saw was profoundly shocking. The Chinese premier, Wen Jinbao, did not deign to attend the meetings personally, instead sending a second-tier official in the country’s foreign ministry to sit opposite Obama himself. The diplomatic snub was obvious and brutal, as was the practical implication: several times during the session, the world’s most powerful heads of state were forced to wait around as the Chinese delegate went off to make telephone calls to his “superiors”.

Shifting the blame

To those who would blame Obama and rich countries in general, know this: it was China’s representative who insisted that industrialised country targets, previously agreed as an 80% cut by 2050, be taken out of the deal. “Why can’t we even mention our own targets?” demanded a furious Angela Merkel. Australia’s prime minister, Kevin Rudd, was annoyed enough to bang his microphone. Brazil’s representative too pointed out the illogicality of China’s position. Why should rich countries not announce even this unilateral cut? The Chinese delegate said no, and I watched, aghast, as Merkel threw up her hands in despair and conceded the point. Now we know why – because China bet, correctly, that Obama would get the blame for the Copenhagen accord’s lack of ambition.

China, backed at times by India, then proceeded to take out all the numbers that mattered. A 2020 peaking year in global emissions, essential to restrain temperatures to 2C, was removed and replaced by woolly language suggesting that emissions should peak “as soon as possible”. The long-term target, of global 50% cuts by 2050, was also excised. No one else, perhaps with the exceptions of India and Saudi Arabia, wanted this to happen. I am certain that had the Chinese not been in the room, we would have left Copenhagen with a deal that had environmentalists popping champagne corks popping in every corner of the world.

Strong position

So how did China manage to pull off this coup? First, it was in an extremely strong negotiating position. China didn’t need a deal. As one developing country foreign minister said to me: “The Athenians had nothing to offer to the Spartans.” On the other hand, western leaders in particular – but also presidents Lula of Brazil, Zuma of South Africa, Calderón of Mexico and many others – were desperate for a positive outcome. Obama needed a strong deal perhaps more than anyone. The US had confirmed the offer of $100bn to developing countries for adaptation, put serious cuts on the table for the first time (17% below 2005 levels by 2020), and was obviously prepared to up its offer.

Above all, Obama needed to be able to demonstrate to the Senate that he could deliver China in any global climate regulation framework, so conservative senators could not argue that US carbon cuts would further advantage Chinese industry. With midterm elections looming, Obama and his staff also knew that Copenhagen would be probably their only opportunity to go to climate change talks with a strong mandate. This further strengthened China’s negotiating hand, as did the complete lack of civil society political pressure on either China or India. Campaign groups never blame developing countries for failure; this is an iron rule that is never broken. The Indians, in particular, have become past masters at co-opting the language of equity (“equal rights to the atmosphere”) in the service of planetary suicide – and leftish campaigners and commentators are hoist with their own petard.

With the deal gutted, the heads of state session concluded with a final battle as the Chinese delegate insisted on removing the 1.5C target so beloved of the small island states and low-lying nations who have most to lose from rising seas. President Nasheed of the Maldives, supported by Brown, fought valiantly to save this crucial number. “How can you ask my country to go extinct?” demanded Nasheed. The Chinese delegate feigned great offence – and the number stayed, but surrounded by language which makes it all but meaningless. The deed was done.

China’s game

All this raises the question: what is China’s game? Why did China, in the words of a UK-based analyst who also spent hours in heads of state meetings, “not only reject targets for itself, but also refuse to allow any other country to take on binding targets?” The analyst, who has attended climate conferences for more than 15 years, concludes that China wants to weaken the climate regulation regime now “in order to avoid the risk that it might be called on to be more ambitious in a few years’ time”.

This does not mean China is not serious about global warming. It is strong in both the wind and solar industries. But China’s growth, and growing global political and economic dominance, is based largely on cheap coal. China knows it is becoming an uncontested superpower; indeed its newfound muscular confidence was on striking display in Copenhagen. Its coal-based economy doubles every decade, and its power increases commensurately. Its leadership will not alter this magic formula unless they absolutely have to.

Copenhagen was much worse than just another bad deal, because it illustrated a profound shift in global geopolitics. This is fast becoming China’s century, yet its leadership has displayed that multilateral environmental governance is not only not a priority, but is viewed as a hindrance to the new superpower’s freedom of action. I left Copenhagen more despondent than I have felt in a long time. After all the hope and all the hype, the mobilisation of thousands, a wave of optimism crashed against the rock of global power politics, fell back, and drained away.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/22/copenhagen-climate-change-mark-lynas

Blame Denmark, not China, for Copenhagen failure (full article)

First, the misinformation put out in the past few days has to be corrected. The UK climate secretary, Ed Miliband, backed by individuals such as Mark Lynas (both writing in the Guardian) have turned on China as the villain that “hijacked” the conference. The main “evidence” they gave was that China vetoed an “agreement” on a 50% reduction in global emissions by 2050 and an 80% reduction by developed countries, in the small meeting of 26 leaders on Copenhagen’s final day.

There was indeed a “hijack” in Copenhagen, but it was not by China. The hijack was organised by the host government, Denmark, whose prime minister convened a meeting of 26 leaders in the last two days of the conference, in an attempt to override the painstaking negotiations taking place among 193 countries throughout the two weeks and in fact in the past two to four years.

That exclusive meeting was not mandated by the UN climate convention. Indeed, the developing countries had warned the Danish prime minister, Lars Lokke Rasmussen, not to come up with his own “Danish text” to be negotiated by a small group that he himself would select, as this would violate the multilateral treaty-based process, and would replace the documents carefully negotiated by all countries with one unilaterally issued by the host country.

Despite this, the Danish government produced just such a document, and it convened exactly the kind of exclusive group that would undermine the UN climate convention’s multilateral and democratic process. Under that process, the 193 countries had been collectively working on coming to a conclusion on the many aspects of the climate deal.

Weeks before, it had become clear that Copenhagen could not adopt a full agreement because many basic differences remained. Copenhagen should have been designed as a stepping stone to a future successful outcome accepted by all. Unfortunately, the host country Denmark selected a small number of the 110 top leaders who came, to meet in secret, without the mandate or even knowledge of the convention’s membership.

The selected leaders were given a draft Danish document that mainly represented the developed countries’ positions, thereby marginalising the developing countries’ views tabled at the two-year negotiations.

Meanwhile, most of the thousands of delegates were working for two weeks on producing two reports representing the latest state of play, indicating areas of agreement and those where final decisions still had to be taken.

These reports were finally adopted by the conference. They should have been announced as the real outcome of Copenhagen, together with a decision to resume and complete work next year. It would not have been a resounding success, but it would have been an honest ending that would not have been termed a failure.

Instead, the Copenhagen accord was criticised by the final plenary of members and not adopted. The unwise attempt by the Danish presidency to impose a non-legitimate meeting to override the legitimate multilateral process was the reason why Copenhagen will be considered a disaster.

The accord itself is weak mainly because it does not contain any commitments by the developed countries to cut their emissions in the medium term. Perhaps the reason for this most glaring omission is that the national pledges so far announced amount to only a 11-19% overall reduction by the developed countries by 2020 (compared to 1990), a far cry from the over 40% target demanded by the developing countries and recent science.

To deflect from this great failure on their part, the developed countries tried to inject long-term emission-reduction goals of 50% for the world and 80% for themselves, by 2050 compared to 1990. When this failed to get through the 26-country meeting, some countries, especially the UK, began to blame China for the failure of Copenhagen.

In fact, these targets, especially taken together, have been highly contentious during the two years of discussions, and for good reasons. They would result in a highly inequitable outcome where developed countries get off from their responsibilities and push the burden of adjustment onto the developing countries.

Together, they imply that developing countries would have to cut their emissions overall by about 20% in absolute terms and at least 60% in per capita terms. By 2050, developed countries with high per capita emissions – such as the US – would be allowed to have two to five times higher per capita emission levels than developing countries. The latter would have to severely curb not only their emissions but also their economic growth, especially since there is, up to now, no credible plans let alone commitments for financial and technology transfers to help them shift to a low-emissions development path.

The developed countries have already completed their industrialisation on the basis of cheap carbon-based energy and can afford to take on an 80% goal for 2050, especially since they now have the technological and organisational capacity and infrastructure. For a minimally equitable deal, they should commit to cuts of at least 200-400%, or move into negative emission territory, with net re-absorption of greenhouse gases, to enable developing countries the atmospheric space to develop.

The acceptance of the two targets would also have locked in a most unfair sharing of the remaining global carbon budget as it would have allowed the developed countries to get off free from their historical responsibility and their carbon debt. They would have been allocated the rights to a large amount of “carbon space”, historically and in the future, without being given the obligation and responsibility to undertake adequate emission cuts nor to make adequate financial and technology transfers to developing countries.

Fortunately these targets are absent from the accord. The imperative for the negotiations next year is to agree on what science says is necessary for the world to do (in terms of limits to temperature rise or in global emissions cut) but also on what is a just and equitable formula for sharing the costs and burdens of adjustment, and to decide on both simultaneously. By asking for agreement on only a global goal and a very low commitment figure for their own obligatory cut, the developed countries were attempting to fix a global carbon budget distribution that enables them to get away with the hijacking of atmospheric space, a resource worth many trillions of dollars.

Learning from Copenhagen’s mistakes, the countries should return to the multilateral track and resume negotiations in the climate convention’s two working groups as early as possible.

They can start with the two reports passed at Copenhagen as reference points. There should not be more attempts to hijack this multilateral process, which represents our best hope to achieve final results.

The bottom-up democratic process is slower but also steadier, compared to the top-down attempt to impose a solution by a few powers that will always lack legitimacy in decision-making and success or sustainability in implementation.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/dec/28/copenhagen-denmark-china

Copenhagen… What does it all mean?