Over two days in December 2011, while world leaders discussed global co-operation on climate change at the 17th annual Conference of the Parties (COP) climate change negotiations – also known as COP-17 – industry leaders proceeded with plans for combating climate change at the World Climate Summit.

The two events were co-located, held in Durban, South Africa.

The World Climate Summit

Held during the official United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change’s (UNFCCC) annual COP every December, the World Climate Summit is designed to provide a platform for business-focused climate change solutions.

gwpf_0.jpeg

This is the second in a series of posts on the educational charity and climate sceptic 'think-tank' Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF). The first post examined GWPF's organisation and its principles (or lack of them). Here we examine GWPF's Briefing Paper No2 – The Sahel Is Greening by Philipp Mueller who is the Assistant Director of the GWPF. Coverage of the greening Sahel has been in the media for a decade now, so this cannot be too controversial a subject, can it?

GWPF BRIEFING PAPER No2 – SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SUBJECT
Mueller explains what this Briefing Paper No2 is about in the first three sentences.

'Global warming has both positive and negative impacts. However, very often only the negative consequences are reported and the positive ones omitted. This article will show an example of a positive effect of warming.' 

Mueller then sets out to show how the Sahel is enjoying a 'positive impact' of global warming.
Yet already here is a glaring omission. Despite this being an ideal opportunity to list out all the other 'positive impacts', Mueller fails even to hint at what any of the others might be. Never mind. We still have the Sahel. Or do we?

read more

Indeed, libertarians (of the more self-serving strain) are continuing to decry environmental standards and policies for their draconian and liberty-restricting nature (and sometimes in the most illogical ways). However, contrary to many unfounded and contradictory pseudo-libertarian claims that are being thrown around, we must not forget that no sensible or fair libertarian policy should allow us to infringe on the liberty of others, or harm others through allowing us to degrade the environment on which they depend. Our liberty is (or should be) restricted by the liberty of others. As such we must not lose sight that the green economy is not a disposable luxury we can return to at a later stage. If the green economy is not viable, then the economy itself is not viable, in which case, in the words of Andrew Simms, “bye-bye us”. As Faith Briol the chief economist of the International Energy Agency points out, “delaying action is a false economy: for every $1 of investment in cleaner technology that is avoided in the power sector before 2020, an additional $4.30 would need to be spent to compensate for the increased emissions.” Of course, even though climate change will affect everyone, the additional $4.30 won’t be spread out equally across the globe nor across the generational divide and will most likely affect places like Niger, Somalia and Small Island States the most, even more than they currently are. As such civil society must use whatever resolutions were passed, as weak as they may be, to push for the development of a greener economy, and more than that push for better policies in the future.

So what can we do? My friend and fellow tracker from Pakistan, Farrukh Zaman lays out some of the possibilities for the international climate change regime here, which is well worth a read. Manish Bapna and Vinod Thomas also give us some great ideas which are good for both the economy and the environment. In fact even our very own President Zuma was (somewhat surprisingly) part of the “High Level Panel On Sustainability” under Ban Ki-Moon who just released their rather impressively titled “Resilient People, Resilient Planet: A Future Worth Choosing” containing 56 recommendation to put sustainable development into practice and mainstream it into economic policy as quickly as possible. Indeed there is much to do on both the international and national scene that is good for both the environment and economy. In South Africa, however, it seems that the environment and the economy will resume their politically perceived position at loggerheads with each other, despite some of our most marvellous environmental rhetoric during COP 17. Already Eskom is warning of rolling power blackouts across the country, and our major ‘solutions’ to such a problem seem not to be coming from renewables but mostly from nuclear and the development of new highly controversial mega coal power plants, which are from what the climate requires despite the reassurances of the South African Environmental Minister that these aren’t the same coal plants as the 1950’s for they will be using technologies such as carbon capture and storage (which is problematic in its own right, although not according to COP 17, which passed it as a legitimate form of clean development under the clean development mechanism).

In South Africa, as in many places, we are faced with an apparent energy dilemma: we have an expanding industrial economy, which we are fuelling with fossils, but green resolutions that are asking us to do otherwise. This is indeed a tricky dilemma as Faranaaz Parker’s balanced article on renewables suggests. This, however, is the time that we in South Africa need to see past this somewhat false dilemma. Yes, we cannot continue to fuel the current industrial economy without mega energy projects, but what are the products of our current economy such that it is so valuable? Top-down, unequal industrial development that benefits a few often at the expense of many. Is this really the economic product that we want? For the majority of South Africans (except for the symbolic 1%), I doubt it. We need to redefine our development paradigm to include more localised bottom-up development, which includes ecological considerations and health as important development indicators, for which renewable energies and less resource intensive development is more suited. We as a nation need to begin to question and rethink the development paradigm that has allowed us to become one of the biggest greenhouse gas emitters and resource intense economies in the world, but still allows for such great poverty and inequality, represented by growing urban sprawl with elite pockets of wealth surrounded by burgeoning squatter camps, coupled with environmentally insensitive and often degrading development. Indeed, the industrial development paradigm that we currently seem hell-bent on pursuing is failing throughout the Western world, and many of the reasons why it did originally work anyway was because of the West’s exploitation and exportation of negative impacts beyond their own borders. We don’t have access to the quite same (perverse) privilege so why emulate something that is not “sustainable” – however you choose to interpret this famously ambiguous term?

It is important for Africa to rethink its development trajectory, and indeed green policies, such as South Africa’s proposed carbon tax, as well as internationally binding treaties, are potentially important in providing the framework within which to shift that trajectory. We must, however, ensure that the dialogue and action is not always focused on the national and international level and that we do not find ourselves in futile wait for action from above, when nothing is happening on the ground. After all there is no small amount of hypocrisy and irony in decrying the inability of government to solve climate change from the driver’s seat of an SUV, on your way back home from a job exploiting the environment to enjoy a steak dinner.  Although the (somewhat disappointing) UNFCCC regime is important, as are national policies, it is also important to remember that it is local, domestic and individual actions that make up the global climate. After all “our complete world economy is built upon millions of small private acts of psychological surrender, the willingness of people to acquiesce in playing their assigned parts as cogs in the great [and in our case often destructive] social machine” as Thedore Roszak so elegantly points out.

As such while not losing focus on the national and international scene it’s time, I feel, to knuckle back down and focus on the local. For, to quote a friend, what we need now are doers not dialoguers (although judging by this article I clearly think dialogue is important too). We cannot make the environment and the climate something we pay homage and attention to for two weeks every year at COP, or endlessly through our words,  rather the climate and our environment must become incorporated into our very way of being, for to do otherwise is to blind ourselves to the context of our existence and in doing so to infringe on the freedoms and rights of so many others who will be negatively affected by our actions and inactions, including both current and future generations of human and non-human species. This may be a lot easier said than done, but even in the often gloomy outlook cast over the globe there is an endless realm of positive possibilities to make a difference. Here are just 12 to get you started.

This treaty – the only treaty ever to commit nations to legally binding targets on greenhouse gas emissions – provides essential stability for continued action on climate change. A void in international agreements could prove fatal for people and communities across the planet. Young people are calling for a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol to be implemented immediately to provide a bridge to a new, more comprehensive climate treaty by 2015.

A second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol is essential. The leaders of polluting nations have run out of excuses. We are running out of time too. We need a legally binding agreement now to ensure a safe future for us and future generations. The Durban Package signals recognition that the world’s governments will purposely and comprehensively address the causes of climate change.

The final agreement that will involve all countries have to ensure that climate change mitigation measures are sufficient to meet the goal of keeping global temperature rise below 2°C.

[/caption]

Other writers from the North have found more positive headlines (despite some of them sharing hbf’s analysis!). Andrew Light from the Center for American Progress sees Durban as the third pillar of a bridge into the future of international climate politics (see picture): “Durban was a critical success at a critical time in the history of this process.”

Finally, here is my assessment of Durban. This list is up to changes – I am happy to have more discussions with you on it:

1. COP-17 did not deliver what science and people demand. Just because nobody expected this to happen in Durban, doesn’t make this lack of ambition in any way less horrible than it is. It was probably one of the few COPs where no country used the public attention and political arena to announce an increase in its respective target. Addressing “the gap” (call it gigaton-gap, ambition-gap…) is a minor step forward, though. Nevertheless, it is only a rhetoric one.
2. COP-17 delivered what big business demands. The inclusion of CCS in the CDM – hailed by Shell and other proponentsof large-scale, pro-business solutions to climate change – was just the tip of the corporate ice-berg which swam in the warming waters of Durban. The surrounding of the conference was basically a big expo on new technologies and methodologies for making money out of solutions (and false solutions) to climate change. Some of them, most prominently CCS, soil-carbon or REDD, have already made it into negotiation-texts or even decisions. Others (think big: geo-engineering) will most likely follow suit. While we saw a debate about market-mechanisms in Kyoto (between the EU and the US!), 14 years of failed markets have miraculously made them the only option – opposition to this is met with raised eyebrows (at best!). ”The real winners of the Durban climate summit are thus the big polluters and the fossil fuel producers, who have secured a package that guarantees largely business as usual in the brown economy while opening up new opportunities for them to make profits in what is termed a slowly growing green economy – often very narrowly defined and leaving equity consideration among and within countries aside. They have once again through effective lobbying of and infiltration of government delegations in Durban secured an outcome that serves their interests over the interests of the planet and all its people.” (Lili Fuhr et al. 2012)
3. The second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol is almost worthless. I agree on the significance of  ”cp2″ in terms of political trust (between North and South and in the process of the UNFCCC). But trust is undermined by countries showing that they are willing to break such a central treaty (Canada’s Exit can be seen as a breach of word) or cheat on their calculations (just google “hot air”!). So this basically equals each other out: countries in the Global South will not jump joyfully because there is cp2. And let me tell you another detail: they have not even decided how long cp2 will be. Do you really think they put ambitious numbers on the table until May 2012 (look at para5) if nobody will know until when the targets have to be reached? The carbon market would have survived one way or the other as there is solid domestic legislation within the EU. But of course proponents of the CDM can cheer now, we now surely get another round of this “additionality-Roulette”.
4. The cp2 of Kyoto cannot be scaled up to anything, but it was effectively used to lure Southern countries. But this is neither bad news nor news at all. Kyoto comprises only the EU, Switzerland and Norway after Canada left and Japan being on the verge of jumping off. Even if all these countries get progressive governments by tomorrow, the world’s emissions will continue to grow as they do now. However, during the negotiations, cp2 was used to bring China, India and others to agree to work towards some quasi-binding agreement after 2020. This is probably the best thing the talk about a cp2 could have achieved in Durban.
5. The Green Climate Fund remains “just another fund” until the main issues are solved. These include: who pays how much until when? The current strategy of getting rich countries to sign checks by printing them on a different type of paper is not working. We have to come up with something innovative! Innovative sources of finance (read: progressive taxes on pollution!) are needed. If the GCF does not bring the necessary transfer of money, it was a waste of time.
6. The Durban Platform will give new impetus to optimists waiting for the US. True, “the 1997 Byrd-Hagel Resolution (95-0), which said the Senate would not even look at a climate treaty that divided the world between the responsibilities of developed and developing countries” (A. Light) kept any administration from moving. But Durban is not setting the USA en par with China/India but merely stating the aim to look into some legal parity. Further, climate-denying and tea-soaked Republicans didn’t even bother to use Byrd-Hagel to argue against any climate treaty – there are bigger rocks to move, dear optimists! Under the current mode of politics, the US will not join any new protocol in 2012, not in 2015 and not in 2020 or thereafter. Stop dreaming!
7. Yes, we have a roadmap! Again. It sounds tempting for all those folks, who were sitting until Sunday morning just to wait for a moment to cheer to something. Anything. But here is the big hangover-news: We did have a roadmap before. We have a new one now. We will get another one. Just like Percy Mayfield sang: “Hit the road, Jack!”, the treatydream is hitting the road and might “come back no more” anytime soon. We had the Bali-Action-Plan in 2007 which hoped to get by Copenhagen what we are now expecting by 2015/2020. Seriously people, this is about as likely to be finished as the Bush-Roadmap for Palestine is leading us to eternal peace.
8. The firewall between A1 and NA1 (North & South) is cracked wide open. While I can see the advantages of the promise of a universal treaty with legal parity between countries like Singapore, Qatar, USA, China or Tuvalu, I strongly object to any notion that responsibilities have to be share equally. Legaly parity means, that the same mechanism applies to all in the same way. It does not mean, that all countries get the same targets. With this differentiation now gone, also the principle of cbdr/rc (“common but differentiated responsibilities / and respective capabilities”) fell below the table. Was it forgotten or deliberately given up? What Southern countries (and especially the rich ones in the “South”, hiding behind the poorer ones) fought for so hard seems gone, lost in the shores of Durban.
9. India was the bad guy in Durban due to its own inflexibility. The initial idea in New Delhi was probably to be the fighter for Southern interests; to be the avatar of climate-underdogs. Well, they failed. Western negotiators, western NGOs and western media criticized India for its “too hard stance”, for “not willing to negotiate” or for “falling back behind old positions”. Well, after having replaced the eloquent Jairam Ramesh with the more resolute Jayanthi Natarajan, words sounded harsh in diplomats ears. But what might have moved India from being less deal-maker? The position of the government did not change much – India remained set on the position, that they’re not taking on emission-reductions anytime soon, given the lack of action in most A1-states. Further, India did in no way profit from green growth as its rival China did (which is why they rightly put emphasis on IPR-issues). More to it, India is increasingly seen as “one of these emerging economies, which want power but don’t reduce emissions” – despite very low per-capita emissions (that’s why equity-issues are central to them).
10. The EU played hardball, and (sadly) won. Connie Hedegaard’s strategy of exchanging cp2 for a good roadmap worked. She was heavily supported by European NGOs which also helped override some strategic flaws. I tend to agree with Connie, that by simple giving a EU-only cp2 to the world, even less would have moved in Durban. However, a Europe which is back in the driver seat (of an electric car, running on power from businesses) doesn’t automatically save the climate. The EU did push for some “better things” within the negotiations, e.g. stronger language on safeguards for CDM-projects, but mostly failed to succeed. NGOs pushed Connie to not give up on the 5-year length of cp2. So maybe the entanglement of civil society and governments in the EU can help somehow in the future. Europe is back with big balls and has learned from Durban, that playing hardball, waiting until the last moment, and blackmailing is working.
11. The Polish presidency was coalish-polish. The environmental minister from Poland did not play any significant role, except for giving everybody a headache. As the Polish economy is entirely coal-dependent and the country has the same issue as China (“we need to develop first”), despite a relatively high standard of living, this is the place to focus even more attention to as Europeans. The wanna-be-rebel attitude in Warsaw needs to be changed to a more European and more pro-active climate course. Much to do!
12. The US kept a low profile – and won. For many days, observers in Durban asked themselves, whether the United States of Absence are actually in the city. They raised some eyebrows only by saying strange things during their press briefings, thus showing no willingness at all to either step aside or step back. The US managed to stand in the way of any ambitious climate deal, but the blame was given to Canada (for a good reason!!!) and other countries. Meanwhile, US-lobbying managed to kick out cbdr/rc, back-stabbed the 2°-goal and mixed up numbers.
13. The new alliance is result of hard work, but not enough. When the EU announced a strategic alliance with Grenada, Nicaragua and “over 100 Southern countries”, it was joined by Brazil a little later under the songs and praises of western NGOs. But this came to no suprise. Under German auspices, many states have gathered for months under the “Cartagena Dialogue” umbrella to form a coalition of more willing nations. Their common position: something needs to be done. When we look more pragmatically onto this group, we see that the middle-ground actors have agreed to more middle-ground. AOSIS and the EU agreed to the position, that USA and China need to do more. No news! Now the EU gave up some of their less progressive stances while SIDS (small island developing states) agreed that calling of the ambition necessary to safe them is not leading anywhere (in this system). Some ambiguity was still visible inside the negotiations, but in general the alliance “worked”: the South kept quiet and the EU had a moral high-ground.
14. China was not willing to take the blame again, and engaged more heavily in the media-war. It was only understandable, that China did not want to take the main blame like in Copenhagen, when world “leaders” collectively (incl. Obama and Merkel!!!) failed to do anything meaningful. Two years ago, the western media blamed the Chinese stubbornness for the failure. This time, they took the offensive and proposed by the middle of the negotiations to accept binding targets, if 5 conditions were met. This was no real news to insiders, but the fact that China was willing to negotiate a dodgy thing such as their own targets and put them under international law is groundbreaking. The Global North countries were terrified by this approach, because China did not suit their image as the new big bad country in the East, saying “njet” to all the good western stuff. China is not the new USSR, but way more pragmatic. Thus, Europeans fled into their old boxes of thinking, starting the blame-game. This was also the only time that German minister Roettgen took the helm. Instead of being smart and over-interpreting the Chinese “offer” by seeing it positive and start negotiating (“ok, for this we give you cp2. now it’s up to you again!”), they called upon their NGOs to blame China for not being honest. For this alone, Durban will leave a dark stain on the UNFCCC’s coat.
15. The BASIC were split, but they will find back together. With South Africa being a fairly-prepared but overly ambitious host and Brazil fearing the debris of Durban going down over its Rio-20 show in June, two BASICs left the hard frontline and joined the EU in their “progressive alliance”. India and China – not the best friends anyhow – were left to fight for there own. But rest assured, 90% of climate-policy are being done outside of the UNFCCC and these four states will continue to bound together in the UN, the G-20 and elsewhere.
16. Somebody called it “the African COP” – but a quote by Mandela is not enough! There was nothing African about the COP, except for the serious wish by the host to have an open and transparent process (different from Denmark or Mexico). The delay in time adumbrates that this promise might have been fullfilled. Apart from this, the Africa Group did neither speak prominently nor with one voice. Again, Africa was sidelined due to “insufficient resources” (a.k.a. not enough people to follow the negotiations) and political marginalization. Having nice slogans and a dancing Zuma is not enough.
17. Civil society was – once again – left out. Of course, NGOs came into the ICC by the thousands and many had delegation-badges. Close lobbying was possible and even direct actions and occupy-stuff was happening inside. But the alternative voices were outside – and wanted to be outside. Thus, the stories of local struggles were lost between some “big heads” of the intellectual climate justice movement and the physical distance between the University campus – venue for “The People’s Space” – and the ICC. Funding was given only last minute by the ANC-government and the broad “C17″ coalition (including radical actors as well as mainstream-NGOs) was supposedly blasted by the WWF just five days prior to the COP. Again, being on the “left side” gave everybody the feeling to be marginalized and somehow far away from power. Some, however, were more optimistic:   “Thus, the People Space, with its fair share of logistical challenges was availed to NGOs by South African civil society. However, events at the Space tended to present a fragmented, uncoordinated message and no political engagement with the COP due to the fact that organisations mostly worked in isolation and with individual mandates. Also, working from a very weak political base, it is not likely that South African civil society were ever going to be able to mediate a convergence of thinking and strategy between those NGOs that prefer to work inside and those that prefer to work from outside the UN process. That having been said, South African civil society were hugely successful, if read against this background, in bringing together all CSOs to one Global Day of Action march. The general feeling is that South African civil society did what they could within their means and to reasonable success in enabling engagement of civil society with the COP. Politically, though, a greater discussion still needs to be conducted on how best to bring about convergence [...].” (Lili Fuhr et al. 2012)
18. The term “historical responsibility” was again only folklore. Thus, one of the central themes of the Cochabamba Conference and many climate justice groups was not raised or used by certain actors to cover up an emerging dirty developing path. A real discourse was not allowed to start.
19. The western eyes and ears do not want to see starving Indians and hear from poor rural Chinese (except suppressed Tibetans). They look towards numbers (the ones they like – total emissions; not per-capita emissions) and fearful see a rising middle-class with they German cars and US-houses, living in the suburbs of Mumbai or Shanghai. I myself become angry when I see “these people” do the some stupid mistakes we did: burn fossil fuels. We need a methodology which takes the “North in the South” (and the “South in the North”) into account but still
20. The discourse changed again, away from climate justice. It was echoed over and over again, even by progressive media and NGOs, that “the world has changed” and “these Chinese and Indians need to take on reduction targets” as well. People are so eager in talking about these newly industrialized countries that they totally forget that Northern companies and a Western lifestyle is what they are critizising in these new competitors. The blame-game is just about to start, because it is seems promising right now to play the “Germany is so great, China is so bad” – card. I see very little difference in party-policies on this issue. NGOs largely follow the strategy of complementing their own government (positive-messaging, funds, access to intelligence) and pushing others. It is up for debate in 2012 whether this strategy is honest and suitable.
21. To be fair to all people and to get real ambition, we need to revive the cbdr/rc-debate. Those praising the demolishing of the firewall will soon recognize how much this formula was bridging gaps. Further, we need to fill the open words with a methodology that is comprehensible and fair. One, which is common to all but has differentiated targets (mainly: different numbers) while also paying tribute to respective capabilities (which are up to rapid changes, as one can see).
22. The Greenhouse Development Rights framework should become the new centre-piece of global climate architecture. This framework brings together historical responsibilities and economic strengths but requires common legal numerics and an all-encompassing treaty. See more here. It can be “used” to calculate the contributions into the GCF as well as reduction-pledges and much more!
23. Climate policy will remain a domestic issue and climate struggles need to be fought on a sub-UN level. We need to target the drivers of inaction (e.g. Shell, BP, Exxon, Mercedes, Ford, Deutsche Bank, ENI . . .) and push them out of their dirty business – forever. Just as they use the UNFCCC-level for advancing a corporate agenda (think “how to make climate protection efficient and win-win“), we have to remain active on this level to prevent them from doing so.
24. We need to cooperate much better. Take for example Canada, a country once hailed as progressive. Its inhabitants don’t even know how their country’s reputation sunk in recent years. Let’s make a public cross-issue campaign against the maple leaf and its elite-driven policy – this can help progressive actors within Canada as well!
25. An approach of different speeds needs to be thought-out and implemented. It is harder to get a still-world power like the USA to act on a global problem (despite Katrina, a hurricane which mainly affected the black community in New Orleans!). To make intellectual progress in this field is our challenge for 2012 – it should go beyond simple phrases and include bold new ideas.

I am very open to discuss these points as they are jsut a collection of thoughts that went to my head over Christmas. Thesis 20 is the most most very much most important one. Number 22 and 25 will be my (intellectual) homework for 2012.

photo by weesam2010 (Flickr CC)

According to a UN report an increase in global temperatures puts up to 1/3 of all Earth’s animals at risk of extinction.

The gorillas of Rwanda’s Virunga Mountains in central Africa are already at risk from rising temperatures. Changes in rainfall and hotter weather mean the vegetation the gorillas depend on changes growth patterns, moving up the mountain into higher altitudes.

The gorillas provide Rwanda with tourist revenue and the rainfall in the Virunga Mountains feeds rivers and provides hydro electricity for the already poor and vulnerable African nation.

From Reuters:

Many ecosystems have already been stressed by increasing population, historical and recent deforestation, unsustainable management practices and even invasive species.

­–Eduardo Rojas-Briales, assistant director general, FAO forestry department

For more on climate change and Rwanda’s gorillas watch this 7-minute video report from Deutsche Welle and the below report from Reuters.

Source: stock.xchng

A million children living in the Sahel countries are at risk of famine or dramatic malnutrition in 2012. This is two times more than today, warned the United Nations Fund for Children.

Famine threatens children in Chad, Niger, Burkina Faso, Senegal, Mauritania and Mali and the northern territories of Nigeria and Cameroon, said David Gressly, regional director of UNICEF responsible for the countries in West and Central Africa. In 2011 in the region half a million children suffered from extreme malnutrition.

In the Sahel countries, a drought caused lack of water in the tanks, its levels also decreased in the rivers. This seriously threatens the crops and livestock , AFP writes.

“This children’s crisis is going to be immensely challenging. We do not issue such warnings lightly, but the scale demands an appropriate response that needs to start now”,  said David Gressley.

Sahel is a region stretching along the southern edge of the Sahara and the northern edge of the Sudan from Senegal to Somalia, Mauritania, Mali, Niger, Chad, Sudan and Eritrea.

photo by Green Prophet1 (Flickr CC)

According to Yale University’s 2010 Environmental Performance Index (EPI) Canada ranked as the 46^th greenest country in the world, a shameful and sudden drop from #12 in 2008. Why? Mostly due to Canadian ‘tar sands’ or ‘oil sands’ in the province of Alberta, where huge petroleum reserves lie in the form of bitumen, a heavy black form of crude that is energy intensive, highly polluting and more greenhouse gas intensive than conventional oil extraction.

And now Canada has pulled out of the Kyoto Treaty, citing that it would be too expensive. Canadian environment minister Peter Kent claims that it would cost the taxpayers too much money to meet Canada’s emissions targets under Kyoto. Bit of populist rhetoric that is only music to the ears of oil companies, methinks.

So long, ex green country. Any other solutions out there? How about all that sun in North Africa? Should we turn the deserts into giant green energy farms?

In 1986 a German physicist named Gerhard Knies calculated that the world’s deserts receive more solar energy in 6 hours than humans use in a year.

The culmination of his efforts is “Desertec”, a largely German-led initiative that aims to provide 15% of Europe’s electricity by 2050 through a vast network of solar and wind farms stretching right across the Mena region and connecting to continental Europe via special high voltage, direct current transmission cables, which lose only around 3% of the electricity they carry per 1,000km. The tentative total cost of building the project has been estimated at €400bn (£342bn).

The German public’s anti-nuclear sentiments – spurred on by Japan’s Fukushima disaster – have lent fire to the solar energy rush in North Africa.

Read more on that story in the Guardian.

Sustainable energy projects are also on their way across the entire continent of Africa. From wind energy in Kenya, Morocco and South Africa to hydro power in the Democratic Republic of Congo to geothermal in Ethiopia, Kenya and Mozambique, plus the aforementioned Sahara solar projects.

Read more about Africa’s sustainable energy prospects in the Wall Street Journal.

With regards to the Kyoto Protocol (KP) it appears as if we will secure the 2^nd commitment period (KP2C), it will run from 2013-2017 it is proposed. This is somewhat good news, however, what the KP2C lacks is ambition, for the current pledges could possibly lock the world onto a 3.5 degree path rather than the agreed 2 degree and required 1.5 degree path. Furthermore, Canada, Japan and Russia have declared (or perhaps rather confirmed ) that they will not sign onto the KP2C and of course Canada has already pulled out of the KP, which leaves them free from any serious repercussions if they don’t meet their (soon to be broken) promises under the KP. China, India and Brazil, some of the bigger emitters, because of their status as developing countries won’t have legally binding commitments for the duration of this. South Africa, however, has previously agreed to emission reduction targets although they do not represent their fair share of global emissions. The US, as always, is out of the KP altogether. So with this in mind there is a serious need to increase ambition on the KP so as not to make the post-Kyoto regime face an impossibly steep emissions reduction curve. However, after countries are requested to submit their quantified emission limitations and reduction commitments (QELROs) in May next year, there is no provision for countries to adjust their QELROs towards more ambitious targets. Furthermore LULUCF, which is one of the crucial structures underpinning the KP, remains very weak under the latest proposal; largely in part to some devious work by New Zealand within the negotiations (I am informed). So while many have proclaimed their love for KP over the past two weeks, I think they had a very different version of KP in mind.

Given the potentially weak KP that is set to come through, the importance of a more ambitious new legal regime to follow the KP becomes increasingly urgent. There has been much debate over when this regime will come into place, and what structure and form it will have, and the first LCA text proposed last night suggested 2020, which as many believe is too late. Many countries decried such a proposal, however, and many asked how the COP president could put such a proposal on the table. The later text proposed that working group should come into existence immediately in order to develop a new “legal instrument” and be adopted by no later than 2015. Given that the KP is set to go on until 2017 it’s not clear how the two instruments will work together, but the push for 2015 rather than 2020 is certainly a welcome piece of news. It remains to seen, however, whether China, India, the US and a few other countries will continue to push for 2020 and block progress on the matter. If they do succeed they could lock us into a very dangerous climate change trajectory and thus a lot of work and pressure needs to be done in order to get as many nations crossing over to the coalition of the willing who is pushing for 2015 among other things. There is also much work that needs to be done on fleshing out what exactly the legal instrument will be and how ambitious it will be. Ambition on mitigation is what is most needed, but is unfortunately what is most lacking.

The Green Climate Fund, which is supposed to facilitate the just transition to a green future, also remains highly problematic. While the bare structures are being put in place reference to long term sources of finance remain very weak and nothing substantial is on the table. It seems that the real work of filling the fund will be deferred to a later stage. There is a work programme in place to do that work, but the much needed funding to fill the fund is not there. This, however, was expected, as yesterday South Africa had admitted that they were wiling cede that no source of long-term finance would come from Durban. There are a number of other problematic elements that still need to be overcome, but the three above provide the major obstacles to progress.

The very real potential of an incredibly weak outcome must not be discounted, and in the case that we do get one, media and countries will often have a tendency to blame the COP President for the inability to achieve progress, but we must not be too quick to apportion blame to her. Although she does play an important role in facilitating progress, we must keep in mind that the real villains are in this picture are the ones who, no matter how good a chair you are, because of their stubborn attachment climate-dangerous short-sighted self-serving interests, refuse to allow progress to move. The US is once again playing a leading role in this area, and China and India are said to be hiding behind them, as well as Australia. The time has come to isolate the US and encourage China, India and Australia to join the coalition of the willing, but is it too late? Hopefully an answer will come soon, but as I finish this off we are still waiting in corridors of the ICC hoping to hear an announcement of what is happening.

Total Energy Logo.jpg

It is a well-known fact that the unconventional gas industry is involved in an inherently toxic business, particularly through hydraulic fracturing ("fracking"), which the EPA just confirmed has contaminated groundwater in Wyoming. The documentary film "Gasland," DeSmogBlog's report "Fracking the Future: How Unconventional Gas Threatens our Water, Health, and Climate," and numerous other investigations, reports, and scientific studies have echoed the myriad problems with unconventional oil and gas around the globe.