Fragilecologies

Category: Climate Affairs

  • Rio1992, Rio+20 and the UNFCCC

    Rio1992, Rio+20 and the UNFCCC

    – Conference of Parties: Don’t compare apples to oranges!

    I started to write about the happenings at Rio+20, while sitting in one of its food courts. But I realized I needed more time and distance to formulate my perspective and expectations about Rio+20, so I decided to write these comments after a week at the world’s Second Earth Summit (what Rio+20 should have been called).

    After a week at this conclave I came to realize I had fallen into a trap. When I first started to think about the Rio+20, I found myself comparing it to the conference of parties (COPs) of the various UN Conventions in general and more specifically those of the UNFCCC. These political conventions (their structures, functions and expected outcomes) were first formulated at the First Earth Summit.

    From this COP perspective, my expectations for results at Rio+20 were cautiously optimistic. I thought we would see some advances in issues related to the three UN conventions on biodiversity, climate and desertification. Despite this measured optimism, however, my first judgments of the recent conference were harsh: no step-like, sorely-needed progress would be achieved; NATO (no action, talk only) would prevail; political posturing (blah, blah, blah) would abound; and a declaration by attending global leaders at the end calling for advances in saving species, capping carbon dioxide emissions and arresting land degradation, respectively, would fail to emerge. The Earth Summit’s platitudes, I assumed, would likely be similar to those made in earlier decades at other international conferences.

    I was wrong, I now realize.

    The problem was that I was comparing proverbial apples and oranges, an EARTH SUMMIT of leaders (apples) with an accounting of progress made over 20 years through the annual COPs where negotiators are trying, against all political and economic odds, to hammer out a roadmap for the sustainability (e.g. long term into the distant future) for the planet (oranges).

    A Search for Understanding

    An EARTH SUMMIT is NOT a COP. In theory, Rio+20 is really a Conference of Humanity, the grandchild of the 1972 Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment. In other words, an Earth Summit of global leaders can only legitimately be compared with Stockholm and the Rio1992 Earth Summit.

    The climate COPs, on the other hand, are held each year by the UNFCCC’s Conference of Parties, with 17 annual ones having been held so far and the 18th scheduled to be held in Qatar later this year (2012). Negotiators from most countries meet on an uneven climate playing field to iron out different, often competing perspectives on how to prepare for and cope with climate change and its environmental and societal consequences.

    Rio+20 should not be viewed as a COP-like meeting. It was—in my view—supposed to look back to assess progress since 1992 (as well as since the forgotten Stockholm conference) with regard to various aspects of human interactions with the environment. Its purpose was not to assess the progress in negotiations since COP 17 in Durban, South Africa last year. Many people (originally, myself included) seem to be judging, often unknowingly, the success or failure of the summit based on political progress since Durban.

    There is no doubt that the key to arresting the continued global warming of the atmosphere (or the loss of biodiversity or increased desertification) rests with political leaders and their collective will to act worldwide on the numerous creeping threats to humanity.

    But an Earth Summit like Rio+20 is not just a political meeting. It involves all other facets of society: companies, educators, disaster managers, students, etc. This is why it is important NOT to compare the assembly of civil society at Rio+20 to the annual political events that are the COPs.

    Looking back to 1992 or even 1972, concern about the state of the planet is at an all-time high. There are many examples of this, not least of which is Kenyan environmental activist Wangari Mathaai’s 2004 award of the Nobel Peace Prize (there is no Nobel Prize yet specifically for the environment). In 2007 the IPCC process, as one drawing recognition to worldwide growing concern about the consequences of a warming atmosphere, received the recognition of the Nobel Committee.

    An Excel spreadsheet delineating progress to a healthier interaction of societies and their natural environments would be impressive. Concern expressed in different ways and at different rates has shown up in corporations (greenwashing notwithstanding), in civil society (convening their parallel peoples’ summits), the awakening and empowering of youth (over half of the earth’s population today), in cities large and small (institutionalizing recycling, smart energy use, carbon-reducing programs), in schools from kindergartens to universities (bringing environmental into their lesson plans), governments (shifts to alternative energies), and so forth. Concepts like sustainability, resilience, adaptation, green economy, zero carbon society are now commonly used, even by civil society and not just academics.

    So, in this regard Earth Summit is a milestone conference to take stock of successes and to lay out an “Agenda21 + 40” (in 2032). What is missing though, even with the progress that really has been made in awareness and in action, are more aggressive steps toward poverty reduction, toward disaster risk reduction and in electing leaders who have the backbone to make hard decisions the benefits of which will occur well beyond their time in office.

    American humorist Will Rogers once said, “Even if you are on the right track, you will be run over if you are not going fast enough.” When it comes to coping with human induced climate change, political leaders are not yet aware that there is a faster train approaching humanity’s chances for surviving as we have come to know and expect it.

    A Rio+40 Earth Summit will likely take place too late for many of the vulnerable, people and countries. We have identified many tipping points for environmental change but have yet to identify the tipping point when policy makers will realize they must face the climate change issue head on.

    Even the notion that “There is no Planet B” does not seem to raise a political eyebrow. Suggestions, please . . . and soon!

  • Climate Change and Energy Development

    Climate Change and Energy Development

    – We Live in Two Different Worlds

    If the climate scientists’ projections about the dangerous impacts of the increasing emissions of greenhouse gases are valid and if the energy community’s optimistic projections about future fossil fuel production are correct, the climate change and energy development worlds are on a collision course. As a proverb goes, “if you stay on the path you are on, you will get to where you are going.” To avoid this otherwise inevitable collision, we need to get on a new path.

    For the past several years I have been straddling two different worlds, that of the climate community and the world of oil and natural gas. The former world is the one I have worked in as a researcher for about 40 years. Focusing on climate, water and weather variability and extremes and on climate change. With regard to the world of the oil and gas, I have been just an observer listening to energy projections out to 2050, for exploration, production and consumption of oil and gas.

    For climate issues I focused on concerns about how societies might cope with yearly variability and extreme event as well as with foreseeable consequences of a 1 or 2 degrees C warming in the 21st century. I witnessed debates between climate change believers and climate change skeptics (I now believe human activities are the culprit for steadily increasing heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere).

    In the other world — that of the oil and natural gas community— it is not at all apparent that there is a high level of concern about fossil fuel-related greenhouse gas emissions. In a corporate way, this is understandable. Oil and gas corporations are expected to find, extract, refine and bring to the global marketplace oil and gas supplies. They do it well. In fact, time is on their side; constantly emerging new locations and technologies and improved efficiency and conservation techniques for oil and natural gas extraction seem to have put peak oil worries on the proverbial backburner.

    The climate community warns about the dangerous influence of increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere. The UN Framework Convention for Climate Change (UNFCCC) states this fear in the following way:

    The ultimate objective of the Climate Change Convention (UNFCCC) is to achieve “… stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.

    Most likely there are temperature thresholds in the climate system that, if crossed, will wreak havoc on the climate system and on societies as we have come to know them. However, scientists do not yet know precisely where those thresholds of adverse changes are, despite scientific and media speculation. In theory and in practice precaution should rule the day, but in this case it does not. The following link to a NASA website highlights observations of the climate warming trajectory that our planet has been on between 1880 and 2011.

    Please go to this link: http://www.globalissues.org/video/798/global-temperature-anomaly

    The climate community has proposed that policymakers consider planetary “geo-engineering schemes.” Such schemes attempt to tamper with the planet’s climate regime by, for example, mimicking volcanic eruptions, dumping iron particles in the ocean, putting millions of mirrors in space, planting more trees, and design mechanical trees to capture carbon and sequestering carbon beneath the Earth’s surface.

    Meanwhile, members of civil societies worldwide have become involved in projects to reduce the carbon content of the atmosphere: better light bulbs, recycle, hybrid cars and buses. They are increasingly demanding green, if not low carbon, societies and a greater dependence on wind, solar and water energy.

    As for oil and gas, the amount of recoverable oil and gas worldwide even with today’s technology is mind-boggling. And new discoveries and techniques (such as horizontal drilling for fracking operations) seem to be occurring each new year. So, if there is a fossil fuel resource still in the ground I believe it will be extracted when the price and the demand deems it opportune to do so. Perhaps a good representation of the rapid exploitation of fossil fuel resources is a brief video of the expansion of exploration and extraction of fossil fuels from the Bakken formation in north central US (the states of North Dakota and Montana) and the Canadian provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. Some have suggested that the gas reserves there are double those to be found in Saudia Arabia.

    exponential exploitation of fossil fuels extraction as a result of new technologies (e.g., horizontal fracking)

    These are the two worlds: one filled with dire predictions about the consequences if increasing dependence on fossil fuel burning to achieve growth and development goals; the other filled with joy at every new oil or natural gas find somewhere, anywhere, on the globe. Neither of these worlds has direct influence on the other.

    I now believe that these two worlds will collide in this century, and more sooner than later. I believe all of the proposals to provide “sunshade to the planet” in attempts to modify the human enhancement of the naturally occurring greenhouse effect or to sequester carbon or to green the economies (these are not the same as low carbon economies) are like band-aids to deal with a gaping wound. At best these are short-term technological fixes for processes that, if left unaddressed, will likely challenge the existence of humanity itself.

    Written 42 years ago, climate scientists concluded in a 1971 MIT Conference “Report of the Study of Man’s Impact on Climate (SMIC),

    We recognize a real problem that a global temperature increase produced by man’s injection of heat and CO2… may lead to dramatic reduction even elimination of Arctic sea ice.” This exercise [convening of a conference in inadvertent climate modification] would be fruitless if we did not believe that society would be rational when faced with a set of decisions that could govern the future habitability of our planet.

    Neither climate scientists nor today’s (or even tomorrow’s) policymakers will resolve the global warming dilemma. Governments are in the fossil fuel business. They rely on cheap energy at least for foreseeable future in the absence of other bountiful sources of cheap energy. Yet governments also fund the climate research that produces the scary scenarios and warnings about continued global dependence on fossil fuel consumption.

    It is time to unleash engineering ingenuity, whether in a formal lab or in a home-based workshop. In fact, engineers gave us all the technologies we depend on today. Maybe the unbridled engineering thinking will devise ways to “suck” carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases directly out of the atmosphere in great amounts and dispose of it. Within the engineering community lies a key to reducing fossil fuel emissions. The engineering community needs to move quickly to center stage on the climate change issue.

    It is time to create an International Engineering Panel for Climate Change (IEPCC). Maybe it is a blind faith in technology that causes me to believe that engineers will save us from two worlds colliding. As key governments waste precious time talking past each other on what to do to avert dangerous changes to the climate system, all they are doing is giving false hope that catastrophes will either not occur at all or at the least they will not occur during their term in office. Engineering minds got us into this fix. Let’s call on them to get us out of it. I think they can do it, given the challenge and incentives to do so.

  • Global Warming: Stakeholders can’t see the forest for the trees.

    Each tree represent an organization or perspective about the climate change issue. Without looking at the big picture — climate change as a global phenomenon — one’s views are distorted by what is going on only in one’s surroundings. This is an obvious play on the adage that “one can not see the big picture because they are thinking locally,” that is, that one cannot see the forest because the trees are in the way!

    I tried to see why it has been so difficult to get the US political leaders to take action to cope with the causes of climate change, primarily the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas) and less so tropical deforestation.

    Maybe you can come up with a different graphic about this situation? To download a PDF enlargement of the this forest image just click on the photo above.

  • A Cynical Optimist’s View of CO2

    A Cynical Optimist’s View of CO2

    – An interview with Mickey Glantz
    From an Email interview on climate change; what is needed to cope with greenhouse gas emissions.

    In late November 2011, I was asked by a reporter from a foreign (developing country) news agency for my views on two sets of questions related to climate change and to the UN Climate Conference in Durban, South Africa. I answered the questions frankly in email. The two different fonts identify the two different sets of questions. – mGlantz

    1.As a big developing country, what do you evaluate China’s efforts on emission reduction?

    Greenhouse gas (GHG) EMISSION REDUCTION IS DIFFICULT FOR ANY COUNTRY. IN AMERICA THERE IS A SAYING, “WHEN YOU ARE IN A HOLE, THE FIRST THING TO DO IS TO STOP DIGGING DEEPER!” SO, WHATEVER EFFORTS CHINA IS MAKING ON ITS EMISSION REDUCTIONS (CLOSING SOME DIRTY FACTORIES, FOR EXAMPLE) IS BEING OVERTAKEN BY THE CONTINUED BUILDING OF COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS. SO, AS WITH MOST IF NOT ALL COUNTRIES, THERE IS A TENDENCY TO FAVOR ENHANCING ITS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES OVER REDUCING ITS ENERGY USE AND ENERGY SOURCES THAT ARE NEEDED TO DRIVE THOSE DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES IN THE NEAR TO MIDTERM FUTURE. A MAJOR FIGHT OF COURSE COMES DOWN TO THE CONFLICTING VIEWS ABOUT EMISSIONS: SHOULD IT BE CALCULATED PER COUNTRY OR PER CAPITA?? IF ALL COUNTRIES FOCUS ON THE LATTER (E.G., EQUAL PER CAPITA EMISSIONS), HUMANITY ON THE PLANET IS DOOMED.

    What are our problems and difficulties?

    ECONOMIES MUST GROW TO KEEP UP WITH INCREASING POPULATIONS, AFFLUENCE AND DEMANDS FOR GOODS AND SERVICES INSIDE THE COUNTRY AS WELL AS OUTSIDE. [ALL COUNTRIES HAVE THIS PROBLEM TO DEAL WITH AND ALMOST ALL FAVOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FIRST AND EMISSIONS REDUCTION LATER]. THAT IS WHAT THE INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRIES DID IN THEIR DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES; THEY TRASHED THEIR ENVIRONMENTS AND CLEANED THEM UP ONCE THEY PASSED A CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT THRESHOLD. BUT THAT WAS WHEN THE ATMOSPHERE WAS WELL BELOW A TIPPING POINT FOR EMISSIONS LEVELS THAT COULD ADVERSELY AFFECT THE GLOBAL CLIMATE SYSTEM. THEY SAME APPROACH CANNOT BE PURSUED NOW.

    THE COMMON PROBLEM FOR ALL POLICYMAKERS IS THAT THEY TEND TO FAVOR SHORT-TERM GAINS OVER LONGER TERM ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS. THEY WILL BE OUT OF OFFICE WHEN THOSE ADVERSE IMPACTS OCCUR, OR SO THEY THINK.

    What challenges China are facing now?

    A CHALLENGE IS CHINA’S GROWING AFFLUENCE: ONE COULD ARGUE THAT NOW THE DISPARITY BETWEEN RICH AND POOR IN CHINA IS PERHAPS SIMILAR TO OTHER INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRIES IF NOT GREATER. BUT CLOSING THAT GAP IS A MAJOR PROBLEM GIVEN THE SIZE OF THE CHINESE POPULATION. THE MOST NUMBER OF FERRARIS (THE LUXURY CAR) IN THE WORLD I BELIEVE ARE NOW SOLD IN SHANGHAI! SUCH INCOME (OR WELL-BEING) DISPARITIES CAN LEAD EVENTUALLY TO POLITICAL CRISES. THIS IS A PROBLEM THE GOVERNMENT HAS TO FACE. IN THE USA TODAY WE ARE FACING IT, AS CAN BE SEEN WITH GROWING GEOGRAPHICALLY WIDESPREAD “OCCUPY WALL STREET” MOVEMENT. PEOPLE WILL ONLY TOLERATE SO MUCH DISPARITY BEFORE ACTING UP, AND IT IS NOT THAT THE CHINESE GOVERNMENTS AT ALL LEVELS ARE NOT ALREADY FACED WITH PROTESTS. THERE IS A FAMOUS “DAVIES J-CURVE” WHICH SUPPORTS THIS RISING UP OF PEOPLE.

    2.Could you introduce the efforts, situation and problems of U.S.A, which is the most important developed country, on these related issues?

    THE USA AND CHINA HAVE SIMILAR ISSUES TO CONTEND WITH, BUT THE US ECONOMY HAS BEEN GREATLY SLOWED DOWN BY FISCAL MISMANAGEMENT, FAILED ECONOMIC PLANNING (OR LACK THEREOF) AND TWO VERY COSTLY WARS. THE DOLLAR HAS BECOME GREATLY DEVALUED AND YET WE HAVE FEW MANUFACTURED GOODS TO SELL ABROAD, HAVING OUTSOURCE MANY AMERICAN FACTORIES.

    3. Could you compare the two countries’ work on emission reduction?

    THERE ARE WAYS IN THE USA TO REDUCE EMISSIONS BUT THE (pro big business) REPUBLICAN PARTY EXTREMISTS HAVE BLOCKED ANY FEDERAL ACTION THAT WOULD BE MEANINGFUL. ANYTHING IN FACT THAT OBAMA PROPOSES WILL BE VOTED DOWN, IN PART I BELIEVE BECAUSE OF AN UNDERLYING DISLIKE TOWARD A FIRST NON-WHITE PRESIDENT (I AM SAD TO SAY AND UNDERCURRENT OF RESIDUAL RACISM) AND BECAUSE OF REAGANOMICS (WHICH MANY VIEW AS A FAILED APPROACH TO SUSTAINABLE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT). SO, A LOT OF THE ACTIVITY TO CONTROL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS IN THE USA HAS BEEN AT THE LOCAL (GRASSROOTS) LEVEL. THERE ARE MANY EFFORTS LOCALLY TO REDUCE EMISSIONS (SUCH AS IN MY CITY). THE DEMAND FOR SOLAR AND WIND ENERGY ARE HIGH BUT AT A TIME WHEN COMPANIES CANNOT FIND BUYERS BECAUSE OF A LACK OF “SAVINGS” BY MANY ENVIRONMENTALLY AWARE CITIZENS.

    IF I WERE A SCHOOL TEACHER, I WOULD GIVE FAILING GRADES TO BOTH COUNTRIES AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL, WHEN IT COMES TO EMISSION REDUCTION [NOTE THAT BOTH COUNTRIES ARE SO HAPPY WHEN THEY FIND NEW SOURCES OF FOSSIL FUELS THROUGH, FOR EXAMPLE, FRACKING PRACTICES or exploration of the sub-Arctic seabed; REMEMBER … WHEN YOU ARE IN A HOLE, STOP DIGGING!! YET, WE KEEP LOOKING FOR MORE FOSSIL FUELS TO BURN THIS CENTURY!!]

    4. What kind of achievement do you expect for the coming climate changes?

    IF YOU MEAN CLIMATE CHANGE NEGOTIATIONS, I SEE NOTHING HAPPENING. ONLY MORE TALK. THE YOUTH OF THE GLOBE SAY “DON’T TELL ME YOU NEED MORE TIME TO NEGOTIATE ABOUT HOW TO REDUCE EMISSIONS. YOU HAVE BEEN NEGOTIATING ALL MY LIFE” [AT LEAST 20+ YEARS!!!].

    What are the difficulties and problems the world IS facing?

    MORE DISASTERS, MORE DEMANDS FOR HELP from victim countries TO COPE WITH THEM WILL COME BUT AT A TIME WHEN THERE WILL BE LESS humanitarian MONEY TO GIVE OUT TO THOSE IN NEED. ENVIRONMENTAL MIGRATION WILL ACCELERATE, TO ESCAPE FROM DIRECT IMPACTS OF A CHANGING CLIMATE AND TO ESCAPE INDIRECT IMPACTS SUCH AS LOWER FOOD PRODUCTION OR LESS WATER AVAILABILITY.

    What should we do and what are the most important and emergency actions we should take?

    HERE ARE THREE IDEAS.

    How About a G-2 Summit on CO2 emissions?
    How About a G-2 Summit on CO2 emissions?

    #1. IN MY VIEW THE USA AND CHINA MUST COME TO AGREEMENT AND THE WORLD WILL FOLLOW. AS LONG AS THE 2 BIGGEST GREENHOUSE GAS POLLUTERS FAIL TO ACT, THERE IS NO REASON FOR OTHERS TO ACT.

    WE HAVE A G-20 AND A G-8 TO COPE WITH A CHANGING AND VARIABLE GLOBAL ECONOMY. THEY ARE THE BIGGEST ECONOMIC PLAYERS ON THE PLANET.

    WHY NOT CREATE A C-20 (EG, THE TOP CARBON DIOXIDE 20) OR A C-8 MADE UP OF THE 8 BIGGEST GREENHOUSE GAS EMITTERS?

    IN FACT WHAT THE WORLD NEEDS NOW IS A C-2 … THE USA AND CHINA MAKING A CONCRETE STEP FORWARD ON COPING WITH A CHANGING CLIMATE THAT IS LIKELY HUMAN INDUCED. THE FIRST STEP IS ALWAYS THE HARDEST, NOT JUST THEIR NICE WORDS AND SMILES, BUT REAL ACTION.

    #2. ANOTHER APPROACH WOULD BE TO LOOK AT THE ATMOSPHERE AS NATURE’S BANK. THE RICH COUNTRIES BORROWED FROM NATURE THE QUALITY OF THE ATMOSPHERE BY EMITTING LARGE AMOUNTS OF CO2 TO DEVELOP THEIR ECOMONIES. AS EVERYONE KNOWS, WHETHER RICH OR POOR, TO BORROW FROM A BANK YOU MUST PAY BACK THE BANK SO THAT OTHERS CAN BORROW FROM IT. USING THIS ANALOGY, THE DEVELOPED ECONOMIES MUST TAKE THE FIRST STEPS TO CUT BACK THEIR EMISSIONS SO THAT THE DEVELOPING ECONOMIES CAN BORROW FROM NATURE’S BANK (E.G., SO THE DEVELOPING ECONOMIES CAN INCREASE THEIR GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AS THE INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRIES CUT BACK SO THAT AT LEAST THERE IS NO INCREASE IN TOTAL GAS EMISSIONS TO THE ATMOSPHERE).

    #3. A THIRD IDEA … A BAD ONE … IS TO RESORT TO GEOENGINEERING OF THE CLIMATE SYSTEM BY MIMICKING A VOLCANO (PUTTING DEBRIS IN THE STRATOSPHERE TO COOL DOWN THE PLANENT TEMPORARILY; OR PUTTING MILLIONS OF MIRROS IN SPACE TO REFLECT INCOMING SOLAR RADIATION; OR EVAPORATING SEAWATER TO MAKE LOWER CLOUDS WHITER TO RELECT SUN’S RAYS, ETC. THESE ARE REFERRED TO AS “PLAN B” IF GOVERNMENTS CANNOT CONTROL CO2 EMISSIONS. BUT AS A PROTESTER’S SIGN SAID AT COP 15 IN COPENHAGEN TWO YEARS AGO, “THERE IS NO PLANET B.” This brings to mind concepts like “spaceship earth”, lifeboat ethics”, “tragedy of the commons” (see the source of the following collage) http://tragedyofthecommons.weebly.com/spaceships-and-lifeboats.html)

    EARTH IS THE ONLY PLANET WE HAVE AND WE MUST NOT EXPERIMENT WITH ITS CLIMATE. HOWEVER, SCIENTISTS IN THE INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRIES ARE BUSY GETTING RESEARCH FUNDS TO STUDY ENGINEERING WAYS TO ALTER THE GLOBAL CLIMATE!! WHERE ARE THE VOICES OF CONCERN ABOUT IT FROM DEVELOPING ECONOMIES IN THE SOUTH?

    So, what are the deep reasons that no big change, although so many horrible things happened?

    People fear change. It’s as simple as that. even if things are bad, changing things could make things worse.

    Also, no single extreme climate or weather event can be blamed on global warming. We cannot as yet relate horrible natural disasters things today with climate change with any degree of reliability!

    Global warming and increase GHG emissions are analogous to air pollution in the sense that they are creeping environmental changes (incremental increases –hardly noticeable, but they accumulate over time until a crisis emerges. for air pollution today’s level is like yesterday’s and tomorrow’s will be like today’s: no reason to act now. but, in several years those little changes will have added up to a major environmental and health crisis.

    Also, no single state want to take unilateral major steps to improve the global climate, unless others also commit to sacrifice and act at the same time. If one country cuts back on energy use, it fears that others will take advantage of it by not cutting back!

    And do you think climate changes will cause political instability?

    No more so than human greed or fights over desired resources (diamonds in Africa, water in Central Asia, etc). The surprising thing in that the current global economic situation in the world has NOT led to political instability!!!

    In fact so many experts said that the Durban climate conference will achieve no result, because developing countries will never meet the demands of developed countries. So what do you think about that problem and how to solve the complicated problem? By crisis thinking?

    The USA and China MUST get together to start the proverbial climate ball rolling down the hill. Others will join in.

    As for the Durban meeting, as with Cancun, before the COPs 16 and 17 meetings. governments as early as the summer 2011 were suggesting that nothing of substance would happen at the Durban meetings. I believe that they were preparing the public for nothing to happen: it was a self-fulfilling prophecy. In essence, governments and the UN lowered people’s expectations about outcomes from Durban and those lowered expectations could easily be met by the political leaders. People expected less and that is what they got, less.

    [ADDED: As expected, the negotiators have kicked the can down the road to 2020, rather than taking action now. It is considered a victory, but that was because the level of expectation was so low].

    And USA has already quit the Kyoto Protocol, what do you think about the Kyoto Protocol’s future?

    Kyoto Protocol as such is dead. Too many countries did not really want it: oil producers, for example, developing economies, the rich countries.

    With the bad economic environment, do you think the developed countries will get stronger on their stands due to their economic interests?

    Well, as a street proverb goes, “money talks” and the money is in energy use and not in not using it. Many corporations support continued use of fossil fuels and their “bottom line” profits and CEO jobs depend on it, despite words to the contrary.

    There are many companies and government leaders and civil society who want to do something, but nothing gets done.

    i had hoped that COP 17 in Durban would be different, being held in the poorest continent with the most needs and likely to be a major frontline victim of global warming (and having done the least to cause it) but I was hoping only. Maybe some miracle would happen in Durban, but I doubted it.

    a climate change game of rock,scissors,paper? (www.snorgtees.com/)

    WE NEED A C-2, USA AND CHINA. IT WILL REQUIRE BOLD STATEMENSHIP AND I AM NOT SURE OUR COUNTRIES HAVE IT.

    Michael Glantz
    Colorado, USA

  • True Believers and Naysayers – Durban, S. Africa

    True Believers and Naysayers – Durban, S. Africa

    Views on climate change negotiations converge at COP17

    – Durban, South Africa

    The views of those setting up the COP 17 event in South Africa, many negotiators and skeptics’ seem to have converged. Generally speaking, no one believes that anything of value will take place at the conference as a step toward an agreement to restrict let along roll back carbon dioxide emissions in the near term. Their views converge for different reasons.

    Strange Bedfellows?
    The naysayers (a category that includes legitimate skeptics as well as deniers) revel in the release of the second set of emails by unknown hackers in advance of the COP 17 round of Kyoto Protocol-related negotiations. They lobby that unnamed evil forces have rigged climate change science in order to make money by shifting societal dependence on fossil fuels to renewable energy sources (they called the climate change issue a hoax).

    For their part negotiators have been disheartened ever since the crash of hopes and expectations in Copenhagen at COP 15 in December 2010. Since the summer of 2011 (maybe even earlier), following the COP 16 non-plus meeting in Cancun, Mexico, expectations were lowered to such a level that anything at all appearing as some sort of political consensus might be viewed as success of sorts. Those in charge of overseeing the negotiation process lowered expectations of success. In other words negotiators as well as onlookers were told to expect less from the COP process and, sadly, it is easier for governments to meet lowered expectations than to match elevated ones. So, yea-sayers and naysayers now agree that the UNFCCC Conference of Parties process is one of window-dressing with nothing of substance in the window. This gives proof to the saying, “nothing ventured, nothing gained.”

    Glantz modification of Davies J-curve <www.fragilecologies.com>

    Apparently this is the first of recent COPs in which no American congressperson has attended: too busy they say; too far says others; not a major conference says still others. The naysayers’ side point to the hacked emails of “climategate” (it should have been called ‘email-gate’) to claim victory. And the governments leading the push for control on greenhouse gas emissions now point to the financial crisis that plagues them: sorry, no funds can be spared now (to spare the Planet’s inhabitants of foreseeable dire global warming consequences).

    The truth of the matter is that the major polluting governments are really reluctant to deal with the heart of the matter, economies fueled by and dependent on fossil fuel availability and use. There was no will to attack climate change before the financial crisis when money was available and it is likely that after the financial crisis has been resolved some years down the road they will still find other reasons to continue “business as usual” with regard to fossil fuel consumption.

    Killing the hope for and the prospects of success at least in the near to mid term from the climate change negotiating process has been achieved. Governments are still not taking seriously the need to avert foreseeable adversities that are associated with global warming. While the current set of political leaders might not be alive to see the adversities, their younger yet-to-be-chosen successors will. By then we will likely be in a climate-related disaster bubble from which there would be little chance of escape.

  • The Arctic: The Achilles heel of the world

    The Arctic: The Achilles heel of the world

    …as we have come to know it

    People of the 1900s learned to live with their climate regimes, from local to global. They adjusted their activities as necessary to cope with extremes and variabilities on a range of time scales that suited the attentions of their evolution, from weeks to months to seasons to years to decades. Throughout that century, the Poles (both North and South) were covered with ice, snow and floating ice. This was the way it was supposed to be, at least in terms of natural phenomena (e.g. emergence into the present interglacial period, solar dynamics, etc.) that exist at scales much longer than those of human attention or concern.

    For many decades now, scientists have written about how important polar ice is to the global climate system. They have reported that a warming of one degree in the mid-latitudes would likely translate to a warming of 3 to 4 degrees in the Polar Regions. I have even referred to polar ice over the last few years as the planet’s proverbial ‘canary in the mine’—it is the early warning indicator of a warming of the Earth’s atmosphere. Achilles as a child was protected from harm, except for his heel. He was considered invincible but was eventually felled in combat by an arrow to his heel.

    These scientists have also written on the importance of albedo in the polar region {albedo is a measure of how much incoming solar radiation  is reflected back to space}. Indirectly, this measure of reflection also indicates how much snow and ice—how much whiteness, that is—covers those Polar Regions. The more coverage of snow and ice there is the more incoming radiation from the sun is reflected back into space after hitting the earth’s surface.

    Simply put, light colors (white snow,  ice, etc.) reflect, while darker colors (dark gray rocks, green fields, black waters, etc.) absorb. The planetary albedo is crucial in regulating the temperature of the planet, making it livable for humans and almost all other living species.

    The fear is that a decrease in ‘whiteness”—in polar albedo—would begin a positive feedback loop by which increased area extent of darker surface waters would absorb more heat, thereby heating up the water and further decreasing the amount  snow and ice, which would result in an increased amount of darker waters and ultimately result in a melting of the remaining ice leaving in its place a large expanse of darker surface water.

    The end result would be, depending on the extent of the warming of the atmosphere, either a seasonal or a permanent ice-free passage between the North Atlantic and the North Pacific. The fabled Northwest Passage would be, albeit unintentionally, a reality, enabling ships to bypass the Panama and the Suez Canals as well as the Straits of Malacca and shortening travel routes for shipping goods from one part of the globe to another.

    image from the New Scientist

    Sea level is expected to rise in this century faster and higher than previously expected, as a result of the sharply increased rate of the melting of the Arctic’s glaciers and Greenland’s ice cover. Such a rise would obviously endanger low-lying coastal areas, mega-cities on the coast and many island nations. This is not the only problem, however; there will be a land-grab for the seabed that exists now under Arctic ice.

    Russia’s Valdimir Putin, for example, had already authorized the planting of a titanium Russian flag on the seabed below the sea ice to claim the land and the vast resources of oil and gas beneath it. Great for Russia . . . new reserves of oil and gas can be extracted and sold in the international marketplace to fuel growing economies. Not really great for Russia (or any other place) . . . these new sources of fossil fuels will significantly increase the amount of carbon dioxide—a major greenhouse (heat-trapping) gas in the atmosphere—and exacerbate the many problems associated with global warming.

    Russians planting flag to claim territory on the Arctic seabed
    Russians planting flag to claim territory on the Arctic seabed

    A considerable number of science-based guesstimates about the impacts of global warming on a wide range of sectors exist. These include effects on agricultural production and changes in food insecurity; on shifting rainfall patterns and more droughts and floods; on increasingly lengthy and intense heat waves; on forest and bush fires and on living marine resources; and on the frequency and intensity as well as the location of high impact as well as record-setting extreme meteorological events.

    The bottom-line is that the world of the 20th century that many of us became familiar with personally and that many individuals born over the last few decades have learned about through history books will likely be vastly different than the world that lies ahead of all humankind. That difference will likely be attributable in large measure to the consequences of global warming. It seems that governments today, however, despite their words and pledges to the contrary, are reluctant to change their dependence on (some would say addiction to) the expanding use of coal, gas, and oil.

    Changes in the Arctic will change the world as we have come to know it. In many respects, therefore, the Arctic can be seen as climate’s Achilles heel.

    And political leaders, among other so-called ‘stewards’ of the planet, don’t seem to care.

    [U1]What does this mean? According to who or what?

     

  • Words of Wisdom from the Flat Earth US Congress

    Words of Wisdom from the Flat Earth US Congress

    Senator Inhoff (R-Oklahoma) has been an outspoken critic of the global science consensus (not unanimity) on the human contribution to global warming of the atmosphere. there is nothing that can be said or discovered that would get him to change his view. By calling it a hoax he suggests that the scientific community is out to lie to the public for its financial benefit. Hogwash I say. his stance on global warming is equivalent to those people centuries ago who thought the earth was flat. it seems their ancestors are alive and well in the US tea party wing of Congress.

    Global Warming Ostriches take over US Congress 2011
    Global Warming Ostriches take over US Congress 2011

    NB: Cartoon is from Photo Credit: Pett, Lexington (Ky.) Herald-Leader, Cartoonists and Writers Syndicate, for USA TODAY

  • US Congress and Climate Change

    US Congress and Climate Change

    – Proof Positive That American Education is Falling Behind

    Lately I’ve been wondering about how some US Congresspeople (senators and representatives) can still flatly deny the possibility that human activities are emitting gases that can heat up the temperature of the atmosphere. So many scientists around the globe have researched the global climate system as well as ecosystems worldwide and have come to a consensus that human activities are heating up the atmosphere. Yet, a few key senators and some likeminded congresspeople continue to block efforts at the local as well as federal level to deal with the global warming reality (note the emphasis is on global not national). The US is a major contributor of carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere, though China has recently surpassed the US in this regard.

    True, there is still a lot to learn about the interplay of climate, society and the environment. In scientific research there is always some degree of uncertainty. Nevertheless, evidence of worrisome changes in climate and in the impacts of those changes on ecosystems, if not yet on society, has been mounting especially in recent times. At first (from 1898 to the mid-1950s) a warming of the atmosphere was viewed as a good thing, because it would hold back the Ice Age that was likely awaiting its onset. But after 1956, the warming began to take on the image of a bad thing.

    The rest of the world scratches their collective heads over the lack of political interest in joining other nations to accept, let alone combat, global warming. Civil societies in distant lands, especially their youth truly concerned about global warming, watch the media in disbelief about a U.S. Congress that seems to be science-illiterate (examples are many. Here are two: attempts to reduce the involvement of the US Environmental Protection Agency in setting limits for greenhouse gas emissions or the attempt to strip NOAA of much of its early warning capabilities).

    People in America want to believe that America is a world leader today, as it had been in much of the 20th century. The reality is that it is not. According to the Alliance for Excellent Education (USA, 2008),

    “The United States ranks 21st of 30 OECD countries in scientific literacy, and the U.S. score of 489 fell below the OECD average of 500 (OECD 2007b). One quarter (24.4 percent) of U.S. fifteen-year-olds do not reach the baseline level of science achievement. This is the level at which students begin to demonstrate the science competencies that will enable them to use science and technology in life situations (OECD 2007b).”

    And America’s poor performance is not restricted to science alone. The Alliance also noted,

    “But as globalization has progressed, American educational progress has stagnated. Today, the United States’ high school graduation rate ranks near the bottom among developed nations belonging to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). And on virtually every international assessment of academic proficiency, American secondary school students’ performance varies from mediocre to poor. Given that human capital is a prerequisite for success in the global economy, U.S. economic competitiveness is unsustainable with poorly prepared students feeding into the workforce.”

    To me many of our congresspeople are proof positive of that American decline in scientific understanding and reasoning. I sometimes wonder if they believe that the Earth is flat! They are also proof positive that the US Congress must increase its support to education at the k to 12-grade level, instead of being hell-bent to cutting that support.

    How then can we — The People — bring sense to a senator like Sensenbrenner or hope back to a senator like Inhofe? Through improved education a smarter, wiser public will lead to a smarter, wiser Congress (both Houses of Congress) and a better appreciation of the importance of educating Americans from “K to Grey.” Get Smart, Congress. Put aside your petty political ambitions and strengthen K to 12 education NOW. Don’t destroy American education in order to save it. that is a failed strategy.

  • GUEST EDITORIAL: “Spain’s Climate Challenge: A brief reality check.” Lino Naranjo, Meteo Galicia. August 9, 2010

    For many people in the World, Spain brings to mind a sunny warm country with beaches along the Mediterranean Coast, with excellent food, friendly people and “Fiestas” with brave bulls. They might also think of Pamplona and the “running of the bulls” on narrow streets filled with young people. It is like talking about a piece of the tropics in the heart of Old Europe. However, the real Spain is much more than that. In fact it is vastly different from and broader than this touristic view.

    If we travel across the country from, South to North and from West to East, we come to realize that Spain is like a kaleidoscope with different cultures, peoples, languages, and especially different landscapes and very different climates. From the Mediterranean, passing across the arid, hot land of its South, to the cold and rainy regions of its North, Spain could be considered a paradigm of diversity, far from stereotypes built up over the decades. However, there is one thing where no difference exists among regions; that is, a varying but high vulnerability to the consequences of long-term climate change (a.k.a. global warming).

    One of the main pillars of the Spanish economy is its climate; in fact, climate-dependent activities like tourism, the wine industry, commercial livestock, are worldwide signatures of Spain. Climate in the Iberian Peninsula is becoming warmer and drier. Change rates are different among regions but warming trends are roughly the same. Regarding temperatures, The National Agency for Meteorology (AEMET) and others regional meteorological institutions such as Meteo Galicia in the Northwest have been identifying warming trends of between 0.4 to 0.8 ºC since the 1970s. That is about four times the long-term trend for the last 150 years. Precipitation seems to be a trend toward drier conditions in the past decades, mainly in the South and East, although in the North no significant change has been detected. Climatic projections from a standard GEI emission scenario indicate that these trends should continue in the next several decades.

    In addition, there is an increasing worry that weather extremes appear to becoming more frequent; severe drought in the South, heavy winds and storms in the North, heat waves in the summer and snowstorms in the winter are becoming usual headlines in the newspapers.

    All these changes, regardless of whether they are part of a long-term climate change or simply a multi-decade fluctuation of climate’s natural variability, present a strong challenge now and in the future of governance to the various levels of government in Spain, and more broadly on the Iberian Peninsula.

    Aside from the impacts of climate variability, extremes and change, Spain is also undergoing a long- lasting economic crisis along with stormy societal conflicts that compromise its own surveillance as a Nation. Therefore, consequences of the additional stress generated from a changing climate could be devastating, regardless of the regions, landscapes, cultural differences or languages, or people into this kaleidoscope called Spain.

  • “It’s the 100th day since the start of the BP leak in the Gulf of Mexico … But, it’s the 13,000th day(!) since the discovery of the Gulf ‘s Dead Zone.” Michael Glantz. 29 July 2010.

    “It’s the 100th day since the start of the BP leak in the Gulf of Mexico … But, it’s the 13,000th day(!) since the discovery of the Gulf ‘s Dead Zone.” Michael Glantz. 29 July 2010.

    “It’s the 100th day since the start of the BP leak in the Gulf of Mexico …
    But, it’s the 13,000th day(!) since the discovery of the Gulf ‘s Dead Zone”

    Michael Glantz. 29 July 2010.

    Well, the leaking oil well on the Gulf of Mexico seabed has finally been capped. Soon it will be recorded permanently in historical records as the worst environmental disaster in the US history to date, beating out the Exxon Valdez oil spill (where was that spill? Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. Most people don’t remember that). Soon, I believe most Americans (except those along the Gulf Coast) will put the BP leak — despite its widespread environmental damage and huge ecological, economic and social costs — in the back of their minds (who remembers the Torrey Canyon spill or the Amoco Cadiz spill?). I call that “discounting the past,” that is, societies think that history is of decreasing value as one looks back in time. It’s the opposite of what economists refer to as “discounting the future” of, say, the dollar.

    Back in 1974, Dr. R. Eugene Turner, Director of Coastal Ecology Institute at Louisiana State University, discovered a “dead zone” in the Gulf of Mexico. The dead zone is the result of runoff from cities, farmlands, feedlots and factories into the mighty Mississippi River. This River basin drains about 40% of the continental United States. Herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers among other chemicals are released on a routine basis throughout the basin. In the springtime they accumulate of the Gulf Coast forming an 8000+ square mile region, which adversely affects all living marine resources.

    Each year the dead zone increases in size and has an increasingly negative impact on the fish population and in turn on the commercial fisheries. As I wondered in an earlier podcast titled “Pick Your Poison!”, why has there been no constant, even deafening, uproar about either the causes or the consequences of the ever-increasing dead zone? Although it is not the only dead zone in the world (there are an estimated 300 of them of varying sizes worldwide), it is OUR dead zone.

    While in the midst of having a coffee at a local Starbucks, I began to jot down a few ideas about a comparison between the BP spill and the dead zone. The ideas herein do not represent the results of a systematic review but are only first-order thoughts. Such a comparison would make for an interesting class project or paper. Feel free to send me your thoughts, comments, corrections and additional comparisons related to the chart below.