Not much in terms of effective policy came out of the 2009 climate conference in Copenhagen, or COP15. In fact, the best that can probably be said is that nations agreed to disagree; poor ones unwilling to take on carbon emission reductions that would stunt their industrial growth, and rich ones unwilling to take the blame for emissions that have, to date, caused most of the problems and benefited rich nations most of all.

To highlight this ambivalence, on January 26 Yvo de Boer, United Nation’s senior climate change official, noted that governments could either comply with proposed emissions limits by the deadline, or later if they preferred – a paradox that has led many to ask what the purpose of the deadline was?

One figure, though, came to the forefront of most greenhouse-gas reduction conversations at COP15, and that is two degrees. Two degrees, most reputable scientists agree, is the maximum rise in temperature that we can allow, after which the climate change associated with global warming becomes potentially catastrophic.

The figure caught my eye, and it occurred to me that another, equally integral relationship is also measured in degrees. They call it ‘six degrees of separation’, and social theorists estimate that every person on the planet is six degrees (or six relational steps) away from every other person.

Once those two measures are taken, a third concatenation can be arrived at which suggests that everyone on earth is exactly three degrees away from interacting with at least one other person, at least in terms of climate change. Another thing that can be extrapolated: these interactions will largely be unpleasant, as the displaced, starving, sickly third world insists on its right to live – in the developed world if nowhere else – while the inhabitants of this richer world cling to their luxuries as if blessed by an unnamed God.

Two degrees; the number approved as an upper limit to warning by the G8 Summit, held in L’Aquila, Italy on July 8, 2009, and also the number that COP15 was aiming for. As climate change experts Jonathan G. Koomey and Florentin Krause note, setting a warming limit implies instituting a greenhouse gas budget, which can be used to maintain emissions below a threshold over the next half-century or 100 years, which will prevent triggering catastrophe.

But it’s such a small number, and most greenhouse gas budget schemes, whether cap and trade or tax, are fraught with so many loopholes that they invite the larcenous to cheat. Tax schemes may be better, if only because controlling emissions works better when their ultimate cost (to people, and the planet) is known. But this implies knowing the precise costs, and these have never been quantified in our forge-ahead, head-in-the-sand Western capitalist culture.

Recognizing that, how will we meet the goals of such a perishingly small number as two degrees? As Koomey and Krause note, the limit is not only demanding, but implies that industrialization will need to be dramatically curbed, with reductions of at least 50 percent in emissions by 2050 compared to 1990 levels (and even larger reductions after that).

Who will do this? Who will willingly give up the SUV in favor of the bike, seven rooms in favor of three, meat in favor of rice or pasta and vegetables? Who? “Not I,” said the pig, and so the little red hen of carbon emissions reduction goes about her business. But if you remember the end of that story (The Little Red Hen), you will note that the little red hen shared equally.

In terms of carbon reduction, by any method, a viable solution is made even more difficult when nations like Saudi Arabia, and individuals like James Inhofe (R-OK) argue against anthropogenic (man-made) global warming, or debate whether such warming even exists – denials that are hard to counter in view of the recent cold spell in North America and Europe.

Not to mention a leaked string of e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit in Nov. of 2009 that threatened to topple the mountain of scientific evidence for global warming like a poorly constructed house of cards (a leak that was more revealing of personality defects than any failure of anthropogenic global warming theory, but let’s not let the facts get in the way of a good story).

Two degrees is a small number, but it may still be too large to prevent disaster. As climatologist Stefan Rahmstorf notes, at two degrees the odds of catastrophic impacts may still exceed one in six. And one of these impacts is sea level rise, which may exceed nine meters, or 29.5 feet, given current Arctic melting and extrapolating from sea level changes during the last interglacial period.

In the U.S., this would mean the loss of parts of the East and West Coasts, most of Florida and all of New Orleans. In Venice (Italy), Bangladesh, and the Netherlands, for example, it would mean the loss of entire cities and countries.

Experts agree that climate change (in the form of rising seas, changing rainfall, drought and deluge, and all the evils associated with these effects) will set developing countries back half a century, in terms of agricultural and infrastructural improvements. This means increasing displacement, starvation, sickness and disease for roughly 660 million people around the world. In fact, we can already see this happening in many places.

Of course, some will survive. But where will these survivors go? As in the case of Haiti (a natural disaster, not related to climate change), they will go to developed nations. They will settle down in your neighborhood, or mine. And thus, suddenly, the two degrees of global warming we failed to prevent, aligned with six degrees of separation, becomes three degrees between a viable planet and a crowded planet where enough space for all must be found on fewer landmasses, enough food for all must be grown on the remaining arable acres, and enough water for all found in the remaining, unpolluted water supplies.

Can we manage it? As James Hansen notes in his new book, Storms of My Grandchildren, a melting Arctic, acidic oceans, and drought are only the preliminary symptoms of a planetary sickness that will “remake the map of the world” (and the capacity of human beings to survive on it).

Article by Jeanne Roberts, appearing courtesy of Celsias

Related posts:

• Deforestation in Boreal Region Has Net Cooling Effect, Study Says
• Copenhagen Climate Pledges May Lead to Global Temperature Jump, Study Says
• U.S. Trucking Companies Making Shift to Liquid Natural Gas
• By 2100, CO2 Levels May Reach Concentrations Not Seen in 30 Million Years
• Challenges to Wine-making in a Warming World

If you feel like having a laugh, check out the latest Juice Media clip. In the lead-up to COP15 they have orchestrated a ‘rap battle’ between Al Gore and Lord Monckton, which makes for humorous watching…

Climate change may be no laughing matter, but clearly some people’s expertise (or lack of…) makes for comic material!

Article by Kate R. appearing courtesy of Celsias

Related posts:

• Jeremy Rifkin on Climate Change and Alternative Energy
• U.S. Creates Office to Handle Climate Change Data
• China Claims Edge over US in UN Climate Change Talks
• A Familiar Ring to the Cap-and-Trade Grudge Match in Australia
• Economists Propose Flight Tax to Mitigate Effects of Climate Change

Article by Mridul Chadha appearing courtesy of Celsias.

In yet more positive news for international climate negotiations, India has announced that it is open to international review and reporting of its domestic mitigation measures.

The step is a colossal change in India’s policy and is seen as a major boost to the chances of successful negotiation of new climate deal at Copenhagen this December.

India has long maintained that it is bound to report results of only internationally funded clean energy projects. The issue of reporting and accounting of carbon emission reduced has been a contentious issue for a long time.

Deals on international funding have fallen apart in the past as developing countries refused approval to demands of developed nations for increased accountability in reporting emission reductions achieved by projects funded through international funding mechanism like the CDM.

Dramatic Policy Shift

Earlier this month, the Indian environment minister made another positive announcement regarding India’s intentions to have voluntary and non-binding emission reduction targets.

The minister announced that a bill prescribing carbon emission limits for the top five polluting industries could be introduced in the Parliament during the winter session starting November 22.

The bill would empower Parliament to stop flow of funding for mitigation measures if they are economically unsound or put extra burden on the common people. In this way the Indian government would be able to secure the economic interests while reducing carbon output.

The dramatic change in India’s stance came after US-China climate negotiations resulted in China agreeing in principle to voluntary emission reductions, improving energy efficiency and expansion of renewable energy infrastructure.

China was involved in bilateral talks with the United States for a year and with the Obama administration taking charge the negotiations got fast tracked. Deals on technology exchange, pertaining to green buildings and improving energy efficiency, were signed during Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton’s visit to China.

With China breaking away from the traditional negotiating stance of developing countries, weakness in the developing countries’ camp became more evident. The issue was raised in Indian Parliament where the environment minister assured the House he’d personally meet his counterparts in China, South Africa, Brazil and Mexico to renew their negotiation stance.

The new positions on international scrutiny of mitigation measures will not only improve India’s credibility but also help it get additional funding for new clean energy projects and help developed countries offset their own carbon emissions.

Pressure Tactics?

Developing countries have announced a number of mitigation measures which they were opposed to in the past. Many experts see them as attempts to put pressure on developed countries, specifically the United States, to make them agree to bold emission reduction targets and increased financial support.

Under the National Solar Mission, the Indian government aims at solar capacity of 20 gigawatts by the year 2030. This is a highly ambitious and seemingly unrealistic goal given that no details of funding have been provided in the plan.

These measures by China and India could put pressure on the US Congress as it considers the climate change bill.

In the past developed countries have accused the developing countries of dragging their feet over issues of reducing carbon emissions. However, now that they have announced intentions to adopt economically sensitive voluntary emission reduction targets the spotlight has returned to developed countries.

The Indian environment minister once challenged the US government to adopt bold emissions reduction targets and see India respond in kind but it’s the developing countries which have taken the higher ground and now all eyes are on the US to see if it will come up with appropriate emission targets and a deal on technological and financial support that will satisfy developing nations.

[photo credit: Flickr]

Related posts:

• India’s CO2 Emissions Will At Least Triple in the Next 20 Years
• India Will Reject Curbs On Its CO2 Emissions
• Out of Nowhere, India Proposes 25% Emission Reduction Target for 2030
• New Map of CO2 Emissions Shows Rapid Growth in China and India
• Hilary Clinton Advocates For Clean Cookstoves in India Visit

Transitioning away from coal-production towards cleaner forms of energy is a major concern shared by environment-conscious governments and citizens all over the world. Communities across the globe are suffering from coal-based pollution, and clean energy sources need to be developed – and implemented – to provide for a sustainable future. What are the obstacles in building a clean energy future, and how do we transition away from sources of energy that are harmful to nature and health? The United Nations COP15 Climate Change Conference taking place in Copenhagen this year will address climate change issues like these.

While only government representatives can participate in the Climate Change Conference, you might have the opportunity to be part of this event. Focus the Nation, a US non-profit organization, is offering young climate leaders with fellowships that allow them to present their ideas to the international communities participating in the Climate Treaty negotiations. If you are between 18-29 years old and live in a coal-producing or coal-consuming community, you can participate in “Coal and the Road to Copenhagen: The Focus Roots Fellowships.” What you need to do is come up with an innovative, creative idea to accelerate your community past coal.

“In order to accelerate the transition away from energy sources like coal, and toward a just and prosperous clean energy future, every town needs stronger roots and deeper community engagement. And the deeper these clean energy roots reach throughout your community, the faster we can move toward utilizing renewable energy systems and redefining prosperity,” according to Focus the Nation.

The project, which is supported by Nike, Climate Ride, Youth Noise and the Danish Embassy, will award two Fellows with a $10,000 grant each in the categories “Sport” and “Art.” The two Fellows will receive financial and operational support from Focus the Nation to launch and implement their ideas between August and December 2009. In addition, the recipients will take part in a bicycle ride from NYC to DC from September 26-30, where they will workshop their progress with 200 other riders. Afterwards, the recipients will travel to Denmark to present their projects at the conference in Copenhagen.

“This will be an unprecedented opportunity for young climate leaders to bring the story of their community and their passion for climate creativity and innovation to the local, national and international stage,” writes Focus the Nation.

Applications are due July 15, 2009, and the winners will be announced on August 6th. To apply, please visit the Focus the Nation website.

Related posts:

• Kerry Says Cap and Trade Should Take Backseat to Pollution
• United States: UN Role in Climate Talks Should be Diminished
• More Optimism About Pre-Copenhagen Climate Progress
• US Interior Department Fails to Deliver Clean Energy
• Electricity Co-Op Chooses “New Power” Over Coal Energy and Emissions