BUT, we Sustentators believe that in order to progress we need to find the positive side of things. While no binding agreement was reached, there were other accomplishments, possibly minor, but not irrelevant.

To start with, more than 110 world leaders gathered with a common goal: to discuss how to address climate change. We believe this is really remarkable. The Presidents of the USA, China, Germany, France and Brazil, among others, were in Copenhagen. That means the world and political leaders are giving increasing importance to global warming.

Secondly, the conference was covered by thousands of media reporting during the two weeks of Copenhagen on the progress and challenges that occurred there. This breadth in media coverage must have reached many people around the world, which were in contact with environmental problems. This is a virtuous circle, because if more people are aware, the social pressure increases for politicians, and this helps legitimate stronger actions.

Thirdly, an agreement (with all its faults) was achieved. The so-called “Copenhagen Accord” was the result of talks between China, the U.S., India and Brazil. There is now an open door for other countries to adhere to it. This agreement does not oblige countries to meet any goals. But it is a tool for dialogue and mutual support. Registrants will declare their objectives in terms of GHG emissions reductions, and then receive inspections. If the reduction targets are not met, there will be no consequences, since the agreement is not legally binding.

In turn, as mentioned in an article in Worldchanging, this two-week event shows there has been a change in global politics and world order. The fact that both poor and rich countries had the power to affect discussions and be heard is great news. For example, at the beginning of the second week of the CoP15, several African countries boycotted the negotiations, and without them the conference did not follow until an agreement was reached. The methodology of the discussions was democratic. The results were not what was expected, but the good thing is that many countries were able to participate and have a say.

Many leaders, politicians, NGO leaders and media are criticizing Copenhagen. They cite the lack of political will, the failure of the negotiation and decision making mechanisms of the UNFCCC, and the danger we now face because of not having reached an agreement. Certainly, the disappointment is great. But the environmental crisis in which we are forces us to seek to be constructive. We need to try to consider every step, every mistake, as a possible contribution to an effective solution to climate change.

The next stage in global negotiations, framed by the UN, is next year in Mexico. We have much to do. If this year the world was not ready to commit to a binding treaty, perhaps, hopefully it will be in 2010. The greater the awareness and involvement of each one of us, the more leaders will feel bound to find the political will which they lacked in Copenhagen.

Tony La Vina, the chair of REDD negotiations, said that the scheme is “more or less agreed text except in a few places.”

REDD was adopted two years ago during UN climate talks in Bali, Indonesia. If fully adopted it could mark important progress regarding climate change issues, particularly because it could see billions of dollars flowing to developing countries. By paying forest communities and purchasing carbon offsets, richer nations would encourage greater participation, and interest, by some developing countries on these issues. This might also go a long way to resolving disputes between developed and developing nations on the shape of overall global climate change schemes.

Financing has not yet been decided but a US official recently said the US had pledged $1 billion as part of a $3.5 billion scheme of initial financing toward curbing deforestation.

Roman Czebiniak of Greenpeace warned, however, that REDD might become a loophole allowing big corporations to continue to pollute as long as they set up a small forestry project in developing countries. This is why broader targets on reducing deforestation must go hand in hand with schemes such as these. It is not enough to protect certain areas; we also need more sustainable forestry solutions and for that governments need to establish gradual reductions regarding deforestation levels.

La Vina did comment, unfortunately, that the dispute on REDD was unlikely to be resolved in Copenhagen but he thought it might be settled during 2010. This seems to be the case with many of the agreements that were expected during the COP15 summit but it should not be a reason to lose hope. Change rarely takes place overnight but the important thing is that change happens. Hopefully 2010 will, indeed, mark the end of the Copenhagen summit negotiations’ finishing touches. If it does not then I will be worried.

Source: REUTERS

One of the main problems these past days in Copenhagen had to do with the differences between developed and developing countries. Developed countries want a deal that includes and, in a way, surpasses the Kyoto Protocol by making both the rich and the poor limit their greenhouse gas emissions; whereas developing nations (mainly African countries) want to extend the Kyoto Protocol (that only binds industrialized nations), and create a new deal for the poor.

Yesterday, African nations demanding more commitment toward Kyoto, boycotted the main session of climate talks, just before noon. But thanks to informal talks with the COP presidency, negotiations were resumed.

On the other hand, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon wisely suggested negotiators to get their job done, and not to leave “tough issues” to world leaders, because this might bring about a defective deal, or no deal at all.

However, many world leaders will be arriving early to try to bridge the gaps. Among them is British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who arrives in Copenhagen today. He will be meeting different chiefs of state.

This afternoon is the formal start of the intensive, high-level stage of negotiations. Ban Ki-Moon will be leading an opening ceremony at 1630 GMT.

Importantly enough, last Friday, a draft climate pact was released. It proposes to reduce emissions in at least a half by 2050, compared to 1990 levels. Though it has been accused of having some gaps, such as a lack of specificity on how much money richer nations should give poorer ones to help them fight climate change, and on when GHG emissions should peak, it has nevertheless aroused hope.

The draft focuses on the main targets for the world to achieve if it plans to avoid climate catastrophe.

Lastly, COP President Connie Hedegaard said on Saturday that “we have made considerable progress over the course of the first week”. Let’s hope we keep up this progress and that it turns out to be effective in facing the largest challenge we have ever confronted as humans.

VIA:

Reuters

COP15

• US President Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, and in his acceptance speech he emphasized the need for fighting climate change. He mentioned that from scientists and environmental activists to military leaders, the knowledge that “our common security hangs in the balance” is widespread.
• 100 nations are demanding more ambitious targets in terms of combating climate change. Among these, the 43-member alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) is particularly concerned about the effect rising sea levels can have on them. The least developed countries (LDCs) and the AOSIS support the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees temperature rise. This would require at least a 45% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by rich nations, from 1990 levels by 2020.
• A new draft, the “Copenhagen Accord” has surfaced, prepared by China, India, South Africa and Brazil, the four major emerging economies. The draft suggests that rich countries should reduce their emissions by more than 40% compared to 1990 levels, and that the Kyoto Protocol should include a “binding” amendment. The draft was posted by French newspaper “Le Monde” in its website. The “Copenhagen Accord” aims at keeping temperatures from increasing more than two degrees compared to pre-industrial levels. An interesting proposal is that emissions reductions should be achieved “mainly through domestic measures” and not so much through paying for offsetting in other countries.

• 
• Russian president Dmitry Medvedev will attend Copenhagen, on December 17-18. The fact that Medvedev has decided to participate in the conference means that leaders from the 15 most emitting countries will attend the COP15.
• Guess which was the most searched word in Google these past days? Copenhagen. This is yet another proof that the world is turned to this potentially revolutionary event, which will affect our world, and the world we leave to future generations.
• And last but… certainly not least; we have Sweden’s promise to give 800 million euro to help developing countries in their fight against climate change.

VIA: COP15

Below we present some of the selected main news of these past two days’ progress.

• UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has shown his optimism that a strong agreement to fight climate change can be reached in Copenhagen. “From all corners of the globe we see unprecedented momentum for a deal… I’m encouraged and I’m optimistic.”
• An alleged Danish draft proposal for climate initiatives was published by British newspaper The Guardian. Apparently, developing nations are not exactly thrilled with the draft’s content.
• A study released yesterday claims that between 25 million and one billion people might have to leave their homes in the next four decades, due to natural disasters. However, few of them might be able to do so, because of a lack of the necessary means to move to more secure places. The study is from the International Organization for Migration. It adds that in recent years, the “number of people affected by natural disasters has more than doubled”.

• The UN weather agency announced yesterday that this decade has almost certainly been the warmest one ever recorded. 2009 might be one of the warmest years.
• The US E.P.A. (Environmental Protection Agency) officially declared that greenhouse gases are threatening to human health and the environment. This announcement can be of help for showing US will to achieve an agreement. It also adds pressure to the US in a way.

This first week will mainly be dedicated to elaborating a text for a draft treaty. Decisions will be taken by the end of the conference by environment ministers and heads of state.

Let’s hope all those in charge of drafting proposals and making decisions are aware of the responsibility they have. They have the chance of solving the climate crisis and the dangerous and also unforeseeable consequences it may bring.

VIA: COP15

Starting yesterday, December 7, and over the next two weeks delegates from 192 countries will meet in Copenhagen for the long-awaited 15^th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP15). Just how much can be achieved is debatable but the sense of urgency has never been greater.

The main areas for discussion include:

• Targets curbing greenhouse gas emissions, particularly in developing countries.
• Financial support for developing countries trying to mitigate and adapt to climate change.
• A carbon trading scheme which aims to end the destruction of the world’s forests by 2030.

Fortunately, Connie Hedegaard, the COP President, believes that failure in Copenhagen is “not an option”. She points out that if no agreement is concluded then “the failure is not just about climate” but rather of the whole global democratic system. She also argues that “it would be irresponsible not to use the momentum now.” Clearly, there has been a growth in awareness and interest regarding climate change issues. This is precisely why Copenhagen has been looked upon as such a great opportunity for progress. Nonetheless, some leaders, including President Obama, have suggested an agreement may not be possible during this summit which is a disheartening but very real possibility.

“It’s not so that the COP president, the host country, can just tell China or the United States or India what they are going to do. They will decide for themselves. But [Mrs. Hedegaard says] of course we will argue as strong as we can, push as strong as we can and try to seek solutions as much as we can.”

When referring to herself and her team she says they “are doing this because they think it’s the most important issue in the world.”

Though her enthusiasm is admirable perhaps the most realistic scenario is the one suggested by Yvo de Boer, UN Climate Chief, where something is signed and agreed but the small details of a new treaty are not concluded.

The new climate treaty, when it is finally concluded, will replace the Kyoto Protocol which was adopted in December 1997 and only entered into force on 16 February 2005. The current treaty has now been signed and ratified by 184 parties of the UN Climate Change Convention but not yet by the United States.

Mr. De Boer suggests “that a major shortcoming of Kyoto was that the official delegation came back with a treaty they knew was never going to make it through the Senate.”  This time, however, he says he has “the feeling that the communication is much stronger”.

Keep your eye on the news for the next couple of weeks. This is the greatest recent opportunity for progress on the issue and it should not be ignored regardless of whether all the details are hammered out.

Source: COP15

We have already analyzed the tools being developed by the Sustainability Institute. This organization has created interactive simulation models that help people in charge of environmental decision-making.

Now the Sustainability Institute has released the Climate Scoreboard, which aims to keep citizens updated on the daily progress made in Copenhagen, and how negotiations will impact on our future.

The Climate Scoreboard is a widget that can be embedded to any webpage, blog or social media. It is updated regularly to include news from Copenhagen. It shows how proposals made in the conference will most likely affect the future climate.

Above is the embedded widget. The yellow “business-as-usual” line stands for the expected temperature increase that might take place by 2100 if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced.

The blue line represents the current proposals and the probable temperature that would result from their enacting. This line moves according to the latest proposals; if these change, so does the line’s position. And lastly we have the green “goals” line, which embodies the target of keeping the temperature increase below 2°C.

The Sustainability Institute wants to help make COP15 more accessible to an ordinary reader, who may not be fully updated and informed on the conference’s discussions and proposals, and how these can have an actual influence on our world. It is certainly not easy to keep track of the more than 190 members of the UNFCCC, each of their strategies, plans and proposals. That’s why I think having a tool that assembles all that data and tidies it up to present an understandable overview of the possible impacts of the negotiations being held now is remarkable.

I encourage you to use it, spread it and make the most out of it. Being informed is already an important contribution to the change we need to make.

VIA: Sustainability Institute

Today starts the fifteenth meeting of the members of the UNFCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). They meet in Copenhagen, Denmark, to discuss how the world will jointly address climate change. The challenges are numerous, and so are the opportunities.

COP15 stands for Conference of the Parties, and the number 15 is there because this is the fifteenth meeting. The parties are 192, and they meet once a year to discuss the convention’s actions and developments in terms of addressing climate change.

The first COP was in Berlin in 1995.

The Danish government, being in charge of the organization of the conference, wants this COP15 to result in an ambitious global agreement, to which all countries adhere.

Many argue that this our last chance to achieve an international agreement to fight climate change, that establishes mitigation and adaptation strategies. The Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012, and the agreement hopefully approved and ratified these next two weeks will replace it and surpass it.

Yesterday, the UN chief on climate change Yvo de Boer said that: “Never in the 17 years of climate change negotiations have so many different nations made so many firm pledges together”. China, India, the US, Indonesia and others have announced their planned targets in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The amount of studies that prove that global warming is happening as a consequence of human actions keeps growing. Scientific evidence is more than enough. What we need is to show our concerns, let politicians know that we care. We need world leaders to realize the transcendence of the climate crisis, and act consequently. A legally binding treaty is possibly the only warrantee that countries will respect whatever pledges they make. Let’s hope one is achieved.

For many people, climate change is already a fact. Scientific studies are all around, showing us over and over again how we humans are so mistakenly managing natural resources that we are bringing on our own destruction. We are altering the Earth’s natural ways of keeping a balance.

Only after mid 1900s did we start to look for ways of solving our own mess. The famous Kyoto Protocol tried to make countries put into practice a set of mechanisms to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. One of these mechanisms is carbon trading, a market-based tool to limit GHG emissions.

The basic idea behind carbon trading is that emissions as a whole need to be limited. How to do that? Limit different players’ permission to emit greenhouse gases. Given that for certain industries it is harder to switch to a least emitting way of functioning, the trade factor comes along. If a certain company is having trouble reducing its GHG, it can buy some other company’s permission to emit.

This is a simplified explanation of the famous cap-and-trade scheme. First, a cap is set on the total amount of emissions that will be allowed. Then emissions allowances are distributed that sum up to the cap total. If a firm emits more GHG than what its allowance permits, it can either reduce its emissions or buy another firm’s unused credits.

And if a firm emits less GHG than what it is allowed to, it can either sell its credits or keep them for future use.

Carbon-trading can either be voluntary or mandatory. A mandatory example of emissions trading, the main one in fact, is the Kyoto Protocol, which was put into practice in 2005. It commits members of the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) with industrialized or transitional economies (Annex I) to reduce their emissions 5% below levels registered in 1990, between 2008 and 2012.

Among other things, Copenhagen Conference, starting a week from now, is so important because a treaty needs to be achieved to replace Kyoto in 2012.

What do you think about carbon trading?

VIA: HowStuffWorks

VIA: The Economist

Some of the initiatives they have agreed on are the following:

The US and India will foster development and deployment of clean energy technologies. An Indo-US Clean Energy Research and Deployment Initiative has been launched. This includes a Joint Research Center. Some of the priorities of this initiative include energy efficiency, smart grid, second-generation biofuels, and clean coal technologies such as carbon capture and storage. Also solar energy, sustainable transportation, and wind energy development.

Specifically, concerning solar energy, the U.S. National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) will work with Indian Solar Energy Centre so as to create a nation-wide map of solar energy potential.

On the other hand, both Singh and Obama will try to encourage investment in clean energy projects in India.

They will also help each other regarding adaptation to climate change, looking for ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from forests and land use.

Both leaders said that Copenhagen must result in a treaty that covers mitigation, adaptation, finance, and technology. Further, they both claimed to be determined to reduce emissions and said they are most willing to accomplish these pledges.

Another interesting project is the idea India has of creating a National Environmental Protection Authority, which will receive help and guidance from US Environmental Protection Agency. India’s project has the objective of establishing a more effective system of environmental governance, regulation and enforcement.

And lastly, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration will work with India’s Ministry of Earth Sciences to help forecast monsoons and prevent risks related to climate change, which could harm both people and crops.

Let’s hope all these fantastic initiatives and ideas are put into practice and inspire other nations to get together to fight climate change, and develop renewable energies.

Via: America.gov

Climate Progress

The panel did come to some negative conclusions but the overall mood was very positive. Shilpa Patel, representing the International Finance Corp (a member of the World Bank group), said that ‘policy coherence is the single biggest factor holding progress back’. She mentioned, for example, that $300 billion is given in subsidies for the use of fossil fuels in the top 20 countries world-wide. She argued, however, that the World Bank was particularly well placed to help engender policy coherence.

It was also encouraging to see that while Steven Spinner, representing the US Department of Energy, argued for more energy efficiency, the Coca-Cola Company restated its ‘lean and green’ attitude. This position aims to reduce cost by increasing efficiency and seems to fit with Mr. Spinner’s belief that ‘private sector participation is a requirement’. Interestingly, $11.6 billion, of the $32.7 billion set aside in grants for climate change related maters, is being directed towards greater energy efficiency.

Jeff Seabright, representing Coca-Cola, mentioned their new ‘plant bottle’, developed with the help of World Wildlife Fund, which is fully recyclable and uses 25% less carbon for its production. Later, Esko Aho, representing Nokia, argued that they help by encouraging the transition from physical to digital and seemed to stress this by conference calling from Helsinki. There were also some presentations by advocates of ‘biochar’, which can be used to lock carbon in soil, and of high seas wind-turbines and wave energy capturing devices.

Carol Browner, representing the White House, also had some interesting comments. She mentioned, for example, that their focus was on the job creation aspect of ‘green energy’ and that healthcare needed to be solved before this issue could be fully tackled. She suggested that a concrete agreement would not be reached at the COP15 in Copenhagen but argued that this would be an important step towards obtaining such an agreement. Furthermore, she noted that there was a need to create a ‘guaranteed opportunity’ for private companies to invest in renewables. Overall, she seemed aware of the problems but very positive and proactive regarding a notably complicated issue.

The fact that government representatives recognized both obstacles and solutions, that business men and women presented opportunities and that academics seemed interested in both sides is, I believe, positive. That pitfalls and complications are acknowledged only means that the problem is being taken seriously.

For more information refer to The Economist online.

Interactive simulators consist of specific software to which a user can insert information, and get a feedback, based on the inputs added, and information it has already incorporated. The good thing about the simulators developed by the Climate Interactive Program is that they are much more accessible and user-friendly than others.

Climate change is a highly complex phenomenon. It is intertwined with society as a whole, because it is our way of functioning that is causing climate change. To solve it, we must consider a number of different and complicated issues, such as the economics of reducing emissions, policy, legislation, science, just to mention a few. However, decision-makers need to “think clearly about the future”. To address this need for clarity, the Sustainability Institute organization is creating several interactive simulation models.

Sustainability Institute is a think tank dedicated partly to climate change, and it has developed the Climate Interactive Program. Through this program, several experts are working to create software to help forecast the effect of different actions on future climate change. The basic idea is that the user can insert data, and preview its probable effects.

The simulation to which the most effort is being dedicated is C-ROADS (Climate Rapid Overview and Decision-support Simulator). It has already been used by the US Department of State to understand the climate impacts of different national proposals, and to discuss this with other parties to the UNFCCC.

Who is behind all this? Obviously, the Sustainability Institute. Also, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sloan School of Management (MIT), Nike, Ventana Systems, the Society for Organizational Learning (SOL), among many others.

Other simulation models designed by the Climate Interactive Program include the Climate Bathtub, which represents the carbon cycle and climate change; the Copenhagen Climate Exercise, that helps practice for negotiating in COP15; Climate Momentum Simulation; C-Learn; and MIT’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions Simulator.

The creators of the simulators want them to be distributed to, and to be accessible to as much people as possible, so as to help foster wise and effective decision-making. The tool they have developed has tremendous potential in helping solve the threatening climate crisis we face. Let’s hope we are intelligent enough to use the tools we have to get ourselves out of this mess we’re in.

More: Climate Interactive

However, nothing ensures that the participants, which include officials from various governments, communication media, and NGOs will arrive at a proposal that is sufficiently proactive for reducing emissions that are dangerous to the environment.

The Royal Society of England created a report in which it analyzes the scenario that would result from a possible failure of Copenhagen.

Climate change means that Earth’s natural thermostat is being altered. That means that Earth naturally regulates its temperature, but due to different phenomena such as the emission of greenhouse gases, this regulation begins to fail. We are the ones who should re-establish this ability of our planet to self-regulate.

In its report, the Royal Society states that reducing carbon dioxide emissions and ensuring the success of the Copenhagen Conference should be the top priorities.

The report mentions geo-engineering as a tool that may become necessary for avoiding a “planetary catastrophe”. This type of engineering will be used to re-accommodate Earth’s climate.

Geo-engineering technologies are divided into two main branches: those that remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and those that reflect the sun into space. Both are still in the investigative stage. The Royal Society claims that a national research program, with an investment of US$160 million over 10 years is needed. This is 10 times the current level of investment.

Some of the geo-engineering technologies are artificial trees that absorb carbon dioxide, artificial volcanoes that disperse sulfate particles to reflect the rays of the sun back into space, and mirrors to reflect the heat of the sun and keep it away from Earth.

The report represents these technologies as an alternative that is not completely reliable right now, since it implies risks, and some of its collateral effects are still unforeseeable.

Everything indicates that the best thing would be for Copenhagen to work, and for us to achieve a commitment to assume our responsibility to care for the Earth.

Sources:

The Daily Telegraph

Reuters

Royal Society

Conference on Climate Change

We were talking yesterday about the importance the US has for the Copenhagen Conference. Being the US one of the most powerful nations in the world, and one of the main greenhouse gas emitters, it is crucial for the US to lead the way and accept to be legally tied to reducing its greenhouse gases. If the US does not get involved, many others might wonder, why should we?

For the US to be able to commit, it needs the Senate to pass the climate bill developed by Senators Barbara Boxer and John Kerry. However, there is much opposition from the Republican Party.

Obama is almost certain that the so-called “Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act” will not be approved on time. Nevertheless, he still thinks COP15 can be successful, for it can work as a political framework for commitment and future action.

As he recently declared: “I think the question is can we create a set of principles, building blocks, that allow for ongoing and continuing progress on the issue and that’s something I’m confident we can achieve.”

If you still doubt whether climate change is or not a big deal, let me tell you that the scientific evidence that shows that we are on the brink of catastrophe is abundant. Further, emissions need to peak in 2015, if we want to avoid a major climatic crisis. Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, has said, “a climate deal in Copenhagen this year is an unequivocal requirement to stop climate change from slipping out of control.”

Via:

Telegraph

As Al Gore says, this climate crisis represents both a risk and an opportunity. Most politicians, I think, are not only not seeing the opportunity for growth this situation represents, but also ignoring the seriousness of the risks we face. There is a general lack of will to take the lead and work on a solution.

Being the US a world leader as it is, many point to it as one of the main responsible actors in convincing others and transmitting a proactive attitude to other countries. US President Barack Obama seems to have a relatively good will to seek for solutions. However, unless he gets support from the Senate, his words will remain in the world of ideas. If the Senate does not enact the Boxer-Kerry bill, it is doubtful that in Copenhagen world leaders will be able to accomplish a significant treaty.

What is going on in the Senate?

As always, Democrats and Republicans do not agree, and are not quite willing to do so. Within the Senate, there is the Environmental and Public Works Committee, which is in charge of environmental issues.

Democrats are trying to pass the Boxer-Kerry Bill. However, Republicans claim to lack an economic analysis of the bill; they say reducing emissions 20% by 2020, and implementing a national cap-and-trade system will negatively affect US economy. A study done by EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) shows that these fears are unfounded, because among the Bill’s proposals is the idea of helping carbon-intensive industries, and poor families in the transition process. Carbon-intensive industries would receive a share of free carbon allowances to prevent the rising of prices, and the risk of migrating companies.

On the other hand, not even Democrats as a whole agree on the cap-and-trade system. Some strongly believe in it and consider it a key to the solution, while others want it off the bill.

Copenhagen is a month away. US Senate needs to realize their decisions have the whole world on hold. I hope politicians are doing their job aware that whatever they decide will have huge and unexpected impacts on every one of us, and future generations.

This is an extremely simplified explanation of a highly complicated topic. We will continue to deepen our analysis in the coming posts.

They are in charge of a significant challenge; organizing all the different and competing proposals that have been made so far (regarding climate change), and creating a document that can be managed more easily.

Next month, representatives from 192 countries will be meeting in Copenhagen, Denmark to discuss and, hopefully agree on a global strategy to act against climate change. The Conference lasts from December 7 to December 18.

There are various points of view to whether Copenhagen will be successful or not. Some say it will not work, that there is not enough political will to compromise to a significant treaty. “It is realistic to say that in Copenhagen we will not be able to conclude a treaty, but it is important to lay down a political framework which will be the basis of the treaty” said German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Others emphasize the importance of Copenhagen, such as British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who said that it is “our last chance”. Besides, the head of the UN Climate Change Secretariat warned that “time has almost run out”, and that “In Barcelona, all nations must step back from self-interest and let common interest prevail”.

The more we believe a successful treaty can happen, the more we show our conviction, the more chances there will be for it to work. Politicians need to know that we as citizens care about climate change, and that we demand a solution to it.

Via: COP15

The principles, set out by Chinese Congressman Wang Guangtao and US Congressman Edward Markey, were agreed during GLOBE International’s Copenhagen Legislator’s Forum. The US and Chinese Congressmen will be joined by Lord Michael Jay of the UK Parliament in coordinating the adoption of these principles through the legislatures of the world’s major economies. The principles cover the issues of energy standards, forestry preservation and renewable energy and could see 70% of the emissions cuts needed by 2020 to limit the average temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius. Such coordinated action would result in cost savings and increased competitiveness and drive the move towards a global low carbon economy.

Legislators have also agreed to push through their own parliaments other principles which include: laws binding national governments to short, medium and long-term targets for emission; commitments to ‘climate compatibility assessments’ for major government policies; regular obligatory reports by Governments to their parliaments on their progress in meeting targets; and regular reviews which ensure policies are in line with the latest science.

US Congressman Markey is very positive about these principles and commented in his closing remarks that “Because of GLOBE and people all around the world we have won the debate on climate change”.

The Chinese Congressman Chairman Wang also commented that “These principles will play a great role in implementing post Copenhagen measures so that legislators can take real action.”

The legislators also agreed to a joint statement for the COP15 in December. It suggests that:

1) “The COP15 should agree to emissions targets for developed countries for 2030 and 2040 in addition to 2020 and 2050.

2) Deforesting countries must be given incentives to make immediate and dramatic reductions in their deforestation rates.

3) A ‘protect and share’ framework for Intellectual Property Rights should be established.

4) A strengthened international monitoring and verification system should be introduced that applies to all countries.

5) At least $100 billion per year will be needed in financial assistance from public and private sources including developed countries to meet the cost of adaptation to a changed climate in developing countries.”

By adopting these principles the world has taken an important step forward in the fight against climate change. As aptly noted by Lord Michael Jay, vice-chair of GLOBE, “Though it is Governments that will sign on the dotted line at the COP15 at Copenhagen in December, it is legislators that must pass laws in their domestic Parliaments to ensure that the promises of Governments are translated into reality.”

If we expect the Kyoto talks to bear any meaningful fruit these are the types of steps that we need to continue to take.

Source: GLOBE

The topics addressed in the WFC 2009 included forests and climate change, forests and bioenergy, deforestation, the different uses given to forests, and their present situation and future prospects, among other subjects. Speakers included Environment Ministers from several countries, representatives from the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization), the World Bank, the IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature), scientists, and many others.

It’s been the first time a WFC was carbon neutral: its carbon footprint, –meaning its greenhouse gas emissions– will be measured and offset.

In a joint press conference, on Wednesday, Avrim Lazar, President and CEO of the FPAC (Forest Products Association of Canada), emphasized the fact that “the impact of climate change is today”. He described the case of Canadian forests, which were invaded by insects and fires, due to climate change. Because they were “hit very hard”, and they experienced this crisis in their homes, their action has been “aggressive” protecting their forests. He highlighted the need for considering a forest as a living ecosystem, which has several values that ought to be seen as a dynamic whole. He added that if we view forests just as a sort of “carbon sink”, we would be committing the same mistake that has led us to climate change.

Lazar timidly (in a meat-devouring country such as Argentina) explained that one of the most powerful actions we can take as individuals is to eat less meat, which demands 10% more land to be produced.

Another interesting topic that came out during the press conference is the economic value given to the services offered to us by forests. Now, only wood has an economic value, a price. But the rest of the services are free, and maybe that’s why we have trouble recognizing and taking care of their importance. There is actually a market failure. But eventually, these values will materialize, and they will be incorporated to the economic system.

Amongst the good news, the speakers said that thanks to this Congress, it is clear that climate change cannot be solved without an integrated forestry strategy.

Furthermore, Gerhard Dieterle, Forestry Advisor for the World Bank mentioned some successful cases of forest management, such as Costa Rica, India and China, which should be recognized and prized. Otherwise, money is only given to leaders of deforestation…

An enriching event, which hopefully has eased the road to Copenhagen, in December.

More: World Forestry Congress