Another tipping point passed: methane plumes from Arctic seabed

Graph and research report 6 Aug 09 by National Oceanography Centre Southampton, UK.
The following is a summary of a geochemist's report on DailyKos 19 Aug 09:

Oil and coal companies more than doubled their millions to K Street lobbyists over two years to pressure the US Congress to weaken climate legislation. The companies argue that global warming is not an immediate problem.

Scientists' discovery of methane plumes from the Arctic seabed, just announced, shows otherwise. Frozen methane is now being released as a gas. This is another major tipping point passed. Methane has 23 times the warming power of CO2, and the USGS says the volume of methane frozen in clathrates is "conservatively" twice the volume of all known fossil fuels on earth.

Scientific conclusion: world leaders must act immediately to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, in order to stop ocean warming from triggering massive releases of methane.

Methane release from a frozen lake: U of Alaska Nov 2007. For details of this research see "The Peril below the ice" in Scientific American Earth 3.0 June 2009

¡Una esperanza para el futuro! Manifiesto climático interconfesional Upsala 2008

Click here/cliquez pour français, or for English, Swedish, German, Arabic versions of this Uppsala Interfaith Manifesto on Climate Change. See also UNFCCC, Greenhouse Development Rights. En noviembre 2008 se expresan en Upsala, Suecia diferentes tradiciones de fe sobre el Calentamiento Global: Como liderezas y líderes religiosos de todo el mundo... hacemos un llamamiento en pos de un liderazgo y un accionar eficaces frente a la amenaza climática global.

Desde las tradiciones religiosas de las que provenimos, con sus distintos enfoques sobre las expresiones de fe en la vida, unimos nuestras voces en este momento de la historia de la humanidad para reafirmar ante el mundo lo que tenemos en común. Los y las presentes compartimos una misma responsabilidad en tanto que administradores conscientes de nuestro hogar, el planeta Tierra. Hemos reflexionado acerca de la preocupación de los científicos y líderes políticos respecto a la alarmante crisis climática que vivimos y compartimos con ellos esa preocupación.

Las religiones del mundo son promotoras para cambios en los estilos de vida y cambios en los modelos de consumo. En una gran parte de la humanidad, la fe sigue siendo una fuerza poderosa para promover el bien. Emprendemos esta misión con un espíritu de responsabilidad y fe.
Del asombro al cambio

Contemplamos la vida en el planeta Tierra con una sensación de asombro. Es un milagro. Y también un don. Las noches claras con un cielo repleto de estrellas nos llenan de estremecimiento y nos recuerdan nuestro papel dentro del universo. Nos sobran motivos para ser humildes. Meditar a la orilla del mar, en el desierto o en el bosque nos permite sentirnos en comunión con el universo, pese a nuestra pequeñez. Las tradiciones de fe, con sus diversas culturas y antecedentes, convergen para expresar su asombro y estremecimiento ante el don de la vida.

A lo largo de la historia de la Tierra, ha habido siempre cambios climáticos. Sin embargo, nos preocupa sobremanera el enorme impacto del ser humano sobre el extremadamente complejo y sensible sistema climático del planeta. Actualmente, la humanidad constituye una fuerza determinante en la alteración de las condiciones de vida y bienestar de la mayoría de las criaturas del planeta. Sabemos lo suficiente como para comprender que hemos de actuar ya por el bien de las futuras generaciones. Se trata de una situación crítica. Los glaciares y los hielos eternos se están derritiendo.

Devastadoras sequías e inundaciones azotan a personas y ecosistemas, particularmente en el Sur.

¿Se puede sanar al planeta Tierra? Estamos convencidos y convencidas de que la respuesta a esa pregunta es afirmativa. Para esto se precisa de sustanciales transformaciones en la comprensión de la vida humana, los estilos de vida, los modelos de trabajo, la economía, el comercio y la tecnología. La ética y los valores son intrínsecos al desarrollo de nuevas estructuras institucionales y a la elaboración de políticas y sistemas financieros. En el ámbito religioso, una visión a largo plazo siempre ha sido importante. Más que nunca, el mundo necesita hoy de un extraordinario liderazgo político con una clara visión a largo plazo.

Nuestra apelación en favor del proceso de copenhague

En lo que respecta a la Tierra, la salvación va más allá de nuevas tecnologías y de una economía verde. La salvación del planeta depende de la vida interior de los seres humanos. Una vida sin esperanza va en detrimento de la existencia humana. Los pueblos de este hermosísimo y valioso planeta necesitan dialogar sobre lo que significa vivir juntos, teniendo empatía global dentro de la aldea global. En este empeño las religiones pueden contribuir de manera decisiva.

En cuanto representantes de religiones universales, instamos a gobiernos y organismos internacionales a la preparación y consensuación de una exhaustiva estrategia climática para el Acuerdo de Copenhague. Dicha estrategia ha de ser lo suficientemente ambiciosa como para contener el cambio climático por debajo de los 2° Celsius y distribuir la carga de un modo equitativo, conforme a los principios de responsabilidad común pero diferenciada y en función de las distintas capacidades. El marco GDR (Greenhouse Development Rights) propone un modelo concreto para la repartición de este esfuerzo. Llamamos a todos los actores implicados a buscar herramientas políticamente aceptables para llevar a cabo esta tarea.

El Acuerdo de Copenhague debe contrarrestar el mal uso de tierras, bosques y cultivos, recurriendo a incentivos dirigidos a propietarios de tierras, usuarios y comunidades indígenas para fomentar los bosques en crecimiento y la disminución de la producción de carbón.
Solicitamos a los líderes políticos del mundo:

• Un recorte acelerado y sustancial de las emisiones en el mundo rico. Los países desarrollados, especialmente en Europa y América del Norte, deben mostrar el camino. Estos deben reducir su contaminación ambiental con respecto a los niveles de 1990 en al menos un 40% para 2020 y en un 90% para 2050.
• Compromisos por parte del mundo rico más allá de sus obligaciones nacionales. De acuerdo a los principios de responsabilidad y capacidad, algunos países deberán financiar la reducción de la contaminación internacional además de sus propias iniciativas nacionales. Dicho financiamiento ha de ser obligatorio, no voluntario.
• Acciones paliativas medibles, verificables y notificables de los países en desarrollo, en particular de los países con economías en rápida expansión.
• Transferencia y puesta en común masiva de tecnologías relevantes. Todos los países deben estimular y facilitar la puesta en común de tecnología de importancia intrínseca en la reducción de la contaminación ambiental. Los países en desarrollo deben proveer a sus habitantes de oportunidades viables y tecnológicamente responsables para esta reducción.
• Incentivos económicos para los países en desarrollo con el fin de fomentar un desarrollo más limpio en el ámbito nacional.
• Adaptación al cambio climático. Según estos mismos principios de responsabilidad y capacidad, los países deben velar por la potenciación y apoyo de las comunidades más desfavorecidas y vulnerables. La adaptación al cambio climático no debe fracasar por escasez de dinero u otros recursos.

Humildad, resposabilidad… ¡y esperanza!

Instamos a los líderes políticos y religiosos a asumir con urgencia su responsabilidad sobre el futuro de nuestro planeta, sobre las condiciones de vida y sobre la preservación del hábitat de las nuevas generaciones. Pueden confiar en este afán con el respaldo y cooperación de las tradiciones de fe del mundo. La crisis climática es un asunto espiritual fundamental para la supervivencia de la especie humana en el planeta Tierra. Al mismo tiempo, sabemos que el mundo nunca antes ha sido tan capaz de generar un desarrollo sostenible. La humanidad posee el conocimiento y la tecnología necesarios. Además, el compromiso popular en hacer todo lo posible y necesario está creciendo.

Estamos llamados a revisar valores, filosofías, creencias y conceptos morales que han determinado e impulsado nuestro comportamiento y configurado nuestra relación disfuncional con el entorno natural.

Nos comprometemos a asumir y compartir responsabilidades a la hora de proveer un liderazgo moral dentro de nuestras distintas tradiciones de fe y a todas las personas que así lo deseen. Hacemos un llamamiento a todas las personas con poder para modelar intelectos y espíritus, a que se involucren en una profunda reorientación de la comprensión que la humanidad tiene tanto de sí misma así como del mundo. De esta manera remarcamos nuestro distanciamiento respecto a esta comprensión y afirmamos el propósito de vivir en armonía mutua y con la naturaleza.

Ofrecemos el don de nuestras distintas profesiones de fe como fuente de impulso en el desarrollo de modelos de consumo y estilos de vida sostenibles. Acometemos esta misión con un espíritu de humildad, responsabilidad, fe y urgencia.

Ha llegado el momento de movilizar a los pueblos y naciones.

En tanto que personas de distintas creencias, adoptamos los siguientes compromisos:
• Informar e inspirar a las personas inmersas en nuestros contextos religiosos y culturales para que asuman su responsabilidad e implementen medidas eficaces
• Instar a líderes políticos y empresariales de nuestro entorno vital y laboral a que desarrollen estrategias y acciones integrales
• Hacer hincapié en la lucha contra el calentamiento global y esgrimir nuestras convicciones religiosas más íntimas sobre el sentido de la vida. Este compromiso es un asunto profundamente espiritual y que está relacionado con la justicia, la paz y la esperanza en un futuro de amor y solidaridad con todos los seres humanos y con toda la creación.

En tanto que líderes y liderezas religiosos, deseamos contrarrestar la cultura del miedo con una cultura de la esperanza. Nos proponernos hacer frente al reto climático con un optimismo desafiante y enfatizando los principios esenciales de todas las grandes tradiciones sacras del mundo: justicia, solidaridad y compasión. Queremos impulsar el mejor de los liderazgos científicos y políticos. Comprometemos a nuestras comunidades a albergar un espíritu de alegría y esperanza en relación al mayor regalo que hemos recibido: ¡el don de la vida!

Weakening the precautionary principle

cartoon courtesy corpwatch.orgThe precautionary principle, officially endorsed in the 1992 Earth Summit, puts the burden of legal proof on advocates of action that could cause severe or irreversible harm. If the risk is high and the scientific data unclear - e.g. introducing new chemicals - the action should not be taken. This reverses the usual legal process, where the plaintiff must prove the damage, after it has been done. And if the risk is high and to the whole earth? The Rio Declaration's principle #15 says "lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective action" -- a criterion that badly needs to be applied by nations which are currently delaying climate action in the Bali-Poznan-Copenhagen UNFCCC negotiations.

The principle was further defined by the 1998 Wingspread conference, the 2000 EU Commission, and the 2000 Cartagena Protocol to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). In Europe, this means the principle now legally applies to geoengineering, toxins, chemicals, nanotechnology and LMOs/GMOs in food or feed. In 2003 the European Court of Justice, citing the Precautionary Principle's embodiment in the EU treaty, upheld temporary bans on GM food. A 2006 Australian court decision on cellphone towers held that "lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reasoning for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation." The CBD and some fisheries managers have tried to use PP to prevent extinctions.

Corporate lobbies in the US and Canada have long opposed this trend to put health and the environment ahead of profit. For instance, the US Toxic Chemicals Control Act only applies to new chemicals, compared to the EU's REACH which applies to all chemicals produced or imported. European companies have largely accepted this "green" regulatory framework, while North American ones swear to kill any such legislation here. Their lobbyists like to call it an attack on free enterprise and technological innovation.

Environment Canada resorts to hypocrisy, claiming a precautionary "approach" while refusing to give it legal force. Recent scandals in Canadian drug and food inspection show just how dangerous to human health this doubletalk can be. The Conservatives just fired a civil servant who revealed their plans to privatize labs and end BSE testing. Previous Liberal governments are also guilty, as shown by Health Canada's punishment of BGH whistleblower Shiv Chopra.

Like Canada, the United States refuses use of the term "principle" because in the courts, a "principle of law" can be invoked as a source of law.

Gordon Durnil, a participant in the Wingspread conference, said, "From my perspective as a conservative Republican, this [PP] is a conservative principle"; he has been disillusioned by his experience with the Bush administration's use of "scientific uncertainty as proof that no harm was possible", a direct contradiction of PP. The US EPA recently placed chemical hazards (ChAMP, see below) under the SPP, a move which is unlikely to strengthen regulation though it does replace a failed voluntary plan. The drumbeat of lobbying continues. Carefully reprinted by the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Chemistry Council, a 2008 article by a Georgetown law professor casts heavy scorn on regulators' attempts to ban GM corn and bisphenol A.
*****
[Under the Great Law of the Iroquois] we are responsible for seven generations into the future. Our leadership must not make decisions that are going to bring pain, harm, or suffering seven generations into the future. -- elder Audrey Shenandoah, in The Green Bible, ed. Stephen Bede Scharper and Hilary Cunningham (Orbis/Gracewing. 2000) p.63.
*****
See also: the most recent scientific update on bisphenol A health hazards, in which the Union of Concerned Scientists accuses the Bush FDA of "cherry-picking data" to support industry over consumers; other UCS examples of the need for PP; a 2007 book by Mark Schapiro, Exposed; the toxic chemistry of everyday products; who's at risk and what's at stake for American power; CIR list of Schapiro's sources, including REACH's influence in China and other developing countries; an expert comparison of ChAMP with REACH; EU official details of REACH; Gordon Durnil's fight with the chemical industry as IJC chairman; and his 1995 book The Making of an Environmental Conservative.

Canada and US: how to get to low-carbon

Alberta tarsands photo: Bryan Farrell Just announced in Poznan -- Canada could meet the target of 25% emissions cuts by 2020, says a new joint study Deep Reductions, Strong Growth (disponible en francais: Réductions marquées, croissance solide) by the Suzuki Foundation, Pembina Institute and Mark Jaccard (lead researcher of the NRTEE). A carbon tax of $50/tonne would start after the recession in 2010, rising over a decade to $200 -- combined with conservation, efficiency and major reinvestment of the resulting carbon fund in green jobs. See the interchurch KairosCanada letter asking the PM to act.

In the US, Worldwatch released Low-Carbon Energy: A Roadmap. It shows 40% cuts by 2030 are possible in the USA: by means of housing retrofits, and major investment in cogeneration (CHP), renewable energy, wind power, smart grids, and electric vehicles. Its assessment of renewables is more optimistic than Pat Murphy's (see below) but like the Canadian plan urges deep cuts in consumption. The outgoing Bush administration's dereg for "dirty coal" goes in precisely the wrong direction.

These are the standards against which US and Canadian governments should be judged. The targets are similar to those recently moved in the European parliament but opposed by France and Poland. Similar foot-dragging by the US and Canada makes COP-14 negotiation extremely difficult. Youth delegates from many nations have been scathing about the "clowning around" by their governments (from their 4 Dec 08 blog).

Both reports urge strong political leadership. Worldwatch says, "The only chance of slowing the buildup of CO2 concentrations soon enough to avoid catastrophic climate change that could take centuries to reverse is to transform the energy economies of industrial and developing countries almost simultaneously." Real commitments by US, Canada and EU are needed to bring China, India, and Brazil into the UNFCCC framework. See Tickell's Kyoto2.

Oliver Tickell's Kyoto2 proposals

Oliver Tickell's book Kyoto2 (Zed Books, 2008) proposes a sophisticated cap-and-trade plan which would auction fossil fuel production permits to companies at the international level, and use the money for adaptation and to fund the clean energy transition. Unlike other schemes, it gives poor countries of the world the means to cope with climate change. Highly recommended by Bill McKibben's 350.org and Six Degrees author Mark Lynas, who calls it an advance over GCI's Contraction and Convergence. Listen to the podcast with Lynas, Oliver Tickell, Chris Goodall. A major debate of these proposals will be held in New York 19 Mar 2009 and broadcast on BBC.

Main proposals

1. progressively limit greenhouse gas emissions year by year in order to achieve global climate neutrality by mid-century, and long term greenhouse gas stablisation at no more than 350 ppm CO2 eq.
2. move decisively towards an equitable low-carbon economy, in which: energy is generated increasingly from renewable and other clean sources; energy is used more efficiently; and 'energy poor' countries and people enjoy improved access to energy.
   
3. support the advances in prosperity and quality of life that are so desperately sought across the world, and especially by the world's poorest people.
   
4. mobilise the funds with which to pay for human adaptation to such climate change that we are already committed to by virtue of lags in the climate system, and a 'best case' trajectory of future greenhouse gas emissions, with particular regard to the needs of the poorest countries and the poorest people who are likely to be the principal victims of climate change, including climate-related health and emergency relief costs. [Principles 2 and 3]
5. give all countries endowed with carbon-rich ecosystems such as forests, swamps and peatlands financial incentives to conserve them: to keep the carbon they contain locked up; to enhance their ability to take up more atmospheric carbon; to preserve the biodiversity they embody; and to meet human needs.
   
6. reduce the emissions from agriculture through reforms in agricultural practice, to enhance the role of farmed soils as sinks and long term reservoirs of carbon, and to maintain and improve agricultural productivity in the face of climate change.
7. give developed countries and their economies a leading role in providing the necessary finance, technology and know-how in order to bring all the above to fruition, in cooperation with developing countries who also have their own important parts to play.
   

The main mechanism is a market mechanism -- since markets are generally the best means of allocating finite resources without unnecessary waste, while keeping as many people as happy as possible. Kyoto2 has this in common with the Kyoto Protocol and the EU-ETS. However, due to poor design and implementation, the last two mechanisms have so far proved to be ineffective, wasteful and loaded with perverse incentives. Reforms are under way which will in time bring about improvements in these systems; however, a more effective approach is to design a new and better mechanism from scratch -- learning from both the failures and the successes of the past, and drawing from climate science, economic theory, and principles of equity that apply across nations, peoples and generations. In particular it is essential to recognise the atmosphere as a global commons to be managed for the general benefit of humanity. Accordingly, Kyoto2 proposes to:

1. define a global cap, or a series of global caps, for greenhouse gas emissions, leading towards stablilisation at 350 ppm CO2eq in the atmosphere, and to allocate a proportion of that cap (based on current figures, 68 percent) to greenhouse gases from fossil fuels and other industrial sources.
2. regulate industrial greenhouse gas emissions 'upstream' at or close to production by requiring that the companies responsible surrender Permits based on the greenhouse gas pollution implicit in their production, expressed in tonnes of CO2 equivalent (tCO2eq). In the case of fossil fuels this would be at the points where flows are concentrated and easily measured such as the oil refinery, coal washing station, gas pipeline or gas tanker. Other industrial greenhouse gases to be similarly controlled include:
   • CO2 from calcinating lime in cement factories
   • the mix of greenhouse gases emitted by aircraft which multiply the climate forcing of the CO2 alone (by 36 times in the first year, down to 3.7 times over 20 years and 1.7 times over a century)
   • 'potent industrial greenhouse gases' (PIGGs) such as the F-gases from chemical factories and other industrial processes
   • nitrous oxide (N2O) of industrial origin, and based on volume of nitrate fertiliser production, since a proportion of the nitrate (3-5 percent) is converted into nitrous oxide by soil and water bacteria.
3. sell the permits by way of a global 'uniform price sealed bid' auction, subject to both reserve price and a 'safety valve' or ceiling price, with the proceeds accruing to a Climate Change Fund.
4. credit Permits when greenhouse gases are verifiably destroyed or sequestered into secure long term storage, as with 'carbon capture and storage' (CCS).
5. apply the Climate Change Fund to tackling both the causes and the consequences of climate change, that is a combination of mitigation and adaptation, as set out below.

Non-market solutions

No matter how well the main market mechanism works, there is a complementary role for direct regulation to constrain greenhouse gas emissions, and additional, targetted taxes, levies and subsidies. These non-market methods will be most successful where they are designed to overcome specific market failures, and where the costs of the measures (no matter who has to pay them) reflect, to a reasonable approximation, a consistent long term carbon price.

One great exemplar of this approach is the Montreal Protocol, whose regulatory role in phasing out 'ozone eater' chemicals is supported by financial assistance for technology transfer to developing countries through a 'Multilateral Fund'. This approach could well be extended to the full range of 'powerful industrial greenhouse gases (PIGGs).

Energy labelling accompanied by demanding and progressive efficiency standards for cars, appliances, lighting, other energy-demanding goods and housing has also been highly effective. This approach, already widely used within the EU, should be extended to other countries, and extended to encompass new product types, such as computers and home entertainment systems.

As for diffuse land-based emissions from deforestation, agriculture and soils, these are excluded from the market mechanism mainly due to the difficulty of measuring and monitoring them. Instead Kyoto2 proposes to finance global programs to reduce emissions from these land-based sources, as detailed below.

Kyoto2 also adopts Jim Hansen's call for an end to coal burning power plants which do not operate carbon capture and storage (CCS). This should be implemented soon in both developed countries (at generator's expense) and in developing countries (with financial support from the Climate Change Fund). Other reforms are also needed in the power sector to encourage the development of combined heat and power (CHP) and to decentralise generation into smaller units closer to the demand for power and heat.

It is also important to bring an end to perverse subsidies to fossil fuel production, which have been estimated to amount to $235-$300 billion per year, and whose continuation would directly counter the operation of Kyoto2's main market-based mechanism described above.

Allocating resources

The auction of Permits could credibly raise a sum of about €1 trillion per year for the Climate Change Fund [Chapter 6]. These funds would be allocated to:

1. finance human adaptation to the climate change to which we are already committed by way of lags in the climate system and unavoidable future greenhouse gas emissions;
2. pay countries who maintain their forests and other natural ecosystems in good condition (especially ecosystems which contain substantial embodied carbon in themselves or in underlying soils) and restore these ecosystems where lost or degraded, all subject to a requirement to respect the rights of traditional land / forest owners, users and dwellers;
3. research techniques for low-emissions agriculture for and agricultural systems that will be resilient in the face of climate change impacts, and so develop best practice guidelines to be promoted worldwide to farmers, herders and ranchers by way of agricultural extension support;
4. finance research and development into renewable and other clean energy production, and the efficient use of energy;
5. provide supplementary finance to divert new energy infrastructure investments into renewable and other clean energy development, to retrofit 'carbon capture and storage' (CCS) where appropriate, and to accelerate the phase-out of inefficient and polluting generation capacity and its replacement with renewable and other clean technologies;
6. support the development of appropriate standards in all countries for energy efficiency in industry, building, housing, transport, white goods, home entertainment, computer and other sectors, and in the case of poor countries to pay all or part of the supplementary costs so imposed;
7. investigate the potential of geo-engineering projects to reduce the global temperature and so prevent a 'runaway greenhouse effect' from taking hold, with particular focus on cost-effectiveness, careful evaluation of potential hazards, and reversibility;
8. extend access to family planning services where such access is presently limited or denied;
9. finance emergency humanitarian relief related to extreme weather events;
10. finance programmes to address the health risks associated with climate change.

See Tickell's website for online discussions, updates, and supporting research papers.

Climate Change Threats - An NGO Framework for Action

This Declaration was issued by NGOs at the UN-DPI Conference 6 Sep 2007

We, over 1726 participants representing over 500 Non-Governmental Organisations from more than 62 countries,

• recognising that we share one planet and its environment, as well as a responsibility to protect future generations,
• recognising the special vulnerabilities of the indigenous, poor, coastal and rural populations,
  
• having met at the 60th Annual UN Department of Public Information Conference for NGOs at UN Headquarters from 5-7 September, 2007, with representatives of Member States, UN agencies and programs, the scientific community, the private sector, media and civil society, and having reviewed the latest scientific evidence from a wide variety of experts as well as hearing about the experiences of indigenous peoples to better understand climate change, its threats and how NGOs can broaden the base for knowledge and action to reduce those threats; make the following declaration:

1. We affirm that climate change is mainly anthropogenic and is one of the most serious threats humanity and our environment have ever faced, which if not addressed will cause:

• a. catastrophic effects to Earth’s ecosystems, biodiversity and infrastructure;
  
• b. significantly reduced availability of food, water, energy and transport;
  
• c. massive migration of populations and the possible destruction of entire cultures and small
  
• island nations,
  
• d. significant damage to our economic, political, cultural, social and spiritual structures,
  
• e. increased local, national and international violence,
  
• f. significant psychological and emotional distress to individuals and communities
  
• g. irreversible harm to the lifestyles of indigenous peoples,
  
• h. increased spread of vector-borne diseases such as malaria and dengue fever, and
  
• i. negative impacts on human health and life expectancy.
  

2. We commit ourselves over the next 12 months to a Framework for Action that will propose NGO

solutions to these threats before they become irreversible:

• a. unify behind a common vision of collaboration – even if we disagree on tactics -- to develop and implement plans for adaptation and mitigation* taking into account the full range of consequences;
• b. act as vocal, active partners for change with the UN, governments at all levels, NGOs and other members of our global community;
• c. develop, implement and publicize individual and collaborative action plans for personal, economic and political change.

* Note: Adaptation implies making lifestyle adjustments. Mitigation implies alleviating the problem.

3. We commend Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s leadership in highlighting climate change as a major priority. We urge government, industry, and UN leaders, in partnership with the NGO community to emphasise proactive climate change priorities for the greater good in preparation for the UN Climate Change Conference in Bali, December, 2007, and subsequent negotiations [UNFCC, leading up to COP-17 at Copenhagen Dec 2009].

4. We strongly recommend, for the sake of future generations, that government and industry leaders, the UN, other international organizations and the whole of civil society partner behind and implement concrete solutions, taking into account recommendations that emerge from the [UNFCC] Framework for Action.

5. We also strongly recommend that:

• a. all governments and civil society foster an ethical, moral foundation for ongoing sustainable development in our interdependent world making the well-being of all of humankind our priority.
• b. all educational institutions and media organizations more effectively educate about the issue of climate change with special emphasis on youth,
• c. governmental authorities consider penalties for excessive consumption and pollution as a method of financing climate change improvements, as well as financial incentives to foster climate-friendly technologies so that fossil fuel and nuclear based technologies can be phased out.
• d. governments recognize that war is damaging to the climate.
  
• e. all governments ratify UN conventions on climate change, the Kyoto protocol and other relevant climate conventions

6. Finally, in order to implement the Framework for Action – recognizing that our views on challenges

and opportunities will evolve as this process continues – we request that:

• a. the NGO/DPI Executive Committee and the Conference of NGOs in Consultative Relationship with the United Nations (CONGO) foster a plan as soon as possible to implement the Framework as a tool for the NGO community to participate in an open, practical and transparent collaborative approach based on networking;
  
• b. the Framework discussion culminate in an internet-based progress report to be submitted to the Secretary-General in one year and that a long-term dialogue for future action be fostered thereafter;
  
• c. the Framework process should network NGO’s that might not otherwise typically collaborate by bridging the spectrum of NGO concerns interconnected by climate change, such as sustainable development, agriculture, forestry, the specific situation of Indigenous Peoples, biodiversity, livestock and animal welfare, nuclear proliferation, the end of war, justice, ethnic groups, multigenerational issues, youth, gender equality,
  
• education, poverty, food and water security, culture of peace, interfaith cooperation, national global security and economic justice, as well as mental, spiritual and physical health.
  

Arctic ice in "death spiral"

NSIDC map 26 Aug 2008
Satellite images just published by German researchers show the Northwest and Northeast Passages were completely open in late August 2008. Mark Serreze of the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder CO says this is further evidence that the Artic icecap is in a "death spiral" and may vanish within 5 years, far earlier than previously predicted. Another tipping point has been passed.

Climate-change deniers are already hard at work, some denying the evidence, and others happily proclaiming the start of a gold rush to Arctic gas, oil and methane. Bear in mind that many are funded by rightwing parties and fossil fuel lobby. They are significantly silent on the questions of what permafrost melt, methane release, and yet more CO2 from oil-gas addicted civilization will mean to the world's ecosystems.

Both circumpolar passages have been closed to regular navigation for 125,000 years, since the last Ice Age began. The shipping industry is already making plans. In 2009 the Beluga Group in Germany will send the first ship through the Northeast Passage around Russia, cutting 4000 miles off the route to Japan. Governments refuse to confirm opening, fear of lawsuits if ships are damaged or sunk by ice. Increased oil spills and pollution, the explosion of mineral claims, and disputes over sovereignty -- already severe -- will now enter a crisis period. Native peoples and small nations like Canada and Denmark will certainly be the losers.

Greenland ice melt: photo Far North Science

Meanwhile, UK Tyndall Centre scientists just reported that even if governments immediately take "draconian measures" in a post-Kyoto framework at Copenhagen 2009, global warming will be double the 2C safe limit to avoid catastrophic change. Above 2C what scientists call positive feedback begins -- in plain English, what Dr Richard Dixon, of World Wildlife Fund (WWF) calls a "runaway situation". Tyndall's new prediction means that by the end of the century, 300 million environmental refugees from annual coastal flooding, drought and desertification of all Southern Africa, and extinction of half the planet's animal and plant species. Quick melting of the entire Greenland icecap, previously ruled out by the IPCC but now reported as geologically possible, could raise sea levels 7 metres. In this scenario, degrowth would be the only way to save humanity. Carbon trading and C&C gradualism will be too little, too late.

See also: Nature Geoscience updates on new ice and climate research.
Charles Wohlforth, "On Thin Ice" with Cape Barrow Inuit, Orion 2004.
Canadian scientists report "irreversible" changes 3 Sep 08
Climate Ark discussion of exponential warming and consequent collapse.
Wikipedia on (a post-Kyoto framework of) contraction and convergence; the gradualist C&C scenario by Global Commons Institute.
April 2008 degrowth/décroissance conference proceedings in Paris.
Degrowth economics: various perspectives by Serge Latouche, World Association of Young Scientists, Inclusive Democracy, ESEE, SERI,

G8 leaders: all gas and no brakes

crash: strange dangers
.com
.
Avaaz Titanic ad for Bali talks, Dec 2007
.
.
At the G8 summit in Japan, Harper, Fukuda, and Bush are trying to block any reference to UNFCCC climate targets for the year 2020 -- just as they did at Bali in Dec 2007, where global protest turned the tide. Negotiators from the South rose, one after another, to demand that the spoilers step aside. NGOs launched petitions -- including an Avaaz letter signed by 320,000 members in the final 72 hours. In tomorrow`s Financial Times, Avaaz will run another petition with a satirical advertisement. It will be delivered to the hotel room of every G8 delegate, so that no leader can ignore the political cost of shirking responsibility.

What the political leaders of the rich nations should be doing:
See the world's leading climate science and policy experts including James E. Hansen, Gwyn Prins, David Steven, Alex Evans, Shuzo Nishioka, and Ted Nordhaus on video

Friends of the Earth ask the G8 to block the World Bank's controversial Climate Investment Funds (ex-Clean Technology Fund)' currently supported by the United States, the UK and Japan and their corporate friends, who hope to reap $billion profits on technology transfers to the 3rd world, especially China. According to FOE, the WB scheme will

• undermine the UNFCCC post-Kyoto talks,
• increase debt,
• pay polluters [both in the 3rd world and the 1st world, especially coal companies - Ed.]
• threaten Indigenous Peoples' land rights through the Bank's forestry offset funds

Greenpeace calls on the G8 to:

• increase public investment in research and development on ecological and climate change-resilient farming
• stop funding for GE crops and prohibit patents on seeds
• phase out the most toxic chemicals and eliminate environmentally destructive agricultural subsidies;
• protect domestic food production and drop mandatory targets to increase the ratio of biofuels used in transport.

[see our previous post on G8 and the food summit - Ed.]
also
George Monbiot's analysis of the Bali talks; NY Times analysis of Hokkaido results.
Yelena Zagorodnaya`s report on Fukuda's climate promises at Davos in Jan 2008.
Olive Heffernan`s Hokkaido blog for Nature magazine.

350 ppm: "the most important number in the world" - Bill McKibben

Click on 350 to see animation

.
.
.
.
.
Earth climate map: US DOE

Last December, while industrial nations dithered and ducked the issue at Bali, chief NASA scientist James Hansen declared that the planet's air already contained 385 ppm of CO2, increasing by 2 ppm yearly, and that anything above a 350 ppm "tipping point" invites catastrophe.(1)

Tufts University researchers have just put a price tag on delay; by 2100 global warming will cost the US economy $3.8 trillion a year! This bombshell news is the equivalent of the Stern Report in the UK.(2)

Significantly, the corporate elite of Davos (the World Economic Forum) and the WBCSD (World Business Council on Sustainable Development) are now in Japan at the G8 meeting, demanding action on climate change.(3)

By the standards of the market itself, "business as usual" is a dangerous and losing proposition. President Bush, Prime Minister Harper, the Wall Street Journal, the oil and coal lobbies, and a host of well-paid deniers have painted themselves into a corner.

The last six months have seen an unprecedented coming-together of environmental groups in the USA and around the world. For example: in 350.org McKibben's Step It Up has partnered with the new 1sky coalition, Al Gore's ACP and We campaigns, Peter Barnes, the Rainforest Action Network, Vandana Shiva and the India Youth Climate Network, Quaker Earthcare Witness, Van Jones and his "green jobs" following among black Americans, to name only a few. Their allies include Greenpeace, Sierra, Friends of the Earth, Avaaz.org, Paul Hawken's Wiser Earth (itself a network of over 100,000 organizations), the Suzuki Foundation, Pembina Institute, Natural Resources Defense Council, FCNL, NAE's CreationCare, COEJL, the Union of Concerned Scientists, SOS-Live Earth, Earth Charter and many others.(4)

McKibben says we no longer have 10 years to decide. The window is closing -- the post-Kyoto framework, to be decided by heads of state at CSD-17 in December 2009 in Copenhagen, is "our last chance at a low-carbon future".

350.org's petition to the US Congress, calling for an 80% reduction of CO2 by 2050, may have helped defeat the "greenwash" Lieberman-Warner bill by focusing mass political protest on its billions of dollars in porkbarrel subsidies to fossil fuel and nuclear interests. Now the protest is becoming an organized political movement.

Also new is environmentalists' use of social networking aka Web 2.0 or ASN: MySpace, Facebook, Changents, YouTube, Flickr, Twitter, Google Groups and Yahoo Groups are bringing local and global youth, artists, musicians, green businessmen, preachers and housewives (as well as innumerable private donations) into the campaign. See by way of example Agent350. It is likely that GlobalVoicesOnline, as well as this summer's international youth conference of TakingITGlobal and and the upcoming World Social Forums will bring even more energy and contributions. We have just seen this phenomenon playing out in the Barack Obama campaign.

At the beginning of 2007, McKibben led a march across New England that turned into a living witness for earthcare (see our previous blog about interfaith action). Step It Up expected hundreds of scattered demonstrations for action on climate change during the year. It got thousands. Simultaneously, young leaders across North America were clamoring to become community organizers for Al Gore's climate action project.

The Bush administration and its fossil fuel allies overplayed their hand for six years -- gutting the EPA, refusing cap-and-trade, deregulating futures markets (cf. the Enron and commercial paper collapses, and recent oil price speculation), allowing corporate lobbyists to write new laws and regulations, building massive perverse subsidies into the Clean Air Act, and starting a $3 trillion war for oil in Iraq.

Their very success has caused a backlash. Faced with flat refusal by the Bush administration, cities and groups of states began their own initiatives to reduce emissions and set up carbon trading exchanges.(5) In a recent Pew survey 74% of the American public call global warming a serious issue, but only 35% say it should be a top priority for the next president. A UK survey shows a majority of voters influenced by skeptics. The battle for public opinion is not over. It must be noted that just when the environmental movement surged, so did the well-funded network of climate change deniers and their fellow travellers.

[Omitted from this article are other less-politicized groups such as

• the NASCA alliance of city, regional, state and national (US-Canada) initiatives to reduce their carbon footprint, with help from William Rees' One Earth Initiative, GUSSE and CIRS; with their counterparts on other continents in
  
• the UN Marrakech Process aka SCP and 10YFP; see also Wikipedia on Marrakech and SCP
  
• scientific networks involved in data-exchange, eco-system modelling and governance.

We will try to cover these in future reports. -- Ed.]

*****

Footnotes
(1) Hansen et al., "Target atmospheric CO2: Where should humanity aim?", submitted 7 Apr 08 to Open Atmospheric Science Journal, available pre-publication on arXiv:0804.1126v2. "If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm." Also Hansen and others in Chesapeake Climate Action Network . Recent evidence suggests major recalculation may be necessary: Arctic and Antarctic ice melt, methane release from thawing permafrost, pine beetle damage, ocean acidification and sea level rise, species loss, drought, wildfires, hurricanes, seasonal and eco-zone disruption, body burdens of toxics, spread of diseases like SARS and asthma, suggest the tipping point may be even lower. See the scientific debate in RealClimate. and Gather.com.

This does not prevent climate change deniers, quibblers, lobbyists and fellow travelers from urging, in the name of "economic stability" a much higher threshold than 350 ppm: e.g. Joseph Romm , Cato Institute blog. Alex Steffen offers a "green capitalist" perspective on these folk in Worldchanging.com.

(2) See the Canadian equivalent of the Stern report; the Harper government refused to act on it.

(3) See lists of affiliated organizations here and here. WWF Canada's The Good Life, and WWF-IUCN Connect2Earth are also using social networks.

(4) But the WBCSD and UNDP call for a 50% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050, compared to the 350.org goal of 80% -- a major difference. For a detailed study of what a post-Kyoto framework must do, see Oliver Tickell's Kyoto2: How to Manage the Global Greenhouse (to be published July 2008, summarized on his website).

(5) See NYT 6 May 2007, Brookings Institution report Oct 2007. A meaningful framework must include real caps on emissions with successive stepdowns or "wedges", and a worldwide carbon trading system to bid up the price of pollution. As the EU's experience shows, such a "cap and trade" system will require close watching at every stage to keep it honest. Even if CO2 is stabilized, its level will persist for at least a century: New Scientist 12 Oct 2006

Further reading

• Bill McKibben's original call to action, "Remember This: 350 ppm," Washington Post 27 Dec 07
• James Kunstler "Driving towards Disaster," Washington Post 25 May o8 reprinted in this blog
• Mark Lynas, "Climate chaos is inevitable" The Guardian 12 June 2008, his blog and books High Tide: News from a Warming World and Fragile Earth: Views of a Changing World.
• George Monbiot, Heat: How to Stop the Planet from Burning, summarized previously in this blog.
• James Hansen's recent presentations on the 350 ppm threshold.