U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator William D. Ruckelshaus wrote in a 1984 report on climate change and sea level rise that "Our system of government has traditionally been biased toward a sort of institutional inertia, which eventually is broken by development of a massive consensus that sweeps through remaining barriers and ensures that the policies finally adopted will have lasting constituencies."
For those of us who have been concerned for years about the threat of climate change, the lack of interest in this problem among the electorate, and the ability of politicians to use diversionary tactics to avoid the issue, have been agonizing.
Over the past year, though, the weight of scientific evidence that global warming is real, and that it is caused chiefly by human activity, has become overwhelming. The issue has finally captured the attention of the public, forcing a stubborn U.S. administration to at least acknowledge the threat. The tide has turned in Australia, as their newly-elected prime minister moves to endorse the Kyoto Treaty, but the U.S. under George Bush continues to claim that our economy cannot afford to address global warming, despite the fact that we are the most prosperous nation ever to exist on the face of the Earth.
Ever since the oil shortage of 1973, we as a nation have sat passively by, letting the cost of energy rise and fall (mostly rise) according to the laws of supply and demand - laws which laissez-faire economists hold sacred. The main beneficiaries of this inertia have been the oil industry and the nations from which we buy our oil. Over the past three decades, we have been told that efforts to curb gasoline consumption through a carbon tax - raising gasoline $1 or $2 per gallon - would wreck our economy. Proponents of a carbon tax, myself included, pointed out that the revenue could have been used to develop renewable energy sources, improve energy efficiency, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, improve air quality, and lower the income tax.
Well, now we're paying $3 per gallon, and that extra revenue is pouring into oil-rich Saudi Arabia and other Middle East oil-producing countries.
Our dependence on Middle East oil hurts U.S. interests in many ways. First, it has tilted our foreign policy toward costly military intervention in the area; second, our oil dollars flow mainly into the pockets of the wealthy, stirring unrest among the poor; and, third, as wealthy Arabs spend their dollars on Western products and services, they are seen as abandoning traditional religious values, further increasing tensions between rich and poor, and fueling support for anti-American terrorism. Global warming or not, a change in U.S. energy policy is long overdue.
For years, U.S. participation in the Kyoto Treaty was blocked by opponents who wanted more evidence that the Earth was warming and humans were to blame. A tiny but vocal minority still refuses to face the facts.
Anyone involved in business knows that decisions are often made with imperfect knowledge - in a process called risk assessment. The best course of action is chosen after weighing the costs and benefits of the available options. In the GOP presidential debate in Iowa on Dec. 12, John McCain wisely provided us with his risk assessment on global warming: "I know that climate change is real," he said, "but let me put it to you this way. Suppose that climate change is not real and all we do is adopt green technologies, which our economy and our technology is perfectly capable of. Then all we've done is given our kids a cleaner world." In other words, the risk of action is low, the risk of inaction or delay is great.
The failure of our government to take meaningful steps to combat global warming is frustrating, but there is reason to hope that the massive consensus spoken of by William Ruckelhaus 23 years ago is finally emerging. Let's hope it's not too late.
News and politics
global warming
RT On Air
Thursday, 20 December 2007
UN Climate Change Convention In Bali: Forum Approves Climate Roadmap
After almost two weeks of marathon discussions, delegates have agreed on both the agenda for the negotiations and a 2009 deadline for completing them so that a successor pact to the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gas emissions can enter into effect in 2013.
After almost two weeks of marathon discussions, delegates have agreed on both the agenda for the negotiations and a 2009 deadline for completing them so that a successor pact to the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gas emissions can enter into effect in 2013.
Under the so-called Bali Roadmap, the key issues during the upcoming negotiations will be: taking action to adapt to the negative consequences of climate change, such as droughts and floods; devising ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; finding ways to deploy climate-friendly technology; and financing adaptation and mitigation measures.
Participating countries have also agreed on a series of steps that can be taken immediately to strengthen their commitment to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), such as combating deforestation in poor countries, the scaling up of investment in green technology and enhancing funding for adaptation measures.
The text does not specify or mandate emissions targets, but it does say that deep cuts in emissions will be needed to avoid the worst effects of climate change.
In a statement issued after the Bali Roadmap was adopted, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called it "a pivotal first step toward an agreement that can address the threat of climate change, the defining challenge of our time," adding that the agreement had met all the benchmarks for success he set out when the Conference began.
The Secretary-General said he "appreciates the spirit of cooperation shown by all parties to achieve an outcome that stands to benefit all humanity."
Mr. Ban returned today to Bali, after a one-day visit to Timor-Leste, to take part in the final stages of the Conference, which was extended by an extra day as delegates closed in on a deal.
But even a few hours before the Roadmap was adopted, it was not clear there would be any breakthrough, prompting Mr. Ban to appeal to delegates not to "risk everything you have achieved so far... The hour is late. It is time to make a decision."
Mr. Ban's statement welcoming the Roadmap's eventual adoption was echoed by leading UN and international environmental officials at the Conference.
UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer said Bali had produced "a real breakthrough, a real opportunity for the international community to successfully fight climate change. Parties have recognized the urgency of action on climate change and have now provided the political response to what scientists have been telling us is needed."
In his closing address to the plenary session, the Conference President and Indonesian Environment Minister Rachmat Witoelar hailed the "number of forward-looking decisions" in the text.
"But we also have a huge task ahead of us and time to reach agreement is extremely short, so we need to move quickly," he said.
Four major UNFCCC meetings to implement the Bali Roadmap are planned for next year, with the first to be held in either March or April. The negotiations process is scheduled to conclude in 2009 at a major summit in Copenhagen.
News and politics
global warming
After almost two weeks of marathon discussions, delegates have agreed on both the agenda for the negotiations and a 2009 deadline for completing them so that a successor pact to the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gas emissions can enter into effect in 2013.
Under the so-called Bali Roadmap, the key issues during the upcoming negotiations will be: taking action to adapt to the negative consequences of climate change, such as droughts and floods; devising ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; finding ways to deploy climate-friendly technology; and financing adaptation and mitigation measures.
Participating countries have also agreed on a series of steps that can be taken immediately to strengthen their commitment to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), such as combating deforestation in poor countries, the scaling up of investment in green technology and enhancing funding for adaptation measures.
The text does not specify or mandate emissions targets, but it does say that deep cuts in emissions will be needed to avoid the worst effects of climate change.
In a statement issued after the Bali Roadmap was adopted, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called it "a pivotal first step toward an agreement that can address the threat of climate change, the defining challenge of our time," adding that the agreement had met all the benchmarks for success he set out when the Conference began.
The Secretary-General said he "appreciates the spirit of cooperation shown by all parties to achieve an outcome that stands to benefit all humanity."
Mr. Ban returned today to Bali, after a one-day visit to Timor-Leste, to take part in the final stages of the Conference, which was extended by an extra day as delegates closed in on a deal.
But even a few hours before the Roadmap was adopted, it was not clear there would be any breakthrough, prompting Mr. Ban to appeal to delegates not to "risk everything you have achieved so far... The hour is late. It is time to make a decision."
Mr. Ban's statement welcoming the Roadmap's eventual adoption was echoed by leading UN and international environmental officials at the Conference.
UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer said Bali had produced "a real breakthrough, a real opportunity for the international community to successfully fight climate change. Parties have recognized the urgency of action on climate change and have now provided the political response to what scientists have been telling us is needed."
In his closing address to the plenary session, the Conference President and Indonesian Environment Minister Rachmat Witoelar hailed the "number of forward-looking decisions" in the text.
"But we also have a huge task ahead of us and time to reach agreement is extremely short, so we need to move quickly," he said.
Four major UNFCCC meetings to implement the Bali Roadmap are planned for next year, with the first to be held in either March or April. The negotiations process is scheduled to conclude in 2009 at a major summit in Copenhagen.
News and politics
global warming
The real answer to climate change is to leave fossil fuels in the ground
All the talk in Bali about cutting carbon means nothing while ever more oil and coal is being extracted and burned
George Monbiot
Ladies and gentlemen, I have the answer! Incredible as it might seem, I have stumbled across the single technology which will save us from runaway climate change! From the goodness of my heart, I offer it to you for free. No patents, no small print, no hidden clauses. Already this technology, a radical new kind of carbon capture and storage, is causing a stir among scientists. It is cheap, it is efficient and it can be deployed straight away. It is called ... leaving fossil fuels in the ground.
On a filthy day last week, as governments gathered in Bali to prevaricate about climate change, a group of us tried to put this policy into effect. We swarmed into the opencast coal mine being dug at Ffos-y-fran in South Wales and occupied the excavators, shutting down the works for the day. We were motivated by a fact which the wise heads in Bali have somehow missed: if fossil fuels are extracted, they will be used.
Most of the governments of the rich world now exhort their citizens to use less carbon. They encourage us to change our lightbulbs, insulate our lofts, turn our televisions off at the wall. In other words, they have a demand-side policy for tackling climate change. But as far as I can determine, not one of them has a supply-side policy. None seeks to reduce the supply of fossil fuel. So the demand-side policy will fail. Every barrel of oil and tonne of coal that comes to the surface will be burned.
Or perhaps I should say that they do have a supply-side policy: to extract as much as they can. Since 2000, the UK government has given coal firms £220m to help them open new mines or to keep existing mines working. According to the energy white paper, the government intends to "maximise economic recovery ... from remaining coal reserves".
The pit at Ffos-y-fran received planning permission after two ministers in the Westminster government jumped up and down on Rhodri Morgan, the first minister of the Welsh assembly. Stephen Timms at the department of trade and industry listed the benefits of the scheme and demanded that the application "is resolved with the minimum of further delay". His successor, Mike O'Brien, warned of dire consequences if the pit was not granted permission. The coal extracted from Ffos-y-fran alone will produce 29.5m tonnes of carbon dioxide: equivalent, according to the latest figures from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, to the sustainable emissions of 55 million people for one year.
Last year British planning authorities considered 12 new applications for opencast coal mines. They approved all but two of them. Two weeks ago, Hazel Blears, the secretary of state in charge of planning, overruled Northumberland county council to grant permission for an opencast mine at Shotton, on the grounds that the scheme - which will produce 9.3m tonnes of CO2 - is "environmentally acceptable".
The British government also has a policy of "maximising the UK's existing oil and gas reserves". To promote new production, it has granted companies a 90% discount on the licence fees they pay for prospecting the continental shelf. It hopes the prospecting companies will open a new frontier in the seas to the west of the Shetland Isles. The government also has two schemes for "forcing unworked blocks back into play". If oil companies don't use their licences to the full, it revokes them and hands them to someone else. In other words, it is prepared to be ruthlessly interventionist when promoting climate change, but not when preventing it: no minister talks of "forcing" companies to reduce their emissions. Ministers hope the industry will extract up to 28bn barrels of oil and gas from the continental shelf.
Last week the government announced a new tax break for companies working in the North Sea. The Treasury minister, Angela Eagle, explained that its purpose is "to make sure we are not leaving any oil in the ground that could be recovered". The government's climate change policy works like this: extract every last drop of fossil fuel then pray to God that no one uses it.
The same wishful thinking is applied worldwide. The International Energy Agency's new outlook report warns that "urgent action is needed" to cut carbon emissions. The action it recommends is investing $22 trillion in new energy infrastructure, most of which will be spent on extracting, transporting and burning fossil fuels.
Aha, you say, but what about carbon capture and storage? When governments use this term, they mean catching and burying the carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels. It is feasible, but there are three problems. The first is that fossil fuels are being extracted and burned today, and scarcely any carbon capture schemes yet exist. The second is that the technology works only for power stations and large industrial processes: there is no plausible means of dealing with cars, planes and heating systems. The third, as Alistair Darling, then in charge of energy, admitted in the Commons in May, is that the technologies required for commercial carbon capture "might never become available". (The government is prepared to admit this when making the case, as he was, for nuclear power, but not when making it for coal).
Almost every week I receive an email from someone asking what the heck I am talking about. Don't I realise that peak oil will solve this problem for us? Fossil fuels will run out, we'll go back to living in caves and no one will need to worry about climate change again. These correspondents make the mistake of conflating conventional oil supplies with all fossil fuels. Yes, at some point the production of petroleum will peak then go into decline. I don't know when this will happen, and I urge environmentalists to remember that while we have been proved right about most things we have been consistently wrong about the dates for mineral exhaustion. But before oil peaks, demand is likely to outstrip supply and the price will soar. The result is that the oil firms will have an even greater incentive to extract the stuff.
Already, encouraged by recent prices, the pollutocrats are pouring billions into unconventional oil. Last week BP announced a huge investment in Canadian tar sands. Oil produced from tar sands creates even more carbon emissions than petroleum extraction. There's enough tar and kerogen in North America to cook the planet several times over.
If that runs out, they switch to coal, of which there is hundreds of years' supply. Sasol, the South African company founded during the apartheid period - when supplies of oil were blocked - to turn coal into liquid transport fuel, is conducting feasibility studies for new plants in India, China and the US. Neither geology nor market forces is going to save us from climate change.
When you review the plans for fossil fuel extraction, the horrible truth dawns that every carbon-cutting programme is a con. Without supply-side policies, runaway climate change is inevitable, however hard we try to cut demand. The talks in Bali will be meaningless unless they produce a programme for leaving fossil fuels in the ground.
News and politics
global warming
George Monbiot
Ladies and gentlemen, I have the answer! Incredible as it might seem, I have stumbled across the single technology which will save us from runaway climate change! From the goodness of my heart, I offer it to you for free. No patents, no small print, no hidden clauses. Already this technology, a radical new kind of carbon capture and storage, is causing a stir among scientists. It is cheap, it is efficient and it can be deployed straight away. It is called ... leaving fossil fuels in the ground.
On a filthy day last week, as governments gathered in Bali to prevaricate about climate change, a group of us tried to put this policy into effect. We swarmed into the opencast coal mine being dug at Ffos-y-fran in South Wales and occupied the excavators, shutting down the works for the day. We were motivated by a fact which the wise heads in Bali have somehow missed: if fossil fuels are extracted, they will be used.
Most of the governments of the rich world now exhort their citizens to use less carbon. They encourage us to change our lightbulbs, insulate our lofts, turn our televisions off at the wall. In other words, they have a demand-side policy for tackling climate change. But as far as I can determine, not one of them has a supply-side policy. None seeks to reduce the supply of fossil fuel. So the demand-side policy will fail. Every barrel of oil and tonne of coal that comes to the surface will be burned.
Or perhaps I should say that they do have a supply-side policy: to extract as much as they can. Since 2000, the UK government has given coal firms £220m to help them open new mines or to keep existing mines working. According to the energy white paper, the government intends to "maximise economic recovery ... from remaining coal reserves".
The pit at Ffos-y-fran received planning permission after two ministers in the Westminster government jumped up and down on Rhodri Morgan, the first minister of the Welsh assembly. Stephen Timms at the department of trade and industry listed the benefits of the scheme and demanded that the application "is resolved with the minimum of further delay". His successor, Mike O'Brien, warned of dire consequences if the pit was not granted permission. The coal extracted from Ffos-y-fran alone will produce 29.5m tonnes of carbon dioxide: equivalent, according to the latest figures from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, to the sustainable emissions of 55 million people for one year.
Last year British planning authorities considered 12 new applications for opencast coal mines. They approved all but two of them. Two weeks ago, Hazel Blears, the secretary of state in charge of planning, overruled Northumberland county council to grant permission for an opencast mine at Shotton, on the grounds that the scheme - which will produce 9.3m tonnes of CO2 - is "environmentally acceptable".
The British government also has a policy of "maximising the UK's existing oil and gas reserves". To promote new production, it has granted companies a 90% discount on the licence fees they pay for prospecting the continental shelf. It hopes the prospecting companies will open a new frontier in the seas to the west of the Shetland Isles. The government also has two schemes for "forcing unworked blocks back into play". If oil companies don't use their licences to the full, it revokes them and hands them to someone else. In other words, it is prepared to be ruthlessly interventionist when promoting climate change, but not when preventing it: no minister talks of "forcing" companies to reduce their emissions. Ministers hope the industry will extract up to 28bn barrels of oil and gas from the continental shelf.
Last week the government announced a new tax break for companies working in the North Sea. The Treasury minister, Angela Eagle, explained that its purpose is "to make sure we are not leaving any oil in the ground that could be recovered". The government's climate change policy works like this: extract every last drop of fossil fuel then pray to God that no one uses it.
The same wishful thinking is applied worldwide. The International Energy Agency's new outlook report warns that "urgent action is needed" to cut carbon emissions. The action it recommends is investing $22 trillion in new energy infrastructure, most of which will be spent on extracting, transporting and burning fossil fuels.
Aha, you say, but what about carbon capture and storage? When governments use this term, they mean catching and burying the carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels. It is feasible, but there are three problems. The first is that fossil fuels are being extracted and burned today, and scarcely any carbon capture schemes yet exist. The second is that the technology works only for power stations and large industrial processes: there is no plausible means of dealing with cars, planes and heating systems. The third, as Alistair Darling, then in charge of energy, admitted in the Commons in May, is that the technologies required for commercial carbon capture "might never become available". (The government is prepared to admit this when making the case, as he was, for nuclear power, but not when making it for coal).
Almost every week I receive an email from someone asking what the heck I am talking about. Don't I realise that peak oil will solve this problem for us? Fossil fuels will run out, we'll go back to living in caves and no one will need to worry about climate change again. These correspondents make the mistake of conflating conventional oil supplies with all fossil fuels. Yes, at some point the production of petroleum will peak then go into decline. I don't know when this will happen, and I urge environmentalists to remember that while we have been proved right about most things we have been consistently wrong about the dates for mineral exhaustion. But before oil peaks, demand is likely to outstrip supply and the price will soar. The result is that the oil firms will have an even greater incentive to extract the stuff.
Already, encouraged by recent prices, the pollutocrats are pouring billions into unconventional oil. Last week BP announced a huge investment in Canadian tar sands. Oil produced from tar sands creates even more carbon emissions than petroleum extraction. There's enough tar and kerogen in North America to cook the planet several times over.
If that runs out, they switch to coal, of which there is hundreds of years' supply. Sasol, the South African company founded during the apartheid period - when supplies of oil were blocked - to turn coal into liquid transport fuel, is conducting feasibility studies for new plants in India, China and the US. Neither geology nor market forces is going to save us from climate change.
When you review the plans for fossil fuel extraction, the horrible truth dawns that every carbon-cutting programme is a con. Without supply-side policies, runaway climate change is inevitable, however hard we try to cut demand. The talks in Bali will be meaningless unless they produce a programme for leaving fossil fuels in the ground.
News and politics
global warming
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)