Countries which have said they cannot reach such deep 2020 goals, led by the United States, could contribute to a new pact in other ways

TO BE NOTED: From Reuters:

"France, Germany urge more flexible climate pact

Mon May 25, 2009 1:36pm EDT

By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent

PARIS (Reuters) - France and Germany suggested on Monday that rich nations should collectively guarantee deep cuts in greenhouse gases by 2020 while giving flexibility to laggards such as the United States to catch up later.

France said the idea, floated at talks among 17 top greenhouse gas emitters including China, United States, Russia and India, could help toward a new U.N. climate treaty due to be agreed at a meeting in Copenhagen in December.

"There can be more flexibility among us," French Environment Minister Jean-Louis Borloo told a news conference on the first day of the two-day talks among ministers, called by U.S. President Barack Obama to help work out a new climate treaty.

He said France and Germany reckoned that developed nations could collectively sign up to cut their overall emissions by 25 to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 -- the level outlined by a panel of U.N. scientists to avoid the worst of global warming.

"There may be some who act faster and others who do more later," he said. A collective goal would undercut criticisms by developing nations, led by China and India, that the rich are not serious in fighting climate change.

Countries which have said they cannot reach such deep 2020 goals, led by the United States, could contribute to a new pact in other ways, for instance via a bigger share of financing or green technologies for developing nations, Borloo said.

"There may be constraints on such and such a developed nation -- but we must reach this 2020 objective of 25 to 40 percent," he said. Nations meeting in Paris emit 80 percent of world greenhouse gases, mainly from burning fossil fuels.

HEATWAVES

"We have to find a compromise," he said, noting scientists' forecasts that global warming would bring more heatwaves, rising sea levels, extinctions, floods and droughts. Rich nations might need a meeting to discuss the idea, he said.

Obama has promised to cut U.S. emissions back to 1990 levels by 2020, a cut of 14 percent from 2007 levels. A bill approved by a key congressional panel last week would cut U.S. emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020.

By contrast, the European Union has promised deeper cuts, of 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, and by 30 percent if other rich nations follow suit

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said on Sunday that he wanted Washington to do more, saying it was lagging the European Union in promises to fight global warming. Obama's plan are for far tougher curbs than by his predecessor, George W. Bush.

"I don't think it's correct to say that Europe is proposing a lot and the United States little," Todd Stern, U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change, told Tuesday's edition of the French daily Le Monde.

"If you look at things from the point of view of the progress that each nation will have to make to reach its objectives, the U.S. level of effort is probably equal, or superior, to that of Europe," Stern said.

Analysts say the Major Economies Forum (MEF) talks at the French Foreign Ministry, the second of three preparatory meetings before a summit in Italy in July, are a chance to air differences away from the public gaze.

"The U.N. negotiations have somewhat fallen back to North-South finger-pointing," said Jake Schmidt of the Natural Resources Defense Council in Washington. "The MEF is a crucial place where you can make progress on some of the difficult issues out of the limelight."

(Editing by Charles Dick)"

Emissions need to come as close to zero as possible by 2050, that’s the scientific reality

TO BE NOTED: From Bloomberg:

"Climate-Treaty Draft Proposes Rich Countries Eliminate Most CO2

Share | Email | Print | A A A

By Alex Morales and Jeremy Van Loon

May 20 (Bloomberg) -- The United Nations’ first draft of a new treaty to stem global warming suggests goals such as the near elimination of greenhouse-gas emissions by mid-century in developed countries including the U.S. and Japan.

China, India and other emerging economies would have to aim for a 25 percent reduction of heat-trapping gases, under a separate option that would mark the first-ever target for developing nations.

The 53-page text, posted today on the Web site of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, will now be refined by 192 countries in negotiations to forge a new deal to succeed the 1997 Kyoto Protocol climate-protection treaty.

“Emissions need to come as close to zero as possible by 2050, that’s the scientific reality,” Stephanie Tunmore, climate campaigner for the environmental group Greenpeace, said today in a telephone interview. “Someone has to take this process by the horns and give it a good shake.”

Today’s text suggests ways for countries to stem global warming also by sharing clean-energy technology. Richer nations were urged to aid developing economies in adapting to effects of rising temperatures. Limits on gases such as carbon dioxide for 37 nations under the existing Kyoto accord expire in 2012.

“This document marks an important point on our road,” UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer said in a statement. “It’s the first time real negotiating text will be on the table which can serve as a basis for governments to start drafting” a final agreement.

Talks Resume

The U.S. refused to ratify the Kyoto treaty because it didn’t set CO2 caps for major developing countries such as China. The current round of talks must close the gap between the two countries, the world’s biggest emitters.

The next round of UN-sponsored talks begins June 1 in Bonn, Germany. Nations’ envoys will then debate today’s proposals.

“As is customary in the practice of negotiation, it is envisaged that the text will be a ‘living document,’ with parties modifying it and bringing new ideas to bear,” wrote Michael Zammit Cutajar, the UN official who drafted the paper.

Cutajar outlined several potential global goals. One would stabilize emissions at a level to ensure the average temperature doesn’t rise by more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels. Another aims at keeping the increase below 1.5 degrees. Temperatures have already risen by about 0.8 degrees since the mid-1800s. Five possible time- frames are listed for when total global emissions should peak.

“There are so many routes forward here as to confound our expectations of just where it is we’re going,” Steven Knell, a London-based energy analyst at the economic consultant Global Insight Inc., said today in an e-mailed response to questions.

Carbon Weigh-In

Another plan would reduce global average annual greenhouse- gas emissions to about 2 metric tons per person. That compares with 19.78 tons for the average U.S. citizen, 7.99 tons for a typical European and 4.58 tons per Chinese in 2006, according to the most recent data from the U.S. Department of Energy.

The draft includes options to cut CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere to 350 parts per million from about 385 now.

Emissions limits for individual nations weren’t included, though many have already pledged goals. The 27-nation European Union has said it will cut gas output by 30 percent from 1990 levels in 2020, provided other nations follow suit.

U.S. President Barack Obama has said U.S. emissions will return to 1990 levels in the same timeframe, and Australia is committed to a reduction of as much as 25 percent from 2000.

“We have an almost complete list of industrialized nations’ pledges to cut emissions after 2012, so governments can see now more clearly where they are in comparison to each other, and can build a higher ambition on that basis,” de Boer said.

Glaciers, Deserts

When establishing CO2 emissions limits, a nation’s population trends, ease of access to low-carbon energy supply and economic development will be considered, the text said.

Money for adapting to climate change will be focused on nations and regions with tropical glaciers, those affected by desertification in Africa and low-lying areas at risk of flooding from a rise in sea level, the document said.

An insurance system and venture-capital funds to help countries adapt to extreme weather events and risks to crop production and food security were also proposed. Wealthy countries contributing to adaptation funds will be able to monitor use of the money.

Countries not meeting their targets may have to pay a fine in the form of contributing more money to an adaptation fund that will help nations deal with the effects of climate change, according to one proposal. Envoys haven’t agreed on whether the accord will be a new treaty, a series of legally binding decisions, or an expanded version of Kyoto, the document said.

“Everybody wants to keep everything on the table up until the last minute to maximize their chances of their piece of the pie being in the final agreement,” Greenpeace’s Tunmore said.

To contact the reporter on this story: Alex Morales in London at amorales2@bloomberg.net; Jeremy van Loon in Berlin at jvanloon@bloomberg.net;"

"Structure of the negotiating text
I. A SHARED VISION FOR LONG-TERM COOPERATIVE ACTION
II. ENHANCED ACTION ON ADAPTATION
A. Objectives, scope and guiding principles
B. Implementation of adaptation action
C. Means of implementation
D. Risk reduction, management and sharing
E. Institutional arrangements
F. Monitoring and review of adaptation action and support
III. ENHANCED ACTION ON MITIGATION
A. Mitigation by developed countries
1. Nationally appropriate mitigation commitments or actions by developed countries
2. Measurement, reporting and verification of commitments or actions
3. Compliance with quantified emission limitation and reduction objectives
B. Mitigation by developing countries
1. Nationally appropriate mitigation actions by developing countries
2. Means of implementation
3. Measurement, reporting and verification of actions
4. Measurement, reporting and verification of support
5. Institutional arrangements
C. Policy approaches and positive incentives on issues relating to reducing emissions from
deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries; and the role of conservation,
sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries
1. Objectives, scope and guiding principles
2. Means of implementation
3. Measurement, reporting and verification of actions
4. Measurement, reporting and verification of support
5. Institutional arrangements, including funds
D. Cooperative sectoral approaches and sector-specific actions
E. Various approaches to enhance the cost-effectiveness of, and to promote, mitigation actions
F. Economic and social consequences of response measures
IV. ENHANCED ACTION ON FINANCING, TECHNOLOGY AND CAPACITY-BUILDING
A. Enhanced action on the provision of financial resources and investment
1. Objectives, scope and guiding principles
2. Generation of financial resources
3. Institutional arrangements, including funds
B. Enhanced action on technology
1. Objectives, scope and guiding principles
2. Cooperation on technology research, development, diffusion and transfer
3. Institutional arrangements
C. Capacity-building"

scientists must beware of “tinkering with a system you do not fully understand”

TO BE NOTED: From the FT:

"Changing the planet might help preserve it

By Fiona Harvey, Environment Correspondent

Published: May 8 2009 17:28 | Last updated: May 8 2009 17:28

A giant mirror drifts slowly through space between the Earth’s surface and the sun, intercepting the rays of sunlight before they reach the Earth, and deflecting them safely away.

The mirror, made up of millions of silicon chips, is situated at a point in space where the sun’s gravity and the Earth’s cancel each other. This vast structure, assembled painstakingly for years by spacecraft, drifts naturally away from its starting point over time, but complex on-board systems nudge it gradually back to resume its vital role in keeping us safe.

This space mirror is – so far – science fiction. Such a structure would cost hundreds of billions of dollars, even if it were technically feasible. But soon many scientists say we may need to start building space mirrors, creating artificial clouds or altering the chemistry of the sea to prevent the worst effects of global warming.

Climate change is occurring faster than predicted, and the risks are growing day by day. Altering the Earth’s systems in order to help cool the planet may soon be the only option, many scientists believe, as our runaway appetite for fossil fuels overtakes our good intentions on emissions.

“The chances of reducing emissions fast enough now are very low,” said Stephen Salter, professor of engineering design at Edinburgh University. “This is a jolly strong reason to look at alternatives. It’s an insurance policy.”

An ocean of opportunity

Many proposals to save the planet through geo-engineering are immensely expensive and futuristic, writes Clive Cookson.

One of the most straightforward ideas, already tested on a small scale, is to stimulate the growth of plankton – microscopic algae and plants – in the oceans, by increasing the supply of nutrients.

A dozen trials so far have examined the effects of ocean iron fertilisation. The latest is taking place this spring: the Indian-German LohaFex experiment. The research vessel Polarstern, with 48 scientists on board, has distributed six tonnes of dissolved iron over 300 sq km of the Southern Ocean.

Results so far show that iron fertilisation does stimulate spectacular algal growth in the upper waters. What is not yet clear is whether this results in the long-term sequestration of CO2 – which would require a significant proportion of the algae to sink into the ocean depths after they die.

Several companies, such as Climos of the US, hope to commercialise ocean iron fertilisation, funding the activity by claiming carbon credits from emissions trading schemes. At present there is an international moratorium on large-scale commercial ocean fertilisation, in response to concerns about its impact on local ecosystems, but scientific trials such as LohaFex are permitted.

Although the focus so far has been on iron fertilisation, on the grounds that shortage of iron nutrients is the factor limiting algal growth in the open oceans, it would also be possible to add phosphorus and nitrogen fertilisers.

A study at the University of East Anglia, published in January, came to the surprising conclusion that adding phosphorus compounds (phosphates) to the oceans could have more long-term potential for carbon sequestration than adding iron or nitrogen. Even if we do not deliberately fertilise the ocean with phosphorus, human activities – mainly run-off from agricultural activities – are already increasing the amount of carbon locked up in the oceans.

A final possibility is to add crushed carbonate rocks (limestone) to the oceans. This would have the dual benefit of increasing algal growth and counteracting the growing acidity of the oceans, which many analysts see as one of the most pernicious long-term effects of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.

The challenge of adding carbonates is to find a way of doing so that does not require exorbitant amounts of energy to mine, crush and transport the rocks.

The science of altering the world’s natural systems is called geo-engineering. Once on the whacky fringes of scientific research, the subject is rapidly becoming mainstream, attracting serious attention from academics and governments.

John Holdren, chief scientific advisor to US president Barack Obama, said in public a few weeks ago: “It’s got to be looked at ... We don’t have the luxury of ruling [out] any approach.”

The debate has been intensified by a set of studies published last week in the journal Nature. They concluded the world had little chance of holding temperature rises to 2ºC – a level widely regarded by scientists as the limit of safety, beyond which climate change becomes irreversible and potentially catastrophic. Such a level of warming risks leading for example to the melting of permafrost in Siberia, so releasing large quantities of methane, in turn causing stronger and more rapid warming.

Most suggestions for geo-engineering fall into one of three categories. Some of the most outlandish would block out the sun’s rays using mechanical means – a sunshade or mirror, for instance. These would be enormously expensive, even if possible.

Some of the most promising proposals involve ways to increase the Earth’s ability to reflect sunlight back into space. Sulphur particles shot into the stratosphere, could reflect enough sunlight to make a measurable difference. There is a problem – sulphur causes acid rain. Proponents point out much less sulphur would be needed than pours from dirty power stations, but objections are still likely.

A cheaper and less controversial method would be to spray seawater into the air from boats. This creates clouds made up of smaller than usual droplets of water, which are more reflective. Prof Salter says a drawback would be that, as well as reflecting sunlight, clouds trap infra-red heat on Earth.

But he says the net benefit would be huge – each drop would reflect 20bn times the amount of energy used to make it. He estimates that a fleet of about 500 ships would be needed, costing about £1m each.

Scientists are also exploring removing carbon from the atmosphere. One way is to fertilise the oceans with iron, so plankton grows and absorbs carbon. Less realistic are enormous air “scrubbers” – banks of sails coated with chemicals that react with CO2. Two unsolved problems are mastering the chemical absorption, and the sheer amount of energy that would be needed to propel vast volumes of air.

Employing geo-engineering would not remove the need for deep emissions cuts, Prof Salter warned: “No one in geo-engineering would argue that. We think it’s very important to get emissions down.” The two must be pursued in tandem, or rising emissions would counteract the benefits of the Earth-altering projects.

Tim Lenton, professor of Earth system science at the University of East Anglia, who conducted a review of geo-engineering methods, said scientists must beware of “tinkering with a system you do not fully understand”. For instance, he said, studies showed that putting sulphate aerosols into the atmosphere caused drying in vulnerable regions such as the Sahel and India.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009"

a problem laden with some irreducible uncertainty, dispersed outcomes and a long time scale

TO BE NOTED: From the NY Times:

---

May 7, 2009, 2:53 pm

Visualizing Climate Change and Its Science

By Andrew C. Revkin

globalwarmingart.com

There’s been a growing effort to convey the science and significance of climate change in imagery, not just words. (It’s worth testing all means of communicating on this subject, given the social science illustrating how tough it would be, with words alone, to jog the public to respond to a problem laden with some irreducible uncertainty, dispersed outcomes and a long time scale.) I was involved in an early attempt, in 1992, when I wrote the companion book to “Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast,” one of the first museum exhibitions on global warming, created by the American Museum of Natural History.

Much more is under way these days, including a new exhibition there, a spate of illustrated books and an ever-expanding array of documentaries. A recent meeting focused on creating a successor to the 1939 World’s Fair Futurama exhibition, this time envisioning a world in 2050 with sustainable energy choices.

There’s a Web site, globalwarmingart.com, devoted to aggregating and disseminating climate-related artwork and graphics. (I’m still pondering holding a contest to see who can come up with fresh ways to use graphics or animation that go beyond the “burning embers” art from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.)

In a related post, my friends over at Green Inc. caught up with Gavin Schmidt of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies to discuss the book on climate that he’s created with the photographer Joshua Wolfe. Following a different path into the public arena than his boss, James E. Hansen, Dr. Schmidt has focused his outreach mainly through the popular Realclimate.org blog. You can read the Green Inc. interview here."

science of climate change relies on computer models, he argued, and those models are crude mathematical approximations of the real world

TO BE NOTED: From SA:

"Freeman Dyson and the irresistible urge to be contrary about climate change

Eminent physicist Freeman Dyson raised eyebrows a month ago when he told the New York Times Magazine that a little extra carbon dioxide—and global warming—might turn out to be good for the planet. So when we saw his name on an event around the corner from Scientific American's offices we figured we'd go hear his criticisms, dubbed "Climate Disasters, Safe Nukes and Other Myths," firsthand.

At the luncheon put on by the Cato Institute, when the talk turned to climate change Dyson started out sounding as if the whole thing was overblown, noting that the prospect of global warming is a problem that should be taken seriously. But he also said that no one should be alarmed about it yet.

Then he outlined his main criticism: Too much of the science of climate change relies on computer models, he argued, and those models are crude mathematical approximations of the real world. After all, a simple cloud—small in scale, big in climate effects, the product of evaporation and condensation, all of which it is difficult to create equations for—eludes the most sophisticated climate models.

So climate modelers turn to what they call parameters or, as Dyson likes to call them: "fudge factors." These are approximations, such as the average cloudiness of a particular spot at a particular time, that are then applied globally. With the help of about 100 of these parameters, models can now closely match the world's present day climate, Dyson says. These models then, like the one developed at Princeton University where Dyson is a professor emeritus, are "useful for understanding climate but not for predicting climate."

That's too much of a temptation for scientists working on the problem, however. "If you live with models for 10 to 20 years, you start to believe in them," Dyson said, witness the implosion of the financial markets after over-reliance on quantitative models. He characterized this over-reliance as a disease infecting everything from physics to biology: "A model is such a fascinating toy that you fall in love with your creation."

Ultimately, "every model has to be compared to the real world and, if you can't do that, then don't believe the model." And he noted that the real world has been through some significant climate changes before: witness a lush Sahara Desert thousands of years ago or the forests that once covered Greenland.

Of course, models have been tested against the real world (both today's and eons ago's) and many of Dyson's other objections have been rebutted elsewhere. He also did not address the real world impacts already observed: ice melt, sea level rise, ocean acidification and more. His main concern seems to be that worrying about climate change distracts from more important problems such as poverty and infectious disease. Many might note that poverty (the inundation of Bangladesh) and infectious disease (improved conditions for transmission) are also problems exacerbated by climate change.

But Dyson's purpose seems to be to throw out "heretical" ideas that can then spur further debate. (As even he would admit, his heresies are a little more grounded in the real world when he's talking about nuclear weapons. Before discussing climate change, he told a roomful of people who probably want to put former President Ronald Reagan on Mount Rushmore that the Great Communicator blew a real chance to rid the world of nuclear weapons in 1986 because he was too attached to the "Star Wars" missile defense program.) As he said: "I know a lot about nuclear weapons and nothing about climate change."

"I like to express heretical opinions," Dyson said, with an impish gleam in his eye. "They might even happen to be true."

"A gasoline tax will reduce global warming, reduce depletion of petroleum reserves and cause the price of petroleum to fall"

A good point made on Robert's Stochastic Thoughts:

"Major category error...

((( I SHOULD ADMIT THAT I RARELY USE THIS PHRASE SINCE I ASSOCIATE WITH RYLE, A PHILOSOPHER I CAN'T ABIDE.

A category mistake, or category error, is a semantic or ontological error by which a property is ascribed to a thing that could not possibly have that property. All (propositional) mistakes involve some sort of misascription of properties, so in a sense any mistake is a "category mistake": putting a thing into a class to which it does not belong. But a "category mistake" in colloquial philosophical usage seems to be the most severe form of misascription, involving the endorsement of what is in fact logically impossible. Thus the mistaken claim that "Most Americans are atheists" is not a category mistake, since it is merely contingently true that most Americans are theists. On the other hand, "Most bananas are atheists" is a category error. To show that a category mistake has been committed one must typically show that once the phenomenon in question is properly understood, it becomes clear that the claim being made about it could not possibly be true.)))

... from Harvard Philosophy concentrator.

Matthew Yglesias writes

"Given what we’ve learned about the risks of catastrophic climate change, it [] seems like a concept that’s been somewhat overtaken by events. A carbon tax, or a cap on greenhouse gas emissions with auctioned permits, would constitute a tax on gasoline among other things. And there’s no particular( SPECIFIC ) reason that burning fuel in a car should be disfavored versus other carbon-intensive activities."

via Kevin Drum
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/index.html?welcome=true

The fact that there is a reason to tax both coal and petroleum consumption does not mean that "there is no patricular reason that burning fuel in a car should be disfavored compared to other carbon-intensive activities."( I DON'T SEE THE CATEGORY ERROR. HE SIMPLY IS WRONG ABOUT THE FACT THAT THERE ARE PARTICULAR OR OTHER REASONS. ) A newly understood problem with petroleum consumption doesn't eliminate that many excellent longer understood reasons to limit petroleum consumption. It can't. A newly discovered problem with burning gasoline and other things can't eliminate the case that burning gasoline is worse. A positive number plus a constant is greater than 0 plus a constant. ( GOOD POINTS )


Those of us who are roughly twice Yglesias's age remember the original logic of a gasoline tax, which was designed to reduce dependence on foreign oil. That argument is, for some reason, out of fashion, but it is much more compelling now than it was then.( TRUE )

The fact that we have a new concern -- global warming -- which will be partially addressed by a gasoline tax isn't and can't be a reason why burning fossile fuels in cars isn't particularly bad( TRUE ). The case for a carbon tax as opposed to a carbon tax plus a gasoline tax is that there is no problem with gasoline consumption except for global warming( NOT TRUE ).

It is odd that criticism of this nonsensical position from the author of dozens of "peak oil" posts is so measured.

A gasoline tax will reduce global warming, reduce depletion of petroleum reserves and cause the price of petroleum to fall. It is fairly likely that the cost will be entirely born by oil exporting countries and not at all by -- well us.

If one opposes a gasoline tax, one should logically advocate aid for Kuwait Saudi Arabia and Russia. If that sounds crazy then so is the current minimal US gasoline tax."

We should add the tax now while the price of gas is low.