Thursday, December 31, 2009

Cap and Dividend: the romantic solution?


Happy New Year's Eve!  Since many of you will be ringing in 2010 with alcohol tonight, I highly recommend you read the dhaba's earlier post about personal responsibility and beer drinking. And start thinking about your Green New Year's Resolutions--I'll be asking for those soon.  If you haven't already, don't forget to check out the prizes on offer in our Winter Subscription Drive here!  Now back to business.  


On Tuesday, I wrote about some of the problems with Cap and Trade.  If that system wouldn't work, what might?  I've always leaned toward a good old fashioned carbon tax, but I've been learning that there are some serious problems with that approach.  For one thing, a carbon tax is not a cap, and most taxes that have been proposed are far too low to significantly change the behavior of polluters.  How high would a carbon tax need to be for us to get to sustainable levels of consumption and pollution?  That is difficult to predict--which is one of the problems with this approach.



In place of Cap and Trade and some kind of tax on carbon, the good people over at the Dogwood Initiative suggest a plan popularized in the US by a fellow named Peter Barnes.  It's called Cap and Dividend.  Under this system, governments would cap emissions and then auction off pollution permits to businesses that need to pollute, like factories and power generating plants.   The proceeds from the auction would be divided equally and paid back to the citizens of the country in the form of a dividend, and would help insure on-going political support for what will have to be a difficult transition to a low carbon economy.  More sustainable, efficient businesses would require fewer permits to operate; old inefficient coal plants, for example, would quickly become uneconomical.


Of course, any plan that asks India and other developing countries to Cap at a much, much lower level than the rest of the world is fundamentally unfair; that's why I said Tuesday that the developed world needs to consider making very deep cuts (90%) by 2050, in order to open make room for us to develop sustainably.  My guess is that India is a very long way from accepting any kind of absolute emissions cap; at least for the next decade or two, a more aggressive effort to lower our emissions intensity  (aka raise our energy efficiency) is probably a more realistic and fair goal.



But what about Cap and Dividend in the rich countries?  Would it work?  Well, it has the advantage of being simple.  I asked my better half what she thought about it, and she raised this issue: if you just give people money, wouldn't they just consume on more stuff?  And she's right!  The only thing I could say was that Cap and Dividend would raise the price of carbon-intensive things and energy a great deal, so even though people would still spend their dividend, the new prices would drive them to spend on more sustainable things. "Like solar water heaters!" I said. But I could see she wasn't buying it.  

So I tried a different tact:  "Under Cap and Dividend," I said,  "taking public transportation to go out to dinner or the theater--or to buy locally grown bouquets of flowers-- would become much less expensive than buying cheap, ugly products made of imported plastic!  Cap and Dividend is the romantic solution!" Well, it still wasn't enough to convince my wife completely, but I think I made some progress.



She suggested you would at minimum need to invest some of that dividend publicly, in things like better parks and public transportation, more efficient buildings, etc.  And you know what, I think she's probably right.  I don't fully trust the market to do the needful on this one, even with strict limits on emissions.  Which is part of the objection to Cap and Dividend raised by Joseph Romm (linked below).  But unlike Romm, I don't think Cap and Dividend is fatally flawed, just that we'll need to fine tune it.


One last word: I'd suggest that a good portion of the dividend in the rich countries go to help the rest of the world adjust to the problems caused mostly by the pollution produced by the rich countries.  Over the past 150 years, the US and Europe has been filling the atmosphere with unsustainable levels of green house gases.  Whether they meant to or not, they have caused a lot of problems; the least they can do is to pay their fair share for those damages.



For those of you who want more information about Cap and Dividend, here are some good links: 
A three part series from the Dogwood Initiative:





For balance, here's a critique of Cap and Dividend by Joseph Romm (with a rejoinder from Barnse):

See you next year!

Tuesday, December 29, 2009

The Story of Cap & Trade: a complicated idea made simple enough


Cap and Trade is one of those "big ideas" that many environmentalists take for granted--like recycling. They say Cap and Trade is great, because it uses market forces to help companies profit while doing the right thing!  What could be wrong with that? As it turns out, plenty.  I've been meaning to write about Cap and Trade for a long time, but I've hesitated because almost everything I've read about the subject has been complex and confusing.


Fortunately, help has arrived in the form of Annie Leonard, the woman who brought us The Story of Stuff.   Though the Story of Cap and Trade is not as interesting as The Story of Stuff, you can hardly blame Leonard for that; it's just such a complicated, boring topic to start with! 

Before I screen the film, let's go over some of the basics of Cap and Trade.  (However, it you find your self drifting at any point, just skip down to the embedded video and let it roll.  The clip is only 10 minutes long, and you'll not regret seeing it.)



The cap in Cap and Trade, means countries agree to cap their green house gas emissions, like some did under the Kyoto Protocol, and like others may decide to do as a result of some future climate negotiations.   After capping their pollution, countries are allowed a certain number of emission credits, which would likely decrease over time (fewer credits means less pollution).

Under a Cap and Trade scheme, governments can sell or grant carbon permits to companies that need to emit carbon. If a country or company does not emit as much carbon as its yearly quota of pollution permits allows, it can sell--or trade--its excess permits for a profit.  If a country or company does something that reduces emissions anywhere in the world, they can apply for "offset" credits for their actions.  There is an internationally recognized body set up to make all this possible.


Sound complex?  It is.  And that complexity is part of the fundamental problem with Cap and Trade.  Fortunately for us, Annie Leonard does a good of throwing light on the problems that stem from this.  For example, she points out that the complexity of the system makes it really, really easy to cheat!  Say a company says, "Hey we were going to expand by 200%, but we figured out how to expand by only 100%!" They can apply for offset credits for their reduced expansion", and it's almost impossible to know if they are telling the truth!  Leonard also points out that Cap and Trade often turns into "Cap and Giveaway", because most countries end up giving huge industrial polluters carbon credits for free. Strange!


One thing that has always bothered me about Cap and Trade is that, through the magic of "offsetting", a company can earn a carbon credits by making a slightly more efficient AC, car or refrigerator.  But truly green technology like water coolers, matkas, ceiling fans, or pedal-powered machines are not rewarded.  In other words, you get rewarded  for making a really bad thing marginally better, but not for continuing to make really good, sustainable things! 


Leonard does a nice job explaining the problems with Cap and Trade, and to her credit, she also explains why the world's richest countries have a responsibility to help the rest of the world develop in a sustainable way. From what I can tell, she underestimates how far the developed world will need to cut their emissions by 2050: she says 80%; 90% is a safer bet, and would leave a little more room for developing countries to... develop.  But that's a fairly small issue to raise about this excellent piece of environmental education.


Before we start the video, and in the interest of fairness, you can read this argument in favor of Cap and Trade by economist Paul Krugman. He says it's worked before and will work again. Later this week, I'll discuss one solution that might stand better chance of working: Cap and Dividend.  (Spoiler: under that scheme, it's people, not companies, that get the proceeds that come from the sale of pollution permits; but more on that later). 

For now, let's read, watch and talk about it! 


Oh yes, if you missed our Winter Subscription Drive, you can still stop by, grab a free feed and claim some of our many great prizes.  Details right here!

 

Saturday, December 26, 2009

After Copenhagen: Five decade climate forecast unchanged

Way back on December 13, as the Copenhagen conference was just getting rolling,  I posted our "Green Light Crystal Ball," where I outlined four possible outcomes of the talks, two likely, two unlikely. My mother taught me never to boast, but you know what?  We pretty much nailed it.  Which may be one reason why this blogger, who I've never met, recently called the Green Light Dhaba, "the clearest blog I have found explaining COP 15 issues." 


So rather re-write a whole new analysis of what went wrong, let's start with those predictions.  I'll keep this short, so you'll still have time to check out our Winter Subscription Drive down at the bottom of this page!  

For more  the background and definition of the terms used, you'll have to go read our original post.  Here are the possibilities, as I outlined them on December 13:
1. We agree to talk more later: The SINKING countries might sink the deal, saying on principal that weak action is the same as no action.  Or the EMERGING countries might sink the deal, saying we can't agree to binding cuts in actual emissions.  The US could sink the deal by continuing to agree to do nothing much. To save face, there would be a press release and everyone would agree to look at their calendars and set up more talks.  
Bottom line: the world would keep warming.


2. A grand, weak compromise: Everyone agrees to non-binding and fairly easy and/or flexible targets. This would allow RICH countries and USA to claim they did something without holding them to really serious action.  The SINKING countries would likely get some direct financial aid as the price for their support.  The EMERGING countries would get little financial aid, but would get "flexibility" to keep growing emissions. 
Bottom line: the world would keep warming.


3.  A stronger compromise that leaves out the US.  This would involve more stringent reduction targets for the RICH countries and tougher emission intensity target for EMERGING countries.   Unlikely, but who knows?   
Bottom line: the world would keep warming, but not so fast.



4. North Vs. South: The EMERGING and SINKING countries take a stand and demand real, strong cuts by the RICH countries and the USA--at least 40 percent by 2020.  This would fail, but it might set the stage for what needs to happen.  Very unlikely, since, in different ways, India and China are too tied to the USA and RICH countries to be ready for more than a rhetorical fight right now. 
Short term bottom line: the world would keep warming. 
Long term bottom line: things get interesting.

So what happened?  Basically, the first possibility suggested won out ("We agree to talk more later").  However, it was dressed up as number 2 ("a  grand, weak compromise").   USA and a subset of the EMERGING group (AKA BASIC) that included India, Brazil, South Africa and China, agreed to a "deal" which will actually require them to do nothing! On top of that, many worry that it will undermine the Kyoto Protocol, which is legally binding.  

Most of other RICH countries (including the EU) went along with the American-BASIC "deal", in some cases enthusiastically, in some cases reluctantly. Many EMERGING countries supported the BASIC position, but it was not unanimous; one subset of EMERGING countries, along with some SINKING countries opposed the deal, which was cooked up in last minute, secret meetings.


OK, so why did it happen?  Well, if you want an in-depth analysis, you can find a million on-line. (I'd start with this one, which says a lot in not too many words). I argued on Thursday that recent remarks made by Mr. Jairam Ramesh make it clear our own leadership was interested mainly in protecting our right to business-as-usual development.  Some version of this was probably at play in the other BASIC countries.  The charitable interpretation of Mr. Obama is that he felt he would be unable to get any real deal through the US Congress, but still wanted to look like a leader on the issue.  

One suspects that most of the other countries that went along with this deal, which was little more than nice-sounding words, did so either because they didn't want to have the conference look like an utter failure, or they didn't want a real deal in the first place, or they just didn't want to rock the boat too much.  Who can really say?  

Actually, plenty of people are trying to sort it all out.  But in spite of the fact that a few voices, both big and small, are trying to put a bright face on the "Copenhagen Accord", most of the world sees it as a failure.  Which is a good thing.  To have a do-nothing political statement accepted as a success would lull too many people into a false sense of security. No, the problem hasn't been solved and the long term forecast remains: more warming!


Now, in case you haven't seen it--or haven't had a chance to read it--we'll flash back to our Winter Subscription Drive!  It's all free.  So grab a free feed, spread the word, claim your prize!



******************
If you are new to the Green Light Dhaba, take a minute to check out out our top dozen posts of 2009, at the bottom of this page. In addition to in-depth coverage of the anniversary  of the Bhopal disaster and the Copenhagen fiasco, you'll find all kinds of things you normally don't see on an environmental blog.  Schools, space flight, atomic bombs, and ceiling fans are just a few of the topics we've covered--always from an uncompromisingly green point of view.

Unlike a real world newspaper, we can't afford TV advertisements or posters at bus stops. We're doing well so far, but we know we can do better.  And without a lot of real readers, what's the point of working so hard to produce first-rate environmental writing? 


We do have one great advantage over other media: our subscriptions are free! And just for fun, we are offering some really great virtual prizes this week.  No, you won't get an ipod or even a coffee mug.  But we guarantee you won't be disappointed!  And really, what do you have to lose?


Here are our three levels of support and the prizes that correspond to each:


1.  Green Light Subscriber:
  • Subscribers subscribe to our feed through some kind of blog reading machine, like blogger, google reader or whatever.  You can grab a feed at the top left of our page or here.  There are probably other ways to do this, and we'll trust you to figure those out.  Once you've got our feed, you simply let us know you've done it so we can send you your prize! (Instructions below).
  •  The Subscriber Prize Package includes: links to three hilarious videos and one serious essay--all on the politics of food!   
2. Green Light Supporter:
  •  Supporters are people who not only subscribe to the Green Light Dhaba but they do something  to help us grow our readership.  This might include posting a link on Facebook or twitter; blogrolling us; or sending around a link to friends by email.  Being a supporter could also includes publicly following us through Google or Networked blogs (you can do that to the left of this post).  It's up to you how much you do!
  • The Supporter Prize Package includes everything in the subscriber package, plus links to two more hilarious videos that deal with important geopolitical and environmental issues. We'll also send links to a few poems that every green should read.
3.  Green Star Club!
  • Green Star Club members really go the extra mile.  This might include a shout out in a blog or magazine; it would also cover anyone who hung a greenlightdhaba.org banner from a flyover at rush hour.  Use your imagination if you want to get into this exclusive group. To get an idea of this might look like, you can take a look at what others have said about the Green Light Dhaba:  Verveonline;   Known TurfAnindita SenguptaBhagwad; PlasticGraduateYuva Magazine.  (There are more, but we haven't kept good track of links.) 
  • The Green Star Club Package includes everything everyone else gets, plus we will periodically publish your name in a list of other "Green Star Club members."  Upon request, we will also provide Green Star members one "mini-guest-post" (100-500 words) at their blog on a topic of their choosing (conditions apply). 
To claim your prize
To claim your prize, you just have to drop us a line by email ( haribatti123@gmail.com ), by facebook, or in the comment section telling us what you've done.  We'll email (or FB message) your prize within 72 hours! No, we don't want your mobile phone number or your bank account details, as we are not planning to transfer $10 million from an somewhere account in Iraq to your account.  But, like we said before, you won't be disappointed!


And so this post will not be completely devoid of substance, here is our list of top dozen posts of 2009.


Green Light Dhaba's Best of 2009

Thursday, December 24, 2009

Why Copenhagen Failed--and our Winter Subscription Drive Continues!


Hey, we've been at this for more than fifty posts and three months now, and it's time to celebrate.  But before we get back to our Winter Subscription Drive (fun prizes are just down the page), here's a little substance.


Later in the week, we may talk a little more about how the talks at Copenhagen failed.  Today, we'll offer a few words about why they failed.  On Tuesday, our Environment and Forest Minister Jairam Ramesh said this at a press conference after debate in the Rajya Sabha:
We have been successful in defending India’s national interests. I didn’t go to Copenhagen with the mandate of saving the world or humanity. My mandate was to defend India’s right to develop at a faster rate. For Western countries it is an environmental issue but for us, it is a development issue. --Mint, December 23, 2009


Unfortunately, in his rush to develop at any cost, Mr. Ramesh has missed one very important point: it is not possible to separate environmental issues from issues of economic development, for the simple reason that economic activity does not happen in textbooks or on the business pages of our newspapers; it is typically carried out by real people who live on a real planet.  And it just so happens that our small part of this real planet is under a great deal of (real) environmental stress right now! 

As a result of this unfortunate reality, development that is environmentally unsustainable cannot be sustained indefinitely. (Maybe Mr. Ramesh has taken our proposal to move India's food storage facilities to the moon a little too seriously. Oh dear, sir, that was a joke!)


Seriously and simply put,  any system will collapse if pushed beyond its limits, and if that system involves people, it is a good bet the results of that collapse will be brutal.  I suspect most world leaders know this, but so far very few have been willing to act on that knowledge.  That's why Copenhagen failed.



Mr. Ramesh's mandate may not include "saving the world or humanity," but he is our Minister of Environment. Can we not at least expect him to look out for us and the environment we depend on? I'm sorry, but from where I sit, a business-as-usual, India Inc.-approved approach is not going to cut it. That does not, of course, mean we should let the developed world off the hook!  They caused the problem in the first place, and we need to stand up to them, even if it affects our short-term bottom line. Unfortunately, political leaders the world over seem happy to put their own short term interests above all else.  They will give us nice-sounding words from time to time, but they aren't yet ready to take the risks we'll need to take to insure our long term survival.



OK, back to our subscription drive! 

If you are new to the Green Light Dhaba, take a minute to check out out our top dozen posts of 2009, at the bottom of this page. In addition to in-depth coverage of the anniversary  of the Bhopal disaster and the Copenhagen fiasco, you'll find all kinds of things you normally don't see on an environmental blog.  Schools, space flight, atomic bombs, and ceiling fans are just a few of the topics we've covered--always from an uncompromisingly green point of view.

Unlike a real world newspaper, we can't afford TV advertisements or posters at bus stops. We're doing well so far, but we know we can do better.  And without a lot of real readers, what's the point of working so hard to produce first-rate environmental writing? 


We do have one great advantage over other media: our subscriptions are free! And just for fun, we are offering some really great virtual prizes this week.  No, you won't get an ipod or even a coffee mug.  But we guarantee you won't be disappointed!  And really, what do you have to lose?


Here are our three levels of support and the prizes that correspond to each:


1.  Green Light Subscriber:
  • Subscribers subscribe to our feed through some kind of blog reading machine, like blogger, google reader or whatever.  You can grab a feed at the top left of our page or here.  There are probably other ways to do this, and we'll trust you to figure those out.  Once you've got our feed, you simply let us know you've done it so we can send you your prize! (Instructions below).
  •  The Subscriber Prize Package includes: links to three hilarious videos and one serious essay--all on the politics of food!   
2. Green Light Supporter:
  •  Supporters are people who not only subscribe to the Green Light Dhaba but they do something  to help us grow our readership.  This might include posting a link on Facebook or twitter; blogrolling us; or sending around a link to friends by email.  Being a supporter could also includes publicly following us through Google or Networked blogs (you can do that to the left of this post).  It's up to you how much you do!
  • The Supporter Prize Package includes everything in the subscriber package, plus links to two more hilarious videos that deal with important geopolitical and environmental issues. We'll also send links to a few poems that every green should read.
3.  Green Star Club!
  • Green Star Club members really go the extra mile.  This might include a shout out in a blog or magazine; it would also cover anyone who hung a greenlightdhaba.org banner from a flyover at rush hour.  Use your imagination if you want to get into this exclusive group. To get an idea of this might look like, you can take a look at what others have said about the Green Light Dhaba:  Verveonline;   Known TurfAnindita SenguptaBhagwad; PlasticGraduateYuva Magazine.  (There are more, but we haven't kept good track of links.) 
  • The Green Star Club Package includes everything everyone else gets, plus we will periodically publish your name in a list of other "Green Star Club members."  Upon request, we will also provide Green Star members one "mini-guest-post" (100-500 words) at their blog on a topic of their choosing (conditions apply). 
To claim your prize
To claim your prize, you just have to drop us a line by email ( haribatti123@gmail.com ), by facebook, or in the comment section telling us what you've done.  We'll email (or FB message) your prize within 72 hours! No, we don't want your mobile phone number or your bank account details, as we are not planning to transfer $10 million from an somewhere account in Iraq to your account.  But, like we said before, you won't be disappointed!


And so this post will not be completely devoid of substance, here is our list of top dozen posts of 2009.


Green Light Dhaba's Best of 2009

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

Winter Subscription Drive: Fun Prizes and the Best of the Green Light Dhaba, 2009

Any journalist knows that good writing alone does not make a successful newspaper; you've got to have readers, too.  The same principle applies to dhabas, virtual and otherwise.  That's why we are celebrating three months and fifty posts at the Green Light Dhaba with our first annual winter subscription drive. 


If you are new to the Green Light Dhaba, take a minute to check out out our top dozen posts of 2009, at the bottom of this page. In addition to in-depth coverage of the anniversary  of the Bhopal disaster and the Copenhagen fiasco, you'll find all kinds of things you normally don't see on an environmental blog.  Schools, space flight, atomic bombs, and ceiling fans are just a few of the topics we've covered--always from an uncompromisingly green point of view.


So far, business has been good, but we think we can do better. At the Green Light Dhaba, we won't take a paisa from advertisers, but we do believe in our product.  Unlike a real world newspaper, we can't afford TV advertisements or posters on bus stops.  On the other hand, we have one great advantage over other media: our subscriptions are free! And just for fun, we are offering some really great prizes.  No, you won't get an ipod or even a coffee mug.  But we guarantee you won't be disappointed!  And really, what do you have to lose?


Here are our three levels of support and the prizes that correspond to each:


1.  Green Light Subscriber:
  • Subscribers subscribe to our feed through some kind of blog reading machine, like blogger, google reader or whatever.  You can grab a feed at the top left of our page or here.  There are probably other ways to do this, and we'll trust you to figure those out.  Once you've got our feed, you simply let us know you've done it so we can send you your prize! (Instructions below).
  •  The Subscriber Prize Package includes: links to three hilarious videos and one serious essay--all on the politics of food!   
2. Green Light Supporter:
  •  Supporters are people who not only subscribe to the Green Light Dhaba but they do something  to help us grow our readership.  This might include posting a link on Facebook or twitter; blogrolling us; or sending around a link to friends by email.  Being a supporter could also includes publicly following us through Google or Networked blogs (you can do that to the left of this post).  It's up to you how much you do!
  • The Supporter Prize Package includes everything in the subscriber package, plus links to two more hilarious videos that deal with important geopolitical and environmental issues. We'll also send links to a few poems that every green should read.
3.  Green Star Club!
  • Green Star Club members really go the extra mile.  This might include a shout out in a blog or magazine; it would also cover anyone who hung a greenlightdhaba.org banner from a flyover at rush hour.  Use your imagination if you want to get into this exclusive group. To get an idea of this might look like, you can take a look at what others have said about the Green Light Dhaba:  Verveonline;   Known TurfAnindita SenguptaBhagwad; PlasticGraduateYuva Magazine.  (There are more, but we haven't kept good track of links.) 
  • The Green Star Club Package includes everything everyone else gets, plus we will periodically publish your name in a list of other "Green Star Club members."  Upon request, we will also provide Green Star members one "mini-guest-post" (100-500 words) at their blog on a topic of their choosing (conditions apply). 
To claim your prize
To claim your prize, you just have to drop us a line by email ( haribatti123@gmail.com ), by facebook, or in the comment section telling us what you've done.  We'll email (or FB message) your prize within 72 hours! No, we don't want your mobile phone number or your bank account details, as we are not planning to transfer $10 million from an somewhere account in Iraq to your account.  But, like we said before, you won't be disappointed!


And so this post will not be completely devoid of substance, here is our list of top dozen posts of 2009.


Green Light Dhaba's Best of 2009

    Saturday, December 19, 2009

    Copenhagen Fail (and what we have to look forward to in the new year)

    We've got one more update from the "Legal Adviser to an International Environmental Organization" who has given us a few updates this week so far. The news is not good, but there are some bright spots as well.  We also have a few links for you about Copenhagen for those of you who have been following that issue. 


    From the Guardian: their main climate page.
    A basic break down on what's been agreed on and what has not is here.
    Naomi Klein says "Better to have no deal at Copenhagen than one that spells catastrophe."


    Beyond Copenhagen ("A collective action against climate change from India")
    Indian Youth Climate Network actions: on the ground in Delhi and on line.  
    You can look at the top of yesterday's post for a little more background on Copenhagen and related issues.


    And now one more update from our inside source at the talks, Mr. Legal Adviser.
    *****
    Despite the press conferences, the talks have effectively collapsed. After a day of reading leaked political statement drafts that amounted to nothing more than blueprints for a greenwash public relations campaign, it is now clear that the final “deal” can only be viewed as a clear failure. Of course I wished for a fair, ambitious and legally binding agreement to come out of Copenhagen. But for some time it has become increasingly clear that the political will to produce such an agreement is simply not here.

    As I have written in previous emails, there is enough blame to go around to cover nearly everyone. Fossil fuel industries and their political operatives are at the top of the list. That includes much of the Republican Party and a fair number of Democrats. President Obama picked the wrong strategy. Exactly a year ago, I wrote a paper about aggressively employing the Clean Air Act framed in the language of public trust doctrine to force Congress to produce a good climate bill fast. Instead, Obama has let Congress lead and we have been led to failure.

    The leaders of Canada, Australia, Russia and China deserve plenty of blame. The EU deserves blame for holding back. As do those of us in countries where we have failed to persuade our governments to take stronger action; we deserve blame too.

    I am too tired to go into the minutia of the final dealing. But if you read any account that simply explains why and how these talks broke down you can be sure that it is not accurate. The number and nature of the issues in play are incredibly complex. After all, we need to change the energy infrastructure of the planet in less than a generation for altruistic reasons and against the forces of greed and power. Not an easy task.

    Let me just say this as a way of wrapping up for now. The importance of civil society in this process is almost too great to describe. The level of expertise and commitment, tirelessness and passion for this issue is deeply, deeply inspiring. Perhaps one of the worst outcomes of the process here in Copenhagen was the precedent of almost completely excluding civil society from the conference for the last two days. We have ways of maintaining our intelligence gathering, lobbying and media work remotely, but it is not like being present in the center of action. The U.N. should be ashamed for overreacting to a two people shouting and a couple of sit-ins by excluding 98% of civil society from the key moment of the conference. Collective punishment. Perhaps the collapse is a form of karmic retribution.

    But finally, I want to point out the tremendous way in which the Copenhagen conference has been an amazing success. This conference has forced leaders from around the world to put some climate cards on the table. Assurances have been given, plans made. We need to hold our governments to those plans now and push them to go much, much further. We are losing a year, but we can use it to the Earth’s “advantage.” Political and popular momentum on this issue are building. The morning after Climategate is coming. Next year could well be the warmest ever. The next climate disaster, unfortunately, is probably right around the corner.

    Perhaps the deal we can get in 2010 will be far better than any deal we could have gotten now. Let’s try.

    Friday, December 18, 2009

    Latest Word from Copenhagen: Greenwash


    I just happened to be up in the middle of the night, sleepless, when the latest word from Copenhagen came in.  It is not good, but it's best we know the real truth, I suppose, than a story designed to make us feel good.  We can watch a film if we want that--like this one, or if you don't care for quality, try something from these guys.


    Before you read latest update from the "Legal Adviser to an international environmental organization", don't forget, you can still call or write the President of the United States to demand a real deal.  You can read how my call went here.  And for those of you who would like some more background on the issues, here are a few resources:

    If you are confused about "emission intensity" or "carbon intensity", we explain them simply here. For the Green Light Dhaba's introduction to the Copenhagen talks, including our five decade forecast, go here.  For a very good response to a recent piece in the Times of India, check out "Weather ain't the same as climate, Mr. Aiyar." by Suvrat Kher.

    If you are reading from outside of India, and wonder how it is possible that we have such low per capita emissions, you might want to check out: "The World is Not Fair and the GDP is Stupid: economics for 9 year olds"; and our photo essays on pedal power and animal power.


    Here's one more plug for Beyond Copenhagen ("A collective action against climate change from India"); it has interesting photos and blog posts from Copenhagen. And of course, the Indian Youth Climate Network have all kinds of things going on both on the ground in Delhi and on line.  

    Now here's the latest news from Copenhagen. 


    ****

    Twenty-four hours from now, you will likely be reading news stories about the final agreement in Copenhagen. Until a few minutes ago, I assumed that those stories would include glowing quotes about the miraculous final deal that 194 nations reached to stop climate change and save the world. Sure some details were going to be left to be worked out later, but leaders would have agreed to a plan that put the world inextricably on a path, they would say, to avoiding dangerous climate change.

    But something truly miraculous really did just happen. Someone broke the rules and the story of these talks is now forever changed.

    The Guardian has just received a leaked draft internal document from the United Nations Climate Secretariat’s office, where I worked until two weeks ago, that clearly shows that implementing all of the promises leaders have made thus far to reduce emissions clearly puts the world on a path to nothing less than climate disaster.

    The debate among most scientists today to identify a global target for greenhouse gas concentrations generally ranges between 450 and 350 parts per million. The 350 ppm camp is gaining support, with some calling for even lower numbers. We are now at about 387 ppm and rising fast, meaning rapid reductions are needed immediately.

    Here at the U.N. negotiations, most countries originally had supported an upper limit of 450 ppm, but now more than half of countries support a target of 350 ppm or lower. Unfortunately, the powerful countries like the U.S. still support a global deal that aims at 450 ppm and a temperature rise of no more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit). We are at about 0.8 degrees and rising now.

    The deal that world leaders planned to sign tomorrow was likely going to claim that it would result in limits of 450 ppm and a 2 degree temperature rise. But the leaked document tells a very different story. Analysts within the U.N. aggregated all of the promises and pledges made by all countries thus far. They looked at a number of economic scenarios and calculated the result of a deal that assumed all promises made were honored. The analysis shows that our leaders were prepared to sign a deal that condemned the world to a possible concentration of 550 ppm and a global temperature rise of 3 degrees. I don’t have the time to tell you how horrible it would be if the global warming we have now were allowed to almost quadruple. The deal would truly be a global suicide pact.

    But now the miracle has happened. Some gutsy U.N. bureaucrat broke the rules. Maybe he or she saw the tears in the many eyes of the international youth delegation that sat down in the middle of the convention center yesterday and read for hours from the millions of names on the petitions they had circulated around the world begging leaders not to leave them a ruined world. Maybe he or she has a child too.

    All day our strategists and communications people have been discussing how we are going to overcome the powerful public relations apparatus of the world’s richest nations, ready to spin a Copenhagen story of success with smoke and mirrors. Their job just got a lot tougher.

    Of course, as I last wrote, President Obama still has the power to lead the U.S. to a commitment that unlocks a deal that truly addresses the problem in a scientifically defensible way. But few are now expecting that to happen. Instead the overwhelming evidence points to a deal that, no matter what our leaders say, is a total failure to address the severity of the climate problem.

    Now we have the proof.

    Read the Guardian story and review the analysis yourself here.


    This battle to protect our climate is going to go on for many decades. We are going to lose this round. But at least we aren’t going to kid ourselves that we have won and stop fighting.

    Thursday, December 17, 2009

    Time for Change, Mr. Obama--the Whole World is Watching

    It seems pretty clear that if anything at all comes out of the Copenhagen climate negotiations, it won't be enough.  We need to understand this and be ready for a longer fight.  In the post directly below this one, we suggested you call the President of the United states and tell one of his many receptionists that we need the US to make real cuts (3-4% from 1990 levels is not enough) and make a real commitment to paying back its carbon debt. (If you want to know more, this post has a lot of links and information).



    Yes, I know India should do more, Europe should do more, China should do more, etc. etc.  But the US has contributed more green house gases to the earth's atmosphere than any other country, and in many ways they have done the least in the fight against climate change.  Sadly, the US is also the one country that could break the log jam at Copenhagen.  Calling the White House is unlikely to make a big difference right now, but it's still a good thing to do.  It will get us into practice.  And in any case, I am convinced that doing good things is... good for you.


    I called last night.  I had to wait for 10 minutes and the call cost 60 rupees.  The receptionist was polite and said she was writing it all down.  She didn't mind that I was calling from Delhi.  The White House switchboard is only open from 7:30pm to 3:30 am, Indian Standard Time.  That's 9am and 5pm, Washington D.C. time.  If you aren't in India, you can find out what time it is in Washington D.C. by going to this World Clock.  Wouldn't it be great if Mr. Obama got calls from all over the world?  

    If you can't call, you can still send Mr. Obama an electronic comment. It's easy to do.  My sons sacrificed some of their scarce computer time to do it themselves.  My eldest wrote, "If we don't do sommething about global warming we are doomed!  I know that and I'm only 12 years old."  His little brother opposed the war in Afghanistan first and then said the US should give more money to help poor countries with climate change.  If they can do it, so can you!


    Here's how:

    1. Call Mr. Obama at +1-202-456-1111 or write him by going here.  Tell him the whole world is watching and it's time the US take real action to stop climate change.
    2. Why not also take two minutes and join "Hopenhagen". 
    3.  Email or tweet or blog your friends all over the world, telling them to do the same things. 


    I'd love to hear how it goes!

    Wednesday, December 16, 2009

    Hopenhagen or Nopenhagen: fresh update and links

    Today, we have another update from Copenhagen, so we'll post a day early.  Here's a spoiler: the news is not good.  Still, it's important that we understand the issues involved, because they are not going to go away on their own. Speaking of issues, if you are confused about "emission intensity" or "carbon intensity", we explain them simply here. For the Green Light Dhaba's introduction to the Copenhagen talks, including our five decade forecast, go here.  For a very good response to a recent piece in the Times of India, check out "Weather ain't the same as climate, Mr. Aiyar." by Suvrat Kher.



    If you are reading from outside of India, and wonder how it is possible that we have such low per capita emissions, you might want to check out: "The World is Not Fair and the GDP is Stupid: economics for 9 year olds"; and our photo essays on pedal power and animal power.


    Here's another plug for Beyond Copenhagen ("A collective action against climate change from India"); it has interesting photos and blog posts from Copenhagen. And of course, the Indian Youth Climate Network have all kinds of things going on both on the ground in Delhi and on line


    Today we are running another email update from Mr. Legal Adviser,  someone who wants to be identified only as "a Legal Adviser to an International Environmental Group."  In this update, he tells us that he is an American, and he asks people to call the President of the United States and leave a comment.  Since Airtel lets me call for US and Canada for just a few rupees a minute, I tried.  

    Unfortunately, the White House does not have up-to-date answering machine technology and they only take comments between 9am and 5pm, US, EST.  (Mr. President, austerity is all well and good, but I think you can afford voice mail!) That means you have to call between 7:30 pm and 3:30 am IST.  Why not try it?  Pretend you work in a call center--or maybe you do!  Just add a + to the number in the update below!  Who knows what the White House will do with a load of calls from India saying, "get tough on pollution Mr. Obama! And pay your carbon debt!"  Most likely, nothing.  Still it might be fun.  Anyway, thanks again, Mr. Legal Adviser for another interesting update and analysis.
    ****

    As I write this, we are down to three days here at the Copenhagen climate talks. And I am afraid to say that there is almost no reason to be encouraged. Everybody has cards to put on the table but no one is playing.

    Actually, not everybody has cards. The Least Developed Countries, the poorest of the poor, and the Association of Small Island States, also mostly poor, have little to offer beyond their presence. Their emissions are so small they can offer little in the way of mitigation. They come asking for help to adapt as weather patterns change, storms grow and seas rise. They are being offered a tiny fraction of what economists say they will need. The only card they have to play is to pack up and leave, refusing to sign on to a national suicide pact. Their presence here is now on a hair trigger.

    To gain some influence in the talks, they are aligned with a large group of developing countries that goes by the name of the G77. Other than the poorest countries, this group includes what have become known as the BASIC countries. Those letters (kind of) stand for the names of the biggest of the emerging economies: Brazil, South Africa, India and China. These countries have emissions profiles that are distinctive for a combination of four factors. They represent a significant portion of current global emissions and a large portion of future emissions growth, but they do not represent a significant proportion of historic emissions and their per capita emissions levels are far below the developed world. Each of these countries has made significant pledges to slow the growth of their emissions, but refuse to set absolute limits on growth for economies that includes hundreds of millions of people that still live below income levels of two dollars per day.

    Distinctive among this group is China, now the world’s largest emitter, right behind the U.S. China is the largest emitter and greatest source of emissions growth, but relatively small in terms of historic emissions and per capita emissions. Chinese emissions are still one-quarter of the U.S per person. The U.S. has made China the prime target of these talks. China has proposed to reduce its emissions intensity – the amount of carbon emitted per unit of economic activity -- by 40-45% by 2020. That is a significant contribution. If implemented and assuming the U.S. gets one of the bills now before Congress passed and implemented, China will still have emissions less than half per U.S. person in 2020. But the U.S. is pushing measurement, reporting and verification of that promise. China is resisting throwing its economy open to outside review. I hope China will move on this issue, but it is certain they will not move before others, especially the U.S. puts more on the table.

    There is one last group of G77 countries. They are largely oil producers led by Saudi Arabia. For the most part they are here to stop anything from happening to the oil industry. They are not afraid to take undisguised action to slow or stop the process. In the end though, they don’t have enough power alone to sink these talks.

    First among developed countries is the European Union. The EU is perhaps the most transparent group here. But their pledge of 20% reduction from 1990 levels is not what it seems. The EU moves as a bloc of countries and includes Eastern European countries that had high post-Soviet emissions in 1990. Many of those countries are significantly below those levels now, allowing other EU countries higher emissions while still claiming overall reductions. But the EU is likely to move to a 30% reduction if other developing countries move further.

    Of course the meaning of 30% depends on how you count. The biggest factor on counting is international offsets. Those currently come in the form of financing projects in other countries for the benefit of emission reduction credits at home. A new deal could significantly expand these offsets while also including a bunch of new credits from forestry projects in developing countries. My biggest worry for the last month has been that some kind of weak forest deal will get done here and be sold to the public as saving the forest to save the climate. So far what is on the table on forests is largely a greenwash for covering up general inaction.

    After the EU comes a group of developed countries called the Umbrella Group, including Japan, Russia, Canada, Australia. These countries are a mixed bag. Canada is horrible and claims it is horrible because the U.S. is horrible. Russia is sitting on a load of hot air. That is the term for the emissions credits based on those higher 1990 levels that I talked about earlier. Russia can claim to reduce emissions about 40% below 1990 levels while nonetheless actually increasing emissions and selling that hot air to polluting countries. Japan under its new government might have a reasonable plan on the table but has been obstructive in negotiations. Australia embraces the general lack of ambition.

    So it is clear, given this lack of action on the part of the rich countries that caused the climate problem in the first place, why developing countries say they need to see the rich countries move before they do.

    Which brings me to the U.S. We are now proposing to reduce emissions a miserable 3-4% below 1990 levels. We have put no solid financing numbers on the table to help developing countries mitigate their emissions or adapt to the climate problem we helped create. We generally advocate for the biggest loopholes in the rules. Sometimes we even block proposals that everyone except OPEC supports. And we seem to be saying that we won’t pledge anything more, especially without China doing more. It is embarrassing to be an American at talks like these. I am incapable of defending my country’s actions.

    What is especially frustrating is that about half of the biggest, richest environmental groups from the U.S. continue to back the U.S. negotiating position. They are like a broken record that argues that we can’t take strong action in Copenhagen because then the Senate will be scared off from passing a climate bill in the U.S. Arrgh! People used to say we needed a strong bill in the Senate to get a strong deal in Copenhagen. Now we are hearing we need a weak agreement in Copenhagen to get any bill in the Senate at all.

    So it is easy to see why I say there is almost no reason to be encouraged. Almost no reason. Let me point out the cracks of light. First, other than the elites that run the show here, the world largely supports strong action on an international climate deal. The hundred thousand or so in the streets here on Saturday were just one example. Next the people I work with everyday are tireless, fierce and refuse to take no for an answer. It is almost impossible of believe that this level of dedication can fail. And finally, a solution lies in the hands of one man who can change everything.

    President Obama could come here and unlock a deal that is fair, ambitious and legally binding. He could instruct negotiators to stop creating loopholes and blocking honest progress. He could commit to go beyond the weak levels proposed in the current bills before Congress. He could pledge to raise funds to help the world’s most vulnerable adapt to a problem that was created by our American lifestyles of consumption. He could sign up to a deal that has real consequences for the failure to meet commitments.

    The amount of goodwill that would be unlocked in the world from the result of such action would be like a flood. So many people are waiting for leadership. There is a vast ocean of positive action held back by a dam of fear and self-interest. The kind of deal the world needs is all on paper right now in brackets; it simply needs to be released from those brackets, to be agreed. The leaders of 110 countries are arriving already. Everybody necessary to tackle this greatest of all problems head on will be in the same city on the same day with the same purpose. This can still happen.

    When so many people all want the same thing and their leaders fail to deliver, it rocks my faith in democracy to the core. But I am not a quitter. Let me try one more time. Let’s give this guy one more chance to really be different. We effectively have three more days there in the U.S. to ask for what we want. So I am going to ask you to help.

    I know, it seems like such a weak response to such a big problem, but let’s at least try. Let’s try everything we can to get the message to Obama that we want real leadership on this issue. Many of you have been asking me if you can share my emails. I am not only giving you permission to share or publish this email anywhere you want, I am asking you to please do so. Please share this email with anyone you think might care.

    Then I am asking you to make that one phone call a day until this deal is done – White House switchboard – 1-202-456-1111. “President Obama, please show real leadership on the climate issue, not just a greenwash deal. Deepen our cuts, put long-term funding on the table and stop waiting for other countries to go first. Prove that America is the world leader we always claim.”

    Again, I know it is a small effort on such a big problem, a forwarded email and three one-minute phone calls. But don’t let its small nature stop you. The Earth needs people who care more than ever. Rare moments in history arise when the way forward appears as a fork in the road. We’ll never know what might have or failed to have tipped the balance.

    Please give a little push with me.

    Tuesday, December 15, 2009

    Enter Tuvalu: Guest post from Copenhagen


    This week, we're continuing our focus on talks in Copenhagen, with a guest post from that city.  For the Green Light Dhaba's own introduction to the Copenhagen talks, including our five decade forecast, go here. If you are confused about "emission intensity," go here.  

    For more of the big picture, you really should go see Beyond Copenhagen ("A collective action against climate change from India"); it has interesting photos and blog posts from Copenhagen. As usual, the people at the Indian Youth Climate Network have all kinds of things going on both on the ground in Delhi and on line.  Read and explore!


    Our guest post today is from someone who wants to be identified only as "a Legal Adviser to an International Environmental Group." The original text came via an email update forwarded to the dhaba last Friday morning by a reader who had gotten it from a friend and thought it was worth sharing.  We agreed.  It took us until yesterday to track down the e-mail's author, who said we could run it; he was kind enough to provide an update as of yesterday afternoon. There are a lot of people close to the negotiations who cannot speak on the record; thanks, Mr. Legal Adviser, for sharing your insight and analysis.
    ****

    As I write this, the formal climate meetings have ground to a complete, absolute standstill. You might not read much media about this because it is kind of hard to understand. But what is clear is this. The little island country of Tuvala (accent on the second syllable) is the hero in a fight to save its entire country from submersion.


    Here is what is happening. There are two main bodies meeting here ­ one under the Framework Convention on Climate Change, another under the Kyoto Protocol. Under the Protocol, all developed countries, except the U.S., which refuses, have commitments to limit their emissions. There is a one process on-going here to strengthen these commitments. Since the U.S. refuses to be under the Protocol, though there is a second process under the Convention possibly to develop a new agreement, perhaps another protocol, to address the U.S. and others.


    It is becoming clear now that there are three main camps defined by what they want to happen in these two processes. First, there is the group of emerging developing countries like China, India and Brazil, joined by oil producing countries, mostly OPEC. They want stronger commitments by developed countries and no new agreement that might affect them. Second, there are the developed countries that, more or less, now want to kill the Kyoto Protocol and maybe have some kind of new agreement under the Convention. Maybe. Then there is the group now led by Tuvalu. They include mostly low-lying island states and poor countries. They want to amend the Protocol to put stricter limits on developed countries, but they also want a new binding treaty under the Convention to put limits on the U.S. and the emerging developing countries like China.


    The big developing countries say that we can¹t stay under two degrees Celsius of warming (3.6 Fahrenheit) without deep cuts by the rich countries that got us into this problem in the first place. They are half right. The developed countries say that we cannot stay under two degrees without the big, fast-growing countries like China entering into a process to begin to reduce their emissions. They are half right too.


    But on this problem, of course, half right is not enough. Half right is the same as subjecting the next, and maybe even this, generation to a high probability of climate catastrophe and certainly guaranteeing misery for billions.


    Enter Tuvalu.


    They have used the rules of the process to demand that they be heard. The process is consensus among 194 countries. It is a big deal in such a process for a single Party to shut things down. Of course, the U.S. does it all the time in international negotiations because it has the power to force others into line. But little Tuvalu only has the moral force of its own existential vulnerability. They cannot be part of a process that will destroy their nation. So they are risking everything to change the
    process.


    Conversations are on-going still at 9 pm and might well go through the night, or through the whole weekend. Ministers have begun arriving. Heads of State will be here in six days. We¹ll see how long things remain deadlocked. I mean, how long can this little country hold out for what is right? On a day when a new (peer-reviewed, not stolen from someone else¹s computer) study appeared in the /Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences/ finding that seas could rise by as much at
    6 feet in just 90 years, the answer for little Tuvalu might be as long as it takes.
    ****
    Update as of Monday 5pm IST
    The poorest countries of the world feel that negotiations were proceeding quickly on a new Protocol without the rich countries making serious commitments under the Kyoto Protocol (KP). They asked that KP negotiations be given priority but were denied that request. They have now walked out of the sessions that are not about extending the KP until the KP negotiations catch up. In turn, the rich countries have shut down the KP talks and everything in Copenhagen is at a complete standstill.