We know a bit about the current situation on climate change. We know which countries are emitting the most global warming emissions. We know that the EU is actively implementing policies to get their emissions down and are serious about keeping climate change at the top of the priority list, even in one of the biggest economic struggles in history. We know that little nations like Tuvalu are working to address climate change. We know that ambitious and engaged countries are running into unseen problems and are unsure where to go in the future. We know that the US is looking to pass a climate bill for the first time and could change history in the process, and the USDA supports it but climate change groups, consumer advocate groups, and social equity groups are quite concerned about some of the changes made by the House of Representatives at the last minute. We know that China, India, and Brazil’s growth in greenhouse gas emissions have skyrocketed (several times faster than developed countries’ still growing emissions) in the past two decades.

Read more of this story »

Italy definitively approved the return of nuclear energy after 22 years as part of a new development strategy. Italy abandoned nuclear energy after a 1987 referendum, whose result was strongly influenced by the Chernobyl disaster in Russia the previous year.

Read more of this story »

At least 100 activists in Italy occupied four coal-fired plants to demand action from world leaders to avert the worst consequences of global warming.

Greenpeace said that G8 leaders must “stop putting the interests of polluting industries such as coal ahead of the climate.”

“The sort of action G8 leaders are putting on the table regarding climate change would lead to more greenhouse gas- polluting power stations like this one,” Greenpeace protester Julien Vincent said by phone from a platform about 650 feet up a chimney at a coal plant in Brindisi, Italy where “carbon dioxide is belching out” at an alarming rate.

Vincent refers to backtracking from the commitment of major nations to cut greenhouse gas emissions 50% by 2050.

Read more of this story »

More than 100 Greenpeace activists from around the world have occupied four coal-fired power stations across Italy (live stream and twitter feed).  The action is aimed at forcing the Heads of State to take leadership on climate change as top politicians from the world’s most powerful nations arrive at the G8 Summit today.

Early this morning, an international team of Greenpeace activists occupied key positions at the site of four current and planned Italian power stations in Brindisi, Marghera (just outside of Venice), Vado Ligure, (near Genoa) and Porto Tolle.

The Brindisi facility is Italy’s biggest coal-fired power station and the country’s largest single C02 polluter. The Greenpeace sabotage operation will entail blocking the coal conveyor belts and preventing coal from going into the plant.

Read more of this story »

 World Wildlife Fund International has an interactive online game up called Face the G8 and it asks the questions “What would you do if you were a member of the G8? Would you choose the right policies that lead us to an environmentally sustainable future, or make the same old empty promises and continue with ‘business as usual’?”

Leaders of the wealthiest industrialized countries on our planet are gathering in L’Aquila, Italy for G8 this week to commit to keeping the global average temperature rise well below 2 degrees Celsius in order to prevent climate change from threatening the future of our planet.

Read more of this story »

The G20 will meet next week in London, and while police are bracing for clamoring anti-globalization and climate change protests, organizers say all the planned events will be peaceful.

While the failures of the banking system will take the forefront (get used to hearing the phrase “Bankers are wankers”), organizers have also planned protests to the G20’s response to climate change.

Read more of this story »

The committee entitled, “Bush Administration Environmental Record at Department of Interior and Environmental Protection Agency,” met today. Senator Barbara Boxer called the hearing to explore how the administration has held up with respect to environmental integrity. A driving force behind the committee was the denial of California’s petition to curb greenhouse emissions by allowing the state to regulate vehicular fuel efficiency. The hearing was also looking into a proposal to loosen rules protecting endangered species. You can watch a full video of the hearing here.

Boxer, who is chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, wasn’t too happy when two high-level officials at the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Interior failed to show up for the hearing.

“They’re cowardly and they have been a danger to the people of this country,” Boxer said.

Below is just a taste of what Bush and Co have been up to since taking office.

A History of Bush’s Environmental Record

• Proposed drilling of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge - October 2000, this was a campaign trail proposition!
• Blocks safeguards on arsenic in drinking water, sulfur in diesel, and releases of raw sewage - January 2001, Inauguration Day
• Bush repudiates the Kyoto Protocol - March, 2001
• 178 Countries agree to Kyoto, Bush does not - June 2001
• Bush kills more of Clinton’s safeguards on drinking water - July 2001
• Bush cuts funds for renewables - February 2002
• Introduces “Clear Skies” initiative which allows for more air pollution - February 2002
• Bush denies EPA findings on Global Warming - June 2002
• Proposes removing wetland protections - January 2003
• EPA silences effects of global warming in environmental report - June 2003
• Creates “Healthy Forrest” initiative which allows more logging - December 2003
• Bush delays mercury reduction for 18 years - January 2004
• NASA scientists censored by Administration on global warming effects - October 2004
• Promises more funding for renewables in State of the Union, breaks the promise five days later - February 2005
• Bush supports House bill allowing more smog - October 2005
• Wants to lower the price of gas at the expense of air quality - April 2006
• Cuts funds for wind and geothermal energy - February 2007
• Bush blocks G8 plans to reduce global warming pollution - June 2007
• Bush opposes incentives for renewables - February 2008
• Bush censors reports on climate change, again - April 2008

Oh, and that image was specifically chosen for the “Dance of the Dwarfs” title. Made me think of our little “Decider.”

Image source: umjanedoan on Flickr

To think that there are more complex responses to issues around climate change than attempting to talk to politicians to show more commitment to socio-political strategies that would negate on poverty reduction and environmental stability for all is a step in the right direction.

But the poor of the world remain as vulnerable as ever and the figures keep rising for those in developing countries that have no access to electricity, or to cooking and heating fuels – a challenge that severely hinders economic growth and poverty reduction.

The question, however, remains: how will all this affect the poor, especially in the developing nations? Well, if we sit back and do nothing by burying our heads in the sand pretending nothing is happening, the poorest countries of the world will suffer the earliest and most because of their geographical location, low incomes, and their heavy reliance on climate-sensitive sectors such as agriculture.

Read more of this story »

A growing rift between rich and poor nations

A day after the release of the communiqué from the world’s eight largest economies, another document was produced by the leaders of the fast-growing and less-developed countries, who were invited by their G8 counterparts. The special session, as well as the document produced in that session merely showcased a widening rift over the best approach to slash greenhouse gases

The five main developing nations — China, India, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa, who together represent 42 percent of the world’s population — issued a statement explaining their split with the G8 over its emissions-reduction goals. They said they rejected the notion that all should share in the 50-percent target, since it is wealthier countries that have created most of the environmental up to now.

“It is essential that developed countries take the lead in achieving ambitious and absolute greenhouse gas emissions reductions,” said the statement.

South Africa’s minister of environmental affairs, Marthinus van Schalkwyk, issued a seething critique of the statement, calling it a concession to “the lowest common denominator” and expressing concern that it “may, in effect, be a regression from what is required to make meaningful change.

In the New York Times, Andy Revkin writes:

“In exchange for agreeing to the ‘50 by 2050′ language, Mr. Bush got what he has sought as his price for joining an international accord. And that is a statement from the rest of the Group of 8 that developing nations like China and India, which have not accepted mandatory caps on carbon emissions, must be a part of any climate change treaty.”

Added to a growing list of the discontented on Wednesday, the head of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) voiced concern for the soft targets in the document. When asked by German radio if the agreement concluded Tuesday at the G8 summit in Japan was a success and would halt climate change, Achim Steiner replied, “No way.

“I think the G8 delivered what it could. But in terms of what the world needs, what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has asked for and what is necessary in view of the Copenhagen meeting in 2009 the results fall short,” he said in a statement.

White House claims victory

But despite criticism from rightly skeptical environmentalists, the Bush administration is claiming that the communiqué is a huge diplomatic success.

“The G-8 is giving a lot, but the G-8 is also suggesting that others need to be part of that equation,” said James L. Connaughton, Mr. Bush’s top environmental adviser. Connaughton is quite optimistic that more high-level diplomatic agreements could bring substantive cuts in carbon emissions. He said that the strategy going forward would be to:

“[B]uild on the success of a major agreement that we reached last year under the Montreal Protocol, which is the treaty that deals with ozone-depleting substances, where we got China and India and other developing countries to join with the developed countries to phase out what are called HCFCs… That one agreement alone will reduce more greenhouse gases than the Kyoto Protocol.”

Is President Bush placing another bet on “Only history will be the judge of that”? Perhaps. But Yvo de Boer, who leads United Nations negotiations to forge a new climate change treaty, also challenged Bush’s optimistic assessment of the meetings.

“I don’t find the outcome very significant,” de Boer told The Associated Press in an interview in the Netherlands. He said the target for reducing carbon emissions by 2050 mentioned no base line, was not legally binding and was open to vastly different interpretations.

Other Posts on the Politics of Climate Change:

• “Could Action on Climate Change Really Be Bush Legacy?” :: Red, Green, & Blue
  
• “White House Newsflash: Global Warming Very Likely Caused by Humans” :: Red, Green, & Blue
• “Darfur Genocide Tells of Climate Change as Recipe for Wars” :: EcoWorldly
  

Photo: 1. WhiteHouse.gov; 2. ©Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan

Instead of acting upon it or even printing copies to president George Bush and his handlers, they tossed it in a cyber trash bin called Spam folder as if that was the only green thing to do.

Many months after Scott McClellan quit spinning for Dubya, climate watchers are crying foul that he never ever touched the seemingly hot subject in his recently released book, What Happened. But in his famous spins, he had blamed human activity - you and me - as responsible for global warming on more than one occasion.

Spin can be clever tomfoolery sometimes but the White House stance on global warming is well known and George W. Bush has never disappointed with his public statements that smack verily of official ignorance or pretense on the subject as an inconvenient truth.

Read more of this story »

An interim summit held in Japan mid March convened representatives of the world’s top 20 greenhouse gas emitting countries responsible for 80% of the world’s pollution. It appeared that little progress was made. But all countries including the US agreed in Bali that they’d participate in the negotiations to the Kyoto’s successor and that promise was upheld two weeks ago. What was termed a “principle of common but differentiated responsibility” was accepted as a framework for negotiations. In other words, the new pact will bind all countries to various actions.

Read more of this story »

Well, turns out her proposal was quite negotiable. Rather than agreeing on concrete cuts, the G8 agreed to “seriously consider” cutting emissions 50 percent by 2050. They plan to develop a global framework on emissions by the end of 2008, and they affirmed the importance of developing nations to limit emissions.

What happened? Where’s the hard talk, the aggressive goals, the accountability? They’re just going to “seriously consider” it?

It seems that most world leaders were so happy that the United States was even in on the talks that the rest was second fiddle. British Prime Minister Tony Blair called the agreement "a major, major step forward." Yvo de Boer, head of the United Nations Climate Change Secretariat said it was "a very positive outcome." The Financial Times editorialized that "the G8 summit marks a turning point on tackling climate change." Even Chancellor Merkel said she was "very satisfied" with the meetings.

Others were less satisfied. Daniel Mittler, climate policy advisor of Greenpeace International said of the meetings, “The U.S. isolation in refusing to accept binding emission cuts has become blindingly obvious…” Likewise, Philip Clapp of the U.S. National Environmental Trust said that although Chancellor Merkel and Prime Minister Blair were portraying the agreement positively, "President Bush didn't give them an inch. The best they could get from him was a statement that their 50 percent-by-2050 emissions reduction proposal would be `seriously considered.` That's a pretty tiny landmark."

Did the G8 leaders fall to the lowest common denominator? Would it not have been better for them to move forward without the United States and commit to Merkel’s targets?

Financial Times
G-8 Summit 2007
Guardian
Taipei Times

The plan came out after a two-day meeting of environment ministers from the Group of Eight (G8) industrialized nations and five major developing countries, including China, to discuss successor agreements to the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.

The plan includes improving efficiency by 20 percent by 2010, increasing renewable energy like hydropower, wind, and solar to be 10 percent of all electricity used by 2010, and decreasing nitrous oxide emissions to the 2005 level by 2010.

Zhenhua was vague about China setting specific targets for carbon dioxide cuts, saying that the success of the Kyoto Protocol’s 2012 targets need to be evaluated and assessed before further targets are determined.

China is the world's second biggest emitter of carbon dioxide pollution, after the United States.

China Economic Net
Reuters, via The Age