Last week the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) held a meeting in Antalya, Turkey where world weather agencies agreed to compile data from around the world and allow independent scrutiny of the raw figures.  The UK Met Office put forward the "grand challenge" proposal which was accepted by 150 delegates from around the world.  The details will be agreed upon at a conference to be held in Britain later this year.

The Met Office proposal explains that this "effort will ensure that the datasets are completely robust and that all methods are transparent"  The proposal additionally states that "any such analysis does not undermine the existing independent datasets that all reflect a warming trend."

The proposal aims to have the entire global record of land-based air temperatures from 5,000 weather stations available to anyone. Several groups of scientists working independently in different countries will re-examine millions of observations, dating back to before 1860. The methods of the scientific groups will also be made transparent and open to scrutiny.  The task is expected to take three years.

The Met Office stated that current measurements were "fundamentally ill-conditioned to answer 21st-century questions, such as how extremes are changing, and therefore what adaptation and mitigation decisions should be taken."

The new agreement came about amidst criticism that climate change data had been exaggerated in recent documents. Scientists and other climate specialists said the WMO has been trying to enhance data collection for years.  Interestingly they said that it took a persistent campaign by opponents of climate change to take the issue more seriously.

To learn more about climate change CLICK HERE

Support Stronger Legislation to Combat Global Warming CLICK HERE

During President Obama’s first State of the Union address on January 27, 2010, he focused on the upcoming economic challenges to be faced by the American people, as well as health care legislation and educational reform at all levels.  However, he also spoke about several issues that are key to the work of Citizens for Global Solutions.

Climate Change: Although President Obama focused primarily upon the need to improve the domestic job market and American economy, he stated that“…to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives.  And yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America.”  He reaffirmed his dedication to climate change legislation, asserting that “the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy.  And America must be that nation.”

Prohibition of torture: He spoke of the threat of terrorism as well as the prohibition of torture in the same paragraph.  Through this gesture, he established a possible link between the need to balance the pursuit of terrorists and the remembrance of every individual’s inherent human rights.  

Nuclear non-proliferation: President Obama stated “the greatest danger to the American people – the threat of nuclear weapons.” Emphasizing the importance of nuclear non-proliferation, he stated that one of his responsibilities as leader of the nation was reducing nuclear stockpiles.  Additionally, he described engaging internationally in nuclear weapons discussions at the upcoming Nuclear Security Summit to be held in April.

Photo Courtesy of "The Globe and Mail"

Engagement with international organizations: Obama emphasized the importance of active US engagement in international institutions through summits such as the G-20, which focuses primarily upon global economic issues.  Stressing the historical significance of engagement, President Obama said, “As we have for over 60 years, America takes…actions because our destiny is connected to those beyond our shores.  But we also do it because it is right.”

As Obama exclaimed, “Let’s seize this moment – to start anew, to carry the dream forward…”  Citizens for Global Solutions has incredible work ahead in order to accomplish our goals.  With the assistance of our members, and a president who has expressed support for many of our issue areas, CGS has hope for this next year too.

This is a guest blog post from Citizens for Global Solutions member James Nelson.

Modest but meaningful progress was made at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change held in Copenhagen. It was exciting to participate in a small way in one of the most momentous and far-reaching issues of our time. I tried to contribute using my experience in business, civic organizations and horticultural activities.  Most of all I tried to carefully listen learn and discern a response to these challenges.

The conference fell short of its goal of producing a world-wide binding treaty to limit green house gases but it did produce emission pledges by all major developed countries including for the first time the United States and China. Key elements of the Copenhagen Accord include overarching goals, fresh commitments of funding and new incentives to obtain the greatest impact on reducing greenhouse gases. New mechanisms for standard measurement and verification were strongly debated and only loosely agreed among major countries fearful of giving up sovereignty.

The paramount goal is to limit temperature increases of the earth’s surface by 2 degrees Celsius. This agreement calls for specific commitments from individual countries.  Furthermore, there must be standard reporting and independent verification of each countries activity.  Funding was a contentious issue. In the end $30 billion was approved for the first 3 years and a goal was established to mobilize $100 billion per year by 2020.

At Klimaforum o9, the People Climate Summit, civil society groups conducted a conference in parallel with the government deliberations.  Here diverse groups from around the world manifested the unfolding climate change drama with compelling exhibits, publications and seminars. It was the UN Association of Denmark, part of the World Federalist Movement that provided the human face for the somber climate models and contentious policy debates.

Over several years, the Danish group has worked with UN groups from Brazil, India, Tanzania, Finland etc to assure that the voices of marginalized people were heard. They produced compelling panel discussions on the personal impacts of climate change. These long term changes extend far beyond normal patterns in variability in temperatures, frequency and intensity of rainfall.  We learned these changes can be dangerous especially to poor nations or regions were food production is impacted, creating instability and ultimately triggering a migration of “climate refugees”.

At this conference it was my opportunity to propose a piece of the climate jigsaw solution puzzle. My grassroots solution to climate change focused on the unique properties of deep rooted native plants, to filter contaminants in water, prevent erosion, to counter the tendency to flood, to provide homes for wildlife and pollinators and especially the capability to sequester carbon deep in the soil.  My presentation also focused on grassroots organizations that actively promote the regeneration of native plants and cultivate the future generations of people to value and expand that tradition. Many in the audience felt that my contribution was very applicable to developing countries with degraded landscape and underutilized workers.

Many leaders believe that we are heading for a serious climate issue unless we align economic activities with natural processes. If the political leaders were deciding “what” we must do to preclude severe climate problems, it was business leaders that illustrated “how” we are going to going to dramatically improve efficiency in a carbon constrained world.  Midway through the conference, during a pause in the negotiations, the business community hosted “Bright Green” where 170 leading clean-tech companies showcased innovative technologies: windmills, smart electric grids, biocatalysts for new fuels and many innovative carbon sparing technologies. Just as the revolution in information technologies fueled the growth of industry and jobs in the current generation, the transformation to a less intensive/energy economy could propel growth for the next generation.

Climate change has strong but differential effect on people within and between countries and regions and between this generation and future generations. We need to continue to strongly advocate for strong legally binding climate treaties. We need to insist that agreements contain effective international organizations capable of orchestrating global and enforcing solutions. A strong legal framework will give businesses the regulatory certainty to make investments in new jobs and technologies to make the needed improvements.

We need to renew our commitments to Citizens for Global Solutions and other vital civic organizations to assure that the voices of those least capable of coping with climate change can be heard and answered.

The Copenhagen climate talks began today amid much excitement, anxiety and hope. As representatives from around the world negotiate key issues such as emissions reduction commitments and monetary assistance to developing countries, they should keep in mind one goal that will facilitate the agreement to and monitoring of all other climate deals: establishing a common metrics for measuring and declaring emissions reductions.

Citizens for Global Solutions has advocated the establishment of such a common metrics, and today the Washington Post released an article making the same point. Fredd Krupp of the Environmental Defense Fund said that climate change mitigation efforts should be “measured in the same units -- tons of carbon” in order to facilitate private capital investments for mitigation funds to assist developing countries. This editorial demonstrated one of the many beneficial effects of setting a standard of how to measure emissions reductions.

Currently, countries use different methods of measurement when announcing climate change action. Most use a percentage reduction in emissions below a base year, but even the base year used by countries is not uniform. For example, the U.S. has announced targets of reducing emissions to 17% below 2005 levels by 2020, and the European Union has talked about accepting cuts of 30% below 1990 by 2020. Moreover, when individual countries make commitments in terms of percentage reductions, it is extremely difficult to calculate how close the total global emissions reductions are to the level that the scientific community says we need to achieve to avert the worst effects of climate change. Setting a common language to speak about emissions reductions needs to be on the Copenhagen Agenda! Read more here

The climate talks in Copenhagen received a positive push this week, but we need to push further still. The governments of U.S. and China have announced that their heads of state will be representing their countries in Copenhagen, and that they will bring reduction commitments to the table. These are encouraging steps, but much more needs to be achieved in Copenhagen. For one, China’s goals to mitigate climate change have been expressed in terms of reducing carbon intensity, rather than in terms of reducing the amount of emissions released. China has announced a goal to reduce its carbon intensity to 40-45% below 2005 levels by 2020, but this method of measurement entails much uncertainty. Carbon intensity measures the amount of carbon emitted per unit of energy consumed, and reductions in it do not necessarily result in emissions reductions. What matters to reduce global warming is that the total amount of emissions reduces, not the efficiency with which carbon is used. Carbon intensity could fall with more efficient use of carbon, but the total amount of carbon emissions actually released could increase at the same time. This is the danger of using such measures for reductions in climate change- they could be misleading and counterproductive.

The Copenhagen summit should standardize measures for climate change mitigation action. This standard metrics can be measuring the amount of carbon emissions reduced in metric tons. This way, commitments of various countries can be easily compared, and the global community can estimate how close the combined reductions commitments of all countries are to reaching the goal that the scientific community has said we need to achieve in order to avert the worst effects of climate change: reducing total emissions to 13-16 billion metric tons by 2020. This is a much more concrete measure than China’s carbon intensity standards in terms of its comparability and indication of the absolute amount of carbon emissions released. If this is not established soon, other countries may follow China’s lead in using potentially misleading measures for climate change mitigation action.

Giving a boost to the upcoming Copenhagen climate talks, the White House has announced that President Obama himself will be attending the negotiations that aim to develop an international climate change agreement. An administration official has also revealed that Obama will commit to cutting U.S. emissions to 17% below 2005 levels by 2020, the target of the House bill (Waxman-Markey bill) that was passed this June. This is a bold and important step, necessary to counter the pessimism of many about the speculated productivity of the talks, the delay in passing climate legislation in the U.S. Senate, the statements by Senator Inhofe (R-OK) about bringing a “truth squad” to Copenhagen to show the world what is “really” happening in the U.S. in terms of willingness and capacity to enact climate legislation, and the stalemate between developing and developed countries about financial assistance and binding emissions reduction commitments.

The President’s presence has given renewed momentum to the upcoming summit. It is crucial that the negotiations continue with everyone at the table, including countries at all levels of development. To do this, the demands of developed countries for developing countries to commit to binding emissions reduction targets on one hand, and the demands of developing countries for developed countries to provide financial aid for such measures on the other, will have to be addressed in some way. As of now, the European Union seems more inclined to give such aid than the U.S. is. Countries like China have demanded 1% of the GDP from developed countries for these purposes. Even if such commitments cannot be made this year, the process of finding a deal could continue with Obama’s presence signaling U.S. commitment to act on this front, and with the U.S. providing incentives such as subsidized clean energy technology transfers to developing countries that have taken demonstrated efforts to adopt a clean development path.

It is a welcome sign that our President will be joining the roughly 65 other heads of state in Copenhagen, but the road ahead is still long. The emissions reduction that the U.S. is agreeing to is roughly 4-7% below 1990 levels by 2020, whereas developing countries and the scientific community have said that developed countries need to cut emissions by 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020. Though this gap is large, the process must continue, so that the next climate summit scheduled for 2010 in Mexico City will be more fruitful. At this point, developed countries can set emissions reductions commitments, developing countries can agree to lower their emissions increases, and developed countries can work together to help fund such changes in developing countries. This is a strong place to start, and at the very least, this much must be agreed to now.

After Copenhagen, Obama’s next stop will be Norway, to formally accept his Nobel Peace Prize- where he will now have one more contribution to speak of.

Read more here

Many thought that the upcoming Copenhagen conference next month would lead to a global agreement on climate change.  However, it seems as though we will have to wait a little longer.

Last week, the major world leaders met in Singapore to discuss the purpose of Copenhagen.  Deciding to delay the establishment of a comprehensive and binding treaty, they instead agreed that the mission of the conference would be a less specific “politically binding” agreement.  According to a New York Times article, this agreement “punts the most difficult issues into the future.”

According to the leaders involved with this decision, this is for the sake of Copenhagen.  Michael Froman, the deputy national security adviser for international economic affairs, stated, “It is unrealistic to expect a fully internationally, legally binding agreement could be negotiated between now and Copenhagen, which starts in 22 days.”  According to Froman, forcing an agreement upon the world now would be counterproductive to global climate change cooperation.  

However, others can see through this argument.  An article in the Washington Post referred to it as a “pathetic spin.”  Copenhagen has been on the calendar for years and shouldn’t have surprised anyone.  We all knew it was coming, and we all should have been prepared.

Regardless of the validity of this argument, the delay is disappointing to all who were expecting great accomplishments from Copenhagen.  Now the comprehensive treaty discussion has to wait, at least until the second summit meeting in Mexico City.  Let us hope that a delay isn’t issued right before that meeting as well.

As the scientific community has united in its call for drastic action to reduce global warming, which is already claiming hundreds of thousands of lives, the U.S. and the international community seems to have reached a stalemate. This week, the Kerry-Boxer climate bill markup was boycotted by republicans, and in deciding to continue with the markup anyway, Senator Boxer may have antagonized republicans beyond repair. Talks about a new compromise bill in the Senate have already begun. While some in the US fear that pursuing 4-7% emissions reductions below 1990 levels by 2020 (as the Kerry-Boxer bill does) will harm the economy too much through the measures laid out in the legislation, countries abroad are staging boycotts of their own because they want the US to commit to a 40% reduction below 1990 levels by 2020. The math is easy: the gap between what the US seems to find acceptable and what the international community seeks is immense.

These issues came to light as the climate talks in Barcelona drew to a close this week. Developing countries repeated their demand for assistance from developed countries in taking environmental action. They argue that developing countries used cheaper, quicker, and environmentally degrading methods to boost growth. If other nations are to be denied this opportunity, they want the first polluters to compensate them. But debates in the US Senate bring up the other side: that strong measures in one country alone will not solve the problem. Calls are being made in the US Senate for a bill that does not kick in unless other countries also commit to binding emissions reductions. On the other end, the G77, a coalition of developing countries, said:  "Individual pledges (of the industrialized countries to reduce their GHG emissions) add up to only 11-18% below 1990 levels by 2020 if we include US. Such a low level is unacceptable. It takes us on a dangerous path. We need a real change of heart and mind by developed countries. It has to be demonstrated by (putting up) figures. It is not sufficient to have progressive and noble rhetoric which is empty." To focus attention on this, fifty African countries boycotted part of the Barcelona summit.

To pass a climate bill, the Senate needs 60 votes. To pass an international treaty, the Senate needs 67. Now, many fear that the US will not be able to go into the Copenhagen climate talks next month and make any firm commitments because it could not even pass domestic legislation. Senator Kerry, the bill’s co-author, admitted: "We have to be honest in the process and deal with the realities that we don't have time in these four weeks to put the language together and flesh out every crossed t and dotted i of a treaty."

Where does this leave us now? Of course, it would have been ideal to have a bipartisan piece of US legislation to boast when going into Copenhagen. But there is still common ground to be sought. Fighting climate change is in everyone’s interest: rich countries and poor countries, republicans and democrats. On their own, both developed and developing countries have taken significant steps to combat climate change- whether by boosting wind power in China or by committing to high emissions reductions in the EU. On their own, both republicans and democrats have introduced and championed climate change legislation. At this time of seemingly severe divides, perhaps we need to take a moment to start from scratch and rebuild the dialogue and rhetoric with a strong foundation: that of what we have done individually, and what will happen to us all if we don’t do more together.

As the clock on the Kyoto Protocol is ticking down to expiration, the importance of the upcoming U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen is growing.  A multilateral, enforceable treaty, setting limits on carbon emissions would be the ideal outcome.  However, as the dates for the conference are getting closer, the actual goals are getting smaller.  On October 28, 2008, U.N. Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon said that the conference could still be a success without its creation of a legally binding agreement.  He encouraged ambitious political agreements, with details to be worked out later.  Part of the reason for this is because of the current conflict between developing and developed nations.  

It is no secret that developed nations have much larger emissions than developing countries.  However, the effects of these emissions are hard-hitting on the developing nations, the ones that often do not have the resources to provide health care to their people, let alone fight the negative impacts of climate change. In the meantime, developed countries are trying to enforce “sustainable” development around the world so that the inevitable increase in carbon emissions from industrialization does not occur as development progresses.  However, a major paradigm in the development field is that economic growth must be a priority, and the environment can be fixed later when development has been achieved.  Also, the current developed countries certainly did not even consider sustainable development during their plight for economic growth.  While I do not ascribe to this vision of development (and I do believe more and more people are starting to see the problems with this type of thinking), it is a standpoint that many nations have taken.  In the meantime, the developed world is trying to stop unsustainable development so that the damage done by the developed world in achieving economic growth does not occur in this new push for development.  While, I do believe it is crucial to regulate emissions in the developing world, what gives the developed world the moral authority to intervene and tell these struggling countries what to do?  Development has been riddled by failed foreign intervention, and massive international aid projects that do not get resources to the right people.  For years, the West has been telling developing nations what they need, instead of actually asking these nations what is important to them, is it really going to be any different this time around?

In saying this, I am not saying that developing countries do not care about the environment, because that is simply not true.  I am saying that the developed world’s push to force sustainable development on poor countries may not be the best approach.  There are probably local, sustainable development movements in the vast majority of countries, such as the Landless Workers Movement (MST) in Brazil, or Navdanya in India.  Perhaps the best way to reduce carbon emissions globally is not to enforce strict measures on the developing world (that they may not be able to meet), but to support local movements that are fighting the causes of environmental degradation and climate change in their regions.  These movements are usually not only environmental movements, but also fights for equality and human rights in regions were the poor are continuously marginalized.  By supporting these movements, the developed world can not only take a stand against climate change, but also against persistent injustices in the developing world.  

“No to climate government takeover!!!”

I never thought I’d agree with a tea party activist. And I’m not really sure if what I’m about to say actually qualifies as agreement. But that there might be any kind of common ground at all between me and this balding, burly, red-faced conservative spitting on my television screen is an endearing, if mildly frightening prospect.

For the record, I am a staunch supporter of a strong climate bill. But like the angry tea party activist, I heavily oppose a ‘government takeover’ of the climate change issue.

Climate change is completely different to any other problem that we face. It is not merely a case of curbing/banning certain forms of behavior, although that is definitely part of it. Nor is it merely about adaptation, although that too is surely critical. Ultimately, it is a total transformation of how our society thinks on a deeply fundamental level. In this case, it is our society’s relationship with the environment – after centuries of building up a wall in our collective conscience between our world and the environment, we are being forced to realize that we are actually part of it. Armed with this new mindset, we’re no longer capable of that perverse existential separation, where we see the universe through the lens of a single individual existing only in the present time. We are forced to transcend on some level, and to look through the lens of the world until the end of time. We must look at our everyday actions and ask “Is this an action which can be repeated indefinitely, by anyone, anywhere?”

Now unless we lived in a 1984-style totalitarian state where the government controlled how we think, this kind of change simply cannot be driven by the government. It is change of the incremental variety, the kind which can only truly come from the bottom up. Day by day, little by little, individuals and organizations will create the innovations which make our society more sustainable.

Thus a government takeover of climate change would be bad news not because it did too much, but because it did too little. The only way we can truly re-engineer society is to do so with the one thing which undoubtedly touches every one of us – the free market. I truly believe that ‘green innovations’ will become a massive source of profit over the decades to come.  

Yet I mentioned earlier that I support a strong climate bill. Legislation will help curb the worst of our actions, and provide a broad framework in which a transformation can begin to occur. It is merely a catalyst, whose job is to merely make things easier for the innovators who will generate true change on the issue. Without this single piece of collective action, individual action is extremely hard – the system is simply not designed to think in environmental terms.  Those individuals and organizations that do buck the trend and show environmental leadership may be doing so at their own expense.

This is why the whole free market versus government debate is truly missing the point. Both have absolutely critical roles to play in this process. The great champion of the free market, Ayn Rand, wrote that it is the unrestrained power of the individual which has always made society great. I agree. But I would respond by saying that it is the role of society to define what greatness is.

And so this is my call to the conservative wing of politics – to be a part of this process. Not to repeat tired lines of argument, such as denying global warming or support drilling and nuclear energy, but to be part of conceptualizing a new economy, one which is more profitable and sustainable than ever before. You have something to offer that many on the left do not – the ability to see great potential in the free market.  By joining in the process of crafting and supporting strong climate change legislation, you can be part of ensuring core conservative principles - the ideas of self-reliance, competition and innovation – remain a foundational part of the new economy for years to come.