This week, the British courts established that a belief in man-made global warming can be considered a religious faith. In that case, I'm agnostic.
By Tracy CorriganPublished: 6:44PM GMT 05 Nov 2009
Although significant scientific evidence points in that direction, some experts disagree and I feel neither qualified to judge, nor inspired to make a leap of faith.
On a related issue, though, I am a confirmed sceptic, and that is the effectiveness of trading rights to emit carbon as a means of reducing greenhouse gases.
In a new report called A Dangerous Obsession, Friends of the Earth argues that carbon trading is not delivering either significant carbon cuts or the technical innovation required to encourage a shift to low-carbon options. Even advocates of carbon trading admit the first phase of the European Union's emissions trading system, which lasted from 2007-2009, was a disaster and the current phase, which runs until 2012, is hardly a triumph. In its report on the European experience, the US Government Accountability Office concluded that "carbon offsets. . . may not be a reliable long-term approach to climate change mitigation"; the Centre for Climate Change recently warned Parliament that, partly as a result of recession, "there is a risk that the carbon price will not be sufficiently high to incentivise investments in low- carbon technologies". Among other snags are perverse incentives to increase carbon emissions in the short term and difficulties in verifying the offsetting of emissions.
It's not surprising that there are teething problems, given the ambitious scope of the project: to create an actively traded, government-sponsored carbon market which encourages ecologically desirable behaviour. But the mix of the state sector and the financial markets is always a combustible one, and traders are adept at gaming the system – it's what they do.
My worry is not simply that carbon trading won't live up to its billing as the answer to our global warming prayers, but that it will bring fresh problems. The rapidly expanding market creates opportunities for banks, investors and others to make huge profits out of a government-backed system which skews the market. As well as diverting money into the hands of intermediaries and speculators, this market distortion may also cause pollution to shift from developed to emerging economies, a phenomenon known as leakage.
Meanwhile, as a result of this new, profitable market in carbon trading, powerful financial groups now have a vested interest in its survival. Big banks and other institutions have invested in a business which is underpinned by the conviction that a government-sponsored carbon trading scheme will curb emissions and reduce global warming. Hardly surprising, then, that, according to the Center for Public Integrity's analysis of Senate disclosure forms, banks and other financial groups – which were largely silent on this issue until 2003 – had about 130 climate lobbyists in Washington by last year.
Whatever is agreed – or not – at the United Nations Climate Change conference next month, there already appears to be a global consensus that the main mechanism for pursuing any targets will be carbon trading. Despite all the problems, Europe currently accounts for the bulk of the $126bn global market, and if, as seems likely, the US pushes ahead with plans for its own version, the global market is likely to hit $2 trillion within five years, according to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which wants to regulate it. As commissioner Bart Chilton has observed: "We don't want to see the largest commodity markets in the world – these Green CAT Markets – become a private jungle gym for speculators and fraudsters." Indeed we don't. Nor, of course, is it desirable that the race into this new market and its associated derivatives inflates a new bubble, followed by an inevitable bust.
Yet our governments are creating a huge, highly complex, artificial market which will be far more difficult to regulate than simple products like mortgages – which, if memory serves, they didn't manage terribly well. (And there is, of course, huge scope for the development of derivatives, and derivatives of derivatives.) Even if the carbon market is sensibly regulated and functions reasonably efficiently – the very best that can be expected – large sums will be siphoned off by traders, intermediaries and investors.
Where does that money come from? Ultimately, presumably, from the steel and chemical companies which have to buy emissions permits. It makes me feel rather sorry for the poor old polluters.
Politicians like to talk about their desire for these very real industries to grab a slice of the economic pie from the financial services giants, but I guess that's another target that won't be met.
Friday, 6 November 2009
Shanks builds first anaerobic digestion plant to harness potato peel power
Angela Jameson
Your newspapers and magazines are recycled, your light bulbs are low energy and your weekly bottle collection is embarrassingly better than your neighbour’s.
But there is still one environmental chore that makes even the most die-hard eco warrior wince. Kitchen waste recycling — to compost or not to compost — is messy, smelly and all too attractive to vermin.
Yet recycling food waste could provide an alternative source of low-carbon energy.
Shanks, formerly a landfill company, has begun building its first anaerobic digestion plant, capable of generating enough renewable electricity to power up to 3,000 homes.
The £8 million plant will be built in Scotland and take waste food from Scottish homes and hotels and from restaurants and retailers in Edinburgh and Glasgow.
It will harness the gases produced by the rotting food to fuel a power plant. The power generated will be sold back into the National Grid, while also earning the company double Renewable Obligation Certificates — a government subsidy for renewable energy producers.
In the UK about 20 million tonnes of leftover food is thrown away every year. Using anaerobic digestion Shanks can turn this waste into a high-quality fertiliser for use on agricultural land and generate up to three megawatts of renewable electricity.
For every 45,000 tonnes of food waste recycled this way, about two megawatts of renewable power is produced — enough to heat 2,000 homes.
Shanks sold its English landfill business to Guy Hands, the private equity tycoon, in 2004 and now works with the private and public sector to recycle and reprocess waste.
It already runs similar plants in the Netherlands and Belgium and has plans for facilities in Canada.
The company, which announced a 24 per cent slide in half-year profits yesterday, is pinning its commercial hopes on new environmental legislation and a sharp increase in landfill taxes to persuade many more businesses and councils to opt for new technology and avoid putting waste into landfill at all. Shanks wants to build a clutch of anaerobic digestion plants around the country. It has indicated that it will bid for waste contracts to be put out to tender in Wales in the next year and has recently been shortlisted for similar contracts for Milton Keynes and North Lincolnshire.
It already has a three-year contract to recycle Marks and Spencer’s packaged waste food, which will use the anaerobic digestion technology.
It closed a £720 million Private Finance Initiative deal with Cumbria this year, which will allow it to build two facilities to dispose of the county’s rubbish for the next 22 years.
Tom Drury, chief executive, said: “I’m no eco warrior but how we can be smart in dealing with our waste is a very interesting challenge and could make a huge difference to the renewable energy sector that the Government is struggling to get off the ground.”
While the economy struggles, Shanks’s business, closely related to GDP, has suffered. But Mr Drury expects this to come back strongly when a recovery starts.
“The October PMI figures would indicate an upturn, as would GDP projections for next year. But if I’m honest, we’re not seeing it,” he said.
Your newspapers and magazines are recycled, your light bulbs are low energy and your weekly bottle collection is embarrassingly better than your neighbour’s.
But there is still one environmental chore that makes even the most die-hard eco warrior wince. Kitchen waste recycling — to compost or not to compost — is messy, smelly and all too attractive to vermin.
Yet recycling food waste could provide an alternative source of low-carbon energy.
Shanks, formerly a landfill company, has begun building its first anaerobic digestion plant, capable of generating enough renewable electricity to power up to 3,000 homes.
The £8 million plant will be built in Scotland and take waste food from Scottish homes and hotels and from restaurants and retailers in Edinburgh and Glasgow.
It will harness the gases produced by the rotting food to fuel a power plant. The power generated will be sold back into the National Grid, while also earning the company double Renewable Obligation Certificates — a government subsidy for renewable energy producers.
In the UK about 20 million tonnes of leftover food is thrown away every year. Using anaerobic digestion Shanks can turn this waste into a high-quality fertiliser for use on agricultural land and generate up to three megawatts of renewable electricity.
For every 45,000 tonnes of food waste recycled this way, about two megawatts of renewable power is produced — enough to heat 2,000 homes.
Shanks sold its English landfill business to Guy Hands, the private equity tycoon, in 2004 and now works with the private and public sector to recycle and reprocess waste.
It already runs similar plants in the Netherlands and Belgium and has plans for facilities in Canada.
The company, which announced a 24 per cent slide in half-year profits yesterday, is pinning its commercial hopes on new environmental legislation and a sharp increase in landfill taxes to persuade many more businesses and councils to opt for new technology and avoid putting waste into landfill at all. Shanks wants to build a clutch of anaerobic digestion plants around the country. It has indicated that it will bid for waste contracts to be put out to tender in Wales in the next year and has recently been shortlisted for similar contracts for Milton Keynes and North Lincolnshire.
It already has a three-year contract to recycle Marks and Spencer’s packaged waste food, which will use the anaerobic digestion technology.
It closed a £720 million Private Finance Initiative deal with Cumbria this year, which will allow it to build two facilities to dispose of the county’s rubbish for the next 22 years.
Tom Drury, chief executive, said: “I’m no eco warrior but how we can be smart in dealing with our waste is a very interesting challenge and could make a huge difference to the renewable energy sector that the Government is struggling to get off the ground.”
While the economy struggles, Shanks’s business, closely related to GDP, has suffered. But Mr Drury expects this to come back strongly when a recovery starts.
“The October PMI figures would indicate an upturn, as would GDP projections for next year. But if I’m honest, we’re not seeing it,” he said.
The big picture: China’s shoots of hope
Woods are spreading over hills around Yan'an, the city where Chairman Mao lived. Here are the facts about reforestation
Alice Fishburn
Once home to Chairman Mao, Yan’an is now at the centre of China’s green revolution. In the past decade 588,000 hectares of the land around the city have been returned to forest. Trees and lawns cover 57.9 per cent of the city.
In China planting trees is not only encouraged but decreed by the National People’s Congress. Since 1981 every citizen between 11 and 55 has been under orders to plant at least three saplings a year. For students, tree planting is a graduation requirement.
China's reforestation project is designed to arrest desertification and reduce the soil erosion that gives the Yellow River its name. Government officials have promised to spend almost $9 billion (£5.5 billion) on increasing forest coverage each year. Their target? To cover a fifth of the country by 2010.
But while the Chinese plant trees at home, they follow different rules abroad. China recently secured 2.8 million hectares of the Congo Basin to develop a plantation for palm oil, a controversial biofuel that has caused deforestation worldwide.
Every year 32 million acres of trees are chopped down to make way for agricultural land to feed a growing population.
Destroying trees accounts for more greenhouse gas emissions than every train, car, bus and plane on the planet. Around 17 per cent of our emissions can be traced to felled tree stumps where there used to be rainforests.
If everyone planted and looked after two trees a year, we could reverse the deforestation of a decade in the next ten years.
Attempts to counter carbon emissions through offsetting are increasingly popular. BP has just pledged to plant ten million eucalyptus trees in Australia. The UN’s REDD programme is designed to stop deforestation by offering financial incentives to the most at-risk developing countries.
But planting more trees isn’t always the answer. The forests planted to absorb carbon dioxide are often neither ecologically diverse nor a long-term fix. As soon as they start to rot, their carbon stores are released.
Even China’s programme has slowed. The Government stopped reforestation on marginal farmland as it believes the nation no longer has sufficient arable land to feed all of its people.
Alice Fishburn
Once home to Chairman Mao, Yan’an is now at the centre of China’s green revolution. In the past decade 588,000 hectares of the land around the city have been returned to forest. Trees and lawns cover 57.9 per cent of the city.
In China planting trees is not only encouraged but decreed by the National People’s Congress. Since 1981 every citizen between 11 and 55 has been under orders to plant at least three saplings a year. For students, tree planting is a graduation requirement.
China's reforestation project is designed to arrest desertification and reduce the soil erosion that gives the Yellow River its name. Government officials have promised to spend almost $9 billion (£5.5 billion) on increasing forest coverage each year. Their target? To cover a fifth of the country by 2010.
But while the Chinese plant trees at home, they follow different rules abroad. China recently secured 2.8 million hectares of the Congo Basin to develop a plantation for palm oil, a controversial biofuel that has caused deforestation worldwide.
Every year 32 million acres of trees are chopped down to make way for agricultural land to feed a growing population.
Destroying trees accounts for more greenhouse gas emissions than every train, car, bus and plane on the planet. Around 17 per cent of our emissions can be traced to felled tree stumps where there used to be rainforests.
If everyone planted and looked after two trees a year, we could reverse the deforestation of a decade in the next ten years.
Attempts to counter carbon emissions through offsetting are increasingly popular. BP has just pledged to plant ten million eucalyptus trees in Australia. The UN’s REDD programme is designed to stop deforestation by offering financial incentives to the most at-risk developing countries.
But planting more trees isn’t always the answer. The forests planted to absorb carbon dioxide are often neither ecologically diverse nor a long-term fix. As soon as they start to rot, their carbon stores are released.
Even China’s programme has slowed. The Government stopped reforestation on marginal farmland as it believes the nation no longer has sufficient arable land to feed all of its people.
Spinners and losers in the wind turbine storm
Rural rejecters of wind power aren't bumptious bumpkins, says Adrian Snook. We are asserting our rights as consumers and voters
Adrian Snook
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 5 November 2009 12.40 GMT
In the last two years the number of large windfarm projects gaining approval from local councils in England has slumped from 57% to an all-time low of just 25%, according to the British Wind Energy Association.
"We are concerned that the number of applications being rejected indicates that politics have become more and more entrenched at the local level," said Gemma Grimes of the BWEA. "We can't stop local authorities rejecting schemes for political reasons."
Grimes used the words "political reasons" rather than "democratic reasons". However, the plain truth is that rural voters have shunned the government's promotion of inland wind energy projects and are now expressing very hostile views via their local elected representatives.
Opinion polls consistently show strong public support for wind power in the UK with around 80% of people expressing support and only 10% opposed. Yet when this translates into local voter reaction to onshore wind development, particularly in England and Wales, support seems to evaporate. It is often replaced by deep anger and opposition. Why is this? I believe there are two reasons.
Firstly, the government has subcontracted the job of creating support for inland wind energy projects to commercial power generation firms. This decision guaranteed dogged resistance from a rural population wary of commercial exploitation by big business.
The notion that commercial electricity providers would be able to win large-scale public support for inland wind projects was completely misconceived. As a starting point, organisations that make vast fortunes from producing carbon dioxide from fossil fuel power stations are not well positioned to lecture voters on saving the planet. Moreover, power suppliers are widely distrusted by most consumers as a result of windfall profits and a history of dubious doorstep sales practices.
It was clear from the outset that Labour's hugely ambitious plans for inland wind power would involve forcing through the most visible and controversial changes in rural land use since the Enclosure Acts. It was entirely predictable that this would create deep waves of social and political anxiety, yet nothing was done to calm the legitimate fears of rural people. The government made no attempt to create protective zoning arrangements or reassuring planning safeguards. As a result, rural communities felt at the mercy of an energy sector lashed into a feeding frenzy by state-devised market incentives. To cap it all, the commercial wind energy developers further inflamed the situation by adopting an arrogant, hard-sell approach to community consultation.
The second and more fundamental reason for rural voters' reticence was the deeply unattractive deal being offered to them. Unlike gas, coal or even nuclear power stations, wind turbines bring no jobs and little else materially worthwhile to the local economy. Power suppliers were arrogantly demanding community support for their commercial developments but they were offering absolutely no incentives in return.
Thanks to energy-switching websites, yesterday's compliant power consumers are today's empowered customers. They choose which electricity deal they support. In turn, empowered customers have become empowered voters, accustomed to rejecting unattractive business propositions from the energy sector.
So inland wind energy development simply looked like a toxic deal for local people. Negative impacts are unacceptable if they are not exchanged for compensating benefits. As the polls suggest, most rural voters remain in favour of renewable energy and even wind turbines, providing it is clear that these are planned in the national interest and are not simply a cynical scheme to line the pockets of big business.
The wasteful and unnecessary battle being fought out across the heart of this country was caused by a catastrophic failure of political foresight. Empowered rural consumers are democratically resisting what they regard as a crude attempt to unfairly exploit them, under the pretext of legitimate concerns over climate change.
Rural voters are not to blame for slowing wind energy expansion, as some in the media and environmental pressure groups suggest. In the end, politicians cannot blame the electorate for their own mistakes.
• Adrian Snook is chief executive of Stop the Spin, a group that opposes inappropriately sited wind turbines.
Adrian Snook
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 5 November 2009 12.40 GMT
In the last two years the number of large windfarm projects gaining approval from local councils in England has slumped from 57% to an all-time low of just 25%, according to the British Wind Energy Association.
"We are concerned that the number of applications being rejected indicates that politics have become more and more entrenched at the local level," said Gemma Grimes of the BWEA. "We can't stop local authorities rejecting schemes for political reasons."
Grimes used the words "political reasons" rather than "democratic reasons". However, the plain truth is that rural voters have shunned the government's promotion of inland wind energy projects and are now expressing very hostile views via their local elected representatives.
Opinion polls consistently show strong public support for wind power in the UK with around 80% of people expressing support and only 10% opposed. Yet when this translates into local voter reaction to onshore wind development, particularly in England and Wales, support seems to evaporate. It is often replaced by deep anger and opposition. Why is this? I believe there are two reasons.
Firstly, the government has subcontracted the job of creating support for inland wind energy projects to commercial power generation firms. This decision guaranteed dogged resistance from a rural population wary of commercial exploitation by big business.
The notion that commercial electricity providers would be able to win large-scale public support for inland wind projects was completely misconceived. As a starting point, organisations that make vast fortunes from producing carbon dioxide from fossil fuel power stations are not well positioned to lecture voters on saving the planet. Moreover, power suppliers are widely distrusted by most consumers as a result of windfall profits and a history of dubious doorstep sales practices.
It was clear from the outset that Labour's hugely ambitious plans for inland wind power would involve forcing through the most visible and controversial changes in rural land use since the Enclosure Acts. It was entirely predictable that this would create deep waves of social and political anxiety, yet nothing was done to calm the legitimate fears of rural people. The government made no attempt to create protective zoning arrangements or reassuring planning safeguards. As a result, rural communities felt at the mercy of an energy sector lashed into a feeding frenzy by state-devised market incentives. To cap it all, the commercial wind energy developers further inflamed the situation by adopting an arrogant, hard-sell approach to community consultation.
The second and more fundamental reason for rural voters' reticence was the deeply unattractive deal being offered to them. Unlike gas, coal or even nuclear power stations, wind turbines bring no jobs and little else materially worthwhile to the local economy. Power suppliers were arrogantly demanding community support for their commercial developments but they were offering absolutely no incentives in return.
Thanks to energy-switching websites, yesterday's compliant power consumers are today's empowered customers. They choose which electricity deal they support. In turn, empowered customers have become empowered voters, accustomed to rejecting unattractive business propositions from the energy sector.
So inland wind energy development simply looked like a toxic deal for local people. Negative impacts are unacceptable if they are not exchanged for compensating benefits. As the polls suggest, most rural voters remain in favour of renewable energy and even wind turbines, providing it is clear that these are planned in the national interest and are not simply a cynical scheme to line the pockets of big business.
The wasteful and unnecessary battle being fought out across the heart of this country was caused by a catastrophic failure of political foresight. Empowered rural consumers are democratically resisting what they regard as a crude attempt to unfairly exploit them, under the pretext of legitimate concerns over climate change.
Rural voters are not to blame for slowing wind energy expansion, as some in the media and environmental pressure groups suggest. In the end, politicians cannot blame the electorate for their own mistakes.
• Adrian Snook is chief executive of Stop the Spin, a group that opposes inappropriately sited wind turbines.
Farmers agree to set aside land for wildlife
Farmers will be issued with leaflets on how to better protect wildlife as part of plans to bring back the environmental benefits of set-aside.
By Louise Gray, Environment CorrespondentPublished: 7:00AM GMT 05 Nov 2009
Land set-aside for wildlife should encourage farmland birds like skylarks Photo: REUTERS
European subsides for farmland taken out of production or "set-aside" were scrapped in 2007.
However it immediately became apparent that the system was beneficial to wildlife, with farmland birds and animals thriving on fallow land.
Hilary Benn, the Environment Secretary, suggested bringing back a compulsory scheme that would pay farmers to set aside uncultivated land. But this met with outrage from farmers who argued that the land should be cultivated to produce food.
Now the Government, farmers and conservation groups have come to an uneasy compromise by introducing a voluntary set-aside scheme.
The Campaign for the Farmed Environment will see all farmers obliged to farm in a more environmentally friendly manner.
At the height of the European scheme set-aside resulted in around 8 per cent of agricultural land being left fallow. The voluntary scheme will aim to leave around 180,000 hectares of land uncropped as well as encouraging farmers to better manage farmed land for wildlife. For example by leaving stubble over the winter so birds can feed and leaving hedgerows between fields.
Farmers will also be asked to double the amount of land being especially cultivated for wildlife under new European environmental subsidies from 40,000 to 80,000 hectares. This will include land left fallow for skylarks, wild flowers planted by fields and "beetle banks" created to help insects.
The amount of land managed for the environment on a voluntary basis will be boosted by 30,000 acres.
Altogether the voluntary scheme should ensure the same environmental benefits gained from set-aside.
Leaflets are being sent to every farmer asking them to build ponds, plant trees and bring in other environmental measures.
Farmers with more than 10 hectares of land will also be surveyed in the New Year to ensure they are setting aside land for the environment.
If the targets are not met Mr Benn has threatened to bring in compulsory measures.
However he was confident farmers will sign up to the voluntary scheme.
"We want to encourage them to take voluntary action that best fits how they farm, so they can support wildlife and protect water quality while continuing to produce food in a sustainable way," he said.
By Louise Gray, Environment CorrespondentPublished: 7:00AM GMT 05 Nov 2009
Land set-aside for wildlife should encourage farmland birds like skylarks Photo: REUTERS
European subsides for farmland taken out of production or "set-aside" were scrapped in 2007.
However it immediately became apparent that the system was beneficial to wildlife, with farmland birds and animals thriving on fallow land.
Hilary Benn, the Environment Secretary, suggested bringing back a compulsory scheme that would pay farmers to set aside uncultivated land. But this met with outrage from farmers who argued that the land should be cultivated to produce food.
Now the Government, farmers and conservation groups have come to an uneasy compromise by introducing a voluntary set-aside scheme.
The Campaign for the Farmed Environment will see all farmers obliged to farm in a more environmentally friendly manner.
At the height of the European scheme set-aside resulted in around 8 per cent of agricultural land being left fallow. The voluntary scheme will aim to leave around 180,000 hectares of land uncropped as well as encouraging farmers to better manage farmed land for wildlife. For example by leaving stubble over the winter so birds can feed and leaving hedgerows between fields.
Farmers will also be asked to double the amount of land being especially cultivated for wildlife under new European environmental subsidies from 40,000 to 80,000 hectares. This will include land left fallow for skylarks, wild flowers planted by fields and "beetle banks" created to help insects.
The amount of land managed for the environment on a voluntary basis will be boosted by 30,000 acres.
Altogether the voluntary scheme should ensure the same environmental benefits gained from set-aside.
Leaflets are being sent to every farmer asking them to build ponds, plant trees and bring in other environmental measures.
Farmers with more than 10 hectares of land will also be surveyed in the New Year to ensure they are setting aside land for the environment.
If the targets are not met Mr Benn has threatened to bring in compulsory measures.
However he was confident farmers will sign up to the voluntary scheme.
"We want to encourage them to take voluntary action that best fits how they farm, so they can support wildlife and protect water quality while continuing to produce food in a sustainable way," he said.
Thursday, 5 November 2009
Climate change ministry signs up to campaign
Karen McVeigh
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 4 November 2009 23.35 GMT
The Department of Energy and Climate Change, responsible for promoting energy efficiency, is to sign up tomorrow to the 10:10 campaign to cut carbon emissions.
Its pledge to cut its carbon emissions by 10% in 2010 comes after it emerged that the department's headquarters in Whitehall had the worst possible energy efficiency rating on the government's own seven-point scale. It is the second government department to sign up to the campaign, which is supported by the Guardian, after the Department for International Development. The DECC's 100-year old Grade II listed building at 3 Whitehall Place was given the bottom rating of G along with the Home Office, which moved into a newly built office only a few years ago, and the Department of Health. On average, government buildings scored an F. The DECC said the new department had only moved last October into the building, which was difficult to upgrade to the standards of a new building.
About 45% of the UK's carbon emissions come from energy use in buildings. So far, 51 councils have signed up to 10:10 or passed a motion to do so.
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 4 November 2009 23.35 GMT
The Department of Energy and Climate Change, responsible for promoting energy efficiency, is to sign up tomorrow to the 10:10 campaign to cut carbon emissions.
Its pledge to cut its carbon emissions by 10% in 2010 comes after it emerged that the department's headquarters in Whitehall had the worst possible energy efficiency rating on the government's own seven-point scale. It is the second government department to sign up to the campaign, which is supported by the Guardian, after the Department for International Development. The DECC's 100-year old Grade II listed building at 3 Whitehall Place was given the bottom rating of G along with the Home Office, which moved into a newly built office only a few years ago, and the Department of Health. On average, government buildings scored an F. The DECC said the new department had only moved last October into the building, which was difficult to upgrade to the standards of a new building.
About 45% of the UK's carbon emissions come from energy use in buildings. So far, 51 councils have signed up to 10:10 or passed a motion to do so.
Rich countries call on African bloc to keep climate talks on track
Poor countries forced to make a stand over lack of commitment from rich nations on emissions cuts, claims African delegate
John Vidal in Barcelona
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 4 November 2009 17.27 GMT
Rich countries today piled pressure on Africa not to derail climate talks after the poorest countries in the world shocked the UN by walking out of the official negotiations, demanding that their concerns be met.
The chair of the Africa group of nations, Kamel Djemouai, was recalled from Barcelona by the Algerian government and other African delegations reportedly received "strong" phone calls from their capitals urging them not to imperil the last negotiations before Copenhagen. Algeria admitted that its negotiator had been recalled but it was denied that this had anything to do with Africa's stand.
The African bloc complained that rich nations' carbon cuts were far too small to avoid catastrophic climate change, and refused to participate until more was done. The move forced the UN to abandon several sessions and reschedule others to give rich countries more time to debate emissions cuts. Countries have agreed to devote 60% of the remaining time to those discussions.
France has been supportive of Africa's position ahead of the climate change talks in Copenhagen. But French negotiators are known to have been angered and dismayed by the African move. "They are shooting themselves in the foot," said one French diplomat.
The Guardian has learned that Africa's intervention was not a spur of the moment decision by negotiators. The decision to make a stand to try to force rich countries to increase their commitments was taken in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, last month when African heads of state met to coordinate their positions before the talks.
"It was a political act, not a negotiating stand. The negotiators here in Barcelona were told to make a dramatic action," said one source close to the group.
"We took a risk and it worked. We are very pleased with the reaction," said Bruno Sekoli, head of the Lesotho national climate office and chair of the least developed countries group of the world's poorest nations.
"Africa had no choice because of the reality of climate change. The negotiations have been going a long time and have not shown much progress. It's not about money. Climate change is an issue of life or death for us. The developed countries have to shift policies. A bad deal is not good for Africa or vulnerable countries," said Sekoli.
"The impacts of climate change have come too soon, so soon. I am scared to think of the consequences," he said.
He added that the reaction from other developing countries had been heartening. The G77 group of 130 countries, the Alliance of Small island states and others in Latin America all supported the African stance.
Their move was credited with reminding delegations that the ultimate point of the talks is to reduce emissions. Until now the negotiations have been dominated by concerns of the US and China and have seemed irrelevant to many of the poorest countries which are already feeling the effects of climate change.
"Their move leaves Africa in a much stronger position. So far Africa has not been recognised in the talks at all," said Saleemul Huq, head of climate change at the London-based International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED).
"It's a moral stance, it points out the difference between a good and a bad deal. A good deal is defined by what is good for the planet. Africa will feel the consequences most of a bad deal," said Huq. "If you are an African country you have much more at stake than a rich country. They are rightly confused by the talks and angry."
Hugh Cole, climate adviser for Oxfam in Southern Africa: "African countries have drawn a line in the sand this week. They are not willing to accept a bad deal in Copenhagen which will spell disaster for millions of their poorest people. Rich countries must now stop trying to dodge and delay their responsibilities — deliver the emissions cuts the science demands and the climate finance poor communities desperately need."
The Africa group of nations is a new political grouping in the UN climate talks, reflecting the continent's increased unity, and desire to work together. It is led by President Meles of Ethiopia, but is negotiating separately in the talks even though many of its members are part of larger political groupings like the G77 plus China, and the Least Developed Countries (LDC).
John Vidal in Barcelona
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 4 November 2009 17.27 GMT
Rich countries today piled pressure on Africa not to derail climate talks after the poorest countries in the world shocked the UN by walking out of the official negotiations, demanding that their concerns be met.
The chair of the Africa group of nations, Kamel Djemouai, was recalled from Barcelona by the Algerian government and other African delegations reportedly received "strong" phone calls from their capitals urging them not to imperil the last negotiations before Copenhagen. Algeria admitted that its negotiator had been recalled but it was denied that this had anything to do with Africa's stand.
The African bloc complained that rich nations' carbon cuts were far too small to avoid catastrophic climate change, and refused to participate until more was done. The move forced the UN to abandon several sessions and reschedule others to give rich countries more time to debate emissions cuts. Countries have agreed to devote 60% of the remaining time to those discussions.
France has been supportive of Africa's position ahead of the climate change talks in Copenhagen. But French negotiators are known to have been angered and dismayed by the African move. "They are shooting themselves in the foot," said one French diplomat.
The Guardian has learned that Africa's intervention was not a spur of the moment decision by negotiators. The decision to make a stand to try to force rich countries to increase their commitments was taken in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, last month when African heads of state met to coordinate their positions before the talks.
"It was a political act, not a negotiating stand. The negotiators here in Barcelona were told to make a dramatic action," said one source close to the group.
"We took a risk and it worked. We are very pleased with the reaction," said Bruno Sekoli, head of the Lesotho national climate office and chair of the least developed countries group of the world's poorest nations.
"Africa had no choice because of the reality of climate change. The negotiations have been going a long time and have not shown much progress. It's not about money. Climate change is an issue of life or death for us. The developed countries have to shift policies. A bad deal is not good for Africa or vulnerable countries," said Sekoli.
"The impacts of climate change have come too soon, so soon. I am scared to think of the consequences," he said.
He added that the reaction from other developing countries had been heartening. The G77 group of 130 countries, the Alliance of Small island states and others in Latin America all supported the African stance.
Their move was credited with reminding delegations that the ultimate point of the talks is to reduce emissions. Until now the negotiations have been dominated by concerns of the US and China and have seemed irrelevant to many of the poorest countries which are already feeling the effects of climate change.
"Their move leaves Africa in a much stronger position. So far Africa has not been recognised in the talks at all," said Saleemul Huq, head of climate change at the London-based International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED).
"It's a moral stance, it points out the difference between a good and a bad deal. A good deal is defined by what is good for the planet. Africa will feel the consequences most of a bad deal," said Huq. "If you are an African country you have much more at stake than a rich country. They are rightly confused by the talks and angry."
Hugh Cole, climate adviser for Oxfam in Southern Africa: "African countries have drawn a line in the sand this week. They are not willing to accept a bad deal in Copenhagen which will spell disaster for millions of their poorest people. Rich countries must now stop trying to dodge and delay their responsibilities — deliver the emissions cuts the science demands and the climate finance poor communities desperately need."
The Africa group of nations is a new political grouping in the UN climate talks, reflecting the continent's increased unity, and desire to work together. It is led by President Meles of Ethiopia, but is negotiating separately in the talks even though many of its members are part of larger political groupings like the G77 plus China, and the Least Developed Countries (LDC).
Scotland signs up to Climate Group
Move will allow Alex Salmond's Scottish nationalist government to build alliances with small states, city councils and major companies pressing for deep and binding cuts in CO2 emissions
Severin Carrell, Scotland correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 4 November 2009 16.33 GMT
Alex Salmond's Scottish nationalist government has joined California and New York city in a global alliance of small states, city councils and major companies pressing for deep and binding cuts in CO2 emissions.
The Scottish National party administration said today it had signed up to the Climate Group, a London-based not-for-profit campaign which is lobbying heavily for a far-reaching and long-term global deal on emissions at next month's climate talks in Copenhagen.
The Scottish government is in part attempting to outflank the Labour-led government in London, which has refused Salmond's demands that the UK delegation should include a Scottish minister in Copenhagen. Gordon Brown has offered only to allow a Scottish civil servant to take part, arguing that the UK has to present a united and consistent front at the talks.
The SNP, which runs a minority government in Scotland, has introduced some of the most ambitious climate change legislation of any comparable administration, partly under intense pressure from opposition parties at the Scottish parliament.
Those include legislation requiring up to 42% cuts in CO2 emissions by 2020 and annual legally binding emissions reductions, and for the first time published line-by-line carbon emissions for £33bn in core spending in its annual budget in September. Environment groups say these measures are more radical than the UK's government's policies.
The SNP is now building alternative alliances with other regional and "sub-national" governments through the Climate Group, which includes Catalonia, California, Chicago, the Greater London Authority, North Rhine and Westphalia, Western Australia, Ontario and Quebec. Major companies who are amongst the more than 60 full members include Google, Virgin, Timberland, BSkyB, BP, IBM, Tesco and Marks and Spencer.
The Scottish environment minister, Stewart Stephenson, made the announcement at a Climate Group event during the UN's pre-Copenhagen talks in Barcelona, and is expected to attend Copenhagen for the organisation's day of fringe events.
Stephenson said: "The Scottish government recognises the urgency of addressing climate change and is an active partner in the common desire to identify solutions, work towards adaptation and create a sustainable future."
Luc Bas, the Climate Group's head of government relations for Europe, said Scotland had set a "great example" by agreeing ambitious cuts targets in its Climate Change Act, the carbon assessments in its budgets and "strategic approach" to climate change adaptation.
"Scotland's commitment to green energy and the economic opportunities of the low carbon economy is impressive and far-sighted. This is a great model for other countries to follow," he said.
Some senior environmentalists have been privately very critical of Salmond's attempts to join the official UK delegation to Copenhagen, since Scotland is a minor force on the global stage, and accused him of posturing.
Despite its ambitious policies, the devolved Scottish government only controls about 30% of Scotland's total CO2 outputs, which in turn account for less than 10% of the UK's emissions. The remaining 70% are influenced by European Union and UK government policies, such as on fuel taxation, VAT and aviation.
Hitting the 42% cut by 2020 also requires a binding deal at Copenhagen, and Stephenson could cut that target if no deal is reached. Despite championing green energy projects, Salmond also supports new coal-fired power stations, the North Sea oil industry, and roads and airport expansion.
Critics believe the Scottish government is far better able to influence regional governments or states of a similar size, rather than pretend it can challenge India, China or the US.
Richard Dixon, director of the environment group WWF Scotland and a supporter of the SNP's policies on climate change, said the decision to join the Climate Group was a welcome.
"It's a perfectly sensible thing to do. Scotland shouldn't be trying to pretend to sit beside the UK. It should be sitting alongside a really good regional grouping," he said.
Severin Carrell, Scotland correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 4 November 2009 16.33 GMT
Alex Salmond's Scottish nationalist government has joined California and New York city in a global alliance of small states, city councils and major companies pressing for deep and binding cuts in CO2 emissions.
The Scottish National party administration said today it had signed up to the Climate Group, a London-based not-for-profit campaign which is lobbying heavily for a far-reaching and long-term global deal on emissions at next month's climate talks in Copenhagen.
The Scottish government is in part attempting to outflank the Labour-led government in London, which has refused Salmond's demands that the UK delegation should include a Scottish minister in Copenhagen. Gordon Brown has offered only to allow a Scottish civil servant to take part, arguing that the UK has to present a united and consistent front at the talks.
The SNP, which runs a minority government in Scotland, has introduced some of the most ambitious climate change legislation of any comparable administration, partly under intense pressure from opposition parties at the Scottish parliament.
Those include legislation requiring up to 42% cuts in CO2 emissions by 2020 and annual legally binding emissions reductions, and for the first time published line-by-line carbon emissions for £33bn in core spending in its annual budget in September. Environment groups say these measures are more radical than the UK's government's policies.
The SNP is now building alternative alliances with other regional and "sub-national" governments through the Climate Group, which includes Catalonia, California, Chicago, the Greater London Authority, North Rhine and Westphalia, Western Australia, Ontario and Quebec. Major companies who are amongst the more than 60 full members include Google, Virgin, Timberland, BSkyB, BP, IBM, Tesco and Marks and Spencer.
The Scottish environment minister, Stewart Stephenson, made the announcement at a Climate Group event during the UN's pre-Copenhagen talks in Barcelona, and is expected to attend Copenhagen for the organisation's day of fringe events.
Stephenson said: "The Scottish government recognises the urgency of addressing climate change and is an active partner in the common desire to identify solutions, work towards adaptation and create a sustainable future."
Luc Bas, the Climate Group's head of government relations for Europe, said Scotland had set a "great example" by agreeing ambitious cuts targets in its Climate Change Act, the carbon assessments in its budgets and "strategic approach" to climate change adaptation.
"Scotland's commitment to green energy and the economic opportunities of the low carbon economy is impressive and far-sighted. This is a great model for other countries to follow," he said.
Some senior environmentalists have been privately very critical of Salmond's attempts to join the official UK delegation to Copenhagen, since Scotland is a minor force on the global stage, and accused him of posturing.
Despite its ambitious policies, the devolved Scottish government only controls about 30% of Scotland's total CO2 outputs, which in turn account for less than 10% of the UK's emissions. The remaining 70% are influenced by European Union and UK government policies, such as on fuel taxation, VAT and aviation.
Hitting the 42% cut by 2020 also requires a binding deal at Copenhagen, and Stephenson could cut that target if no deal is reached. Despite championing green energy projects, Salmond also supports new coal-fired power stations, the North Sea oil industry, and roads and airport expansion.
Critics believe the Scottish government is far better able to influence regional governments or states of a similar size, rather than pretend it can challenge India, China or the US.
Richard Dixon, director of the environment group WWF Scotland and a supporter of the SNP's policies on climate change, said the decision to join the Climate Group was a welcome.
"It's a perfectly sensible thing to do. Scotland shouldn't be trying to pretend to sit beside the UK. It should be sitting alongside a really good regional grouping," he said.
US scales down hopes of global climate change treaty in Copenhagen
• Binding agreement not expected in Copenhagen• Administration working towards treaty next year
Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington and John Vidal in Barcelona
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 4 November 2009 23.24 GMT
The US has given up hope of reaching a global climate change treaty at Copenhagen and is working towards a deal late next year, the Obama administration said today. The decision ends hopes of a legally binding deal being sealed next month.
"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," said John Kerry, who chairs the Senate foreign relations committee.
Todd Stern, the state department climate change envoy, agreed. "It doesn't look like it's on the cards for December," he said. "We should make progress towards a political agreement that hits each of the main elements."
The scaling back of US ambitions follows a growing international consensus that a binding legal agreement on global warming could not be reached at Copenhagen – now just 32 days away. The US shift resets expectations for what will be accomplished at Copenhagen, once billed by the UN as a last chance to avoid catastrophic global warming.
Stern, in comments to the house foreign relations committee today, said his comments playing down prospects for a binding treaty at Copenhagen reflected the views of senior US politicians including Ed Markey, the author of a climate change bill passed in June. Stern insisted that negotiators were intent on producing a blueprint in Copenhagen that would lead to a binding legal agreement "perhaps next year or as soon as possible".
He said: "We want something beyond certainly a declaration that we are going to keep working on this. We want a real agreement." However, the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, said today that a delay of a year before a legally binding treaty was signed would be too long, given the threat posed by greenhouse gas emissions.
Kerry, speaking at a National Journal seminar, said he was looking for countries to begin to put in place firm commitments at Copenhagen that would then be enshrined in international law by the end of 2010. "What I am looking for is a binding and real political agreement where the world comes together in Copenhagen with an agreement for fixed reductions that are measurable, verifiable and reportable Then you set either a June or July date or the Mexico date in December next year and work on the language in that year."
However, Kerry acknowledged even that scaled back notion of success hinged on the US Congress passing a climate change law, which seems unlikely because of strong Republican opposition to the possible costs of emissions cuts.
As chair of the foreign relations committee, Kerry will play a pivotal role in getting any treaty ratified by the Senate. He said he was working with a Republican senator, Lindsey Graham, and the one-time Democrat Joe Lieberman to build support for the bill among Republicans and conservative Democrats. The three were meeting later today with the White House, the energy secretary, Stephen Chu, and the interior secretary, Ken Salazar, to craft a bill that would pass in the Senate — and have the support of the Obama administration.
Kerry said the reduced role for Copenhagen could work out to the world's advantage — allowing extra time for America, China, and the international community to co-ordinate their efforts. "The president can go China next week, sit with the Chinese and make clear what he is prepared to do, make clear what the Senate is prepared do. What the house has done has been made clear. so you are in a range, and the Chinese and everyone else enter into a political agreement which does not have the force of law till a year later," he said.
"We in effect have sealed a deal," he said. "It works out be a fairly logicial step by step incremental process"
In Barcelona, at the last negotiating meeting before Copenhagen, rich countries piled pressure on Africa not to derail the climate talks after the poorest countries in the world shocked the UN by walking out of the official talks, demanding that their concerns be met.
The chair of the Africa group of nations, Kamel Djemouai, was recalled from Barcelona by the Algerian government and other African delegations reportedly received "strong" phone calls from their capitals urging them not to imperil the last negotiations before Copenhagen. Algeria admitted that its negotiator had been recalled but it was denied that this was related to Africa's stand.
The African bloc complained that rich nations' carbon cuts were far too small to avoid catastrophic climate change, and refused to participate until more was done. The move forced the UN to abandon several sessions and reschedule others to give rich countries more time to debate emissions cuts. Countries have agreed to devote 60% of the remaining time to those discussions.
France has been supportive of Africa's position ahead of the climate change talks in Copenhagen. But French negotiators are known to have been angered and dismayed by the African move. "They are shooting themselves in the foot," said one French diplomat.
Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington and John Vidal in Barcelona
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 4 November 2009 23.24 GMT
The US has given up hope of reaching a global climate change treaty at Copenhagen and is working towards a deal late next year, the Obama administration said today. The decision ends hopes of a legally binding deal being sealed next month.
"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," said John Kerry, who chairs the Senate foreign relations committee.
Todd Stern, the state department climate change envoy, agreed. "It doesn't look like it's on the cards for December," he said. "We should make progress towards a political agreement that hits each of the main elements."
The scaling back of US ambitions follows a growing international consensus that a binding legal agreement on global warming could not be reached at Copenhagen – now just 32 days away. The US shift resets expectations for what will be accomplished at Copenhagen, once billed by the UN as a last chance to avoid catastrophic global warming.
Stern, in comments to the house foreign relations committee today, said his comments playing down prospects for a binding treaty at Copenhagen reflected the views of senior US politicians including Ed Markey, the author of a climate change bill passed in June. Stern insisted that negotiators were intent on producing a blueprint in Copenhagen that would lead to a binding legal agreement "perhaps next year or as soon as possible".
He said: "We want something beyond certainly a declaration that we are going to keep working on this. We want a real agreement." However, the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, said today that a delay of a year before a legally binding treaty was signed would be too long, given the threat posed by greenhouse gas emissions.
Kerry, speaking at a National Journal seminar, said he was looking for countries to begin to put in place firm commitments at Copenhagen that would then be enshrined in international law by the end of 2010. "What I am looking for is a binding and real political agreement where the world comes together in Copenhagen with an agreement for fixed reductions that are measurable, verifiable and reportable Then you set either a June or July date or the Mexico date in December next year and work on the language in that year."
However, Kerry acknowledged even that scaled back notion of success hinged on the US Congress passing a climate change law, which seems unlikely because of strong Republican opposition to the possible costs of emissions cuts.
As chair of the foreign relations committee, Kerry will play a pivotal role in getting any treaty ratified by the Senate. He said he was working with a Republican senator, Lindsey Graham, and the one-time Democrat Joe Lieberman to build support for the bill among Republicans and conservative Democrats. The three were meeting later today with the White House, the energy secretary, Stephen Chu, and the interior secretary, Ken Salazar, to craft a bill that would pass in the Senate — and have the support of the Obama administration.
Kerry said the reduced role for Copenhagen could work out to the world's advantage — allowing extra time for America, China, and the international community to co-ordinate their efforts. "The president can go China next week, sit with the Chinese and make clear what he is prepared to do, make clear what the Senate is prepared do. What the house has done has been made clear. so you are in a range, and the Chinese and everyone else enter into a political agreement which does not have the force of law till a year later," he said.
"We in effect have sealed a deal," he said. "It works out be a fairly logicial step by step incremental process"
In Barcelona, at the last negotiating meeting before Copenhagen, rich countries piled pressure on Africa not to derail the climate talks after the poorest countries in the world shocked the UN by walking out of the official talks, demanding that their concerns be met.
The chair of the Africa group of nations, Kamel Djemouai, was recalled from Barcelona by the Algerian government and other African delegations reportedly received "strong" phone calls from their capitals urging them not to imperil the last negotiations before Copenhagen. Algeria admitted that its negotiator had been recalled but it was denied that this was related to Africa's stand.
The African bloc complained that rich nations' carbon cuts were far too small to avoid catastrophic climate change, and refused to participate until more was done. The move forced the UN to abandon several sessions and reschedule others to give rich countries more time to debate emissions cuts. Countries have agreed to devote 60% of the remaining time to those discussions.
France has been supportive of Africa's position ahead of the climate change talks in Copenhagen. But French negotiators are known to have been angered and dismayed by the African move. "They are shooting themselves in the foot," said one French diplomat.
Copenhagen is an opportunity for ethics to trump economics
Avoiding action on climate change because it might be too expensive is on a moral par with harming other people for money
James Garvey
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 4 November 2009 08.00 GMT
How should humanity share the cost of action on climate change? Without an answer to this question, the world will not secure a strong and binding deal on the climate at Copenhagen next month, and we will continue on a path towards an increasingly inhospitable world. As many key players have warned, there is a real chance of failure. The Swedish prime minister, Fredrik Reinfeldt, warns that negotiations are faltering because the west is unwilling to offer financing to emerging economies, and the developing world won't budge without the promise of cash.
US Senators on both sides of the aisle are doing all they can to block action with talk of danger to jobs and the US economy. Countries in eastern Europe say that contributing too much will wreck their fragile economies, and wealthier westerners are unwilling to fix numbers, hoping to translate silence into a stronger bargaining position with the US and Japan. No one wants to pay too much, and everyone wants someone else to pay more. This is only rational, isn't it, just part of getting a fair deal for all? It depends on how one counts the cost of climate change.
Some insist that the options on the table are simply too expensive. No deal is better than a deal which costs us too much. Money is the determining factor – not warnings about a grim future or something as wishy-washy as concern for the poor. As idiotic as this sounds, it nevertheless gets you where you live, right in the wallet, and many people actually fall for it. Recall Bush's excuse for pulling the US out of Kyoto, the world's first failed opportunity for a climate deal: "complying with those mandates would have a negative economic impact, with layoffs of workers and price increases for consumers." He does at least speak plainly. Relieved of some of the fanfare, the climate talks are in danger of stalling because of thoughts not too distant from plain words like these. Serious action on climate change will damage our current wealth, so we won't do it.
There is something fundamentally vicious about putting money at the heart of the negotiations. No doubt matters are excruciatingly complex, and reasonable people can argue about how best to spend money on climate change and the world's other ills, but that's not what's happening. We are in danger of failing to act simply because some maintain that the cost of action is too high. Think about the relevant causes and effects of climate change: our easy lives of high-energy consumption and the damage we are doing to the planet. Consider the human beings who will suffer because of our easy lives. Avoiding meaningful action on climate change just because it might be too expensive is on a moral par with harming other people for money. Call it what it is: keeping money in exchange for the suffering of others.
Ethics sometimes has to trump economics. If you have a moral obligation to take action, you don't get out of it with talk of expense. Would you forgive someone for avoiding a moral duty because he thought it might cost him too much? He'd rather not abandon plans for a festive weekend in Spain, so those child care payments will have to wait. No judge would let a father get away with that. Sometimes we have to tighten our belts and do the right thing, even if it costs us more than we'd like.
The west has a long history of industrialisation, and it has done the most damage to our world. Therefore the west has the largest moral obligation to take action. No doubt all countries, even those industrialising much later, have moral responsibilities too, but the point is that our obligations click in no matter what the rest of the world does, no matter what other countries pay. We have to pay for our fair share of the damage, not fight hard for the cheapest way out.
Some think that talking about moral obligations just makes us feel guilty, and we've had enough of that. Others collapse in the face of complexity, groaning that we can't do enough in the short time that we have. Don't believe a word of it. Human beings can move mountains in an instant when they see that something is wrong – the obvious examples are the right ones to think about. If our representatives have forgotten the moral demand for action on climate change, it's up to the rest of us to do something – maybe remind them that they've mistaken money for the things which really matter.
• James Garvey is secretary of the Royal Institute of Philosophy and author of The Ethics of Climate Change
James Garvey
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 4 November 2009 08.00 GMT
How should humanity share the cost of action on climate change? Without an answer to this question, the world will not secure a strong and binding deal on the climate at Copenhagen next month, and we will continue on a path towards an increasingly inhospitable world. As many key players have warned, there is a real chance of failure. The Swedish prime minister, Fredrik Reinfeldt, warns that negotiations are faltering because the west is unwilling to offer financing to emerging economies, and the developing world won't budge without the promise of cash.
US Senators on both sides of the aisle are doing all they can to block action with talk of danger to jobs and the US economy. Countries in eastern Europe say that contributing too much will wreck their fragile economies, and wealthier westerners are unwilling to fix numbers, hoping to translate silence into a stronger bargaining position with the US and Japan. No one wants to pay too much, and everyone wants someone else to pay more. This is only rational, isn't it, just part of getting a fair deal for all? It depends on how one counts the cost of climate change.
Some insist that the options on the table are simply too expensive. No deal is better than a deal which costs us too much. Money is the determining factor – not warnings about a grim future or something as wishy-washy as concern for the poor. As idiotic as this sounds, it nevertheless gets you where you live, right in the wallet, and many people actually fall for it. Recall Bush's excuse for pulling the US out of Kyoto, the world's first failed opportunity for a climate deal: "complying with those mandates would have a negative economic impact, with layoffs of workers and price increases for consumers." He does at least speak plainly. Relieved of some of the fanfare, the climate talks are in danger of stalling because of thoughts not too distant from plain words like these. Serious action on climate change will damage our current wealth, so we won't do it.
There is something fundamentally vicious about putting money at the heart of the negotiations. No doubt matters are excruciatingly complex, and reasonable people can argue about how best to spend money on climate change and the world's other ills, but that's not what's happening. We are in danger of failing to act simply because some maintain that the cost of action is too high. Think about the relevant causes and effects of climate change: our easy lives of high-energy consumption and the damage we are doing to the planet. Consider the human beings who will suffer because of our easy lives. Avoiding meaningful action on climate change just because it might be too expensive is on a moral par with harming other people for money. Call it what it is: keeping money in exchange for the suffering of others.
Ethics sometimes has to trump economics. If you have a moral obligation to take action, you don't get out of it with talk of expense. Would you forgive someone for avoiding a moral duty because he thought it might cost him too much? He'd rather not abandon plans for a festive weekend in Spain, so those child care payments will have to wait. No judge would let a father get away with that. Sometimes we have to tighten our belts and do the right thing, even if it costs us more than we'd like.
The west has a long history of industrialisation, and it has done the most damage to our world. Therefore the west has the largest moral obligation to take action. No doubt all countries, even those industrialising much later, have moral responsibilities too, but the point is that our obligations click in no matter what the rest of the world does, no matter what other countries pay. We have to pay for our fair share of the damage, not fight hard for the cheapest way out.
Some think that talking about moral obligations just makes us feel guilty, and we've had enough of that. Others collapse in the face of complexity, groaning that we can't do enough in the short time that we have. Don't believe a word of it. Human beings can move mountains in an instant when they see that something is wrong – the obvious examples are the right ones to think about. If our representatives have forgotten the moral demand for action on climate change, it's up to the rest of us to do something – maybe remind them that they've mistaken money for the things which really matter.
• James Garvey is secretary of the Royal Institute of Philosophy and author of The Ethics of Climate Change
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
