Study of 600 brands finds two-thirds are either increasing emissions, have weak targets on cuts or do not publish data
Rebecca Smithers, consumer affairs correspondent
The Guardian, Wednesday 25 November 2009
Consumer expectations that favourite brands are actively tackling climate change will be challenged tomorrow by a report showing that some of Britain's top corporate names, including Barclays, Amazon and Sky, are lagging behind their competitors and failing to respond to the lead set by the government.
A survey of the carbon performance of 600 of the UK's biggest brands reveals that two-thirds are either increasing their greenhouse gas emissions, have targets that are weaker than the government's Copenhagen goal for carbon cuts, or are failing to put information about their carbon emissions in the public domain.
To tackle global warming the government has set a national target for 2020 of a cut of 34% on the 1990 emission levels.
The companies offered their own information for the survey, entitled Brand Emissions, and the data revealed that only one in five brands was demonstrating a reduction in emissions and had ambitious targets in line with the UK's aims.
The "leaders" emerging from the research included the supermarket giant Tesco, the phone company T-Mobile, the computer company Dell and the car manufacturer BMW.
At the other end of the scale, and for 250 brands, researchers found no carbon emissions information at all reported; this group included Google, McKinsey and Amazon. There were no public emission reduction targets for 320 brands, including Porsche, Harvey Nichols and McDonald's. Around 122 of the brands that did report their carbon output were seen to have increased their emissions in 2008. This group included Barclays, Sky and eBay.
The project, launched tomorrow,was developed by Marketing magazine and Brand Republic, with ENDS Carbon, a specialist carbon ratings agency, and the University of Edinburgh business school. The aim is to give an annual rating of leading UK brands.
Craig Mackenzie, research director of the Brand Emissions project, said: "The 100 or so leading brands show just how much can be done if you set your mind to it. But to keep global temperatures within the 2°C safe zone we need all brands to demonstrate the same level of ambition and achievement."
Rachael Stilwell, publishing director of Marketing magazine, said: "These results will become an important reputational milestone for brands."
Some of the companies that had a poor rating said revealing information could have been beneficial to their competitors. A spokesperson for Google, which claims to have been carbon neutral since 2007, said: "We have taken concrete steps to improve the efficiency of our computing infrastructure and reduce the energy used by our facilities.
Friends of the Earth's Mike Childs said: "The government must ensure that businesses cut their carbon emissions through well-targeted regulation, taxation and financial support."
Best brands
Tesco, T-Mobile, Dell, BMW, Eurotunnel, Accenture, Standard Chartered, Ericsson, KPMG, AMD
Worst brands
Barclays, Sky, correcteBay, Toyota, RBS (Royal Bank of Scotland), Travis Perkins, Bosch, Axa, British Gas
No information or targets
Google, McKinsey, Amazon, Porsche, Harvey Nichols, McDonald's, Amazon, Burger King, Chanel, Facebook
Brands that increased their emissions last year and have not published a target to reduce them
Acer, Juniper Networks, Billabong International, Finnair, Premier Inn, Costa, Gossard, Aegon, Unisys, TNT
Source: Brand Emissions
Wednesday, 25 November 2009
Australian Opposition Backs Carbon Caps
By RACHEL PANNETT
CANBERRA -- Australia's opposition leader said he will rally support to pass a government plan to cap the country's greenhouse-gas emissions after Prime Minister Kevin Rudd agreed to key compromises aimed at placating critics of the effort.
If Australia's Parliament passes the carbon plan into law -- which now appears likely -- in a vote scheduled this week, Mr. Rudd will have achieved a significant political victory as other nations struggle to contain carbon emissions world-wide.
A similar plan has moved slowly in the U.S. Senate, and talks between world leaders to carve out a new global pact to replace the Kyoto Protocol in Copenhagen next month appear unlikely to yield a binding deal.
Australia is the biggest per-capita polluter in the developed world because it uses fossil fuels, chiefly coal, for around 90% of its electricity generation. Like the U.S., it is a heavily industrialized economy that has previously resisted capping emissions for fear it could crimp economic growth.
Australia accounts for only about 1.5% of global emissions, so any such program would be largely symbolic in terms of the broader global picture. But it would put further pressure on countries such as the U.S. to accelerate their plans to approve carbon-reduction schemes. One of Mr. Rudd's first acts in office in 2007 was to add Australia to the signatories of the Kyoto Protocol, isolating the U.S. as the only major developed economy not bound by mandatory caps.
Following weeks of discussions between the government and opposition Liberal-National coalition negotiators, Mr. Rudd and Climate Change Minister Penny Wong offered seven billion Australian dollars (US$6.48 billion) in compensation, including loan guarantees and other assistance for coal miners, electricity generators, liquefied natural-gas projects and others. They also offered to permanently exclude agriculture from the program.
Liberal Party leader Malcolm Turnbull said the government made the offers on the condition that its carbon program would pass this year. The opposition leader said the plan is "good for the environment, it is good for farmers, and it offers us one of the best near-term opportunities for carbon-dioxide abatement."
The plan still faces some opposition, including from mining companies and some environmentalists who believe the latest compromises weaken the plan. But Mr. Turnbull's support increases the odds a plan will be approved. Although the governing Labor Party won a majority in Australia's lower house of representatives at the last election, it needs the support of at least seven opposition senators in the country's upper house to pass any new laws -- a number Mr. Turnbull is expected to deliver.
If passed, the government plan will see Australia introduce in July 2011 a market-based carbon-trading program similar to one operating in Europe since 2005, forcing the nation's biggest polluters to pay for their greenhouse-gas emissions. The aim, by 2020, is to reduce Australia's emissions by at least 5% from levels at the turn of the century.
Environment groups and industry were united in their skepticism toward Tuesday's deal. Sen. Bob Brown, whose environmentalist Greens Party holds five seats in the upper house Senate, described it as a "black day for the environment," adding that Mr. Rudd has "caved in to the big polluters" at the expense of households. The Greens are expected to vote against the plan.
Meanwhile, the coal industry continued to hold out for a better deal. Queensland Resources Council Chief Executive Michael Roche said the latest compensation package for coal -- which saw government support doubled to A$1.5 billion over five years, mainly in the form of free permits for carbon emissions -- represents less than 10% of the A$14.5 billion cost the coal industry faces over the next decade if the carbon program is established. Concessions to miners also is a large part of the U.S. debate.
"Every ton of coal not produced in Australia as a result of this tax will simply be produced by our competitors, who are not being penalized in the same way by their governments," Mr. Roche said.
Opposition lawmakers rejected an earlier version of the legislation in August. Key changes since then include making 75% more free permits for carbon emissions available to electricity generators, and extending the compensation period for the sector to 10 years from five years in a package now valued at A$7.3 billion, up from around A$3.9 billion.
Write to Rachel Pannett at rachel.pannett@dowjones.com
CANBERRA -- Australia's opposition leader said he will rally support to pass a government plan to cap the country's greenhouse-gas emissions after Prime Minister Kevin Rudd agreed to key compromises aimed at placating critics of the effort.
If Australia's Parliament passes the carbon plan into law -- which now appears likely -- in a vote scheduled this week, Mr. Rudd will have achieved a significant political victory as other nations struggle to contain carbon emissions world-wide.
A similar plan has moved slowly in the U.S. Senate, and talks between world leaders to carve out a new global pact to replace the Kyoto Protocol in Copenhagen next month appear unlikely to yield a binding deal.
Australia is the biggest per-capita polluter in the developed world because it uses fossil fuels, chiefly coal, for around 90% of its electricity generation. Like the U.S., it is a heavily industrialized economy that has previously resisted capping emissions for fear it could crimp economic growth.
Australia accounts for only about 1.5% of global emissions, so any such program would be largely symbolic in terms of the broader global picture. But it would put further pressure on countries such as the U.S. to accelerate their plans to approve carbon-reduction schemes. One of Mr. Rudd's first acts in office in 2007 was to add Australia to the signatories of the Kyoto Protocol, isolating the U.S. as the only major developed economy not bound by mandatory caps.
Following weeks of discussions between the government and opposition Liberal-National coalition negotiators, Mr. Rudd and Climate Change Minister Penny Wong offered seven billion Australian dollars (US$6.48 billion) in compensation, including loan guarantees and other assistance for coal miners, electricity generators, liquefied natural-gas projects and others. They also offered to permanently exclude agriculture from the program.
Liberal Party leader Malcolm Turnbull said the government made the offers on the condition that its carbon program would pass this year. The opposition leader said the plan is "good for the environment, it is good for farmers, and it offers us one of the best near-term opportunities for carbon-dioxide abatement."
The plan still faces some opposition, including from mining companies and some environmentalists who believe the latest compromises weaken the plan. But Mr. Turnbull's support increases the odds a plan will be approved. Although the governing Labor Party won a majority in Australia's lower house of representatives at the last election, it needs the support of at least seven opposition senators in the country's upper house to pass any new laws -- a number Mr. Turnbull is expected to deliver.
If passed, the government plan will see Australia introduce in July 2011 a market-based carbon-trading program similar to one operating in Europe since 2005, forcing the nation's biggest polluters to pay for their greenhouse-gas emissions. The aim, by 2020, is to reduce Australia's emissions by at least 5% from levels at the turn of the century.
Environment groups and industry were united in their skepticism toward Tuesday's deal. Sen. Bob Brown, whose environmentalist Greens Party holds five seats in the upper house Senate, described it as a "black day for the environment," adding that Mr. Rudd has "caved in to the big polluters" at the expense of households. The Greens are expected to vote against the plan.
Meanwhile, the coal industry continued to hold out for a better deal. Queensland Resources Council Chief Executive Michael Roche said the latest compensation package for coal -- which saw government support doubled to A$1.5 billion over five years, mainly in the form of free permits for carbon emissions -- represents less than 10% of the A$14.5 billion cost the coal industry faces over the next decade if the carbon program is established. Concessions to miners also is a large part of the U.S. debate.
"Every ton of coal not produced in Australia as a result of this tax will simply be produced by our competitors, who are not being penalized in the same way by their governments," Mr. Roche said.
Opposition lawmakers rejected an earlier version of the legislation in August. Key changes since then include making 75% more free permits for carbon emissions available to electricity generators, and extending the compensation period for the sector to 10 years from five years in a package now valued at A$7.3 billion, up from around A$3.9 billion.
Write to Rachel Pannett at rachel.pannett@dowjones.com
Norway launches osmotic power
Published Date: 25 November 2009
By Wojciech Moskwa
NORWAY has opened the world's first osmotic power plant, which produces emissions-free electricity by mixing fresh water and sea water through a special membrane.
State-owned utility Statkraft's prototype plant, which for now will produce a tiny 2-4 kilowatts of power or enough to run a coffee machine, will test and develop osmotic technology.The plant is driven by osmosis that naturally draws fresh water across a membrane and towards the seawater side. This creates higher pressure on the sea water side, driving a turbine and producing electricity."We believe osmotic power will be an interesting part of the renewable energy mix of the future," Statkraft Chief Executive Baard Mikkelsen said.Statkraft, Europe's largest producer of renewable energy with experience in hydropower that provides nearly all of Norway's electricity, aims to begin building commercial osmotic power plants by 2015.The main issue is to improve the efficiency of the membrane from around 1 watt per square metre now to some 5 watts, which Statkraft says would make osmotic power costs comparable to those from other renewable sources.Future full-scale plants producing 25 MW of electricity, enough to provide power for 30,000 European households, would be as large as a football stadium, Statkraft said
By Wojciech Moskwa
NORWAY has opened the world's first osmotic power plant, which produces emissions-free electricity by mixing fresh water and sea water through a special membrane.
State-owned utility Statkraft's prototype plant, which for now will produce a tiny 2-4 kilowatts of power or enough to run a coffee machine, will test and develop osmotic technology.The plant is driven by osmosis that naturally draws fresh water across a membrane and towards the seawater side. This creates higher pressure on the sea water side, driving a turbine and producing electricity."We believe osmotic power will be an interesting part of the renewable energy mix of the future," Statkraft Chief Executive Baard Mikkelsen said.Statkraft, Europe's largest producer of renewable energy with experience in hydropower that provides nearly all of Norway's electricity, aims to begin building commercial osmotic power plants by 2015.The main issue is to improve the efficiency of the membrane from around 1 watt per square metre now to some 5 watts, which Statkraft says would make osmotic power costs comparable to those from other renewable sources.Future full-scale plants producing 25 MW of electricity, enough to provide power for 30,000 European households, would be as large as a football stadium, Statkraft said
George Osborne waves carrots not sticks in pitch for green mantle
Ben Webster
Being the greenest party is unlikely to be a decisive factor in next year’s general election but that did not stop the Conservatives yesterday making a pitch for the mantle.
George Osborne, the Shadow Chancellor, made a series of environmental commitments that had two things in common: they will not cost the taxpayer a penny to implement, nor will they force individuals to change their behaviour.
The theme of his speech was that carrots were better than sticks when it comes to getting people to embrace a low-carbon lifestyle. This neatly avoids anything that might be unpopular with voters.
Mr Osborne teased his audience by stating that “there is a role for green taxation” and claimed that rewarding people for recycling was an example of a “clever green tax”.
Yet in praising the reward scheme run by the Tory-controlled Windsor & Maidenhead Council, he neglected to mention that the rewards were paid for not from taxes but with in-kind donations of goods and services by local businesses.
Mr Osborne garnered positive headlines yesterday by suggesting that he would make all councils introduce such schemes. Yet the only specific commitment was simply to “give councils detailed information” so that they could decide for themselves whether they wanted to take part.
Mr Osborne’s other main commitment — to cut central government emissions by 10 per cent in 12 months — is also weaker than it sounds if one looks at the detail of the policy.
Individual departments will not have to cut emissions by 10 per cent. They will have to make a contribution to the overall 10 per cent target but the Conservatives are not yet saying how much effort each will have to make.
There is no new money to help departments to introduce any energy-saving measures, such as more efficient heating and better-insulated buildings.
The Conservatives made much of their pledge to cut the budgets of departments that failed to meet their emission reduction targets. It later became clear, however, that the laggards would not face any cut in their main budgets, only a trimming of their funding for energy bills.
Mr Osborne’s most promising green pledge was also the simplest: the Conservatives will expose energy guzzlers in Whitehall by requiring the real-time energy consumption of government buildings to be published online. “That way the public can hold ministers and civil servants to account for their performance.”
That was the nearest that his speech came to proposing any kind of stick to spur us to reach out for the carrots.
Being the greenest party is unlikely to be a decisive factor in next year’s general election but that did not stop the Conservatives yesterday making a pitch for the mantle.
George Osborne, the Shadow Chancellor, made a series of environmental commitments that had two things in common: they will not cost the taxpayer a penny to implement, nor will they force individuals to change their behaviour.
The theme of his speech was that carrots were better than sticks when it comes to getting people to embrace a low-carbon lifestyle. This neatly avoids anything that might be unpopular with voters.
Mr Osborne teased his audience by stating that “there is a role for green taxation” and claimed that rewarding people for recycling was an example of a “clever green tax”.
Yet in praising the reward scheme run by the Tory-controlled Windsor & Maidenhead Council, he neglected to mention that the rewards were paid for not from taxes but with in-kind donations of goods and services by local businesses.
Mr Osborne garnered positive headlines yesterday by suggesting that he would make all councils introduce such schemes. Yet the only specific commitment was simply to “give councils detailed information” so that they could decide for themselves whether they wanted to take part.
Mr Osborne’s other main commitment — to cut central government emissions by 10 per cent in 12 months — is also weaker than it sounds if one looks at the detail of the policy.
Individual departments will not have to cut emissions by 10 per cent. They will have to make a contribution to the overall 10 per cent target but the Conservatives are not yet saying how much effort each will have to make.
There is no new money to help departments to introduce any energy-saving measures, such as more efficient heating and better-insulated buildings.
The Conservatives made much of their pledge to cut the budgets of departments that failed to meet their emission reduction targets. It later became clear, however, that the laggards would not face any cut in their main budgets, only a trimming of their funding for energy bills.
Mr Osborne’s most promising green pledge was also the simplest: the Conservatives will expose energy guzzlers in Whitehall by requiring the real-time energy consumption of government buildings to be published online. “That way the public can hold ministers and civil servants to account for their performance.”
That was the nearest that his speech came to proposing any kind of stick to spur us to reach out for the carrots.
Waste is a potential resource, not a problem
A Conservative government would hand out incentives - not punishment - to encourage recycling and reduce waste
Nick Herbert
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 24 November 2009 17.30 GMT
The UK sends more waste to landfill than any other nation in Europe. We dump nearly 20m tonnes of rubbish in the ground. Germany, by comparison, sends less than 500,000 tonnes to landfill. We recycle or compost only one-third of our municipal waste, lower than the EU average. Austria manages nearly 60%.
Our addiction to landfill is immensely damaging for the environment, producing methane which is 20 times more harmful than carbon dioxide. It has also meant that we have failed to see waste as a potential resource for materials and energy. Processes like anaerobic digestion can produce green energy from food waste. - Germany has 2,500 such plants, while we have fewer than 30.
The Labour government has allowed Britain to lag behind in finding greener ways to dispose of waste, but the action it has taken has also been fundamentally misguided. Instead of helping families to go green, Labour has sought to bully people with bin taxes.
The Conservatives believe that instead of punishing the public, we should give people incentives to do the right thing. The RecycleBank scheme which we proposed today is a perfect example of this approach.
By paying people to recycle, the scheme has been extremely successful in the US, increasing recycling rates by up to 200% in 500 cities and communities across the country. The initiative, which is funded by savings in landfill tax, has recently been trialled by the Conservative controlled Windsor and Maidenhead council, with people receiving rewards such as M&S vouchers. The results have been equally impressive: recycling rates have already risen by 30% and the average household is on course to receive £130 in vouchers.
I visited the borough earlier this year during the trial and saw firsthand just how effective this can be in helping families go green. The energy secretary, Ed Miliband, foolishly dismissed our proposals out of hand. Perhaps he should visit Labour-controlled Halton council in Cheshire which is now trialling RecycleBank too.
By setting a floor under the 2013 level of landfill tax up to 2020 – which guarantees that the landfill tax will not fall in real terms for 10 years – we are sending a strong message to companies and councils that innovative approaches like RecycleBank, and alternative forms of waste disposal, can be developed with confidence.
We should be ashamed that we still lag behind our peer group nations when it comes to going green.It is time for a new approach that encourages the public to do the right thing, regards waste not as a problem but as a potential resource, and drives forward towards the goal of a zero waste society.
• Nick Herbert is the shadow environment secretary
Nick Herbert
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 24 November 2009 17.30 GMT
The UK sends more waste to landfill than any other nation in Europe. We dump nearly 20m tonnes of rubbish in the ground. Germany, by comparison, sends less than 500,000 tonnes to landfill. We recycle or compost only one-third of our municipal waste, lower than the EU average. Austria manages nearly 60%.
Our addiction to landfill is immensely damaging for the environment, producing methane which is 20 times more harmful than carbon dioxide. It has also meant that we have failed to see waste as a potential resource for materials and energy. Processes like anaerobic digestion can produce green energy from food waste. - Germany has 2,500 such plants, while we have fewer than 30.
The Labour government has allowed Britain to lag behind in finding greener ways to dispose of waste, but the action it has taken has also been fundamentally misguided. Instead of helping families to go green, Labour has sought to bully people with bin taxes.
The Conservatives believe that instead of punishing the public, we should give people incentives to do the right thing. The RecycleBank scheme which we proposed today is a perfect example of this approach.
By paying people to recycle, the scheme has been extremely successful in the US, increasing recycling rates by up to 200% in 500 cities and communities across the country. The initiative, which is funded by savings in landfill tax, has recently been trialled by the Conservative controlled Windsor and Maidenhead council, with people receiving rewards such as M&S vouchers. The results have been equally impressive: recycling rates have already risen by 30% and the average household is on course to receive £130 in vouchers.
I visited the borough earlier this year during the trial and saw firsthand just how effective this can be in helping families go green. The energy secretary, Ed Miliband, foolishly dismissed our proposals out of hand. Perhaps he should visit Labour-controlled Halton council in Cheshire which is now trialling RecycleBank too.
By setting a floor under the 2013 level of landfill tax up to 2020 – which guarantees that the landfill tax will not fall in real terms for 10 years – we are sending a strong message to companies and councils that innovative approaches like RecycleBank, and alternative forms of waste disposal, can be developed with confidence.
We should be ashamed that we still lag behind our peer group nations when it comes to going green.It is time for a new approach that encourages the public to do the right thing, regards waste not as a problem but as a potential resource, and drives forward towards the goal of a zero waste society.
• Nick Herbert is the shadow environment secretary
Tuesday, 24 November 2009
Global Warming With the Lid Off
The emails that reveal an effort to hide the truth about climate science.
'The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the U.K., I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. . . . We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind."
So apparently wrote Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) and one of the world's leading climate scientists, in a 2005 email to "Mike." Judging by the email thread, this refers to Michael Mann, director of the Pennsylvania State University's Earth System Science Center. We found this nugget among the more than 3,000 emails and documents released last week after CRU's servers were hacked and messages among some of the world's most influential climatologists were published on the Internet.
The "two MMs" are almost certainly Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, two Canadians who have devoted years to seeking the raw data and codes used in climate graphs and models, then fact-checking the published conclusions—a painstaking task that strikes us as a public and scientific service. Mr. Jones did not return requests for comment and the university said it could not confirm that all the emails were authentic, though it acknowledged its servers were hacked.
Yet even a partial review of the emails is highly illuminating. In them, scientists appear to urge each other to present a "unified" view on the theory of man-made climate change while discussing the importance of the "common cause"; to advise each other on how to smooth over data so as not to compromise the favored hypothesis; to discuss ways to keep opposing views out of leading journals; and to give tips on how to "hide the decline" of temperature in certain inconvenient data.
Some of those mentioned in the emails have responded to our requests for comment by saying they must first chat with their lawyers. Others have offered legal threats and personal invective. Still others have said nothing at all. Those who have responded have insisted that the emails reveal nothing more than trivial data discrepancies and procedural debates.
Yet all of these nonresponses manage to underscore what may be the most revealing truth: That these scientists feel the public doesn't have a right to know the basis for their climate-change predictions, even as their governments prepare staggeringly expensive legislation in response to them.
Consider the following note that appears to have been sent by Mr. Jones to Mr. Mann in May 2008: "Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. . . . Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same?" AR4 is shorthand for the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change's (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report, presented in 2007 as the consensus view on how bad man-made climate change has supposedly become.
In another email that seems to have been sent in September 2007 to Eugene Wahl of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Paleoclimatology Program and to Caspar Ammann of the National Center for Atmospheric Research's Climate and Global Dynamics Division, Mr. Jones writes: "[T]ry and change the Received date! Don't give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with."
When deleting, doctoring or withholding information didn't work, Mr. Jones suggested an alternative in an August 2008 email to Gavin Schmidt of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, copied to Mr. Mann. "The FOI [Freedom of Information] line we're all using is this," he wrote. "IPCC is exempt from any countries FOI—the skeptics have been told this. Even though we . . . possibly hold relevant info the IPCC is not part of our remit (mission statement, aims etc) therefore we don't have an obligation to pass it on."
It also seems Mr. Mann and his friends weren't averse to blacklisting scientists who disputed some of their contentions, or journals that published their work. "I think we have to stop considering 'Climate Research' as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal," goes one email, apparently written by Mr. Mann to several recipients in March 2003. "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal."
Mr. Mann's main beef was that the journal had published several articles challenging aspects of the anthropogenic theory of global warming.
For the record, when we've asked Mr. Mann in the past about the charge that he and his colleagues suppress opposing views, he has said he "won't dignify that question with a response." Regarding our most recent queries about the hacked emails, he says he "did not manipulate any data in any conceivable way," but he otherwise refuses to answer specific questions. For the record, too, our purpose isn't to gainsay the probity of Mr. Mann's work, much less his right to remain silent.
However, we do now have hundreds of emails that give every appearance of testifying to concerted and coordinated efforts by leading climatologists to fit the data to their conclusions while attempting to silence and discredit their critics. In the department of inconvenient truths, this one surely deserves a closer look by the media, the U.S. Congress and other investigative bodies.
'The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the U.K., I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. . . . We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind."
So apparently wrote Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) and one of the world's leading climate scientists, in a 2005 email to "Mike." Judging by the email thread, this refers to Michael Mann, director of the Pennsylvania State University's Earth System Science Center. We found this nugget among the more than 3,000 emails and documents released last week after CRU's servers were hacked and messages among some of the world's most influential climatologists were published on the Internet.
The "two MMs" are almost certainly Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, two Canadians who have devoted years to seeking the raw data and codes used in climate graphs and models, then fact-checking the published conclusions—a painstaking task that strikes us as a public and scientific service. Mr. Jones did not return requests for comment and the university said it could not confirm that all the emails were authentic, though it acknowledged its servers were hacked.
Yet even a partial review of the emails is highly illuminating. In them, scientists appear to urge each other to present a "unified" view on the theory of man-made climate change while discussing the importance of the "common cause"; to advise each other on how to smooth over data so as not to compromise the favored hypothesis; to discuss ways to keep opposing views out of leading journals; and to give tips on how to "hide the decline" of temperature in certain inconvenient data.
Some of those mentioned in the emails have responded to our requests for comment by saying they must first chat with their lawyers. Others have offered legal threats and personal invective. Still others have said nothing at all. Those who have responded have insisted that the emails reveal nothing more than trivial data discrepancies and procedural debates.
Yet all of these nonresponses manage to underscore what may be the most revealing truth: That these scientists feel the public doesn't have a right to know the basis for their climate-change predictions, even as their governments prepare staggeringly expensive legislation in response to them.
Consider the following note that appears to have been sent by Mr. Jones to Mr. Mann in May 2008: "Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. . . . Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same?" AR4 is shorthand for the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change's (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report, presented in 2007 as the consensus view on how bad man-made climate change has supposedly become.
In another email that seems to have been sent in September 2007 to Eugene Wahl of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Paleoclimatology Program and to Caspar Ammann of the National Center for Atmospheric Research's Climate and Global Dynamics Division, Mr. Jones writes: "[T]ry and change the Received date! Don't give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with."
When deleting, doctoring or withholding information didn't work, Mr. Jones suggested an alternative in an August 2008 email to Gavin Schmidt of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, copied to Mr. Mann. "The FOI [Freedom of Information] line we're all using is this," he wrote. "IPCC is exempt from any countries FOI—the skeptics have been told this. Even though we . . . possibly hold relevant info the IPCC is not part of our remit (mission statement, aims etc) therefore we don't have an obligation to pass it on."
It also seems Mr. Mann and his friends weren't averse to blacklisting scientists who disputed some of their contentions, or journals that published their work. "I think we have to stop considering 'Climate Research' as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal," goes one email, apparently written by Mr. Mann to several recipients in March 2003. "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal."
Mr. Mann's main beef was that the journal had published several articles challenging aspects of the anthropogenic theory of global warming.
For the record, when we've asked Mr. Mann in the past about the charge that he and his colleagues suppress opposing views, he has said he "won't dignify that question with a response." Regarding our most recent queries about the hacked emails, he says he "did not manipulate any data in any conceivable way," but he otherwise refuses to answer specific questions. For the record, too, our purpose isn't to gainsay the probity of Mr. Mann's work, much less his right to remain silent.
However, we do now have hundreds of emails that give every appearance of testifying to concerted and coordinated efforts by leading climatologists to fit the data to their conclusions while attempting to silence and discredit their critics. In the department of inconvenient truths, this one surely deserves a closer look by the media, the U.S. Congress and other investigative bodies.
Global warming rigged? Here's the email I'd need to see
The leaked exchanges are disturbing, but it would take a conspiracy of a very different order to justify sceptics' claims
George Monbiot
guardian.co.uk, Monday 23 November 2009 21.00 GMT
It's no use pretending this isn't a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I'm dismayed and deeply shaken by them.
Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request.
Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.
But do these revelations justify the sceptics' claims that this is "the final nail in the coffin" of global warming theory? Not at all. They damage the credibility of three or four scientists. They raise questions about the integrity of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of evidence. To bury man-made climate change, a far wider conspiracy would have to be revealed. Luckily for the sceptics, and to my intense disappointment, I have now been passed the damning email that confirms that the entire science of global warming is indeed a scam. Had I known that it was this easy to rig the evidence, I wouldn't have wasted years of my life promoting a bogus discipline. In the interests of open discourse, I feel obliged to reproduce it here.
From: ernst.kattweizel@redcar.ac.uk
Sent: 29 October 2009
To: The Knights Carbonic
Gentlemen, the culmination of our great plan approaches fast. What the Master called "the ordering of men's affairs by a transcendent world state, ordained by God and answerable to no man", which we now know as Communist World Government, advances towards its climax at Copenhagen. For 185 years since the Master, known to the laity as Joseph Fourier, launched his scheme for world domination, the entire physical science community has been working towards this moment.
The early phases of the plan worked magnificently. First the Master's initial thesis – that the release of infrared radiation is delayed by the atmosphere – had to be accepted by the scientific establishment. I will not bother you with details of the gold paid, the threats made and the blood spilt to achieve this end. But the result was the elimination of the naysayers and the disgrace or incarceration of the Master's rivals. Within 35 years the 3rd Warden of the Grand Temple of the Knights Carbonic (our revered prophet John Tyndall) was able to "demonstrate" the Master's thesis. Our control of physical science was by then so tight that no major objections were sustained.
More resistance was encountered (and swiftly dispatched) when we sought to install the 6th Warden (Svante Arrhenius) first as professor of physics at Stockholm University, then as rector. From this position he was able to project the Master's second grand law – that the infrared radiation trapped in a planet's atmosphere increases in line with the quantity of carbon dioxide the atmosphere contains. He and his followers (led by the Junior Warden Max Planck) were then able to adapt the entire canon of physical and chemical science to sustain the second law.
Then began the most hazardous task of all: our attempt to control the instrumental record. Securing the consent of the scientific establishment was a simple matter. But thermometers had by then become widely available, and amateur meteorologists were making their own readings. We needed to show a steady rise as industrialisation proceeded, but some of these unfortunates had other ideas. The global co-option of police and coroners required unprecedented resources, but so far we have been able to cover our tracks.
The over-enthusiasm of certain of the Knights Carbonic in 1998 was most regrettable. The high reading in that year has proved impossibly costly to sustain. Those of our enemies who have yet to be silenced maintain that the lower temperatures after that date provide evidence of global cooling, even though we have ensured that eight of the 10 warmest years since 1850 have occurred since 2001. From now on we will engineer a smoother progression.
Our co-option of the physical world has been just as successful. The thinning of the Arctic ice cap was a masterstroke. The ring of secret nuclear power stations around the Arctic circle, attached to giant immersion heaters, remains undetected, as do the space-based lasers dissolving the world's glaciers.
Altering the migratory and reproductive patterns of the world's wildlife has proved more challenging. Though we have now asserted control over the world's biologists, there is no accounting for the unauthorised observations of farmers, gardeners, birdwatchers and other troublemakers. We have therefore been forced to drive migrating birds, fish and insects into higher latitudes, and to release several million tonnes of plant pheromones every year to accelerate flowering and fruiting. None of this is cheap, and ever more public money, secretly diverted from national accounts by compliant governments, is required to sustain it.
The co-operation of these governments requires unflagging effort. The capture of George W Bush, a late convert to the cause of Communist World Government, was made possible only by the threatened release of footage filmed by a knight at Yale, showing the future president engaged in coitus with a Ford Mustang. Most ostensibly capitalist governments remain apprised of where their real interests lie, though I note with disappointment that we have so far failed to eliminate Vaclav Klaus. Through the offices of compliant states, the Master's third grand law has been established: world government will be established under the guise of controlling man-made emissions of greenhouse gases.
Keeping the scientific community in line remains a challenge. The national academies are becoming ever more querulous and greedy, and require higher pay-offs each year. The inexplicable events of the past month, in which the windows of all the leading scientific institutions were broken and a horse's head turned up in James Hansen's bed, appear to have staved off the immediate crisis, but for how much longer can we maintain the consensus? Knights Carbonic, now that the hour of our triumph is at hand, I urge you all to redouble your efforts. In the name of the Master, go forth and terrify.
Professor Ernst Kattweizel, University of Redcar. 21st Grand Warden of the Temple of the Knights Carbonic.
This is the kind of conspiracy the deniers need to reveal to show that man-made climate change is a con. The hacked emails are a hard knock, but the science of global warming withstands much more than that.
George Monbiot
guardian.co.uk, Monday 23 November 2009 21.00 GMT
It's no use pretending this isn't a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I'm dismayed and deeply shaken by them.
Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request.
Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.
But do these revelations justify the sceptics' claims that this is "the final nail in the coffin" of global warming theory? Not at all. They damage the credibility of three or four scientists. They raise questions about the integrity of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of evidence. To bury man-made climate change, a far wider conspiracy would have to be revealed. Luckily for the sceptics, and to my intense disappointment, I have now been passed the damning email that confirms that the entire science of global warming is indeed a scam. Had I known that it was this easy to rig the evidence, I wouldn't have wasted years of my life promoting a bogus discipline. In the interests of open discourse, I feel obliged to reproduce it here.
From: ernst.kattweizel@redcar.ac.uk
Sent: 29 October 2009
To: The Knights Carbonic
Gentlemen, the culmination of our great plan approaches fast. What the Master called "the ordering of men's affairs by a transcendent world state, ordained by God and answerable to no man", which we now know as Communist World Government, advances towards its climax at Copenhagen. For 185 years since the Master, known to the laity as Joseph Fourier, launched his scheme for world domination, the entire physical science community has been working towards this moment.
The early phases of the plan worked magnificently. First the Master's initial thesis – that the release of infrared radiation is delayed by the atmosphere – had to be accepted by the scientific establishment. I will not bother you with details of the gold paid, the threats made and the blood spilt to achieve this end. But the result was the elimination of the naysayers and the disgrace or incarceration of the Master's rivals. Within 35 years the 3rd Warden of the Grand Temple of the Knights Carbonic (our revered prophet John Tyndall) was able to "demonstrate" the Master's thesis. Our control of physical science was by then so tight that no major objections were sustained.
More resistance was encountered (and swiftly dispatched) when we sought to install the 6th Warden (Svante Arrhenius) first as professor of physics at Stockholm University, then as rector. From this position he was able to project the Master's second grand law – that the infrared radiation trapped in a planet's atmosphere increases in line with the quantity of carbon dioxide the atmosphere contains. He and his followers (led by the Junior Warden Max Planck) were then able to adapt the entire canon of physical and chemical science to sustain the second law.
Then began the most hazardous task of all: our attempt to control the instrumental record. Securing the consent of the scientific establishment was a simple matter. But thermometers had by then become widely available, and amateur meteorologists were making their own readings. We needed to show a steady rise as industrialisation proceeded, but some of these unfortunates had other ideas. The global co-option of police and coroners required unprecedented resources, but so far we have been able to cover our tracks.
The over-enthusiasm of certain of the Knights Carbonic in 1998 was most regrettable. The high reading in that year has proved impossibly costly to sustain. Those of our enemies who have yet to be silenced maintain that the lower temperatures after that date provide evidence of global cooling, even though we have ensured that eight of the 10 warmest years since 1850 have occurred since 2001. From now on we will engineer a smoother progression.
Our co-option of the physical world has been just as successful. The thinning of the Arctic ice cap was a masterstroke. The ring of secret nuclear power stations around the Arctic circle, attached to giant immersion heaters, remains undetected, as do the space-based lasers dissolving the world's glaciers.
Altering the migratory and reproductive patterns of the world's wildlife has proved more challenging. Though we have now asserted control over the world's biologists, there is no accounting for the unauthorised observations of farmers, gardeners, birdwatchers and other troublemakers. We have therefore been forced to drive migrating birds, fish and insects into higher latitudes, and to release several million tonnes of plant pheromones every year to accelerate flowering and fruiting. None of this is cheap, and ever more public money, secretly diverted from national accounts by compliant governments, is required to sustain it.
The co-operation of these governments requires unflagging effort. The capture of George W Bush, a late convert to the cause of Communist World Government, was made possible only by the threatened release of footage filmed by a knight at Yale, showing the future president engaged in coitus with a Ford Mustang. Most ostensibly capitalist governments remain apprised of where their real interests lie, though I note with disappointment that we have so far failed to eliminate Vaclav Klaus. Through the offices of compliant states, the Master's third grand law has been established: world government will be established under the guise of controlling man-made emissions of greenhouse gases.
Keeping the scientific community in line remains a challenge. The national academies are becoming ever more querulous and greedy, and require higher pay-offs each year. The inexplicable events of the past month, in which the windows of all the leading scientific institutions were broken and a horse's head turned up in James Hansen's bed, appear to have staved off the immediate crisis, but for how much longer can we maintain the consensus? Knights Carbonic, now that the hour of our triumph is at hand, I urge you all to redouble your efforts. In the name of the Master, go forth and terrify.
Professor Ernst Kattweizel, University of Redcar. 21st Grand Warden of the Temple of the Knights Carbonic.
This is the kind of conspiracy the deniers need to reveal to show that man-made climate change is a con. The hacked emails are a hard knock, but the science of global warming withstands much more than that.
University of East Anglia emails: the most contentious quotes
Here are a selection of quotes from the emails stolen from computers at the University of East Anglia. Many involve Phil Jones, head of the university's Climatic Research Unit.
Published: 2:56PM GMT 23 Nov 2009
From: Phil Jones. To: Many. Nov 16, 1999"I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
Critics cite this as evidence that data was manipulated to mask the fact that global temperatures are falling. Prof Jones claims the meaning of "trick" has been misinterpreted
From Phil Jones To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July 8, 2004"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
The IPCC is the UN body charged with monitoring climate change. The scientists did not want it to consider studies that challenge the view that global warming is genuine and man-made.
From: Kevin Trenberth (US National Center for Atmospheric Research). To: Michael Mann. Oct 12, 2009"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't... Our observing system is inadequate"
Prof Trenberth appears to accept a key argument of global warming sceptics - that there is no evidence temperatures have increased over the past 10 years.
From: Phil Jones. To: Many. March 11, 2003“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”
Prof Jones appears to be lobbying for the dismissal of the editor of Climate Research, a scientific journal that published papers downplaying climate change.
From Phil Jones. To: Michael Mann. Date: May 29, 2008"Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise."
Climate change sceptics tried to use Freedom of Information laws to obtain raw climate data submitted to an IPCC report known as AR4. The scientists did not want their email exchanges about the data to be made public.
From: Michael Mann. To: Phil Jones and Gabi Hegerl (University of Edinburgh). Date: Aug 10, 2004"Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future."
The scientists make no attempt to hide their disdain for climate change sceptics who request more information about their work.
Published: 2:56PM GMT 23 Nov 2009
From: Phil Jones. To: Many. Nov 16, 1999"I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
Critics cite this as evidence that data was manipulated to mask the fact that global temperatures are falling. Prof Jones claims the meaning of "trick" has been misinterpreted
From Phil Jones To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July 8, 2004"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
The IPCC is the UN body charged with monitoring climate change. The scientists did not want it to consider studies that challenge the view that global warming is genuine and man-made.
From: Kevin Trenberth (US National Center for Atmospheric Research). To: Michael Mann. Oct 12, 2009"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't... Our observing system is inadequate"
Prof Trenberth appears to accept a key argument of global warming sceptics - that there is no evidence temperatures have increased over the past 10 years.
From: Phil Jones. To: Many. March 11, 2003“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”
Prof Jones appears to be lobbying for the dismissal of the editor of Climate Research, a scientific journal that published papers downplaying climate change.
From Phil Jones. To: Michael Mann. Date: May 29, 2008"Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise."
Climate change sceptics tried to use Freedom of Information laws to obtain raw climate data submitted to an IPCC report known as AR4. The scientists did not want their email exchanges about the data to be made public.
From: Michael Mann. To: Phil Jones and Gabi Hegerl (University of Edinburgh). Date: Aug 10, 2004"Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future."
The scientists make no attempt to hide their disdain for climate change sceptics who request more information about their work.
Keeping Copenhagen on course
Pessimism about a climate change deal in Copenhagen is not merited. Vitally so for developing countries, there is all to play for
David Turnbull
guardian.co.uk, Monday 23 November 2009 10.00 GMT
Waking up one drearymorning in Copenhagen (where I've recently moved to prepare for the upcoming climate talks in December), I was met with a barrage of headlines, mostly from US media, telling me that Copenhagen is doomed to total failure and I might as well head off to Mexico City, where next year's summit will be held. Not the best way to start the day.
Is Copenhagen really over before it begins?
Had I moved to this dark, rainy (but beautiful!) city for no reason? Should we all just pack it in and hope that political declarations will solve it all?
The answer, thankfully, quickly became a resounding "no". The mainstream media clearly got it wrong. There's still hope – a lot of it, too. Let's start with those headlines. Who are these "world leaders" who agreed to delay? Well, the plural may be accurate, but just barely.
Since the initial reports, it's become clear that while the media reported that all 19 Apec (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation) leaders were in agreement on the so-called "one agreement, two steps" approach, that's not at all the case.
The real story occurred at a hastily arranged Apec breakfast. Danish Prime Minister Lars Loekke Rasmussen made a last-minute visit and surprised the room with a speech on the upcoming climate talks. One can only imagine a room full of bleary-eyed heads of state sitting around a table sipping their coffee and politely nodding at Rasmussen's speech without really understanding how their nods would be translated by the media.
Rasmussen began his speech by saying:
"I would like to share with you how I believe a Copenhagen agreement could be constructed to serve the dual purpose of providing for continued negotiations on a legal agreement and for immediate action."
And later, towards the end of the speech, he said:
"Some of you might have wished for a different format or for a different legal structure. Still, I believe you will agree with me on one fundamental point: what matters at the end of the day is the ability of the Copenhagen agreement to capture and reinforce global commitment to real actions."
Doesn't sound like consensus to me; it sounds like a man trying to convince an audience to go along with him. It's not entirely clear who actually did agree with the prime minister, but what is clear is that there is nowhere near consensus on such a delay approach; in fact, dozens of countries oppose it and are still wishing – and fighting – for more.
Now, what about the actual plan itself – the "one agreement, two steps" plan? Two steps to an agreement doesn't sound so bad, right?
As NRDC's Jake Schmidt wrote, the strategy might not be so bad if you actually thought that the second step would ever be taken. Unfortunately, what Rasmussen has put forward is a cynical approach. It's becoming clear that all he cares about is getting a "positive" result in Copenhagen, and that the second step could just be for show.
If you look closely at Rasmussen's Apec breakfast speech, there's very little incentive actually to finish the job in 2010 (as in, to take the "second step"). Despite his lip service to "continued legal negotiations", there's no clarity or firm deadline. Rasmussen's invention of "politically binding" – a term no one seems willing or able to define – is also repeated here.
Furthermore, there is only a passing mention of the Kyoto protocol later in the speech. Despite what some would have you think, the Kyoto protocol does not expire in 2012. In Rasmussen's vision, the Kyoto protocol goal seems to disappear in favor of a "politically binding" outcome.
Luckily, there's still time to push for more. The Alliance of Small Island States, the African Group of Nations, and other vulnerable and least developed countries will surely be pushing back on this plan during the preparatory meetings in Copenhagen this week. In fact, 11 Pacific Island States already have. Some European nations are also likely to stand up to this plan.
The planet and its people need a fair, ambitious and, yes, binding outcome from this process. Countries should be working on such a document in Copenhagen – and they can and should finish it there. After all, it's what they committed to in Bali just two years ago.
David Turnbull
guardian.co.uk, Monday 23 November 2009 10.00 GMT
Waking up one drearymorning in Copenhagen (where I've recently moved to prepare for the upcoming climate talks in December), I was met with a barrage of headlines, mostly from US media, telling me that Copenhagen is doomed to total failure and I might as well head off to Mexico City, where next year's summit will be held. Not the best way to start the day.
Is Copenhagen really over before it begins?
Had I moved to this dark, rainy (but beautiful!) city for no reason? Should we all just pack it in and hope that political declarations will solve it all?
The answer, thankfully, quickly became a resounding "no". The mainstream media clearly got it wrong. There's still hope – a lot of it, too. Let's start with those headlines. Who are these "world leaders" who agreed to delay? Well, the plural may be accurate, but just barely.
Since the initial reports, it's become clear that while the media reported that all 19 Apec (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation) leaders were in agreement on the so-called "one agreement, two steps" approach, that's not at all the case.
The real story occurred at a hastily arranged Apec breakfast. Danish Prime Minister Lars Loekke Rasmussen made a last-minute visit and surprised the room with a speech on the upcoming climate talks. One can only imagine a room full of bleary-eyed heads of state sitting around a table sipping their coffee and politely nodding at Rasmussen's speech without really understanding how their nods would be translated by the media.
Rasmussen began his speech by saying:
"I would like to share with you how I believe a Copenhagen agreement could be constructed to serve the dual purpose of providing for continued negotiations on a legal agreement and for immediate action."
And later, towards the end of the speech, he said:
"Some of you might have wished for a different format or for a different legal structure. Still, I believe you will agree with me on one fundamental point: what matters at the end of the day is the ability of the Copenhagen agreement to capture and reinforce global commitment to real actions."
Doesn't sound like consensus to me; it sounds like a man trying to convince an audience to go along with him. It's not entirely clear who actually did agree with the prime minister, but what is clear is that there is nowhere near consensus on such a delay approach; in fact, dozens of countries oppose it and are still wishing – and fighting – for more.
Now, what about the actual plan itself – the "one agreement, two steps" plan? Two steps to an agreement doesn't sound so bad, right?
As NRDC's Jake Schmidt wrote, the strategy might not be so bad if you actually thought that the second step would ever be taken. Unfortunately, what Rasmussen has put forward is a cynical approach. It's becoming clear that all he cares about is getting a "positive" result in Copenhagen, and that the second step could just be for show.
If you look closely at Rasmussen's Apec breakfast speech, there's very little incentive actually to finish the job in 2010 (as in, to take the "second step"). Despite his lip service to "continued legal negotiations", there's no clarity or firm deadline. Rasmussen's invention of "politically binding" – a term no one seems willing or able to define – is also repeated here.
Furthermore, there is only a passing mention of the Kyoto protocol later in the speech. Despite what some would have you think, the Kyoto protocol does not expire in 2012. In Rasmussen's vision, the Kyoto protocol goal seems to disappear in favor of a "politically binding" outcome.
Luckily, there's still time to push for more. The Alliance of Small Island States, the African Group of Nations, and other vulnerable and least developed countries will surely be pushing back on this plan during the preparatory meetings in Copenhagen this week. In fact, 11 Pacific Island States already have. Some European nations are also likely to stand up to this plan.
The planet and its people need a fair, ambitious and, yes, binding outcome from this process. Countries should be working on such a document in Copenhagen – and they can and should finish it there. After all, it's what they committed to in Bali just two years ago.
The voices of climate change sceptics
Caroline Davies and Suzanne Goldenberg
The Guardian, Tuesday 24 November 2009
The furore over the climate scientists' emails has given an unexpected boost to global warming sceptics on both sides of the Atlantic, but none outside that small circle believe the affair will divert governments, businesses or communities from seeking a low-carbon future.
The affair lifted the launch, announced in The Times, of a new "high-powered" think tank on climate change by Lord Nigel Lawson, the former Conservative Chancellor and current global warming critic. He denies he is a climate change sceptic, but is "sceptical" about the policy response. He found the perfect platform to promote his Global Warming Policy Foundation while also calling for an independent inquiry into the content of the emails.
The director of the GWPF, headquartered in a room rented from the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining, is Benny Peiser, a social anthropologist at Liverpool's John Moores University, who has argued concern about climate change has reached "near hysteria".
Its board of trustees includes Lord Barnett, a former vice-chairman of the BBC who voted against the Climate Change Bill, and the Bishop of Chester, who has argued there was no consensus among climate change scientists that "carbon dioxide levels are the key determinant".
Its academic advisory council includes Prof Ian Plimer, an Australian who argues volcanoes produce more CO2 than humans. "Some of those names are straight from the Who's Who of current climate change sceptics", said Ward. "To me, this is pretty much indistinguishable from the websites that are run by rightwing, free-market think tanks in the US. It's just going to be a way of pumping material into the debate that hasn't been through scrutiny".
In the US, the trove of hacked emails seemed heaven-sent for America's most devoted climate contrarians.
Among the last citadels of climate change deniers – the radio host Rush Limbaugh and the Republican Senator James Inhofe – the emails were touted as evidence of a worldwide scientific conspiracy. Inhoffe said. "They cooked the science to make this thing look as if the science was settled, when all the time of course we knew it was not."
Limbaugh said: "I've instinctively known this from the get-go, from 20 years ago! The whole thing is made up, and the reason I know it is because liberals are behind it! When they're pushing something, folks, it's always bogus. "
But such outrage is likely to remain confined to the margins of American political debate. In Congress, even the most determined opponents of climate change legislation now frame their arguments in economic terms rather than on the science – including Inhofe.
In the business world, some of the biggest players in the fossil fuel economy – such as Rio Tinto, Shell and General Motors – have joined USCAP, the business partnership that is supporting efforts to get a legislation through Congress to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
"I can say conclusively that the hacked emails are just blips of information that will have absolutely no impact whatsoever on the push to get policymakers to back the science," said Anne Kelly, the policy director at Ceres, a sustainable business network whose members include PepsiCo, American Airlines and Bloomberg. "One can't help but think of the reaction of buggy whip manufacturers in the early part of the 20th century when the horseless carriage was created. The consensus has transcended political boundaries. It has transcended sectors. It is not an environmental movement anymore – it's smart business and investors agree."
In the political world, the email affair has elicited no comment and came as it was announced that 65 national leaders had so far pledged to attend the Copenhagen talks, almost a third of the total.
The Guardian, Tuesday 24 November 2009
The furore over the climate scientists' emails has given an unexpected boost to global warming sceptics on both sides of the Atlantic, but none outside that small circle believe the affair will divert governments, businesses or communities from seeking a low-carbon future.
The affair lifted the launch, announced in The Times, of a new "high-powered" think tank on climate change by Lord Nigel Lawson, the former Conservative Chancellor and current global warming critic. He denies he is a climate change sceptic, but is "sceptical" about the policy response. He found the perfect platform to promote his Global Warming Policy Foundation while also calling for an independent inquiry into the content of the emails.
The director of the GWPF, headquartered in a room rented from the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining, is Benny Peiser, a social anthropologist at Liverpool's John Moores University, who has argued concern about climate change has reached "near hysteria".
Its board of trustees includes Lord Barnett, a former vice-chairman of the BBC who voted against the Climate Change Bill, and the Bishop of Chester, who has argued there was no consensus among climate change scientists that "carbon dioxide levels are the key determinant".
Its academic advisory council includes Prof Ian Plimer, an Australian who argues volcanoes produce more CO2 than humans. "Some of those names are straight from the Who's Who of current climate change sceptics", said Ward. "To me, this is pretty much indistinguishable from the websites that are run by rightwing, free-market think tanks in the US. It's just going to be a way of pumping material into the debate that hasn't been through scrutiny".
In the US, the trove of hacked emails seemed heaven-sent for America's most devoted climate contrarians.
Among the last citadels of climate change deniers – the radio host Rush Limbaugh and the Republican Senator James Inhofe – the emails were touted as evidence of a worldwide scientific conspiracy. Inhoffe said. "They cooked the science to make this thing look as if the science was settled, when all the time of course we knew it was not."
Limbaugh said: "I've instinctively known this from the get-go, from 20 years ago! The whole thing is made up, and the reason I know it is because liberals are behind it! When they're pushing something, folks, it's always bogus. "
But such outrage is likely to remain confined to the margins of American political debate. In Congress, even the most determined opponents of climate change legislation now frame their arguments in economic terms rather than on the science – including Inhofe.
In the business world, some of the biggest players in the fossil fuel economy – such as Rio Tinto, Shell and General Motors – have joined USCAP, the business partnership that is supporting efforts to get a legislation through Congress to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
"I can say conclusively that the hacked emails are just blips of information that will have absolutely no impact whatsoever on the push to get policymakers to back the science," said Anne Kelly, the policy director at Ceres, a sustainable business network whose members include PepsiCo, American Airlines and Bloomberg. "One can't help but think of the reaction of buggy whip manufacturers in the early part of the 20th century when the horseless carriage was created. The consensus has transcended political boundaries. It has transcended sectors. It is not an environmental movement anymore – it's smart business and investors agree."
In the political world, the email affair has elicited no comment and came as it was announced that 65 national leaders had so far pledged to attend the Copenhagen talks, almost a third of the total.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
