Dateline: Copenhagen

Map courtesy of Union of Concerned Scientists

A century ago, a New England winter averaged 24 degrees Fahrenheit. Now, New Englanders are about three degrees warmer during the cold season, and temperatures are likely to continue rising.

As a result, spring is arriving earlier, snowpack is melting faster, and rivers are flowing at peak levels sooner than ecologists have seen before.The growing season for New England forests has been extended.  Trees are now growing for 10 more days per year than foresters observed before 1970.

That may sound like good news for foresters, but it turns out foresters care about much more than just industrial numbers, or in forester-speak “timber volume.” And the climate change forecast for the rest of New England is not so chipper.  I found this out at the New England Society of American Foresters Winter Meeting last week in Nashua, New Hampshire.  There, a talk by Dave Orwig, forest ecologist at the Harvard Forest, revealed a shocking map of predicted climate change in New Hampshire under low and high emissions scenarios (pictured above).  If high emissions continue, cool New Hampshire could be feeling somewhat like the humid Washington DC area by mid-century!  With New Englanders deeply involved in the culture and seasonal activities of their region, this diagram did not excite many people.

Orwig reported that a warmer New England climate would put native habitats and wildlife at increasing risk and force many species to migrate north in order to survive – something trees can do over time, but not necessarily quick enough for forest ecosystems to remain healthy. Climate change could also threaten non-timber forest products such as maple syrup and ecosystem services such as clean water.

An increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere is theoretically beneficial for tree growth, but such gains could be offset by expected increases in atmospheric concentrations of air pollutants, while more frequent drought conditions may increase fire risk.  The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change asserted in its Fourth Assessment Report that, “New studies suggest that direct CO2 effects on tree growth may be revised to lower values than previously assumed in forest growth models.”

The IPCC report does in fact show net gains in crop and forest growth due to climate change in certain parts of the world, mostly temperate northern latitudes. However, the New England foresters reminded me that as rapid climate change sends shocks through the region’s ecology, the shifts are not likely to benefit business or regional culture.

Ecobuild is a green building trade fair happening in London this week

Surveying the acres of exhibits at the Ecobuild 2010 green building trade fair in London this week, not to mention the tens of thousands of people mobbing them, I surprised myself with the feeling I wanted to go shopping.

I traveled here to deliver a presentation on population and climate change. But by the time I’d spent a few hours here I felt like moving to England and building a modest little cottage equipped with rainwater harvesting, dimmable LEDs, insulation made from grass, and a furnace and water heater burning waste wood, not to mention a roof full of photovoltaic cells that blend almost seamlessly with Cambrian slate.

For unleashing innovation to deal with climate change, there’s nothing like a good policy environment. The United Kingdom has one. The United States doesn’t. So Ecobuild wouldn’t work in the U.S., not on this scale, anyway, and not with this level of excitement.

The UK launches the opening phase of its national Carbon Reduction Commitment next month, which introduces five-year emissions budgets aimed at an 80-percent reduction of all greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. All the country’s political parties embrace the effort. David Cameron, who leads the Conservatives here, is famous for riding his bicycle to show voters how green he is. Many conservatives in my country, I had to admit to my British friends, see snow in February as proof that global warming is a leftist conspiracy and cling to their large vehicles with pride.

Can we “ecobuild” our way to true environmental sustainability? I asked the audience this question in the talk I delivered here. My own answer: probably not. But it’s a heck of a start, and the United Kingdom is moving ahead while, in the United States, we’re mired in politics and inaction. It rains too often in England for my taste, but other than that there’s a lot to like here.

Photo courtesy mrfink/Flickr. A 2007 IPCC report predicted a 100-percent disappearance of Himalayan glaciers by 2035 based, in part, on faulty news reports in the Indian and British press. While glaciers are declining significantly, the IPCC cited a study that in fact estimated total extrapolar glaciation of the Earth would shrink from 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2350.

My feature article in the March/April edition of World Watch argues that the news media is no longer a bystander in the climate change drama that has prevented profound low-carbon progress across the industrialized world. Some journalism organizations, hampered by all-time-low revenues and large-scale layoffs, still do not understand, and are often unwilling to explain, the complexities of climate science and related policy responses. Climate change has become such a politically charged topic that many news organizations have not treated it as a scientific theory with widespread, authoritative support. Climate change deniers continue to gain media attention, even though the world is becoming hotter, faster.

In the weeks since I wrote my article, several mainstream media organizations have blown out-of-proportion inaccuracies published in past Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports. The IPCC exaggerated Himalayan glacial retreat in its 2007 report, suggesting that the inaccuracies are indeed newsworthy and that the panel must do a better job of ensuring that all reports remain accurate, transparent, and credible. But the heated attack from mostly Western media also suggests that news organizations will continue to do what it does best: create drama. In my article, I said that many media providers lack the staff expertise needed to provide context and detail in complicated climate change stories. This continues to be true, but the recent IPCC criticism also suggests that editors need to understand that larger problems—catastrophic climate change—should not be discredited in favor of academic debates about the speed of glacial retreat.

After the article went to print, I’ve since come across some encouraging efforts to explain complex climate stories. The Guardian catalogued all of their stories about “Climategate”—the escapade related to climate science e-mails stolen from a University of East Anglia server—placing the stories on an easy-to-navigate Web page that demonstrates their reporting approach and allows visitors to read about the controversy from beginning to end. The conclusion: “Climate science emails cannot destroy argument that world is warming, and humans are responsible.” It will be a pity if media audiences worldwide, as a result of recent news coverage, are less convinced that the argument is spot on. Without serious, investigative, in-depth news reports, media audiences will continue to become more ill-informed, and efforts to avoid widespread environmental damage will falter.

Photo courtesy CPWF Basin Focal Project. A meter of sea level rise would pose serious economic damage to agricultural activities along the Nile Delta, such as aquaculture operations (pictured above).

Saudi Arabia, a long-time obstructionist at international climate negotiations, set aside differing opinions and supported the Copenhagen Accord that emerged from the United Nations summit in December.

“We feel that what we have here is actually a good product that shifts us from the level of negotiation where we are at to a slightly higher level that aims to focus our discussion and gives us a little bit of guidance,” lead negotiator Mohammed al-Sabban said to fellow delegates during the final plenary meeting. “We are still very far away, but it’s a positive step in the right direction.”

While the non-binding political deal does not commit Saudi Arabia to economy-wide emission reduction targets, it does state that developing countries “will implement [individual] mitigation actions.” The Saudi government has not, however, submitted targets to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change yet.

Most importantly, the Saudi support may suggest that Arab leaders are beginning to realize that Arab nations are seriously threatened by climate change. The hopeful perspective was suggested by Mohamed El-Ashry, a United Nations Foundation senior fellow, at a recent event hosted by the World Resources Institute.

El-Ashry, a former Global Environment Facility chairman, said that several Arab delegations arrived to Copenhagen with unique strategies, rather than “towing the line of the G77 and ExxonMobil.” Lebanon and Jordan, countries without oil reserves, have realized that a strong climate agreement is in their national interest. Oil-producing nations, meanwhile, are beginning to moderate their positions. “Saudi Arabia did not object to [the Accord] in the end. That’s something that needs to be built upon,” El-Ashry said.

Very little research about climate change impacts across the Arab world have been available for governments until recently. The Arab Forum for Environment and Development, a three-year old coalition of businesses, academics, environmentalists, and media representatives, produced the first Arab-led report on climate change last year and has since attracted the attention of several government leaders.

Among its findings, the report found that climate change would further diminish fresh water supplies—the Euphrates and Jordan Rivers may decrease by 30 and 80 percent, respectively, before 2100. Sea level rise of 1 meter would directly impact 41,500 square kilometers of Arab coastal lands—especially threatening the Nile Delta in Egypt. Food production would drop by half if temperatures increase 2-4 degrees Celsius. Malaria and dust storms would become more widespread.

The report concludes that “virtually no work is being carried out to make the Arab countries prepared for climate change challenges… [and] the economic impact seems to be totally ignored.”

While much progress among Arab leaders is still needed, “the report has affected the level of awareness to the point that [they] understand a strong climate agreement is in their best interests,” said El-Ashry, who helped coordinate the research.

Besides supporting the Copenhagen Accord, Saudi Arabia’s ruler King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud opened a research university last year with a focus on alternative energy. Solar water heating has become widespread in Morocco, Palestine, and Tunisia. The United Arab Emirates is currently seeking clean technology investments for their Masdar City initiative, and Abu Dhabi is hosting the new International Renewable Energy Agency. Jordan provides tax exemptions for energy efficiency and hybrid cars.

While there is change, it is not enough, El-Ashry noted. “While considerable, these [progressive efforts] are few and far in between, and there is no coordination of strategy to deal with the problem,” he said.

September 2007 photo of summer ice breaking up in the Northwest Passage. Courtesy New York Times

The security concerns around the Arctic are quickly becoming hot topics in Washington but it was still a little jarring to hear Dr. Robert Huebert, a professor at the University of Calgary in Canada, speak so bluntly about the military implications of melting ice in one of the few truly placid regions remaining on the planet.

“We are already in an Arctic arms race,” said Huebert, during a panel discussion at the Center for National Policy on February 2. “We’re just not aware of it.”

Even more ominously, Huebert compared the current situation in the Arctic to Europe in 1935, implying that it is a powder keg ready to explode with dire implications for the entire world.  “Everybody is preparing for the worst-case scenario,” Huebert says.

By “everybody,” Huebert is mainly referring to the nations ringing the Arctic—the United States, Canada, Russia, Norway, and Denmark. Norway and Denmark have focused their security efforts on the Arctic, Russia famously planted a flag on the North Pole seabed in 2007 and has been more assertive in its Arctic policy, the United States is increasing its presence in Alaska, and Canada, Huebert said, is “talking a lot, but not doing anything.”

China, Japan, and South Korea also have interests in the Arctic, though these nations do not border the region. China and Japan have their eyes on the Arctic’s resources while South Korea has recently emerged as the world’s leading developer of Arctic commercial vessels.

The Council on Foreign Relations’ Dr. Scott Borgerson, who moderated the panel, said the Arctic has been losing 1,000 kilometers in ice volume each year since 1995. The ocean could be ice free during the summer months at some point between 2016 and 2030 and this would open up many new shipping routes and increase the military significance of the region.

Gary Hart, the former Democratic senator from Colorado, echoed Huebert’s concern about security concerns in the Arctic. Hart compared the Northwest Passage, which could become a major shipping passage in the next decade or so, to some of the most militarized areas of the last 60 years. He likened the Passage to the Fulda Gap, which, during the Cold War, was a strategic corridor separating East and West Germany, and the Strait of Hormuz, a waterway between Iran and Oman, which today is a major choke point for the oil trade and a focus for the world’s military planners.

“Quite often geography symbolizes how we see our security,” said Hart.

One of the main issues surrounding the Northwest Passage and a strong point of contention between Canada and the U.S. is under whose jurisdiction does the waterway fall. Canada says it is their water, while the U.S. maintains that it is an international passage.

Still, United States Coast Guard Rear Admiral Gene Brooks, who has served in Alaska, said the Canadian and American militaries share intelligence in the Arctic and the forces have worked together seamlessly. The larger problem is simply getting the average American to realize that the U.S. is, indeed, an Arctic nation. This goes beyond military security, he said, and extends to issues of culture and economics.

“We need a national debate on what to do as an Arctic nation,” said Brooks.

 

Last week, Gazprom executives stated that the Russian gas giant might need to revise its investment strategy in light of the newfound abundance of North American shale gas.

Looking back on the October Revolution in 1917, Lenin famously remarked, “We found power lying in the streets and simply picked it up.” Just replace “power” with “a newfound abundance of domestic energy,” and you get the kind of gushing we’ve been hearing from the gas industry and policy makers since the United States’ so-called “shale gas revolution” began. Recent developments in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing have dramatically increased the amount of technically recoverable shale gas in the U.S. As a result, the U.S., which a few short years ago was discussing major investments in new liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals to support its growing gas imports, will be able to meet most – if not all – of its gas demand with domestic supply.   

The expected future backwash of LNG into the global market, along with new production of unconventional gas in North America, will force exporters of conventional gas to rethink their energy outlooks. Chief among those will be Russia, the world’s largest exporter of natural gas.  In a statement last week, Alexander Medvedev, deputy chairman of Russian energy giant Gazprom, said that America’s shale gas revolution “could fundamentally reshape the whole world gas market.” 

As long as natural gas means dependence on Russian supplies, European countries will be leery of making natural gas a larger component of their clean energy transition strategies. The European Union’s desire to improve its energy security by diversifying its energy portfolio will be a good argument for increased investment in renewables – but it will also be a good argument for increased investment in coal. Unfortunately, coal emits more than twice as much carbon dioxide as natural gas when combusted in power plants. By freeing more LNG for Europe, and even potentially leading the way for Europe to identify and develop its own shale gas resources (French energy giant Total recently acquired a 25 percent stake in Chesapeake Energy’s Barnett Shale gas fields in North Texas), the U.S. shale gas revolution could change Europe’s energy security calculus, allowing it to wean itself off coal with more confidence.

In a briefing at the Center for American Progress last week, Ambassador Richard Morningstar, Special Envoy for Eurasian Energy, emphasized the United States’ commitment to improved European energy security, especially with gas pipelines that are not at the mercy of Russia’s political decision making. In addition, a U.S.-EU Energy Council will strengthen research collaboration on clean technology, energy efficiency, and energy diversification through LNG and renewables. Ambassador Morningstar noted that diversifying gas supplies – in Europe and elsewhere – will be critical in reducing climate forcing:

As the world looks to reduce carbon emissions and meet climate change goals, demand for clean burning gas will likely increase. Analysts speculate that gas will function as a “bridge fuel,” filling the gap until significant quantities of renewables and nuclear power can come on line.

The beaches of Cancun will be hosts of COP 16. After a lukewarm result from Copenhagen it will be up to the Mexican government to create the environment that will make a legally binding international agreement more likely. Beyond excellent logistics and security, the COP in Mexico will have to tackle the challenge of reaching consensus from a group of countries that appears to be even more fragmented after COP 15. The division has led many analysts to speculate that this year the Climate Change debate will shift to regional or G forums (G8, G8+5, G20 etc.), or even to bilateral negotiations between the most influential states. Reducing the number of Parties might be a good strategy to reach concrete results more efficiently, without the hassle of building consensus, but it threatens principles embedded in broader multilateralism (like equity and transparency). Historically, Mexico has been a keen adherent to these principles. The COP presidency will give the Mexicans an opportunity to uphold the UNFCCC process as the forum to reach a Climate Change global agreement.

Politically, the Mexican government has a large stake in the COP 16 success. President Felipe Calderon Hinojosa has made Climate Change a top priority for Mexico. Indeed, the Special Climate Change Program (PECC) published in the Official Gazette of the Federation late last summer offers a 51 MMt CO₂e unilateral reduction target by 2012. On the international stage, Mexico’s Green Fund proposal is one of the most significant contributions from a single country to the international climate debate, designed to work effectively with broad participation from developed and developing countries alike. President Calderon was part of a handful of heads of state to drill down the Copenhagen Accord last December. And he has been active behind the scenes as well: Last November, along with Australia’s Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, he brought in the Danish Prime Minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, to host an unofficial breakfast on Climate Change during the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting in November in Singapore. It’s safe to say that Mexico’s Administration has adopted Climate Change as the centerpiece of its foreign policy (some internal Mexican bureaucratic divisions non-withstanding).

The Mexican government faces the urgent need to “walk the talk.” A key piece for Mexico to meet its domestic emission reduction target will require the Energy Ministry to mandate the national public utility company (CFE) to double its renewable energy installed capacity from 3.3 to 7.6 % by 2012. This transition, neglected for too long, would mainly rely on expanding the wind energy base operated by private developers, mostly for self-supply – a scheme that makes CFE uncomfortable as it weakens its monopolistic power. Other actions contemplated in the PECC’s mitigating strategy like a REDD pilot project and the expansion of the “Green Mortgage” initiative will also face similar power struggles.

In the international sphere, consensus building needs to start now as well. President Calderon and his team need to enhance their facilitator role in the months leading up to COP 16. There is a strong opportunity this year to frame one of the most ambitious global agreements in history. It will require flexing high-level diplomatic muscle on three different fronts. First, they need to build on the willingness to cooperate from latecomer countries like China, India, Brazil and the United States to close the dividing line between Annex 1 and Non-Annex 1 countries. Second, it is essential for them to address the concerns of the most vulnerable countries, like Tuvalu, and least developed countries, like Mali, to ensure a smooth flow of discussions. Third, they should reach out to countries like Venezuela, Ecuador and Saudi Arabia that consider a Climate Change accord as another plot for developed countries to get their way. This three-tier strategy will have to move forward while keeping an eye on talks behind closed doors at forums in which Mexico does not participate, as well as U.S. domestic politics. Mexico appears to have the diplomatic willingness to lead on this effort, and its international climate initiatives are not only sound and well-received but are also fairly consistent with its domestic policy. If President Calderon and his team manage to succeed, negotiations at COP 16 could be as rejuvenating as a sunny day at the beach.

This blog has been contributed by Juan Pablo Osornio, International Policy Analyst at the Center for Clean Air Policy in Washington DC, and Jonathan Pinzon, Research Director at Cassals & Associates in Mexico City.

Exxon Mobil and XTO announced their merger last month.

When Exxon Mobil and XTO Energy Inc. announced their $41 billion merger last month, the news was big enough to penetrate the fog of war in Copenhagen – and to prompt Representative Ed Markey (D-MA), co-author of the House climate and energy bill, to call a hearing on the merger’s impact on U.S. energy markets. Congress and the natural gas industry have a lot to talk about this year, and as the hearing, which took place last week in the House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, revealed, concerns over consolidation in the industry will be only a small part of the agenda. 

After their notable absence from the table while the House crafted climate and energy legislation last year, natural gas interests began the new year with newfound momentum. Natural gas caucuses have formed in both the House and Senate, and environmental leaders including Worldwatch Institute president Chris Flavin and former Sierra Club president Carl Pope have expressed optimism about the role that natural gas, which emits less than half as much carbon dioxide as coal when burned, can play in the transition to a low-carbon economy.

In the coming year, Congress will consider the NAT GAS Act (H.R. 1835, S. 1408), which creates and expands incentives for natural gas vehicles. Natural gas could offer numerous benefits over gasoline and diesel as a transportation fuel, chiefly its lower emissions and domestic availability, now thought to be almost a hundred year supply thanks to technological advances unlocking vast reserves of shale gas.

The natural gas industry will also have an opportunity to redefine its role in the national discussion of climate and energy legislation. As the cleanest fossil fuel, natural gas stands to gain in the power and transportation sectors – if Congress succeeds in putting a price on carbon. 

At Wednesday’s hearing, Rex Tillerson, CEO of Exxon-Mobil, and Bob Simpson, XTO’s Chairman of the Board, proved that they are polishing their message. In virtually identical language, each declared that their companies’ merger would “support our nation’s economic recovery, strengthen our nation’s energy security, and help meet our nation’s environmental goals.” These sentiments were echoed by congressmen on both sides of the aisle, who expressed interest – and in some cases, outright glee – over the jobs the merger might bring to their state, and the supply of abundant and relatively clean energy that the companies could unlock in American shale gas formations. Nevertheless, hydraulic fracturing, the controversial technique driving the shale gas boom, quickly emerged during Wednesday’s hearing as an area of concern for congressmen on both sides of the aisle. 

Representative Joe Barton (R-TX) lamented congressional attempts to restrict hydraulic fracturing.  “If we can prevent the Congress or EPA from mucking around in hydraulic fracturing,” Barton noted, “this merger should go through….Because you have a codicil in your pending merger agreement that if Congress passes legislation then I guess either party has the right to call the merger off.” 

Read the rest of this entry

Dan Reicher, Nigel Jollands, Chris Flavin, Christian Kjaer, and Kelly Sims Gallagher at the Worldwatch side event at COP15 in Copenhagen.

As Worldwatch Senior Researcher Janet Sawin and William Moomaw of Tufts University lay out in Worldwatch’s latest report, Renewable Revolution: Low-Carbon Energy by 2030, technologies available today can go a long way to addressing climate change, and we don’t need to replace fossil fuels unit by unit in order to reach a low-carbon energy future. In fact, we waste an enormous amount of energy today through the conversion of fossil fuels to energy services like light, heat, and mobility. Instead, we can bypass the losses that result from fossil fuel combustion through the use of renewable resources and energy efficiency opportunities, thus meeting the same level of energy services with far less and cleaner primary energy. And pairing energy efficiency with renewable energy creates four key synergies:

• Efficiency improvements enable us to enjoy energy services, and to expand those services, without encouraging skyrocketing demands for energy. This also makes it easier, cheaper and faster for renewables to achieve a large share of total energy production and for society to reduce energy-related emissions.
• Thermal processes like combustion, used in fossil fuel power generation and conventional cars, have inherent inefficiencies due to physics (e.g. Carnot cycle) which can be avoided through renewable energy processes.
• Many renewable technologies, including solar PV, are well-suited for distributed generation. Distributed generation, which produces power close to the point of demand, can minimize the amount of electricity lost in the transmission of power from power plant to user.
• Directly using energy from the sun through passive heating and lighting allows us to bypass the entire conversion of fuel to power or heat, and reduces the overall amount of energy needed for the services desired.

Furthering the discussion on renewable energy and efficiency, Worldwatch convened a gathering of energy efficiency and renewable energy experts at an official side event at the climate negotiations in Copenhagen last month, launching the Renewable Revolution report, made possible through the generous support of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership (REEEP).

Worldwatch President Christopher Flavin framed the discussion with the need for a transformation of the current global energy system from one that is heavily reliant on fossil fuels to one that more fully utilizes the renewable resources and efficiency opportunities available now and in the near-term. In order to face the climate challenge head-on, we must put in place policies that encourage this evolution of the energy system on a global scale.

Read the rest of this entry

On NPR this morning, a commentator noted in the aftermath of the Massachusetts Senate election yesterday that the Obama administration now more than ever needed to decide what its agenda will be for this “critical mid-term” year. The commentator went on to note that “the American people want [the Obama Administration to] focus on jobs and the economy, not climate change, not immigration, not…”

The irony is that if Congress were to effectively focus on climate change, it would also be focused in fundamentally important ways on jobs and the economy. Why are we unable to connect these dots?

Whether Congress were to act on climate legislation that enabled U.S. participation in the emerging international carbon market through “cap and trade” or “cap and dividend,” or if it were to act to place a direct tax on carbon, it would be acting to create essential pools of capital required for transformation of the energy economy. If that capital is then invested wisely, it will be all about broadening the fuel portfolio of that energy economy (read: increasing our energy security and better protecting us against the volatility of fossil fuel markets). It will, as importantly, also be about creating thousands and thousands of new jobs for a healthier, more prosperous and more sustainable 21st century economy. This, incrementally, can create a low-carbon economy in a win-win-win scenario for the economy, the environment and for increased energy security. But that might require true political leadership, by both the people of this country and those whom we elect to represent both the individual and collective interest.