It's time for me to write another post. These days - being heavily pregnant and on maternity leave - I am more likely to complain to media regulator Ofcom (which I have done!) about misleading and sensationalist TV programmes such as Channel 4's "Bringing up Baby" than think about climate change science. But what happened yesterday and today is too significant to be ignored.
So, well done on the Norwegians for awarding the Nobel peace prize to Al Gore and the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Unfortunately, as usual the majority of the media - including the usually sober BBC - is also showing a complete lack of understanding of the facts and gets too easily carried away by sensationalism and the desire to create controversy where there is none.
So, instead of just analysing the significance of the Nobel prize, and the reasons for it (climate change will almost certainly create more conflict in this world) much of the British media seems compelled to make a big deal of the fact that yesterday there has been a controversial ruling on the film. This allegedly undermines Al Gore's film (well, actually it wasn't his film, although he was in it) "An Inconvenient Truth". But is this really true?
Well, the inconvenient truth is that many journalists are completely failing to check their facts before publishing their stories and have been sensationalising the story. The truth is that the High Court judge has ruled that Al Gore’s award winning film, An Inconvenient Truth, is “broadly accurate”and that it can be shown in schools.
True, Mr Justice Burton also identified a number of “errors and omissions” in the film that depart from the mainstream. What he means by mainstream is “the ‘consensus’ expressed in the IPCC reports”. He also ruled that An Inconvenient Truth could be shown but the Guidance Note to schools must address these departures from the mainstream view. Well, fair enough, really. Al Gore is just human and in his efforts to communicate hard topics to a vast audience may have at times used language which was not scientific but more aimed at communicating issues clearly. It is also true that the IPCC, because of its nature as a body that has to reach consensus among thousands of experts, is often very conservative in its language. So this does not undermine the overall message of the film.
In fact, Mr Justice Burton said in the ruling that:
"The Film advances four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC:
- global average temperatures have been rising significantly over the past half century and are likely to continue to rise
- climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide
- climate change will, if unchecked, have significant adverse effects on the world and its populations; and
- there are measures which individuals and governments can take which will help to reduce climate change or mitigate its effects."
Significantly, Mr Justice Burton also rejected calls for teaching staff to also present a sceptical view of climate change saying “the High Court has made clear the law does not require teaching staff to adopt a position of neutrality between views which accord with the great majority of scientific opinion and those which do not.”
But of course it would not make such a good news story to write this and be more accurate about the ruling, would it? Sorry, but this is lazy journalism. Full stop.
There's also a lot to be said about the origins of this controversy, and who is behind it - another issue which the media choses to ignore. But I'd rather go back to thinking about pregnancy and babies - a lot more fun to be honest.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Monday, June 18, 2007
Are carbon offsets a good idea or a con?
There’s been a lot of media coverage about offsets recently. A growing number of institutions, individuals and businesses are claiming that all or parts of their activities are being made "carbon neutral" through the purchase of carbon offsets. Is this true or is it a con?
The UK’s Guardian has published this weekend an excellent investigation into the offset market. I recommend reading this article in its entirety as a starting point, as it's one of the most comprehensive articles I've seen so far. In addition, I thought it would be useful to place a bit of a summary here of frequent questions & answers on this issue for anyone who wants more information, summarising some work I've just done for a client.
What is a carbon offset?
A carbon offset can be generally defined as a project that compensates for the release of a certain amount of CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalent) in a certain location by avoiding the release of the same amount of CO2e somewhere else. Carbon offsets can potentially be generated by a number of activities such as energy efficiency, renewable energy and so-called sinks projects, or forestry projects.
Are offsets related to the Kyoto Protocol?
Partly, but not entirely. A very important distinction should be made between the offsets deriving from the carbon market, which is a mandatory market in countries that have ratified Kyoto, and the voluntary market. In the voluntary market, a distinction can also be made according to whether the projects are carried out under Kyoto rules or outside them.
The concept of offsetting does derive from a principle of the Kyoto protocol. This allows rich nations to meet emissions reduction targets by funding projects that reduce emissions in poorer countries through the Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). These projects are awarded "carbon credits". These credits can be traded on the international carbon markets. Carbon markets have grown rapidly since they were set up under the Kyoto treaty and the start of the European Union's emissions trading scheme (EU ETS) in 2005. Offset projects bought by companies that operate under the EU ETS and need them to meet their requirement are one component of the market.
What are the origins of the voluntary offset market?
A voluntary market for offsets has also been growing rapidly. Businesses, governments and individuals that are not bound to reduce emissions under the EU ETS or other regulations, also chose to buy credits from the CDM or to promote other types of projects outside the Kyoto system. The motivation for buyers ranges from the need to project a positive public image for a company, to the feeling that something should be done about emissions that are considered unavoidable – such as those arising from leisure or business travel. According to a World Bank estimate, the voluntary market represents less than 1% of the global carbon market. However, some estimate that by 2010, this market will grow 40-fold to be worth $4bn. Climate Care and Future Forests, since renamed CarbonNeutral, were among the first companies to set themselves up as offset providers in the UK in 1997. Initially, these companies were small and low profile. In the past couple of years, however, the market has grown considerably around the world, with UK companies taking the lead. A large number of new companies has been set up.
What is the price of a carbon offset?
There are currently enormous variations in the price of a tonne of CO2 in the voluntary offset market, making it very difficult for buyers to be able to say if they are getting good value for money, or whether their money is being swallowed up in administration fees or brokers' profits. Unlike charities, which operate under strict regulations in order to be able to operate as non profit companies, nobody is checking how offset companies are spending their money.
Are offsets good or bad then?
Again, a distinction should be made between the mandatory and voluntary markets (something recent media coverage has not always done very well, in my view). The mandatory Kyoto and EU carbon markets have several loopholes and are far from being 100% environmentally sound. Supporters of these markets see them as a tool to promote the transfer of cleaner technologies to developing countries, while providing a way for companies in rich countries to reduce emissions in the most cost-effective way. Critics – who are concerned about the low quality of the offset projects that have emerged so far – see them as a way for companies that to buy their way out of legal requirements to reduce emissions in their own operations at home, with questionable impact on the environment.
Several recent investigations, both from the FT and the Guardian, have found serious irregularities with some CDM projects, as well as voluntary offset products. However, the fact some CDM projects are seriously questionable does not automatically mean the whole market is flawed. It is also a very new market, currently in a pilot phase. In my view, it would be fair to give it another chance and not assume that a few bad projects mean the whole project is doomed. Also, the rules regulating this market are the result of careful negotiations by governments. If something needs to improve, this can be done as long as enough governments are willing to fight for it. The fact there is much more international media scrutiny now than there used to be when the current rules were set up a few years ago can only be good news. In addition, with only a few years left for emissions to peak and decline globally, getting rid of the main system that has been set up so far to reduce emissions - rather than try to improve it and learn from mistakes - would be suicidal.
On the contrary, the voluntary offset market can indeed be considered a complete “wild west”. Any person can set up a company and sell offsets of any kind through a website. There is no regulation or legislation setting minimum standards for offsets or checking that these companies are genuinely putting money into sound projects, or indeed that the money is going into any project at all. It is extremely likely that a percentage of the market is fraudulent.
Francis Sullivan, environment adviser at HSBC – UK bank that announced its intention to go carbon-neutral in 2005 – told the FT he found "serious credibility concerns" in the offsetting market after evaluating it for several months. "The police, the fraud squad and trading standards need to be looking into this. Otherwise people will lose faith in it," he said.
Are there any products that are better than others?
The UK government has made an attempt to create some clarity in the offset market, by creating a voluntary, proposed code of conduct for companies operating in the offset market. The Code of Conduct only recognises projects that fall under Kyoto markets and will require transparent pricing, information requirements, etc. Controversially, Defra has not included in the code of conduct the vast amount of non-Kyoto projects and has not incorporated (so far) in its Code of Conduct any of the recommendations made by the country’s largest environmental groups, such as Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and WWF.
So, what do environmentalists think of offsets?
In a 2006 statement, the organisations mentioned above recommended the purchase of offsets from projects which have been certified by the Gold Standard – an independent, transparent, internationally recognised standard for CDM projects. The Gold Standard organisation also recently launched a standard for non-Kyoto, voluntary projects. The environmental groups also recommended in their statement that offsets should be marketed responsibly - i.e. not claiming this is THE solution to climate change. They also said these products should exclude forestry projects because of their questionable environmental value. Nobody can guarantee that a forest will not die or burn down within a few years, and not all types of forests are suitable as means to absorb carbon dioxide.
The organisations provided examples of online retailers which sell offsets from projects which meet these criteria. These include Myclimate, Atmosfair and Climate Friendly. However, most organisations selling offsets should be able to provide Gold Standard credits if asked to do so. It must also be pointed out that in the meantime, the Guardian article I linked to above found that Atmosfair has some work to do as not all its projects are genuinely Gold Standard-certified.
Other environmental organisations are far more hostile to offsets. These are smaller, more radical organisations that are generally hostile to carbon trading under the Kyoto Protocol, as well as the voluntary offset market. An organisation called Carbon Trade Watch recently issued a report comparing the voluntary offset market to modern day “indulgences” that enabled Catholics to get their sins forgiven for a fee paid to the Church . It is quite likely that the hostility to these products will continue to grow, especially if the media continues to do a good job to uncover "inconvenient truths" about this market. Also, the fact that some companies are currently using the concept of carbon neutrality and offsets in a very misleading way (e.g. to market SUVs as environmentally friendly) can only make things worse.
The UK’s Guardian has published this weekend an excellent investigation into the offset market. I recommend reading this article in its entirety as a starting point, as it's one of the most comprehensive articles I've seen so far. In addition, I thought it would be useful to place a bit of a summary here of frequent questions & answers on this issue for anyone who wants more information, summarising some work I've just done for a client.
What is a carbon offset?
A carbon offset can be generally defined as a project that compensates for the release of a certain amount of CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalent) in a certain location by avoiding the release of the same amount of CO2e somewhere else. Carbon offsets can potentially be generated by a number of activities such as energy efficiency, renewable energy and so-called sinks projects, or forestry projects.
Are offsets related to the Kyoto Protocol?
Partly, but not entirely. A very important distinction should be made between the offsets deriving from the carbon market, which is a mandatory market in countries that have ratified Kyoto, and the voluntary market. In the voluntary market, a distinction can also be made according to whether the projects are carried out under Kyoto rules or outside them.
The concept of offsetting does derive from a principle of the Kyoto protocol. This allows rich nations to meet emissions reduction targets by funding projects that reduce emissions in poorer countries through the Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). These projects are awarded "carbon credits". These credits can be traded on the international carbon markets. Carbon markets have grown rapidly since they were set up under the Kyoto treaty and the start of the European Union's emissions trading scheme (EU ETS) in 2005. Offset projects bought by companies that operate under the EU ETS and need them to meet their requirement are one component of the market.
What are the origins of the voluntary offset market?
A voluntary market for offsets has also been growing rapidly. Businesses, governments and individuals that are not bound to reduce emissions under the EU ETS or other regulations, also chose to buy credits from the CDM or to promote other types of projects outside the Kyoto system. The motivation for buyers ranges from the need to project a positive public image for a company, to the feeling that something should be done about emissions that are considered unavoidable – such as those arising from leisure or business travel. According to a World Bank estimate, the voluntary market represents less than 1% of the global carbon market. However, some estimate that by 2010, this market will grow 40-fold to be worth $4bn. Climate Care and Future Forests, since renamed CarbonNeutral, were among the first companies to set themselves up as offset providers in the UK in 1997. Initially, these companies were small and low profile. In the past couple of years, however, the market has grown considerably around the world, with UK companies taking the lead. A large number of new companies has been set up.
What is the price of a carbon offset?
There are currently enormous variations in the price of a tonne of CO2 in the voluntary offset market, making it very difficult for buyers to be able to say if they are getting good value for money, or whether their money is being swallowed up in administration fees or brokers' profits. Unlike charities, which operate under strict regulations in order to be able to operate as non profit companies, nobody is checking how offset companies are spending their money.
Are offsets good or bad then?
Again, a distinction should be made between the mandatory and voluntary markets (something recent media coverage has not always done very well, in my view). The mandatory Kyoto and EU carbon markets have several loopholes and are far from being 100% environmentally sound. Supporters of these markets see them as a tool to promote the transfer of cleaner technologies to developing countries, while providing a way for companies in rich countries to reduce emissions in the most cost-effective way. Critics – who are concerned about the low quality of the offset projects that have emerged so far – see them as a way for companies that to buy their way out of legal requirements to reduce emissions in their own operations at home, with questionable impact on the environment.
Several recent investigations, both from the FT and the Guardian, have found serious irregularities with some CDM projects, as well as voluntary offset products. However, the fact some CDM projects are seriously questionable does not automatically mean the whole market is flawed. It is also a very new market, currently in a pilot phase. In my view, it would be fair to give it another chance and not assume that a few bad projects mean the whole project is doomed. Also, the rules regulating this market are the result of careful negotiations by governments. If something needs to improve, this can be done as long as enough governments are willing to fight for it. The fact there is much more international media scrutiny now than there used to be when the current rules were set up a few years ago can only be good news. In addition, with only a few years left for emissions to peak and decline globally, getting rid of the main system that has been set up so far to reduce emissions - rather than try to improve it and learn from mistakes - would be suicidal.
On the contrary, the voluntary offset market can indeed be considered a complete “wild west”. Any person can set up a company and sell offsets of any kind through a website. There is no regulation or legislation setting minimum standards for offsets or checking that these companies are genuinely putting money into sound projects, or indeed that the money is going into any project at all. It is extremely likely that a percentage of the market is fraudulent.
Francis Sullivan, environment adviser at HSBC – UK bank that announced its intention to go carbon-neutral in 2005 – told the FT he found "serious credibility concerns" in the offsetting market after evaluating it for several months. "The police, the fraud squad and trading standards need to be looking into this. Otherwise people will lose faith in it," he said.
Are there any products that are better than others?
The UK government has made an attempt to create some clarity in the offset market, by creating a voluntary, proposed code of conduct for companies operating in the offset market. The Code of Conduct only recognises projects that fall under Kyoto markets and will require transparent pricing, information requirements, etc. Controversially, Defra has not included in the code of conduct the vast amount of non-Kyoto projects and has not incorporated (so far) in its Code of Conduct any of the recommendations made by the country’s largest environmental groups, such as Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and WWF.
So, what do environmentalists think of offsets?
In a 2006 statement, the organisations mentioned above recommended the purchase of offsets from projects which have been certified by the Gold Standard – an independent, transparent, internationally recognised standard for CDM projects. The Gold Standard organisation also recently launched a standard for non-Kyoto, voluntary projects. The environmental groups also recommended in their statement that offsets should be marketed responsibly - i.e. not claiming this is THE solution to climate change. They also said these products should exclude forestry projects because of their questionable environmental value. Nobody can guarantee that a forest will not die or burn down within a few years, and not all types of forests are suitable as means to absorb carbon dioxide.
The organisations provided examples of online retailers which sell offsets from projects which meet these criteria. These include Myclimate, Atmosfair and Climate Friendly. However, most organisations selling offsets should be able to provide Gold Standard credits if asked to do so. It must also be pointed out that in the meantime, the Guardian article I linked to above found that Atmosfair has some work to do as not all its projects are genuinely Gold Standard-certified.
Other environmental organisations are far more hostile to offsets. These are smaller, more radical organisations that are generally hostile to carbon trading under the Kyoto Protocol, as well as the voluntary offset market. An organisation called Carbon Trade Watch recently issued a report comparing the voluntary offset market to modern day “indulgences” that enabled Catholics to get their sins forgiven for a fee paid to the Church . It is quite likely that the hostility to these products will continue to grow, especially if the media continues to do a good job to uncover "inconvenient truths" about this market. Also, the fact that some companies are currently using the concept of carbon neutrality and offsets in a very misleading way (e.g. to market SUVs as environmentally friendly) can only make things worse.
Monday, June 11, 2007
Beyond the usual G8 headlines...
Most newspapers around the world have covered the G8 summit which was held last week in Germany, and the agreement on climate change. Most of the articles, though, have not been very interesting, partly reflecting the fact that the G8 is not really a crucial decision making body for climate change and its statements are often very vague. However, I think this article from the UK's Independent is perhaps the most comprehensive analysis of the event I've seen on the mainstream press so far. It highlights that beyond the vague wording of the final statement this agreement does represent a step forward.
The anecdote it tells in the opening paragraphs is also pretty interesting:
"Believing - like British ministers at the time - that the right-wing former East German would be far less interested in the environment than the red-green government she had toppled - he patronisingly suggested that they could forget the Kyoto protocol.
"Mr President, you are mistaken," Mrs Merkel announced, drawing herself up to her full 5ft 8in. "I am one of those responsible for the protocol." And she told him how, as her country's environment minister, she had chaired the meeting that had made the crucial breakthrough on the road to Kyoto, and then led its negotiating team when the treaty was agreed.
Over the past six months, the increasingly embattled President has had plenty of opportunity to remember his faux pas."
The anecdote it tells in the opening paragraphs is also pretty interesting:
"Believing - like British ministers at the time - that the right-wing former East German would be far less interested in the environment than the red-green government she had toppled - he patronisingly suggested that they could forget the Kyoto protocol.
"Mr President, you are mistaken," Mrs Merkel announced, drawing herself up to her full 5ft 8in. "I am one of those responsible for the protocol." And she told him how, as her country's environment minister, she had chaired the meeting that had made the crucial breakthrough on the road to Kyoto, and then led its negotiating team when the treaty was agreed.
Over the past six months, the increasingly embattled President has had plenty of opportunity to remember his faux pas."
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Still confused on climate science? Read this.
A few days ago, on the networking site LinkedIN, someone asked the question: do you believe in climate change? Of course, climate science is not a matter of beliefs of opinions. But I thought it would be worth answering the question, especially given that many of the users of the site, who also posted their answers, seemed a bit confused by the conflicting views they hear in the media.
This is what I answered. I think it might generally be useful as a starting point for anyone who is still in doubt.
The science of climate change is now so solid, that there isn’t much of a point discussing whether or not the climate is changing and if it’s caused by humans, in the same way we wouldn’t discuss here whether smoking causes cancer or not.
Even governments like the US have accepted the reports by the world’s main authority on this issue, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and recognise the impact humans are having on the atmosphere. What the US is still debating is what precisely to do about it.
For those who are still feeling sceptical or "agnostic" about the science – which is a normal reaction to have, given the unthinkable nature of what scientists are saying – I would recommend this page from the New Scientist magazine. These are very good for addressing some of the common concerns that were expressed in some of the previous answers.
If you want to go a bit further, you can browse this page from Real Climate, a website run by scientists, which has links to further useful sources of information:
Your question asking whether we need to tackle climate change or adapt to it is interesting. The answer is that we need both. No matter what decision politicians take now, and even if we were to stop all greenhouse gas emissions immediately – which is clearly not possible – we would still have a certain degree of climate change because of the emissions that have gone into the atmosphere for many years, and which will continue to have an impact on the climate.
To the inevitable changes we will have to adapt, for example by adjusting our agricultural practices, making our infrastructure, housing and cities more resilient to heat waves or water shortages and resettling people who will be at risk from sea level rise. At the same time, we have to make a decision of what level of climate change – and what level of damages to nature, economies and society -we are really prepared to accept.
Temperatures could increase by the end of the century by less than 2 degrees Celsius, or by 3, 4 and up to 5-6 degrees. The temperature increase is linked to the so-called concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that we (or rather, our elected politicians) will eventually agree to aim for. The difference between a 2 degree Celsius change and a 5 degree change is enormous.
Based on the state of the science, many policy makers have identified 2 degrees as a critical threshold. Although at this level changes will be very serious for some countries (especially very poor ones, that have fewer means to adapt to changes in food production, for example), they will be relatively more manageable than changes above this temperature.
Here is a link to a useful and clear illustration of what difference temperature changes mean in terms of what impacts they will have (pdf document).
That’s why keeping temperature increases below that 2 degree Celsius threshold is the official goal of the European Union, and why the US has been asked to discuss it. For the time being, the US has not committed to any specific temperature goal or greenhouse gas concentration goal. But eventually it will have to.
I personally think it is very important for LinkedIN users (and society at large, of course) to be able to discuss their government positions on this issue in a well-informed way. No matter what people do for a living, chances are that at some point virtually everybody have to put in practice measures to reduce emissions, or to adapt to changes, both in their professional and personal life.
These issues are rapidly moving away from being “just for the specialists” to something that affects everyone – and rightly so. For those who have children, it may also be useful to try to think about what a temperature change of 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 degrees will really mean for them.
This is what I answered. I think it might generally be useful as a starting point for anyone who is still in doubt.
The science of climate change is now so solid, that there isn’t much of a point discussing whether or not the climate is changing and if it’s caused by humans, in the same way we wouldn’t discuss here whether smoking causes cancer or not.
Even governments like the US have accepted the reports by the world’s main authority on this issue, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and recognise the impact humans are having on the atmosphere. What the US is still debating is what precisely to do about it.
For those who are still feeling sceptical or "agnostic" about the science – which is a normal reaction to have, given the unthinkable nature of what scientists are saying – I would recommend this page from the New Scientist magazine. These are very good for addressing some of the common concerns that were expressed in some of the previous answers.
If you want to go a bit further, you can browse this page from Real Climate, a website run by scientists, which has links to further useful sources of information:
Your question asking whether we need to tackle climate change or adapt to it is interesting. The answer is that we need both. No matter what decision politicians take now, and even if we were to stop all greenhouse gas emissions immediately – which is clearly not possible – we would still have a certain degree of climate change because of the emissions that have gone into the atmosphere for many years, and which will continue to have an impact on the climate.
To the inevitable changes we will have to adapt, for example by adjusting our agricultural practices, making our infrastructure, housing and cities more resilient to heat waves or water shortages and resettling people who will be at risk from sea level rise. At the same time, we have to make a decision of what level of climate change – and what level of damages to nature, economies and society -we are really prepared to accept.
Temperatures could increase by the end of the century by less than 2 degrees Celsius, or by 3, 4 and up to 5-6 degrees. The temperature increase is linked to the so-called concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that we (or rather, our elected politicians) will eventually agree to aim for. The difference between a 2 degree Celsius change and a 5 degree change is enormous.
Based on the state of the science, many policy makers have identified 2 degrees as a critical threshold. Although at this level changes will be very serious for some countries (especially very poor ones, that have fewer means to adapt to changes in food production, for example), they will be relatively more manageable than changes above this temperature.
Here is a link to a useful and clear illustration of what difference temperature changes mean in terms of what impacts they will have (pdf document).
That’s why keeping temperature increases below that 2 degree Celsius threshold is the official goal of the European Union, and why the US has been asked to discuss it. For the time being, the US has not committed to any specific temperature goal or greenhouse gas concentration goal. But eventually it will have to.
I personally think it is very important for LinkedIN users (and society at large, of course) to be able to discuss their government positions on this issue in a well-informed way. No matter what people do for a living, chances are that at some point virtually everybody have to put in practice measures to reduce emissions, or to adapt to changes, both in their professional and personal life.
These issues are rapidly moving away from being “just for the specialists” to something that affects everyone – and rightly so. For those who have children, it may also be useful to try to think about what a temperature change of 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 degrees will really mean for them.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Jonathon Porritt launches new blog
Prominent UK environmental campaigner and director of the Sustainable Development Commission Jonathon Porritt has launched a new blog. It covers various topics, including climate change. Click on the title of this entry, which links to the blog.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Scientists issue first batch of key climate report
I think everybody - no matter what walk of life or profession - should try to read the summaries for policy makers of the reports issues by the world’s scientific authority on climate change - the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). IPCC reports are based on peer reviewed and published scientific and technical literature. No matter what people do, where they live, what political beliefs they have - one day they will be affected by climate change in their professional and personal life. However, for anybody who is really too busy to do so, I am providing a "summary of the summary". This is the modified and shortened version of an article I've published on a business publication.
A milestone in climate science?
A new report issued earlier this month by the IPCC said the scientific community is at least 90% certain humans are responsible for the problem. The Panel also made fresh predictions and clarified many uncertainties. The key issue now is whether a crucial temperature threshold risks being breached – and what to do about it.
This report follows the Third Assessment Report (TAR), issued in 2001. The IPCC Working Group 1 report- Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis - is part of the Fourth Assessment Report. It assesses the latest scientific knowledge of the natural and human drivers of climate change, observed changes in climate, the ability of science to attribute changes to different causes, and projections for future climate change.
Based on recent observations and measurements, scientists now say humans are responsible for climate change with at least 90% certainty – higher than in the TAR, which placed it at 66%. Scientists have also improved their ability to predict future climate change. They adjusted predictions for temperature rises over this century and said the rate of warming has recently increased. The 11 warmest years on record have all occurred in the past 12 years. The second half of the 20th century was the warmest period in the northern hemisphere for at least 1,300 years.
Confidence in regional climate change projections has also improved, thanks to new models and computer technology. Scientists have now clarified a number of issues which had been left partly unresolved in the TAR. For example, both volcanic eruptions and man-made aerosols have had a relative cooling effect, offsetting some of the warming that would have otherwise been observed.
There are now fewer uncertainties on so-called feedbacks – effects of climate change which can accelerate or decelerate the rate of climate change. Scientists clarified that increased temperatures will cause a decay of organic matter rather than speeding plant growth. Some had hoped increased plant growth would slow down climate change. Some economists had argued this might be a positive impact of climate change, which could potentially increase agricultural yields in parts of the world. However, scientists now say plants and soils will absorb less CO2 as the world warms. It is now thought that this may accelerate the rate of warming because a larger fraction of the CO2 emitted will remain in the atmosphere, and the magnitude of climate change caused by a given level of emissions will be larger than previously thought.
In reaction to the report, the European Commission said that without more action to limit greenhouse gas emissions, the global average temperature is likely to rise by a further 1.8-4.0°C this century, after increasing by over 0.7°C in the past 100 years. “Even the low end of this range would take the temperature rise since pre-industrial times to above 2°C, the level at which there could be irreversible and possibly catastrophic consequences,” the Commission said in a statement.
European Union (EU) climate change policy is based on a target agreed by member countries to keep global temperature increases below a 2°C rise compared to pre-industrial temperatures. Many scientists consider this limit to be crucial for avoiding the most catastrophic and irreversible climate change impacts.
The executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Achim Steiner told a press conferencel. “It is critical that we look at the report not only as a milestone but truly as a moment where the focus shifts from whether climate change is linked to human activities – to what on earth are we going to do about it,” he said.
“Anyone who would continue to risk inaction on the basis of the evidence presented here will one day in the history books be considered irresponsible.”
The IPCC was set up in 1988 by UNEP and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). It published previous comprehensive reports in 1990, 1995 and 2001. The working group 1 report was produced by around 600 authors from 40 countries. Over 620 expert and government reviewers also participated. Representatives from 113 governments reviewed and revised the summary line-by-line during the course of a week-long meeting in Paris, before adopting it and accepting the underlying report. The IPCC will issue the two other reports later this year.
A milestone in climate science?
A new report issued earlier this month by the IPCC said the scientific community is at least 90% certain humans are responsible for the problem. The Panel also made fresh predictions and clarified many uncertainties. The key issue now is whether a crucial temperature threshold risks being breached – and what to do about it.
This report follows the Third Assessment Report (TAR), issued in 2001. The IPCC Working Group 1 report- Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis - is part of the Fourth Assessment Report. It assesses the latest scientific knowledge of the natural and human drivers of climate change, observed changes in climate, the ability of science to attribute changes to different causes, and projections for future climate change.
Based on recent observations and measurements, scientists now say humans are responsible for climate change with at least 90% certainty – higher than in the TAR, which placed it at 66%. Scientists have also improved their ability to predict future climate change. They adjusted predictions for temperature rises over this century and said the rate of warming has recently increased. The 11 warmest years on record have all occurred in the past 12 years. The second half of the 20th century was the warmest period in the northern hemisphere for at least 1,300 years.
Confidence in regional climate change projections has also improved, thanks to new models and computer technology. Scientists have now clarified a number of issues which had been left partly unresolved in the TAR. For example, both volcanic eruptions and man-made aerosols have had a relative cooling effect, offsetting some of the warming that would have otherwise been observed.
There are now fewer uncertainties on so-called feedbacks – effects of climate change which can accelerate or decelerate the rate of climate change. Scientists clarified that increased temperatures will cause a decay of organic matter rather than speeding plant growth. Some had hoped increased plant growth would slow down climate change. Some economists had argued this might be a positive impact of climate change, which could potentially increase agricultural yields in parts of the world. However, scientists now say plants and soils will absorb less CO2 as the world warms. It is now thought that this may accelerate the rate of warming because a larger fraction of the CO2 emitted will remain in the atmosphere, and the magnitude of climate change caused by a given level of emissions will be larger than previously thought.
In reaction to the report, the European Commission said that without more action to limit greenhouse gas emissions, the global average temperature is likely to rise by a further 1.8-4.0°C this century, after increasing by over 0.7°C in the past 100 years. “Even the low end of this range would take the temperature rise since pre-industrial times to above 2°C, the level at which there could be irreversible and possibly catastrophic consequences,” the Commission said in a statement.
European Union (EU) climate change policy is based on a target agreed by member countries to keep global temperature increases below a 2°C rise compared to pre-industrial temperatures. Many scientists consider this limit to be crucial for avoiding the most catastrophic and irreversible climate change impacts.
The executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Achim Steiner told a press conferencel. “It is critical that we look at the report not only as a milestone but truly as a moment where the focus shifts from whether climate change is linked to human activities – to what on earth are we going to do about it,” he said.
“Anyone who would continue to risk inaction on the basis of the evidence presented here will one day in the history books be considered irresponsible.”
The IPCC was set up in 1988 by UNEP and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). It published previous comprehensive reports in 1990, 1995 and 2001. The working group 1 report was produced by around 600 authors from 40 countries. Over 620 expert and government reviewers also participated. Representatives from 113 governments reviewed and revised the summary line-by-line during the course of a week-long meeting in Paris, before adopting it and accepting the underlying report. The IPCC will issue the two other reports later this year.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Stern explains climate change "discount rate" dilemmas on the FT
The FT interviewed last week Sir Nicholas Stern, the author of the Stern Review, which the UK Treasury issued in 2006 and which had a major impact around the world. This article is very clear and explains very clearly why his critics are wrong. Interestingly, the reason has nothing to do with economics, but rather with ethics.
These critics said the Stern Review chose a "discount rate" that was too low. The discount rate is used to translate the probable future costs and benefits of climate change into a value for today. This, they say, makes action look more urgent than it is.
In the interview with the FT, Sir Nicholas said that a higher discount rate, such as used in some other economic models, made little sense in this case because it placed too low a value on the lives of future generations.
What he said:
"We made it very clear in the review that a pure time discount rate is going to influence whether you put a lot of money into climate change or not. A pure time discount rate of 1 per cent essentially takes out, if you look forward a hundred years, two-thirds of the benefit, irrespective of the wealth of future generations. So you are telling a grandchild who is 60 years younger than you: 'You are only worth half'.
"If you want to argue for a very high pure time discount, then give me a reason. I haven't heard a good one. And this is an ethical discussion we should have."
"For me the most persuasive argument is to describe those risks [of climate change] in some detail, look at the costs in different parts of the world, and then present yourself and decision-makers with the question: 'Would you be prepared to pay this amount to take those kinds of risks away?' And you don't need to do detailed aggregation to come to grips with that -question."
These critics said the Stern Review chose a "discount rate" that was too low. The discount rate is used to translate the probable future costs and benefits of climate change into a value for today. This, they say, makes action look more urgent than it is.
In the interview with the FT, Sir Nicholas said that a higher discount rate, such as used in some other economic models, made little sense in this case because it placed too low a value on the lives of future generations.
What he said:
"We made it very clear in the review that a pure time discount rate is going to influence whether you put a lot of money into climate change or not. A pure time discount rate of 1 per cent essentially takes out, if you look forward a hundred years, two-thirds of the benefit, irrespective of the wealth of future generations. So you are telling a grandchild who is 60 years younger than you: 'You are only worth half'.
"If you want to argue for a very high pure time discount, then give me a reason. I haven't heard a good one. And this is an ethical discussion we should have."
"For me the most persuasive argument is to describe those risks [of climate change] in some detail, look at the costs in different parts of the world, and then present yourself and decision-makers with the question: 'Would you be prepared to pay this amount to take those kinds of risks away?' And you don't need to do detailed aggregation to come to grips with that -question."
Monday, January 15, 2007
Exxon & U.S. in possible U-turns on climate, and more European news
The past few days have been very eventful.... Exxon Mobil has started "denying its climate change denial" arguing that its position on climate has been "misunderstood".
The company claims it has stopped funding climate change denial lobbies such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which have been extremely active over many years in generating misleading information on climate science in the US and around the world. However, it remains to be seen whether it has really stopped funding this group, and whether the company will do the same with other smaller denial lobby groups it has been financing. However, the fact they are now willing to start discussing climate change policy options is a major step forward in this debate.
The UK's Observer reported on Sunday that the US is on the verge of a U-turn on climate change policy (this would be a logical step, given the US position against any regulation of greenhouse gases has been largely determined by the position of the strongest industry lobbies such as ExxonMobil). However, this is being denied by the US government, according to the New York Times.
As anticipated in the earlier post, the EU has also announced its new energy measures and a proposal for a long term climate target, which has received a lot of media coverage and which I have briefly outlined in another post on Europe, Planet Earth.
Another announcement that got slightly less attention was that in two weeks (24 January) the EU Commission will put forward proposals for binding legislation to reduce carbon dioxide emissions of new cars sold in the 27-nation trading bloc to an industry average of 120 grams per kilometre in 2012.
Currently car makers are subject to a voluntary agreement to reduce CO2 emissions to an industry average of 140 g/km by 2008, but they are set to miss that target. Asian manufacturers have until 2009 to meet the voluntary target, Reuters reported. The car industry is opposed to mandatory legislation, arguing that that voluntary agreements are better than mandatory ones (except that they are missing the current voluntary target largely because they chose to produce bigger and heavier cars and SUVs, which is why the Commission is now considering making the target mandatory).
The company claims it has stopped funding climate change denial lobbies such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which have been extremely active over many years in generating misleading information on climate science in the US and around the world. However, it remains to be seen whether it has really stopped funding this group, and whether the company will do the same with other smaller denial lobby groups it has been financing. However, the fact they are now willing to start discussing climate change policy options is a major step forward in this debate.
The UK's Observer reported on Sunday that the US is on the verge of a U-turn on climate change policy (this would be a logical step, given the US position against any regulation of greenhouse gases has been largely determined by the position of the strongest industry lobbies such as ExxonMobil). However, this is being denied by the US government, according to the New York Times.
As anticipated in the earlier post, the EU has also announced its new energy measures and a proposal for a long term climate target, which has received a lot of media coverage and which I have briefly outlined in another post on Europe, Planet Earth.
Another announcement that got slightly less attention was that in two weeks (24 January) the EU Commission will put forward proposals for binding legislation to reduce carbon dioxide emissions of new cars sold in the 27-nation trading bloc to an industry average of 120 grams per kilometre in 2012.
Currently car makers are subject to a voluntary agreement to reduce CO2 emissions to an industry average of 140 g/km by 2008, but they are set to miss that target. Asian manufacturers have until 2009 to meet the voluntary target, Reuters reported. The car industry is opposed to mandatory legislation, arguing that that voluntary agreements are better than mandatory ones (except that they are missing the current voluntary target largely because they chose to produce bigger and heavier cars and SUVs, which is why the Commission is now considering making the target mandatory).
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
European Commission to issue energy policy reccomendations Wednesday
This post also appears on another blog, Europe Planet Earth , which I co-write.
European Union (EU) commissioners are reportedly struggling to reach a final agreement on the detail of the forthcoming package of policies on EU energy, to be published Wednesday. The package will include proposals on issues such as coal, carbon capture and storage, renewables, and long term climate change targets.
A preliminary analysis of the leaked documents, most of which I've seen, indicates that some of the documents will be heavily drawing on the UK government’s Stern Review report issued in 2006, which warned of massive economic and social damages if the world failed to tackle climate change.
In an apparent contradiction, though, there appears to be considerable debate on whether and how renewables should continue to grow. There has been much debate on whether this target should be expressed solely as a general energy target, or whether there should also be targets for electricity, heating and cooling, and transport. The current system includes targets for electricity and transport, and discussions were underway to set targets for heating and cooling. The renewable energy industry and environmental groups have been extremely alarmed about these attempts to change a system that is working well. The EU Parliament voted in December to keep and strenghen these sectoral targets.
The Commission will also issue league tables assessing how member countries are doing in meeting their existing renewable targets. Eight countries well on track on their renewables target, and some will exceed it. The UK is among the countries that are not on track and which may need to change their policies, the draft says.
The draft proposals also say global emissions should be halved by 2050 compared with levels in 1990 and that the EU should show world leadership on the issue. The documents mention the need for long term targets beyond 2012, as required by the Kyoto Protocol. There is considerable debate on how high this target should be, and we can expect a big battle later on how to achieve this target and what it includes.
Other issues covered in the draft proposals include:
-measures to promote so-called carbon capture and storage (CCS), a technology to store Carbon Dioxide underground, with the possibility of ten demonstration CCS plants by 2015 and a requirement for all new coal plants capture ready.
-the possibility that in the future the EU might put in place measures to tackle shipping emissions.
-the EU Commission modeling assumes that nuclear power will grow. However, nuclear power in Europe has stalled for decades and it is hard to imagine how this trend will be reversed. It is possible, although not certain, that there will no specific proposals leaving Member States to decide on this (also, most EU member states do not have plans to expand nuclear power and many do not have any nuclear capacity at all).
-proposals to liberalise energy markets further. According to a Reuters story Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes and Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson had pushed hardest for liberalisation of the sector while Industry Commissioner Guenter Verheugen and Transport Commissioner Jacques Barrot, who are German and French respectively, opposed radical changes.
-measures to improve management of oil and gas stocks and better interconnectivity of power grids among EU countries. There are hopes this would potentially give the bloc one voice in dealing with third countries.
-proposal for a a major international agreement on saving energy with the aim of signing it during the Olympic Games in Beijing in 2008, as reported by Reuters.
The energy ministers of all 27 Member States will meet on 15 February to discuss the package, and environment ministers will meet five days later. On 8 and 9 March, all heads of state will meet to make final decisions on it.
European Union (EU) commissioners are reportedly struggling to reach a final agreement on the detail of the forthcoming package of policies on EU energy, to be published Wednesday. The package will include proposals on issues such as coal, carbon capture and storage, renewables, and long term climate change targets.
A preliminary analysis of the leaked documents, most of which I've seen, indicates that some of the documents will be heavily drawing on the UK government’s Stern Review report issued in 2006, which warned of massive economic and social damages if the world failed to tackle climate change.
In an apparent contradiction, though, there appears to be considerable debate on whether and how renewables should continue to grow. There has been much debate on whether this target should be expressed solely as a general energy target, or whether there should also be targets for electricity, heating and cooling, and transport. The current system includes targets for electricity and transport, and discussions were underway to set targets for heating and cooling. The renewable energy industry and environmental groups have been extremely alarmed about these attempts to change a system that is working well. The EU Parliament voted in December to keep and strenghen these sectoral targets.
The Commission will also issue league tables assessing how member countries are doing in meeting their existing renewable targets. Eight countries well on track on their renewables target, and some will exceed it. The UK is among the countries that are not on track and which may need to change their policies, the draft says.
The draft proposals also say global emissions should be halved by 2050 compared with levels in 1990 and that the EU should show world leadership on the issue. The documents mention the need for long term targets beyond 2012, as required by the Kyoto Protocol. There is considerable debate on how high this target should be, and we can expect a big battle later on how to achieve this target and what it includes.
Other issues covered in the draft proposals include:
-measures to promote so-called carbon capture and storage (CCS), a technology to store Carbon Dioxide underground, with the possibility of ten demonstration CCS plants by 2015 and a requirement for all new coal plants capture ready.
-the possibility that in the future the EU might put in place measures to tackle shipping emissions.
-the EU Commission modeling assumes that nuclear power will grow. However, nuclear power in Europe has stalled for decades and it is hard to imagine how this trend will be reversed. It is possible, although not certain, that there will no specific proposals leaving Member States to decide on this (also, most EU member states do not have plans to expand nuclear power and many do not have any nuclear capacity at all).
-proposals to liberalise energy markets further. According to a Reuters story Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes and Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson had pushed hardest for liberalisation of the sector while Industry Commissioner Guenter Verheugen and Transport Commissioner Jacques Barrot, who are German and French respectively, opposed radical changes.
-measures to improve management of oil and gas stocks and better interconnectivity of power grids among EU countries. There are hopes this would potentially give the bloc one voice in dealing with third countries.
-proposal for a a major international agreement on saving energy with the aim of signing it during the Olympic Games in Beijing in 2008, as reported by Reuters.
The energy ministers of all 27 Member States will meet on 15 February to discuss the package, and environment ministers will meet five days later. On 8 and 9 March, all heads of state will meet to make final decisions on it.
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
New Year, New Hopes, New Rythms!
During the Christmas season, the Financial Times published a remarkably good editorial on climate change which outlines very clearly the challenges and hopes for 2007.
Meanwhile, I am very happy because I received as a Christmas present a great CD called Rythms del Mundo - Cuba. The CD includes music by the likes of Coldplay, Arctic Monkeys and Dido, but adapated to include a Cuban son rythm. It also includes the last recording by Cuban legend Ibrahim Ferrer.
No, I haven't gone off topic....this is still relevant, and a rare opportunity for me to write about something very different from policy!
Sales of the CD will help to fund projects of a new climate change charity - Artist Project Earth.
Some of the tracks on the album are great (with the possible exception of one track, which really doesn't work well for me), and mild criticism of this CD that I read on magazine Songlines was definitely undeserved.
The alarming thing I did notice however was that there is no information on climate change in other languages besides English. This CD is likely to sell well in Spanish speaking countries so not having a translation was a missed opportunity to reach new audiences.
Meanwhile, I am very happy because I received as a Christmas present a great CD called Rythms del Mundo - Cuba. The CD includes music by the likes of Coldplay, Arctic Monkeys and Dido, but adapated to include a Cuban son rythm. It also includes the last recording by Cuban legend Ibrahim Ferrer.
No, I haven't gone off topic....this is still relevant, and a rare opportunity for me to write about something very different from policy!
Sales of the CD will help to fund projects of a new climate change charity - Artist Project Earth.
Some of the tracks on the album are great (with the possible exception of one track, which really doesn't work well for me), and mild criticism of this CD that I read on magazine Songlines was definitely undeserved.
The alarming thing I did notice however was that there is no information on climate change in other languages besides English. This CD is likely to sell well in Spanish speaking countries so not having a translation was a missed opportunity to reach new audiences.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
