UN Talks Aim to Thrash Out Tough Details on Climate. By Claire Snegaroff, AFP, 4/3/11. “The first UN climate talks of the year in Bangkok this week look to hammer out tough details of a global pact that has offered hope in the fight against global warming. The six days of talks, which began Sunday with informal workshops, are being held as the world's energy problems are in sharp focus amid Japan's nuclear power crisis and with oil prices hovering near record highs. Negotiators will be seeking to build on an accord reached in the Mexican resort of Cancun in December last year that infused cautious optimism into the often tortuous United Nations process aimed at tackling climate change… UN's climate chief, Christiana Figueres, said… a key goal of the talks was to set out a workplan for the year so that countries could arrive in South Africa for the UN's annual climate summit in November able to make concrete and substantial agreements.”

Future of U.N.’s Role in Combating Climate Change at Stake in Cancun. By Adam Morton and Tom Arup, Sydney Herald, 11/27/10. “Politicians, bureaucrats, lobbyists and activists have begun rolling in [to Cancun] for the first major U.N. meeting on climate change since the disastrous close last December to the Copenhagen conference. At stake, insiders say, is nothing less than the future of the UN's role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and addressing the climate change that scientists warn is already locked in. Eighteen years after their birth at the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit, the UN climate negotiations that yielded the 1997 Kyoto Protocol are in need of redemption, in the form of methodical progress towards a treaty that can be completed within the next two years.

''‘The order of the day is pragmatism,’ said a UN assistant secretary-general, Robert Orr, this week of the Cancun meeting, suggesting negotiators should ‘make progress where we can on the issues we can.’ With the US and China at odds on key points, those issues are expected to include reducing emissions from destroying tropical rainforests, providing financial help to the world's most vulnerable countries and sharing clean energy technology with developing nations. Bigger stumbling blocks -- locking in emissions targets, China consenting to international verification of its emissions, and the legal design of a new climate treaty to start in 2013 -- are likely to have to wait. The most significant question going into the meeting is: can the talks rebuild the trust shattered at Copenhagen and lay a foundation for a climate pact to be signed next year in Durban, South Africa or, more likely, in Rio de Janeiro in December 2012?”

U.N. Launches Fight to Save Planet from Expanding Deserts. AFP, August 17, 2010. "The United Nations has launched a campaign to save the planet from deserts that are threatening a third of the planet along with the livelihoods of more than a billion people. The decade-long initiative aims to 'reverse and prevent desertification' and to soften the effects of drought in affected areas 'to support poverty reduction and environmental sustainability,' Luc Gnacadja, the executive secretary of the U.N. Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), said. Parched land and deserts today are home to one in three people on Earth, or 2.1 billion people, 90% of whom are in developing nations. One billion people struggle to find enough food to survive in such inhospitable terrain."

World Bank Controversy over Funding Coal Plant in South Africa Exacerbates Divide on Climate Policy. By Lesley Wroughton, Reuters, March 7, 2010. "The United States and Britain are threatening to withhold support for a $3.75 billion World Bank loan for a coal-fired plant in South Africa, expanding the battleground in the global debate over who should pay for clean energy. The opposition by the bank's two largest members has raised eyebrows among those who note that the two advanced economies are allowing development of coal-powered plants in their own countries even as they raise concerns about those in poorer countries. While the loan is still likely to be approved on April 6 by the World Bank board, it has revealed the deep fissures between the world's industrial powers and developing countries over tackling climate change. Both camps failed to reach a new deal in Copenhagen in December on a global climate agreement because of differences over emissions targets and who should pay for poorer nations to green their economies.

"Some $3 billion of the loan to South African power utility Eskom will fund the bulk of the 4,800-megawatt Medupi coal-fired plant in the northern Limpopo region and is critical to easing the country's chronic power shortages that brought the economy to its knees in 2008. The rest of the money will go toward renewables and energy efficiency projects. The battle playing out in the World Bank was prompted by new guidance issued by the U.S. Treasury to multilateral institutions in December on coal-based power projects, which infuriated developing countries including China and India."

Counting Outsourced Greenhouse Gas Emissions. By John M. Broder, NYTimes, March 8, 2010. "One of the stickiest points in international climate change negotiations is how to account for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions produced to make goods that are then sold for export. Should the producing country be held to account for those emissions? Or does the consuming country bear some responsibility for counting those emissions?... The atmosphere does not care where the carbon comes from, but it certainly poses difficult political and policy questions down here on terra firma. Although analysts have pondered this question for years, there has been little hard data to compare carbon imports and exports. But two scientists at the Carnegie Institution for Science at Stanford University have published a new study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (subscription required) that aims to quantify how much of each nation's carbon dioxide consumption is produced locally and how much is 'embedded' in imported goods. In the United States, about 2.5 tons of carbon dioxide are consumed per person each year but are produced somewhere else, the co-authors, Ken Caldeira and Steven Davis of the Carnegie Institution, found. That is roughly 11% of per capita carbon emissions in the United States and equivalent to driving a 30 mile-per-gallon car more than 7,000 miles."

Developing Nations Submitting Candidates for Yvo de Boer's Job. By Alister Doyle, Reuters, March 8, 2010. "South Africa, India and Indonesia are vying to win the U.N.'s top climate change job, a key post to build trust between poor and rich in 2010 after the U.N.'s Copenhagen summit which set few binding targets. Many analysts expect a developing nation candidate will succeed Yvo de Boer, a Dutch citizen who said last month he would step down as head of the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat on July 1 after a grueling four years... The choice is up to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who says stronger action by all, mainly to curb emissions from burning fossil fuels, is needed to avert more heatwaves, droughts, floods and rising sea levels. Delegates from 194 nations will meet in Bonn, Germany, next month to try to prepare the next major talks, in Mexico from Nov. 29 to Dec. 10. Few expect a full-blown treaty this year and South Africa will host the talks in 2011."

U.N. Taps Prime Ministers of UK and Ethiopia to Co-Chair Climate Change Funding Effort. By John Heilprin, AP, February 12, 2010. "The U.N. chief tapped the prime ministers of Britain and Ethiopia on Friday to lead the hunt for hundreds of billions of dollars that nations pledged to contribute this decade for dealing with climate change. The announcement is an attempt to fulfill a key part of the nonbinding Copenhagen Accord aimed at directing money from rich nations to poorer nations facing rising sea levels, melting glaciers and other effects of climate change. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on Friday named British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawias co-chairs of a new high-level U.N. advisory group on climate changing financing. Ban said the group will look at 'how to jump start' efforts to collect the tens of billions of dollars a year pledged at the Copenhagen climate conference in December."

Does the Huge China-Australia Coal Deal Underline Absurdity of Copenhagen Accord? By Lisa Friedman and Gayathri Vaidyanathan, ClimateWire, February 16, 2010. "Environmental activists are attacking a $60 billion deal that will keep Chinese power stations supplied with Australian coal for at least the next two decades. Under the agreement announced last week, the Australian coal and iron ore mining company Resourcehouse will build a new mining complex to give China Power International Development 30 million tons of coal annually for the next two decades. Resourcehouse Chairman Clive Palmer called it the 'biggest-ever export contract' for Australia, which is the world's leading exporter of coal. But in supplying China, the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, green groups are accusing Australia of ignoring the role it plays in maintaining dirty energy economies around the world.

"'It is hypocritical for Australia to on the one hand blame China for climate change and on the other hand try so hard to sell more coal to China,' said Ailun Yang of Greenpeace China. The deal, she said, 'will only lock China further up in its unhealthy dependency on coal.' Bradley Smith, spokesman for Friends of the Earth in Queensland, Australia, said it 'drives another nail into the coffin of climate change. If the project goes ahead, then emissions from the exported coal would equal 20% of Australia's total domestic emissions.' The tensions come on the heels of last year's climate change summit in Copenhagen. There, President Obama and the leaders of other industrialized nations like Australia successfully pushed China and other fast-growing developing nations to scale back the growth of carbon emissions. While the pledges are voluntary, U.S. leaders have described them as an important step in persuading all the major economies to take responsibility for their role in causing global warming."

Bonn to Host Extra U.N. Climate Talks. By Alister Doyle, Reuters, February 23, 2010. "Germany will host an extra session of U.N. climate talks in April... 11 representatives of key nations decided at a one-day meeting at the headquarters of the Bonn-based U.N. Climate Change Secretariat to add an extra session of senior officials from 194 nations in the Germany city from April 9-11... Until now, the calendar had been limited to a session of officials in Bonn from May 31-June 11 and ministerial talks in Cancun, Mexico from November 29-December 10. That was a sharp slowdown from the five preparatory talks last year before Copenhagen."

Binding U.N. Agreements Unlikely in 2010. By Lisa Friedman, ClimateWire, February 8, 2010. "Washington's climate policy analysts from environmental groups are quietly abandoning -- at least temporarily -- the once sacrosanct notion that nations must agree to legally binding emission targets. Several experts with ties to the Obama administration either personally or through their organizations said in recent interviews they don't view a new global treaty as likely or even desirable by the time countries meet in December for the next U.N. climate summit in Cancun, Mexico. Action is the new buzzword, it seems. The climate conference in Copenhagen last year ended in chaos -- but still with promises from the world's major global warming polluters to slash emissions. Policy leaders now say they want negotiators to focus on achieving goals, not sparring over ideologically fraught legal language...

"'Everybody's saying they want legally binding, but there's at least four or five mutually contradictory visions of what legally binding means,' said Alden Meyer, director of strategy at the Union of Concerned Scientists... But in Washington, many are now arguing that rather than spend more time dancing in that minefield, nations should focus on what really counts: reducing or scaling back the growth of global warming pollution. 'We may need to put off decisions on legally binding until the dynamics change, and there is both more agreement on the substance and more trust between the major countries in the negotiations,' Meyer said. So far, the Obama administration continues to declare support for a binding treaty, as long as nations like China and Brazil are held to the same legal standards. But the increasingly loud drumbeat from respected analysts could provide important cover for U.S. officials if America once again fails to bring a signed climate bill to the next U.N. summit."

IPCC Deals with Mistakes in 2007 Report. By Seth Borenstein, AP, February 8, 2010. "The flaws -- and the erosion they've caused in public confidence -- have some scientists calling for drastic changes in how future United Nations climate reports are done. A push for reform being published in Thursday's issue of a prestigious scientific journal comes on top of a growing clamor for the resignation of the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The work of the climate change panel, or IPCC, is often portrayed as one massive tome. But it really is four separate reports on different aspects of global warming, written months apart by distinct groups of scientists. No errors have surfaced in the first and most well-known of the reports, which said the physics of a warming atmosphere and rising seas is man-made and incontrovertible. So far, four mistakes have been discovered in the second report, which attempts to translate what global warming might mean to daily lives around the world. 'A lot of stuff in there was just not very good.' said Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and a lead author of the first report. 'A chronic problem is that on the whole area of impacts, getting into the realm of social science, it is a softer science. The facts are not as good.'

"The second report includes chapters on each region, which governments want to be mostly written by local experts, some of whom may not have the science credentials of other report authors... Many IPCC scientists say it's impressive that so far only four errors have been found in 986 pages of the second report, with the overwhelming majority of the findings correct and well-supported. However, former IPCC Chairman Bob Watson said, 'We cannot take that attitude. Any mistakes do allow skeptics to have a field day and to use it to undermine public confidence, private sector confidence, government confidence in the IPCC.'"

World Future Energy Summit to Convene in Abu Dhabi. Gulf Times, January 17, 2010. "Global leaders, experts and industry players will explore the future of energy as the World Future Energy Summit 2010 starts on Monday at the Abu Dhabi International Exhibition Centre. The event will end on January 21. More than 98 government delegations led by heads of state, royalty, prime ministers, ministers and 1,400 CEOs will attend the summit, according to the organisers. The summit, in its third edition, is hosted by Masdar, Abu Dhabi's multi-billion dollar investment in the development and commercialisation of innovative technologies in renewable, alternative and sustainable energies. More than 200 speakers and 3,000 delegates are also expected to attend."

Ross Gelbspan Video: In Conclusion. HeatIsOnLine.org, 23 min. This compelling video, incorporates the highlights of two important earlier articles posted by Gelbspan on this site: "Beyond the Point of No Return" (Dec. 2008) and "Moral Leadership In The Greenhouse" (March, 2009). "We have failed to meet nature's deadline. In the next few years, this world will experience progressively more ominous and destabilizing changes. These will happen either incrementally -- or in sudden, abrupt jumps. Under either scenario, it seems inevitable that we will soon be confronted by water shortages, crop failures, increasing damages from extreme weather events, collapsing infrastructures, and, potentially, breakdowns in the democratic process itself... One frequently overlooked potential casualty of accelerating climate change may be our tradition of democracy (corrupted as it already is). When governments have been confronted by breakdowns, they have frequently resorted to totalitarian measures to keep order in the face of chaos. It is not hard to imagine a state of emergency morphing into a much longer state of siege, especially since heat-trapping carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for about 100 years. Add the escalating squeeze on our oil supplies, which could intensify our meanest instincts, and you have the ingredients for a long period of repression and conflict...

"To keep ourselves afloat, we need to change the economic and political structures that determine how we behave. In this case, we need to elevate the ethic of cooperation over the deeply ingrained reflex of competition. We need to elevate our biological similarities over our geographical differences. We need, in the face of this oncoming onslaught, to reorganize our social structures to reflect our most humane collective aspirations. There is no body of expertise -- no authoritative answers -- for this one. We are crossing a threshold into uncharted territory. And since there is no precedent to guide us, we are left with only our own hearts to consult, whatever courage we can muster, our instinctive dedication to a human future -- and the intellectual integrity to look reality in the eye... We need to realize that nature is giving us one more chance to get it right."

U.N. Conference Concludes with Grudging Accord. By Andrew C. Revkin and John M. Broder, NYTimes, December 20, 2009. "After two weeks of delays, theatrics and last-minute deal-making, the United Nations climate change talks concluded here early Saturday morning with a grudging agreement... to a pact [The Copenhagen Accord, PDF, 5 pp] shaped by five major nations... Ultimately, all but a handful of countries -- Venezuela, Cuba, Sudan and Saudi Arabia among them -- went along with the decision to accept the document...But many delegates of the 193 countries that had gathered here left Copenhagen in a sour mood, disappointed that the pact lacked so many elements they considered crucial, including firm targets for mid- or long-term reductions of greenhouse gas emissions and a deadline for concluding a binding treaty next year. Even President Obama, a principal force behind the final deal, said the accord would take only a modest step toward healing the Earth's fragile atmosphere. Many participants also said that the chaos and contentiousness of the talks may signal the end of reliance on a process that for almost two decades had been viewed as the best approach to tackling global warming: the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [UNFCCC] and a series of 15 conventions following a 1992 climate summit meeting in Rio de Janeiro...

"The deal worked out in Copenhagen is a political agreement forged by major emitters to curb greenhouse gases, to help developing nations build clean-energy economies and to send money flowing to cushion the effects of climate change on vulnerable states. But even if countries live up to their commitments on emissions, a stark gap remains -- measured in tens of billions of tons of projected flows of carbon dioxide -- between nations' combined pledges and what would be required to reliably avert the risks of disruptive changes in rainfall and drought, ecosystems and polar ice cover from global warming, scientists say. The chances of success substantially hinge on whether Mr. Obama can fulfill his promises to reduce American greenhouse gas emissions and raise tens of billions of dollars to help other countries deal with global warming. That in turn depends in large part on whether Congress takes action on a bill that puts a price on carbon and devotes a large part of the proceeds to foreign aid. And that is no sure thing...

"[At the 11th hour,] the White House set up an evening meeting between Mr. Obama and Premier Wen Jiabao of China. It also set up a separate meeting with Jacob Zuma, the president of South Africa, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil, and Manmohan Singh, the Indian prime minister. The approval of those was needed to seal any climate deal. Shortly before the appointed time of the meeting with Mr. Wen, Denis McDonough, the national security council chief of staff, and Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, arrived and were startled to find the Chinese prime minister already meeting with the leaders of the three other countries. They alerted Mr. Obama and he rushed down to the site of the meeting. 'Mr. Premier, are you ready to see me?' Mr. Obama called from the doorway... Despite its tense start, the meeting led to an accord that settled a number of issues, including a compromise on wording on the issue of monitoring and verification that satisfied Mr. Wen. Mr. Obama then took the proposed text to a group of European nations whose representatives grumbled but signed off." Editor's Note: With the completion of his coverage of Copenhagen, Andy Revkin has left the NYTimes as a lead reporter on climate issues. His reporting will be missed.

A Deal that Outraged the Rest of the World. Commentary by George Monbiot, The Guardian (UK), December 21, 2009. "The immediate reason for the failure of the talks can be summarized in two words: Barack Obama. The man elected to put aside childish things proved to be as susceptible to immediate self-interest as any other politician. Just as George Bush did in the approach to the Iraq war, Obama went behind the backs of the UN and most of its member states and assembled a coalition of the willing to strike a deal which outraged the rest of the world. This was then presented to poorer nations without negotiation; either they signed it or they lost the adaptation funds required to help them survive the first few decades of climate breakdown."

Getting Ready for Mexico. By Daniela Astrada, IPS/Terra Viva, December 19, 2009. "Before the outcome of COP 15 has even emerged, Latin American social organizations are already discussing their strategies for the next climate summit, to be held in a year's time in Mexico. The primary challenge is to broaden and strengthen the links between the different civil society movements and networks in the region, the international coordinator of Jubilee South, Beverly Keene, told TerraViva. Jubilee South is a network of social movements and people's organizations in Latin America, the Caribbean, Africa and Asia, formed in 1999 to fight for 'freedom from debt and domination' in developing countries. Keene spoke at a session of Klimaforum09 - the civil society meeting held parallel to the Dec. 7-18 15th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP 15) - focused on what directions to take on the road to COP 16, in December 2010 in the Mexican capital. 'Frankly, I do not expect anything (from COP 15). We have stated very clearly that no agreement at all is better than one which only reinforces the false solutions we have been fighting,' Camila Moreno of Brazil, a member of Friends of the Earth International, told TerraViva at another Klimaforum session. Activists concur that the international movement for climate justice has grown stronger over the past year."

The White House Calls the Copenhagen Accord a Major Breakthrough. Press Release, The White House, December 19, 2009. "On Friday, the President traveled to Copenhagen to meet with world leaders and for the first time in history the world's major economies have come together in agreement to accept their responsibility in confronting climate change. After extremely complex and difficult negotiations, Friday's breakthrough will lay the foundation for international action in the years to come. In the U.S., the Obama Administration plans to continue efforts to build a clean energy economy and urge Congress to deliver comprehensive energy legislation to the President's desk. The President's announcement was promptly met with strong support from a diverse group of leaders representing Congress, business and environmental organizations... [Quotes from those supporters follow.]"

Copenhagen's Achievements Are Not Trivial. Editorial, NYTimes, December 21, 2009. "The global climate negotiations in Copenhagen produced neither a grand success nor the complete meltdown that seemed almost certain as late as Friday afternoon. Despite two years of advance work, the meeting failed to convert a rare gathering of world leaders into an ambitious, legally binding action plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions... Copenhagen's achievements are not trivial, given the complexity of the issue and the differences among rich and poor countries. President Obama deserves much of the credit. He arrived as the talks were collapsing, spent 13 hours in nonstop negotiations and played hardball with the Chinese. With time running out - and with the help of China, India, Brazil and South Africa - he forged an agreement that all but a handful of the 193 nations on hand accepted... The pledges now on the table, from both rich and poor countries, are nowhere near enough to keep atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide from rising above dangerous levels. But for the moment it is worth savoring the steps forward. China is now a player in the effort to combat climate change in a way it has never been, putting measurable emissions reductions targets on the table and accepting verification. And the United States is very much back in the game too. After eight years of playing the spoiler, it is now a leader with a president who seems to embrace the role."

The Copenhagen Spin from Around the Climatesphere. Breakthrough Blog, December 23, 2009. "As a whirlwind of drama unfolded in the 11th hour of the climate negotiations in Copenhagen today, voices from across the climatesphere were quick to report on the outcome thus far, adding their own perspective (read: spin) on the events. Below are excerpts from some of the press releases issued to date, provided without comment:"

League of Conservation Voters: "While there is still much work to be done, the deal reached in Copenhagen is a breakthrough for international climate cooperation and provides a path forward towards a binding global treaty in 2010. Significantly, the United States and China will -- for the first time -- both be at the table, working to tackle the historic challenge of global climate change."

Bill McKibben and 350.org: "Bill McKibben and 350.org: 'This is a declaration that small and poor countries don't matter, that international civil society doesn't matter, and that serious limits on carbon don't matter. The president has wrecked the UN and he's wrecked the possibility of a tough plan to control global warming. It may get Obama a reputation as a tough American leader, but it's at the expense of everything progressives have held dear. 189 countries have been left powerless, and the foxes now guard the carbon henhouse without any oversight."

Friends of the Earth: "Climate negotiations in Copenhagen have yielded a sham agreement with no real requirements for any countries. This is not a strong deal or a just one -- it isn't even a real one. It's just repackaging old positions and pretending they're new. The actions it suggests for the rich countries that caused the climate crisis are extraordinarily inadequate. This is a disastrous outcome for people around the world who face increasingly dire impacts from a destabilizing climate."

Obama: Disappointment is Justified, But We Held Ground. Interview with Jim Lehrer, PBS News Hour, December 23, 2009, transcript and video, 22:40 min., video excerpt 2:55 min. "Lehrer: 'Here was a situation where there were many things that you and others wanted done. None of them got done, and yet you've said, well, it was a success anyhow...' Obama: 'I think that people are justified in being disappointed about the outcome in Copenhagen. What I said was essentially that rather than see a complete collapse in Copenhagen, in which nothing at all got done and would have been a huge backward step, at least we kind of held ground and there wasn't too much backsliding from where we were. It didn't move us the way we need to. The science says that we've got to significantly reduce emissions over the next - over the next 40 years. There's nothing in the Copenhagen agreement that ensures that that happens. What did occur was that at a point where there was about to be complete breakdown, and the prime minister of India was heading to the airport and the Chinese representatives were essentially skipping negotiations, and everybody's screaming, what did happen was, cooler heads prevailed. And we were able to at least agree on non-legally binding targets for all countries - not just the United States, not just Europe, but also for China and India, which, projecting forward, are going to be the world's largest emitters. So that - that was an important principle, that everybody's got to do something in order to solve this problem...'

"'My main responsibility here is to convince the American people that it is smart economics and it is going to be the engine of our economic growth for us to be a leader in clean energy. And if we pass a bill in the Senate, reconcile it with the House, that says we are going to invest in wind energy and solar energy and we're going to be the guys who are producing wind turbines, and we're going to be the folks who are producing solar panels on rooftops, and we're going to be the country that is retrofitting all its homes and businesses so that we are 30% more energy-efficient than we are right now, that produces jobs that can't be exported; it reduces our dependence on foreign oil; it is good economics; it will increase our exports -- oh, and by the way, it also solves the climate problem. And that is, I think, an argument that I'm going to be making not just next year but for several years to come.'"