(Climate) Change That We Can Believe In?

World leaders are currently meeting in Copenhagen, Denmark to discuss climate change and to negotiate a climate deal to coincide with the expiration of the current Kyoto Protocol framework in 2012.

This is the culmination of high-level UN discussions that have been taking place over the past two years, beginning at UN climate talks in Bali, Indonesia in 2007. During these talks world leaders agreed on a timetable for future climate change discussions with a view to agreeing on a concrete post-Kyoto climate deal at Copenhagen this week.

The purpose of these preliminary discussions, or “talks about talks”, was to smooth out several issues, including ensuring US participation in the process. This participation was absent from Kyoto.

With the US currently the world’s largest economy their participation is essential to the success of any post-Kyoto climate deal. It is not possible to negotiate a global deal that will successfully mitigate climate change, and the effects of climate change, when the major players responsible for climate change are absent.

The key to the success of this week’s Copenhagen negotiations will be measured by two important factors: how far the US is prepared to contribute to the process and whether the concerns of developing nations can be met.

In terms of the US commitment, if reports are to be believed President Obama may offer up a commitment to cut US carbon emission by around 18%. But Obama is not the problem. Getting his commitment through the US Congress will be an enormous task, particularly due to the strong lobby interests on Capitol Hill that will be seeking to rank up the pressure on Congress to limit US carbon cuts.

Obtaining the required legislative consent could therefore require a dilution of the US commitment. Even if Obama does not fully get his own way, and the US offer up as little as a 15% reduction – much lower than it’s counterparts in the developed world, that contribution is still much better than zero. US policy, after 8 years of the Bush administration’s (non)approach to the issue and abstention from Kyoto, is beginning to shift.



Progress is certainly being made in terms of the US beginning to live up to their responsibilities as a world leader and major contributor towards the process of climate change. Getting the US fully on board will take time; but time is a luxury. The environmental and human impacts of climate change are being increasingly revealed everyday, from melting glaciers in the Arctic to climate refugees in Africa.

Participation by the US is therefore not only welcomed but extremely essential: but this participation will have a price-tag too with developing nations now demanding that the US release $200 billion to combat climate change.

And that brings us to the second major issue at Copenhagen: developed economies, or the OECD and G8 countries, must successfully meet the concerns of the developed world: the people most at risk from climate change.

Developed nations must provide a sufficient financial package, or climate aid, that will assist governments in the developing world to address the localised impacts of climate change and environmental racism, including issues such as drought and desertification.

But while it is quite possible that there will be a deal in Copenhagen; the major questions will be what type of deal will we get and whether such a deal will be effective in terms of implementation and ambition. Whether the major negotiating challenges are successfully navigated will be inconsequential if the climate deal that is negotiated is not legally binding, ambitious in scope and realistic in terms of implementation.

The impetus for a successful deal in Copenhagen began over 2 years ago in a 2007 report issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC, an international body of experts, asserted that global carbon emissions need to be reduced 25-40% by 2020, 50% by 2050 and up to 80% by 2100.

If you believe the science, these figures are quite astonishing and contextualise pressing need for a successful outcome in Copenhagen. If remedial action is not urgently taken then disaster is inevitable. Many leading environmental commentators are sceptical as to whether the reductions recommended by the IPCC can be realistically met.

They would argue that the UN process is out of sync with the required pace of action needed to address climate change and there are simply too many actors involved and too many interests at stake in the negotiating process. Perhaps the call to reduce carbon emissions by 25-40% by 2020, only 11 years away, maybe ambition to the point of delusion.

But delusion or not, it is clear that any post-Kyoto agreement must be more successful or effective than Kyoto; as Kyoto was only designed to reduce emissions by 2-3% of 1990 levels. There must be greater ambition and commitment at Copenhagen if the science from IPCC is to be matched.

Crucially, any post-Kyoto deal must be legally binding and not just a loose political commitment. If Copenhagen is to be successful then the final outcome of this climate deal process must not be just a political agreement.

If world leaders do not produce a universal, legally binding commitment, which looks unlikely at the moment, then they must at the bare minimum produce a commitment to create a legally binding regime within the next year. If there is only political agreement in Copenhagen then I would not rule out a legal treaty next year. Copenhagen may become another staging point in what has become a rather drawn out process to create a legally binding framework to replace Kyoto.

I think it may have been Hugo Chavez who once suggested that while governments go from conference to conference - the world lurches from crisis to crisis. World leaders currently negotiating in Copenhagen would be well advised to keep that in mind because time is running out to address climate change - people of the world need action now and not words.

And that is where Obama comes in again: we need his hope; but we also need change we can believe in.

Why Won’t The Sammy Show Just Go Off Air?!

Today in the Assembly Environment Minister Sammy Wilson attempted to defend his ridiculous decision to ban UK Government-backed ads urging people to be more energy efficient. The Minister was responding to an Assembly motion of concern over his recent position.

I watched the debate and I must say it was nothing short of an hour long episode of the Big Sammy Show. Wilson ranted, laughed manically, ranted, laughed and then ranted some more. As far as responsible or serious government goes- this was farce.

Wilson is single-handedly is making a mockery of the role of a Minister of Government and he is turning NI into a laughing stock.

The Environment Minster attempted to deflect some of the furore over his decision to censor the energy efficiency ads by singling out several MLAs with a pre-prepared brief that besmirched their environmental claims or green credentials.

But the Minister was missing the point.

MLAs are not the running the Department for the Environment- he is. It is about time he put an end to this self-induced side show and assumed some sort of mantle of responsibility and duty of leadership.

His performance may have been amusing but he is increasingly looking like a man that should not be allowed anywhere near instruments of power.

As I have posted before Wilson is a man who loves the sound of his own voice- he appears to revel in this figure of fun persona that he has crafted for himself - and simply is not happy when things are not revolving around him. He is a man who pays homage to populist sound bites and eco-sceptic dogma.

At one point the Minister questioned MLAs, who were supporting the motion, on what scientific evidence they based their assertation that there is a link between climate change and human behaviour. What on earth is Wilson taking with is porridge? He obviously has not heard of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)!!

Wilson chooses to simply ignore the work this international panel of leading climate scientists have been involved in, under a mandate by the UN, and during the debate today he did not even acknowledge the outcomes of the recent climate change discussions in Bonn.

At the end of the day this whole furore is not about Sammy Wilson censoring an ad, it is about an Environment Minister who refuses to accept international consensus that climate change is influenced by human behaviour.

While Wilson might think the whole debacle is one big laugh- the position he has adopted is immature, ignorant and irresponsible.

The Minister is completely entitled to have his own dogmatic, eco-sceptic views about the human impact on climate change but as a Minister he is bound to the Ministerial code and to addressing the environmental commitments published in the NI Programme for Government.

The Programme for Government unequivocally ackowledges the role of man in influencing climate change- Sammy Wilson and his party, the DUP, signed up to this! So Wilson's recent position towards Government-backed energy efficiency ads is extremely difficult to comprehend.

The Environment Minister’s current attitude is extremely unhelpful.

Whilst his attics may sometimes seem amusing, he should attempt to contribute something positive to the climate change debate instead of indulging his own political platitudes.

A starting point would be for Sammy to take stock of his own rogue emissions- judging by the amount of hot air he is currently polluting the NI political climate with!

This is a democracy and Sammy Wilson is entitled to his own opinion- but not to his own facts.

UK Climate Change Policy is all Rhubarb and Custard

Prime Minister Gordon Brown was in the US this week meeting with President Obama and the US Congress. The purpose of the visit was to discuss strengthening US-UK relations and addressing the current economic crisis. Brown used the opportunity to discuss a green economic stimulus package that he would like to see introduced to address the current crisis.

During his speech to Congress Brown spoke an astonishing amount of rhubarb- maybe he has been paying too much attention to the brand of politics of G-Obama! He paid much lip-service to the green economy and spoke of his desire to create a new low-carbon UK economy- a dispensation that could create 400,000 new jobs. Questionable statistics and questionable intentions.

Mr Brown claimed that independent research estimates that 1.3 million people will be employed in the environmental sector by 2017. These statistics even though questionable would undoubtedly represent a new era of ecological modernisation.

Before this can happen there needs to be an improvement in all sorts of environmental regulations- not just mealy-mouthed commitments but real-world actions to meet environmental targets. Rhetoric is simply not enough.

Brown mentioned a target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80% from 1990 levels by 2050. This is totally pie in the sky stuff considering current form. These targets are actually more ambitious (!) than the international targets set by UN International Panel of Climate Change (IPCC).

The IPCC, an international body of experts, asserted that global carbon emissions need to be reduced 25-40% by 2020, 50% by 2050 and up to 80% by 2100.

Action needs to be realistic and perhaps the targets agreed at the climate change talks in Bali were much too ambitious. Will UN countries be able to reduce carbon emissions by 25-40% by 2020- only 11 years away?

The IPCC recommendations are unachievable as the UN process is totally out of sync with this kind of pace of action and implementation. Cue the alarm bells.

There will be a climate change deal later this year but the question remains whether the deal will be effective in terms of implementation and ambition.

Any post-Kyoto agreement MUST be more successful or effective- as Kyoto was only designed to reduce emissions by 2-3% of 1990 levels and even still most countries have not met these somewhat conservative targets.

With this in mind, what evidence is there to suggest that the UN targets agreed at Bali, and the even more ambitious ones promoted by Brown this week, are in any way achievable? None.

It was interesting to note that during Brown’s visit to the US he did not once mention where responsibility for the current financial crisis lies. This is at considerable odds with his own domestic policy- as Brown has continuously blamed the US for creating this current financial crisis.

When addressing domestic opponents and critics alike, Brown has always attempted to absolve and distance himself of any responsibility for this financial mess. He has consistently criticised the US and at the same time defended his records as PM and as the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Regardless, any talk of a Green New Deal must be taken with a pinch of salt. Brown is no authority on environmental issues. How can he talk about creating a low-carbon economy when he and his acolyte Lord Mandelson are so intent on massive airport expansions and creating a third runway at Heathrow Airport? He can not continue to ride two horses at the same time.

The expansion plans at Heathrow have been met with considerable local opposition and Brown ignored this, prompting the local MP to protest in Parliament. Brown’s record poses serious doubts over his green credentials and over his commitment to reduce carbon emissions.

It seems this Green New Deal he speaks of isn’t so much about protecting the environment as it is about protecting the political life of Gordon Brown.

This morning I had a good laugh as the Lord of Darkness, Peter Mandelson, got some comeuppance of his own for his Heathrow maldeavours. On his way to a low-carbon summit earlier today, Mandy was sprayed with green custard by an environmental protester. The protester, a member of Plane Stupid, was angry at Mandelson over the Heathrow debacle.

With this in mind, the government needs to be much more serious about creating a low-carbon economy and put actions before words. If done right the creation of a low-carbon economy will address climate change and create jobs at the same time.

Investments in renewable energy is vital in this process- as this can create jobs and in tandem tackle the twin threat of climate change and energy security.

But until this happens, when it comes to addressing climate change, Brown and Mandelson are just all rhubarb and custard.

SAMMY GOES WHAAMMY!

At the beginning of the week Environment Minister Sammy Wilson put his foot in it again by censoring a planned UK Government advertisement campaign aimed at educating people about the impacts on climate change. The Minister, whose sceptical views on the impact of humans on climate change are well known, claimed the planned TV campaign was ‘insidious propaganda’.

Never one to shy away from saying what he thinks, the Environment Minister refused back down on his decision and subsequently during the course of the week drew further criticism by weakly attempting to justify his decision.

If the public uproar over this debacle wasn't bad enough for Wilson - it seems he might now be in a considerable spot of bother with the NI Assembly - after the Environment Committee passed a 6-4 vote of ‘No Confidence’ in the Minister earlier today.

Environment Committee member and SDLP Environment Spokesperson Tommy Gallagher MLA proposed the motion of 'No Confidence' in the Minister. The SDLP’s Gallagher said ‘we need to be taking environmental issues much more seriously than the Minister appears to be taking them’.

However fellow Environment Committee member, the DUP’s Peter Weir, criticised the motion and labelled it nothing more than ‘a point scoring exercise’. With considerable pressure on the Minister will Big Sammy live to fight another day?

Wilson it must be said is not normally one to back down and it is extremely doubtful that he will pay much attention to the Committee’s ruling. But with mounting public and political pressure against a Minister that simply won't back down, or doesn't know when to shut up, the DUP may be forced to act.

Interestingly these recent comments from Wilson further add to a general theme of controversy that seems to follow the Minister wherever he goes these days. One could be forgiven for getting the impression that Wilson seems to enjoy being the centre attention and revels in his own sensationalism. Seems like nothing more than a trumped-up ego trip to me.

Last week we had Sammy lambasting local schools for closures, due to the recent snowfall, with Wilson claiming the decision was in appeasement of ‘health and safety nuts’.

The week before that Sammy sparked a backlash - after providing yet another useful insight into the DUP’s rascist mindset - when he suggested that during the economic crisis it should be a case of ‘local jobs for local people’. Although Big Sammy may not live in Royston Vasey, or shop at a ‘local shop for local people’, he certainly is in a League of His Own.

So that makes it an already extremely eventful year for the Environment Minister and it is only February! I wonder who or what will be the next target for Big Sammy...

Environment Minister Censors Climate Change Awareness Campaign

Once again poor old Northern Ireland is the laughing stock of the rest of the UK and Ireland....

The Environment Minister Sammy Wilson has again put his head above the parapet by withdrawing a planned UK Government advertisement campaign aimed at educating people about their individual impacts on climate change and providing information on how to reduce their carbon footprint.

The Environment Minister is again under mounting pressure for his outspoken views that humans do not contribute to climate change.

This subsequent political pressure was to be expected and is completely justified.

His controversial decision is based on his belief that climate change is not a man made problem. This is the same belief system held by (thankfully) former US President George Bush and flies in the face of a growing body of scientific evidence that frimly stipulates that climate change is a man made problem.

Leading climate scientists are in consensus that there is a considerable human impact on climate change.

The International Panel on Climate Change, set up by the United Nations, is made up of climate experts from all over the planet and after the last round of UN climate talks they again reiterated the devastating impact that man is having on the planet.

Unfortunately there are many climate change sceptics and eco-deniers out there in the north and this move will resonate well with them. On the contrary to Sammy's beliefs - that 'eco-fundamentalists' are not informed- it is these people who have not read up on the issue.

Wilson is playing a dangerous game by going down this road against scientific consensus and against UK Government policy (plus EU) on this issue.

I think (hope) that sometimes deep down Sammy doesn't even believe some of the stuff he spouts and only says it to portray himself as anti-political correctness and straight talking. If this is the case then he is not the type of person who should be in an important role such as Environment Minister.

If he is actually using the climate change issue as some platform to seem radical and against fashionable thought then he is acting grossly irresponsibly.

Climate change affects us all- it is a global challenge. But it affects the global population in very varied ways and intensities. If you adhere to the 'three worlds' theory (that suggests that we need 3 planet earths to sustain our current rate of consumption) then you will be aware that climate change and environmental degradation will certainly impact negatively on the quality of lives of our children.

A wetter global climate climate has already devasted wheat crops across the world leading to global rises in the price of bread. This has lead to starvation for many thousands of people living in non-OECD countries and put many pressures on the lives of those living in poverty. This is just one impact of climate change.

It is ok for Sammy Wilson to sit in his ivory tower up at DUP HQ and talk this type of nonsense when he is ignorant to the fact that people in Africa have to live with Environmental Rascism on a daily basis. These people are the ones bearing the true brunt of climate change- with desertification and drought an all too sombre reality.

The Environment Minister may not believe in the human impact on climate change but there are many people with knowledge and experience on the issue who would beg to differ.