Listen to the Islands: Tuvalu is the Real Deal -- COP15

“Listen to the Islands”

Published by Nick Magel, December 9th, 2009 global warming 0 Comments

Photo credit: Leon White

Moments ago in Copenhagen’s COP15 meetings, 100’s of people lined the entry way to the main plenary to stand with Tuvalu and all small island nations or AOSIS. Moments before, Tuvalu took a leadership stance at the COP15, showing true ambition by attempting to initiate an open conversation on how the world can achieve a legally binding treaty. The mere suggestion of transparent communication or “formal contact group” was thumbed away by nations that continue back-room negotiations that are wrecking havoc on the path to achieve a real deal in Copenhagen. While entire countries like Tuvalu sink with raising sea levels, the richest countries refuse to pony up fair financing and set targets ambitious enough to avoid complete climate catastrophe.

Following the suggestion of the business as usual or the “informal talks” suggestion Tuvalu appealed for temporary suspension of the Kyoto Track of the COP15 (one of the two major tracks hey re) realizing that transparent talks in which their lives hang in the balance are essential to creating a fair and binding treaty. As the plenary came back to their suspended session the voices standing with AOSIS were there to greet them.

Over 300 lined the the entry way to the main hall as delegates entered. Soon after the crowd realized that lining the hall wasn’t enough, so they encircled the entryway and chanted into the open hall. Chants of “Tuvalu, Survival” “350″ and “Annex 1, stand up” echoed through the halls. All countries should know we are here, where we stand, and realize that we will not accept anything less than a real deal. Because countries like Tuvalu can afford nothing less.

More video and more pics soon.

Link:  http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2009/12/09/listen-to-the-islands/

Ben Margolis responds to the Civil Society call of support of Tuvalu & AOSIS

Ben Margolis responds to the Civil Society call of support of Tuvalu & AOSIS

Civil Society activists protest in support of Tuvalu and AOSIS.

"Ben Margolis responds to civil societies call of support for Tuvalu's request to the chair of contact group to talk about legal form of the deal in Copenhagen.

TckTckTck is an unprecedented global alliance, representing hundreds of millions of people from all walks of life. It is made up of leading international, national and local organizations addressing environment, development, poverty, human rights, health and humanitarian issues. It represents faith-based groups, youth groups, trade unions and individuals all calling for a fair, ambitious and binding climate change agreement in December 2009 in Copenhagen. The world is ready!"

Link:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTesidvZd8c

Danish government kicking the wasps' nest: 200 police officers raid sleeping quarters of climate activists

Police raid activists sleeping quarters in the middle of the night
 
Social & Climate Justice Caravan to arrive in Copenhagen at 6.30 p.m.

Last night at 3 a.m., around 200 police officers raided the Ragnhildgade centre in Northern Copenhagen where activists were staying during the Copenhagen climate talks. The police surrounded the building where the activists were sleeping and proceeded to confiscate a number of tools and materials, before leaving at around 4 a.m.

Tannie Nyboe, of Climate Justice Action said, “It’s completely disproportionate for the police to come in at three o'clock in the morning, surround the sleeping-spaces and intimidate a lot of sleeping guests. It’s really unacceptable for the police not to use the liaison process that we set up and very worrying that this is how Denmark is being portrayed to our international guests."

Lars K. Kristiansen, who has been working in the last week securing windows, building fire doors and insulating empty buildings in the run up to the summit said, “The Danish authorities have been criticised for failing to provide enough places for people who are coming to Copenhagen to sleep. We were trying to meet that need, but now the police have confiscated the tools that we were using to construct those sleeping spaces.”

Isabelle LaChoix, who was sleeping in the centre at the time said, “People from all over the world have come to Copenhagen to deal with climate change, just like the people staying at the Ragnhildgade centre. The ‘Danish text’ has already been a source of international embarrassment for the Danish government – and now it risks more criticism by treating climate activists like criminals.”

Despite last night’s events, activists will be providing a warm welcome for the arrival of the Social & Climate Justice Caravan at 6.30 p.m. at the Klimaforum. The caravan has travelled from the 7th conference of ministers of the World Trade Organization in Geneva to COP15 in Copenhagen, with 60 activists from the global South drawing attention to the consequences that neoliberal globalization [Tenney here:  not sure what the hell neoliberal globalization is, but I also do not think that youth actually know what 'globalization' even is.] and climate change have had on their lives. Together with local activists in Copenhagen, they will be exploring alternatives to free trade and the privatisation of resources, and new means of cooperation between Northern and Southern activists.

Contact Danish media: +45 41294994
Contact international media: +45 50669028
Email: media@climate-justice-action.org
Follow us on Twitter: @actforclimate

To contact the Climate & Social Justice Caravan press officer - +49 17685205260-
Climate Justice Action - media team.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.climate-justice-action.org
media@climate-justice-action.org

COP 15 UN Delegates Demand UN Members To Stop Blocking UNFCCC Plenary

OK, I don't have any idea what the UNFCCC Plenary is at COP15, but regardless, I am glad to see youth protesting and speaking out. Civil protest has been sadly lacking during all the Cheney/Bush years. Last year, my daughter went to an anti-war protest at a university with an enrollment of 20,000 students and only 8 people showed up.

My daughter is 24 years old. This entire mess will engulf her generation. My generation was the "Eat, Drink, and Be Merry Generation." We had it all and we didn't even know it.

If her generation doesn't continue to get out there in greater and greater numbers with louder and louder voices, then change will not come.

Hiding the decline -- NOT! Michael Mann's hockey stick holds in the real world of real temperatures from real thermometers

Hiding the decline -- NOT!

World Meteorological Organization  

"The graph above, which appeared on the cover of a 1999 report from the World Meteorological Organization, blends historical 'proxy' records of temperature (from tree rings and other sources) with recent records from thermometers. The graph below, which presents the thermometer records as a separate black line, shows that the proxy records diverged from the thermometer records in recent decades. Scientists preparing the top graph discussed how to 'hide the decline' in the green line, which was taken from recent tree-ring analyses they considered unreliable."

Climatic Resarch Unit/ East Anglia University

Tenney here:  Have a good look at the black line -- it is based on REAL temperatures from thermometers, not from any type of proxy.  The green line represents assumed proxy temperatures from ONE set of trees from ONE geographical location, NOT all the sets of trees studied from all over the world.  This particular set of trees went haywire after 1961 -- but the other sets of trees did not.  This is a known problem with one set of data points, and everything about it has been published in the peer-reviewed literature for more than 10 years, for all to see.

Thus, the "trick" mentioned in the hacked CRU e-mails is simply a common trick used by researchers to adjust for a known problem in a single data set.

This is typical of the denialists to smear someone with the word "fraud" when REAL temperatures were used, as was commonly known by all tree-ring proxy researchers.

Ex-Fed chief Paul Volcker's 'telling' words on derivatives industry -- says derivatives belong in hedge funds, not banks

Dear Readers,

You might be tempted to ask me what the article below has to do with the environment.  Well, it has everything to do with it.  So long as capital is displaced to financial entities instead of to long-term investments (preferably green investments, going forward), we are not going to see any change for the better.  So long as these "creative" financiers are on top of the cash, even now thinking of ways to divvy up the spoils of cap and trade with exotic derivatives, unregulated, we are all going to be in a heap of trouble.  Obama seems to have sidelined Volcker -- a big mistake.  He has only a short window during which he can effect change, and it is closing fast.  At this rate, he will be a one-term president and the Republicans and their War on Science will prevail.  Write to Obama and tell him, please.

Ex-Fed chief Paul Volcker's 'telling' words on derivatives industry

Paul Volcker, the chairman of President Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board, stunned a business conference in Sussex yesterday, saying there is "little evidence innovation in financial markets has had a visible effect on the productivities of the economy"

by Louise Armitstead, The Telegraph, December 8, 2009

The former US Federal Reserve chairman told an audience that included some of the world's most senior financiers that their industry's "single most important" contribution in the last 25 years has been automatic telling machines, which he said had at least proved "useful."

Echoing FSA chairman Lord Turner's comments that banks are "socially useless," Mr Volcker told delegates who had been discussing how to rebuild the financial system to "wake up." He said credit default swaps and collateralised debt obligations had taken the economy "right to the brink of disaster" and added that the economy had grown at "greater rates of speed" during the 1960s without such products.

When one stunned audience member suggested that Mr Volcker did not really mean bond markets and securitisations had contributed "nothing at all," he replied: "You can innovate as much as you like, but do it within a structure that doesn't put the whole economy at risk."

He said he agreed with George Soros, the billionaire investor, who said investment banks must stick to serving clients and "proprietary trading should be pushed out of investment banks and to hedge funds where they belong."

Mr Volcker argued that banks did have a vital role to play as holders of deposits and providers of credit. This importance meant it was correct that they should be "regulated on one side and protected on the other." He said riskier financial activities should be limited to hedge funds to whom society could say: "If you fail, fail. I'm not going to help you. Your stock is gone, creditors are at risk, but no one else is affected." 

Link:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/6764177/Ex-Fed-chief-Paul-Volckers-telling-words-on-derivatives-industry.html

Head of California’s Cap and Trade Offsets Program: Cap and Trade Won’t Work for Climate, It’s a Scam

Guest Post: Head of California’s Cap and Trade Offsets Program: Cap and Trade Won’t Work for Climate, It’s a Scam

from the Naked Capitalism blog, December 8, 2009

Paul Krugman argues that cap and trade worked to reduce sulfur dioxide and stop acid rain, and so it will work to reduce CO2.

However, two EPA lawyers with more than 40 years of cumulative experience – including the guy who has been head of California’s cap and trade offset programs for more than 20 years – say that sulfur dioxide was different, and that cap and trade for climate is a scam which only benefits the financial players.
Specifically, they point out that:

• Cap and trade was tried in Europe, but ended up raising energy prices, creating volatility, produced few greenhouse gas reductions, but made billions for the financial players

• Even the guy who invented the cap and trade concept doesn’t think it will work in regards to climate change (see this and this)

• Carbon offsets – which are part of the cap and trade plan – increase pollution

• One reason that offsets lead to more pollution is that investors fight to keep toxic chemicals legal, so they can make more money off of trading the offsets

• Like subprime mortgages and other creative financial instruments which brought us the economic crisis, carbon offsets lack integrity and don’t work (see this)

Watch the video.

Link:  http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/12/guest-post-head-of-californias-cap-and-trade-offsets-program-cap-and-trade-wont-work-its-a-scam.html

Laurie Dougherty comments on Dot Earth of the New York Times on Steve McIntyre's "mole" inside the CRU e-mails hacking job at the University of East Anglia

Laurie Dougherty comments on Dot Earth of The New York Times on Steve McIntyre's "mole" inside the CRU e-mails hacking job at the University of East Anglia

77. HIGHLIGHT by Laurie Dougherty, Brookline, MA, December 5th, 2009, 11:42 p.m.

Everyone who has a sincere interest in what is happening to our climate should listen to the conference call [click here to listen to the conference call] hosted by the Center for American Progress with Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt, Michael Oppenheimer and Joe Romm. It's a breath of fresh air in the middle of so much acrimony and misinformation.

Andy, instead of giving the last word on this conference call to Roger Pielke, Jr., perhaps you could have the decency to report what the scientists actually said about the fact that CAP (yes, liberal CAP) hosted the call: CAP invited them. You wasted your own turn on a throwaway question about why they were holding their conversation through CAP and then didn't even report the response. Also, the questioners on the call came from various media outlets including the NYT, Newsweek, [CBS] (if I remember right), a couple of science publications, at least one conservative publication that I can recall (National Review), etc., most of whom asked useful questions that elicited useful responses.

The real "journalistic tribalism" shows up in the fact that the NYT has not done a thorough investigative expose of the aggressive campaign on the part of the fossil fuel industry and right wing media to spread confusion and disinformation. If you think DeSmogBlog has something worthwhile to say, why don't you highlight their efforts to bring this campaign of FUD to light? So much easier to do the "fair and balanced" "he said she said" trick and leave the real investigative work and gutsy journalism to the bloggers.

Reports are coming to light about break-ins at other climate research institutes. Along these lines, something has been bugging me that I hadn't paid too much attention to when I first saw something about it it, so I took another look. In July 2009, Steve McIntyre claimed that he got hold of station data from CRU from an anonymous source, even though CRU had carefully explained the confidentiality and diplomatic issues involved in their arrangements with meteorological reporting offices in other countries. McIntyre used the word "mole" to describe the source of the data. Now maybe this was just a trick of language -- casual, metaphorical or humorous usage (although there seems to be little tolerance for anything other than the most literal interpretations of what other people say).

Maybe McIntyre has just read too many John LeCarre novels, but a "mole" is not a whistle blower. A "mole" is a spy -- either someone planted in an agency by a hostile entity or someone already within an agency who is induced by a hostile entity to collect and turn over information. Quite often it turns out that the inducement is money. So was this mole paid, and if so how much for how long and by whom? And did this mole also release of the file called FOIA? (Anyone can call a file by any name.)

Meanwhile, after a record breaking high temperature earlier this week and the latest date of first frost in Boston since records have been kept, it's snowing on the still-in-bloom impatiens and pansies on the porch and the geraniums across the street.
http://www.boston.com...

Link: http://community.nytimes.com/comments/dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/04/roundup-copenhagen-and-climategate/?permid=77#comment77

Independent journalists denied access to Copenhagen climate talks

Independent journalists denied access to Copenhagen climate talks

December 7th, 2009 5:35 pm  |  by Alex Kelly in Dateline Earth, From the Field  |  5 Comments

COPENHAGEN — Climate change has become the story of the decade and probably the century. So it’s no surprise that the global climate negotiations beginning here today are making the headlines of nearly every major news organization in the world. With thousands of journalists in attendance, the conference seemed at low risk of going underreported. Or so I imagined.

Alexander Kelly

Late last night, I stood in line to receive my press pass to cover the negotiations. I was glad to have access to the front lines of the climate debate and the resources to report it. Imagine, then, the surprise I felt upon arriving at the press desk only to learn that my accreditation had been rescinded. The reason given: the UN had accredited too many journalists.

Incredulous, I showed the UN official, a man in his mid-20s, a copy of the email I received from the UN press office just a few weeks earlier. It contained three simple words: “Received and approved,” followed by directions for collecting my press pass. The man behind the counter glanced at the paper and told me he would be back in a few moments. He returned with a simple message: We are very sorry, but our records show that you have been denied, and we cannot provide you accreditation at this time.

Excuse me? Really? I flew almost 5,000 miles from the Pacific Northwest to Copenhagen to be denied access to an event I have spent half a year preparing for? Standing next to me was our video journalist, Blair Kelly, who took the email from his hands and told him to get his supervisor.

On the outside looking in. InvestigateWest photo by Mark Malijan.

A few moments later, a woman emerged from behind the canvas that separated the UN officials from the throng of delegates, journalists and observers.

Our accreditation, she explained, had been approved by a separate organization, the Fresh Air Center. The center lobbies for independent journalists and provides them with resources such as interview spaces and access to the internet. The UN officials said the Center’s decision to accredit me had been made before the UN reviewed the application.

She added that another problem with my application is that I am a college student. Had this not been the case, I likely would have been accredited, she said. However, she had no explanation for why two members of our InvestigateWest team who are professionals also were denied credentials.

We asked if there would be any later opportunity to apply for a press pass. We had done our research, and knew that the UN press website advertised a late credentialing phase for those who were not yet accredited. Once again, they were very sorry; the late accreditation phase was no longer an option, as the size of the UN delegation’s personal media was larger than the press office anticipated, she said.

Our best hope, according to her, was to apply again, but this time as observers through a non-governmental organization. (We tried that later. It didn’t work.)

We walked through the lobby of the Bella Center wondering: What just happened? Our ability to report on the talks was wholly dependent on having unimpeded access to those directly involved in the negotiations.

Moving through the final security checkpoint, we knew we would not enter the Bella Center again, and then it dawned on us: We were pushed out of the conference not because of a priority for senior reporters, but by the inclusion of journalists picked by the delegates themselves.

We’re still looking into this, but it appears that legitimate, independent journalists, have been pushed aside for a delegate’s media entourage. Stay tuned.

Link:  http://invw.org/2009/12/independent-journalists-denied-access-to-copenhagen-climate-talks/

One of the most important posts you will read about the denial campaign funded by Exxon-Mobil and other fossil-fuel interests

The denial industry case notes

My Guardian Comment column this week is about how the climate denial industry achieves its aims. What follows is a list of footnotes and references to go with that article

1 The public persuasion campaign

In 1991 the Western Fuels Association, National Coal Association and Edison Electric Institute set up a group called the Information Council for the Environment (Ice). Its founding documents were leaked. The text has been made available online by the scientist Naomi Oreskes. The strategy was spelt out in a document produced by the Western Fuels Association: to "reposition global warming as theory (not fact)".

Ice was given $510,000 to test its messages in key markets, all of which happened to be the homes of members of the energy and commerce or ways and means committees of the US House of Representatives. The purpose was to "demonstrate that a consumer-based media awareness program can positively change the opinions of a selected population regarding the validity of global warming." If it worked, Ice would "implement program nationwide."

It identified "two possible target audiences": "Target 1: Older, less educated males". These people, Ice said, would be receptive to "messages describing the motivations and vested interests of people currently making pronouncements on global warming – for example, the statement that some members of the media scare the public about global warming to increase their audience and their influence … "

"Target 2: younger, lower-income women" … "These women are more receptive ... to factual information concerning the evidence for global warming. They are likely to be "green" consumers, believe the earth is warming, and to think the problem is serious. However, they are also likely to soften their support for federal legislation after hearing new information …"

Ice discovered that "members of the public feel more confident expressing opinions on others' motivations and tactics than they do expressing opinions of scientific issues." Here are some of the messages it tested:

"Some say the earth is warming. Some also said the earth was flat."

"Who told you the earth was warming … Chicken Little?"

"How much are you willing to pay to solve a problem that may not exist?"*

These messages must have worked, because they were later used by Ice in a wider media campaign.

* James Hoggan and Richard Littlemore, 2009. Climate Cover-Up. Greystone Books, Vancouver.

2 Undisclosed interests

Dr Patrick Michaels is often used by the media on both sides of the Atlantic as one of the very few people who deny that manmade climate change is happening and who is also a practising climate scientist. Among many other outlets, he has written for the Guardian's website, which describes him as "a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and author of Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don't Want You to Know." But there's something Michaels doesn't want you to know: as far as I can tell, he has never voluntarily disclosed the following information.

In 2006 the Intermountain Rural Electric Association (Irea) circulated a memo to electricity generators, transmitters and distributors[2]. The memo explained that most of the electricity its members provided is generated by coal plants, and Irea was intending to engineer a "considerable shifting from gas-fired generation" to coal. But the profits from this enterprise were now under threat. "A carbon tax or a mandatory market-based greenhouse gas regulatory system would erode most, if not all, of the benefits of the coal-fired generation."

In the hope of averting this disaster, Irea had "decided to support Dr Patrick Michaels and his group (New Hope Environmental Services Inc). Dr Michaels has been supported by electric co-operatives in the past and also receives financial support from other sources ... In February of this year Irea alone contributed $100,000 to Dr Michaels. In addition we have contacted all of the G&Ts [generators and transmitters of electricity] in the United States and as of the writing of this letter, we have obtained additional contributions and pledges for Dr Michaels' group. We will be following up with the remaining G&Ts over the next several weeks."

3 Science by petition

The Heartland Institute is a lobbying group which has received $676,000 from ExxonMobil. In 2007 it published a list of "500 Scientists Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares" (pdf).

These people, it maintained, supported "the very important view that the Modern Warming is natural and no more dangerous than were the Medieval Warming, the Roman Warming and the Holocene Warming before it."

But they didn't. Kevin Grandia of DeSmogBlog.com started contacting the people the Heartland Institute had listed. He asked them whether they endorsed the views the Heartland Institute said they held. Within 48 hours, 45 people responded, all outraged that they had been traduced. Here are some samples of their replies to Kevin and their messages to the author of the list, Dennis Avery:

"I am horrified to find my name on such a list. I have spent the last 20 years arguing the opposite."
Dr David Sugden, professor of geography, University of Edinburgh

"I have NO doubts ... the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there."
Dr Gregory Cutter, professor, department of ocean, earth and atmospheric sciences, Old Dominion University

"Please remove my name. What you have done is totally unethical!!"
Dr Svante Bjorck, Geo Biosphere Science Centre, Lund University

"Because none of my research publications has ever indicated that the global warming is not as a consequence of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, I view that the inclusion of my name in such list without my permission or consensus has damaged my professional reputation as an atmospheric scientist."
Dr Ming Cai, associate professor, department of meteorology, Florida State University

"They have taken our ice core research in Wyoming and twisted it to meet their own agenda. This is not science."
Dr Paul F Schuster, hydrologist, US Geological Survey

"Please remove my name IMMEDIATELY from the following article and from the list which misrepresents my research."
Dr Mary Alice Coffroth, department of geology, State University of New York at Buffalo

None of these names have yet been removed from the institute's list.

4 The Inside Track

When George W Bush was president, White House staffers collaborated with the oil industry to fix government policies on climate change.

In 2004, Harper's magazine published a leaked memo from Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute to Phil Cooney, the chief of staff of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. The Competitive Enterprise Institute has been given more than $2m by Exxon. Ebell's memo showed that the White House and the institute had been working together to discredit a report on climate change produced by the Environmental Protection Agency, whose head at the time was Christine Todd Whitman.

"Dear Phil,

Thanks for calling and asking for our help … As I said, we made the decision this morning to do as much as we could to deflect criticism by blaming EPA for freelancing. It seems to me that the folks at EPA are the obvious fall guys, and we would only hope that the fall guy (or gal) should be as high up as possible. I have done several interviews and have stressed that the President needs to get everyone rowing in the same direction. Perhaps tomorrow we will call for Whitman to be fired[1]."

The New York Times later discovered that Phil Cooney, who is a lawyer with no scientific training, had been imported into the White House from the American Petroleum Institute to control the presentation of climate science. He edited scientific reports, striking out evidence that glaciers were retreating and inserting phrases suggesting that there was serious scientific doubt about global warming. When the revelations were published he resigned and took up a post at Exxon.

The oil company also had direct access to the White House. On 6 February 2001, 17 days after George W Bush was sworn in, AG (Randy) Randol, ExxonMobil's senior environmental adviser, sent a fax to John Howard, an environmental official at the White House[3]. It began by discussing the role of Bob Watson, the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It suggested he had a "personal agenda" and asked: "Can Watson be replaced now at the request of the US?"[4]

It went on to ask that the United States be represented at the panel's discussions by a Dr Harlan Watson[8]. Both requests were met. Once Watson was sacked, the other was appointed, and went on to wreak havoc at international climate meetings.

[1] Letter from Myron Ebell to Phil Cooney. Published in the May 2004 edition of Harper's magazine: White House Effect.
[2] AG (Randy) Randol III, Senior Environmental Adviser, ExxonMobil, 6 February 2001. Memo to John Howard. Bush Team for IPCC negotiations. Facsimile, sent from tel no. (202) 8620268.
[3] ibid, p2
[4] ibid, p5

Link:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/dec/07/george-monbiot-blog-climate-denial-industry

Met Office to release records that show global temperature rise

Records from nearly 2,000 stations worldwide may cool debate over leaked emails from University of East Anglia

• Datablog: get the data

• Alok Jha,  guardian.co.uk, Monday 7 December 2009

A team of glaciologists using an solar-powered drill to make cores of ancient ice atop 6542 meter Mt. Sajama in Bolivia. Photograph: George Steinmetz/Corbis

The UK Met Office will tomorrow release records from nearly 2,000 measuring stations showing a rise in global average land temperatures around the world, in a move that may help dampen the row over the hacked emails between scientists at the University of East Anglia (UEA).

In the emails, the scientists at UEA's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) apparently discussed attempts to inhibit access to emails and data that had been requested under the Freedom of Information Act. The CRU has been bombarded with requests to release data – which underpin the so-called HadCRUT temperature record – over many months. But it had always responded that it was not possible make all of it public because permission was needed from the numerous institutions around the world that had collected it.

In his address to the UN climate talks in Copenhagen which opened yesterday, the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Rajendra Pachauri, said that he suspected that the email hack was an attempt to undermine his organisation, which reports to world governments on the science of climate change.

"Given the wide-ranging nature of (climate) change that is likely to be taken in hand, some naturally find it inconvenient to accept its inevitability," he told the conference. "The recent incident of stealing the emails of scientists at the University of East Anglia shows that some would go to the extent of carrying out illegal acts, perhaps in an attempt to discredit the IPCC."

But the chief negotiator for Saudi Arabia, one of the world's biggest oil exporters, told the conference that the emails would impact on the conference. "The level of trust is definitely shaken, especially now that we are about to conclude an agreement that ... is going to mean sacrifices for our economies," said Mohammed al-Sabban.

Last week, UEA announced an independent inquiry into the leak and conduct of the scientists, who deny any suggestion that they manipulated or withheld data.

Now the Met Office is releasing the raw data for around 1,900 monitoring stations spread roughly evenly around the world in an effort to silence critics who say that the lack of transparency was an act of subterfuge on the part of the scientists. The HadCRUT record of global temperatures is one of three major analyses of global temperature that are part of the

scientific information used in the assessment reports of IPCC – the UN body that reviews climate change literature and reports back to world governments. Tomorrow more than 150m readings on temperature – going back more than 100 years – will be made public.

"The important thing to know about the problems surrounding the UEA is that lots of groups around the world have done similar things to the scientists there, by looking at similar data and using independent methods and they've all been showing similar results, all approached from different directions," said Paul Hardaker, chief executive of the Royal Meteorological Society. "That gives us some confidence that the information we're getting from the data is well-founded."

The data to be released by the Met Office come from monitoring stations around the world that have been designated for use in recording climate data by the World Meteorological Organisation and show changes in mean temperature on a global scale over land. Some monitoring stations have been running for 150 years. The Met Office said the data show that global average land temperatures have risen.

The full record uses data from 5,000 monitoring stations and the Met Office said it would make that data public too once it had permission from relevant owners around the world.

Myles Allen, a climate scientist at Oxford University, said the data set was an important one for climate models. "My particular area of research is detecting climate change and attributing causes. Fundamental to that is accurate records of what has actually happened."

But he pointed out that the measurements have always been available to bona fide researchers. "Loads of people have scrutinised the data and the way it was generated. It's not as if this data has been hidden from scientific scrutiny until now," said Allen. "Nevertheless, since people can score political points by saying the data's not available, it's politically important to make it as transparent as possible."

The Met Office stressed that the information released today does not form a new temperature record. The full HadCRUT temperature curve, which has been peer-reviewed, remains the established record, along with Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies' records and those of the National Climatic Data Centre in the US. The Met Office said tomorrow's information release was part of a policy to release as much of its temperature record information into the public domain as possible. The organisation also plans to publish the computer code that aggregates the individual station temperature records to build the global map.

Link:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/07/met-office-temperature-records-climate-change

Edinburgh becomes 100th 10:10 council

More than 18 million people now served by councils signed up to 100-day-old campaign to cut carbon emissions

• Allegra Stratton, political correspondent, The Guardian, Wednesday 9 December 2000

Edinburgh today becomes the 100th council to sign up to the 10:10 climate change campaign which will bind it into cutting carbon emissions by 10% by next year.

The landmark comes on the 100th day of the 10:10 campaign, backed by the Guardian, with the total number of people now served by councils that have signed up to 10:10 now totalling more than 18 million, nearly a third of the population. Nearly 50,000 individuals and over 1,700 businesses have signed up to the campaign which is encouraging people and organisations to cut their carbon emissions by 10% by the end of 2010.
Alexis Rowell, who has been coordinating council signups to the 10:10 campaign, welcomed the announcement. He said: "Councils like Edinburgh are the unsung heroes of the 10:10 campaign. When a local authority says it will cut its emissions by 10% in 2010, then it is bound to set a plan and residents can check progress. So 100 councils committing to reduce their emissions by 10% in 2010 is already amazing. But councils are also playing a key role in spreading the 10:10 message to individuals, organisations and businesses in their area. By aspiring to the 10% target our hope is that they can inspire others to do the same."

Gordon Brown's cabinet joined 10:10 in September and yesterday mayor Boris Johnson signed City Hall up as part of his goal to make London "the greenest city on earth."

Link:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/09/edinburgh-council-1010-campaign

George Monbiot: Canada's image lies in tatters. It is now to climate what Japan is to whaling

Canada's image lies in tatters. It is now to climate what Japan is to whaling

The tar barons have held the nation to ransom. This thuggish petro-state is today the greatest obstacle to a deal in Copenhagen

• 
• • George Monbiot,  guardian.co.uk, Monday 30 November 2009

Syncrude Oil Sands, Mine and Refinery, the world's largest oil sand operation producing crude oil at Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada, October 20, 2001. Photograph: Greg Smith/Corbis

When you think of Canada, which qualities come to mind? The world's peacekeeper, the friendly nation, a liberal counterweight to the harsher pieties of its southern neighbour, decent, civilised, fair, well-governed? Think again. This country's government is now behaving with all the sophistication of a chimpanzee's tea party. So amazingly destructive has Canada become, and so insistent have my Canadian friends been that I weigh into this fight, that I've broken my self-imposed ban on flying and come to Toronto.

So here I am, watching the astonishing spectacle of a beautiful, cultured nation turning itself into a corrupt petro-state. Canada is slipping down the development ladder, retreating from a complex, diverse economy towards dependence on a single primary resource, which happens to be the dirtiest commodity known to man. The price of this transition is the brutalisation of the country, and a government campaign against multilateralism as savage as any waged by George Bush.

Until now I believed that the nation that has done most to sabotage a new climate change agreement was the United States. I was wrong. The real villain is Canada. Unless we can stop it, the harm done by Canada in December 2009 will outweigh a century of good works.

In 2006 the new Canadian government announced it was abandoning its targets to cut greenhouse gases under the Kyoto protocol. No other country that had ratified the treaty has done this. Canada was meant to have cut emissions by 6% between 1990 and 2012. Instead they have already risen by 26%.

It is now clear that Canada will refuse to be sanctioned for abandoning its legal obligations. The Kyoto protocol can be enforced only through goodwill: countries must agree to accept punitive future obligations if they miss their current targets. But the future cut Canada has volunteered is smaller than that of any other rich nation. Never mind special measures; it won't accept even an equal share. The Canadian government is testing the international process to destruction and finding that it breaks all too easily. By demonstrating that climate sanctions aren't worth the paper they're written on, it threatens to render any treaty struck at Copenhagen void.

After giving the finger to Kyoto, Canada then set out to prevent the other nations striking a successor agreement. At the end of 2007, it singlehandedly blocked a Commonwealth resolution to support binding targets for industrialised nations. After the climate talks in Poland in December 2008, it won the Fossil of the Year award, presented by environmental groups to the country that had done most to disrupt the talks. The climate change performance index, which assesses the efforts of the world's 60 richest nations, was published in the same month. Saudi Arabia came 60th. Canada came 59th.

In June this year the media obtained Canadian briefing documents which showed the government was scheming to divide the Europeans. During the meeting in Bangkok in October, almost the entire developing world bloc walked out when the Canadian delegate was speaking, as they were so revolted by his bullying. Last week the Commonwealth heads of government battled for hours (and eventually won) against Canada's obstructions. A concerted campaign has now begun to expel Canada from the Commonwealth.

In Copenhagen next week, this country will do everything in its power to wreck the talks. The rest of the world must do everything in its power to stop it. But such is the fragile nature of climate agreements that one rich nation – especially a member of the G8, the Commonwealth and the Kyoto group of industrialised countries – could scupper the treaty. Canada now threatens the wellbeing of the world.

Why? There's a simple answer: Canada is developing the world's second largest reserve of oil. Did I say oil? It's actually a filthy mixture of bitumen, sand, heavy metals and toxic organic chemicals. The tar sands, most of which occur in Alberta, are being extracted by the biggest opencast mining operation on earth. An area the size of England, comprising pristine forests and marshes, will be be dug up – unless the Canadians can stop this madness. Already it looks like a scene from the end of the world: the strip-miners are creating a churned black hell on an unimaginable scale.

To extract oil from this mess, it needs to be heated and washed. Three barrels of water are used to process one barrel of oil. The contaminated water is held in vast tailings ponds, some so toxic that the tar companies employ people to scoop dead birds off the surface. Most are unlined. They leak organic poisons, arsenic and mercury into the rivers. The First Nations people living downstream have developed a range of exotic cancers and auto-immune diseases.

Refining tar sands requires two to three times as much energy as refining crude oil. The companies exploiting them burn enough natural gas to heat six million homes. Alberta's tar sands operation is the world's biggest single industrial source of carbon emissions. By 2020, if the current growth continues, it will produce more greenhouse gases than Ireland or Denmark. Already, thanks in part to the tar mining, Canadians have almost the highest per capita emissions on earth, and the stripping of Alberta has scarcely begun.

Canada hasn't acted alone. The biggest leaseholder in the tar sands is Shell, a company that has spent millions persuading the public that it respects the environment. The other great greenwasher, BP, initially decided to stay out of tar. Now it has invested in plants built to process it. The British bank RBS, 70% of which belongs to you and me (the government's share will soon rise to 84%), has lent or underwritten £8bn for mining the tar sands.

The purpose of Canada's assault on the international talks is to protect this industry. This is not a poor nation. It does not depend for its economic survival on exploiting this resource. But the tar barons of Alberta have been able to hold the whole country to ransom. They have captured Canada's politics and are turning this lovely country into a cruel and thuggish place.

Canada is a cultured, peaceful nation, which every so often allows a band of Neanderthals to trample over it. Timber firms were licensed to log the old-growth forest in Clayaquot Sound; fishing companies were permitted to destroy the Grand Banks: in both cases these get-rich-quick schemes impoverished Canada and its reputation. But this is much worse, as it affects the whole world. The government's scheming at the climate talks is doing for its national image what whaling has done for Japan.

I will not pretend that this country is the only obstacle to an agreement at Copenhagen. But it is the major one. It feels odd to be writing this. The immediate threat to the global effort to sustain a peaceful and stable world comes not from Saudi Arabia or Iran or China. It comes from Canada. How could that be true?

Link:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/nov/30/canada-tar-sands-copenhagen-climate-deal

Brian P. Flannery: Exxon-Mobil's chief propagator of junk science and funding of denialist organizations

Dr. Brian P. Flannery

View Title...

Exxon Mobil Corporation

http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Flannery_Brian_18474415.aspx

• 
  
  archive.corporateeurope.org/observer8/cop6.html - [Cached Version]
  Last Visited: 7/21/2009   One of the prime ICC spokespeople in The Hague was Brian Flannery of ExxonMobil, a company infamous for fighting the Kyoto Protocol. With his ICC-hat on, Flannery delivered the ICC's rosy "free market environmentalism" discourse to the media. But during COP-6, Flannery also spoke out as lobbyist of ExxonMobil and then the feel-good rhetoric was replaced by questioning the scientific evidence for climate change and making warnings against government investments in green technology. ExxonMobil is "firmly against the Kyoto Protocol" because "it achieves very little and costs too much," Flannery told the Earth Times. [5] Flannery, whose company has no plans to move out of fossil fuel production, explained that "you are going to need to expand the supply to meet the pressing future needs for energy, for things like the modern Internet, the "e-conomy."
  ...
  Quantitative and qualitative restrictions in the use of market-based mechanisms, as demanded by many environmental NGOs, will only limit the amount of carbon credits entering the markets, the emissions brokers and rest of the corporate lobby argued. [7] According to ICC lobbyist Brian Flannery: "a ton of CO2 is a ton of CO2.
  
  
  

Baiqing Xu et al., PNAS (2009), Black soot and the survival of Tibetan glaciers

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, published online before print December 8, 2009; doi: 10.1073/pnas.0910444106 

Black soot and the survival of Tibetan glaciers

Baiqing Xu^a,^b, Junji Cao^b, James Hansen^c,^*, Tandong Yao^a, Daniel R. Joswia^a, Ninglian Wang^d, Guangjian Wu^a, Mo Wang^a, Huabiao Zhao^a, Wei Yang^a, Xianqin Liu^e and Jianqiao He^d

Contributed by James Hansen, October 15, 2009 (sent for review July 6, 2009).

Abstract

We find evidence that black soot aerosols deposited on Tibetan glaciers have been a significant contributing factor to observed rapid glacier retreat. Reduced black soot emissions, in addition to reduced greenhouse gases, may be required to avoid demise of Himalayan glaciers and retain the benefits of glaciers for seasonal fresh water supplies.

*Correspondence e-mail: James.E.Hansen@nasa.gov

Link to abstract:  http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/12/07/0910444106.abstract

Link to free, open-access complete paper:  http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/12/07/0910444106.full.pdf+html

Introduction

Glaciers on the Tibetan Plateau, sometimes called Earth’s ‘‘third pole,’’ hold the largest ice mass outside the Polar Regions. These glaciers act as a water storage tower for South and East Asia, releasing melt water to the Indus, Ganges, Brahmaputra, and other river systems, providing fresh water to more than 1 billion people (1, 2). Glacial melt provides up to two-thirds of the summer flow in the Ganges and half or more of the flow in other major rivers (3). One-quarter of the population of China is in western regions where glacial melt provides the main dry season water source (4).

Tibetan glaciers have been melting at an accelerating, alarming rate over the past decade, raising the threat that many of the glaciers could be gone by midcentury (5, 6). As glaciers recede and release stored water, flow temporarily increases, but the future fresh water supply is threatened (5–8). Once headwater glaciers are gone, however, a dramatic decline in dry season water availability may ensue. Total precipitation may increase

with global warming (1, 9), but a likely result of glacier loss will be heavier spring floods and much reduced fresh water availability during subsequent dry seasons.

Climate on the Tibetan Plateau is changing rapidly; over the past three decades, the large area at altitude above 4,000 m has warmed 0.3 °C per decade (Fig. S1), which is twice the rate of observed global warming. Climate change on the plateau may have large regional effects, for example, on the Asian monsoon, and even global repercussions (3). Glacier retreat in the Tibetan Plateau presumably is driven by warming due to increasing greenhouse gases (1), but the rapidity of glacier retreat and the up to 0.3 °C warming of per decade during the past 30 years suggest additional mechanisms may be involved.

Black soot in aerosol pollution can warm the troposphere, perhaps contributing to surface melt (10–12). Absorption is caused primarily by the black carbon (BC), whereas organic carbon (OC) absorbs mainly in the UV and slightly in the visible region (13–15). Black soot incorporated in snowflakes darkens snow and ice surfaces, increasing surface melt (16–18). Simulations show that the added absorption by snow exceeds the ‘‘dimming’’ effect (reduced solar irradiance at the ground due to atmospheric aerosols) and becomes significant when BC reaches amounts on the order of 10 ng/g or more (15, 19). The Tibetan Plateau is located close to regions in South and East Asia that have been (20) and are predicted to continue to be (21) the largest sources of black soot in the world. The extensive black soot aerosols could be lofted to the high Tibetan Plateau and incorporated in snowflakes that when falling on the glaciers darken their surface, which has led to initial studies of the amount of BC and OC in the snow and ice of Himalayan glaciers (22, 23). Yet, black soot-induced reduction of snow albedo and its contribution to glacier retreat have only begun to receive attention, so there is a need for more extensive field data. Here, we report measurements of the BC and OC content in ice cores that sample snow deposited during the past half century on five widely spaced glaciers on the Tibetan Plateau.