How aircraft emissions contribute to warming: Aviation contributes up to one-fifth of warming in some areas of the Arctic

Nature, published online 21 December 2009; doi: 10.1038/news.2009.1157

How aircraft emissions contribute to warming

Aviation contributes up to one-fifth of warming in some areas of the Arctic

 

by Rex Dalton, NatureNews, December 21, 2009

Aircraft emissions could be having a dramatic effect on the warming of the Arctic. A. Magurean/iStockphoto

The first analysis of emissions from commercial airline flights shows that they are responsible for 4–8% of surface global warming since surface air temperature records began in 1850 — equivalent to a temperature increase of 0.03–0.06 °C overall.

The analysis, by atmospheric scientists at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, also shows that in the Arctic, aircraft vapour trails produced 15–20% of warming.

The results of this analysis are likely to be studied widely as nations attempt to address the impact of commercial aviation on global warming. There are around 35 million commercial airline flights every year. Studies have been conducted in Europe, with airlines coming under increased pressure as European Union leaders consider levying a carbon tax on aircraft emissions. But little research has been conducted on the topic in the United States.

Previous studies have only estimated the impacts of commercial aviation, but this is the first use of actual emissions data — from 2004 and 2006 — to calculate warming from such flights, says Mark Jacobson, a Stanford engineer who presented the analysis on 17 December at the American Geophysical Union's annual meeting in San Francisco, California.

For the latest study, Jacobson and his team developed a model for aircraft emissions that accounts for atmospheric composition, cloudiness and the physical properties of emissions, particularly of black carbon — a major part of soot.

In his presentation, Jacobson explained how the model was applied to a nine-year simulation covering 2004 to 2013, after breaking up flight routes into 300-kilometre-square grids for analysis. The model was able to calculate the characteristics of vapour trails based on the actual particulate size of emissions and their evolution over time.

Cloudy outlook

Many previous studies have assumed that the impact of aircraft emissions was the same everywhere. But the new analysis reveals that aircraft emissions increased the fraction of cirrus clouds where vapour trails were most abundant, and actually decreased the cirrus fraction in several locations by increasing the temperatures in the lower atmosphere, reducing the relative humidity in such locations.

If black-carbon emissions from aircraft could be reduced 20-fold, warming would be halted and a slight cooling would occur from plane-created vapour trails, Jacobson says.

The team's study is being peer reviewed and is expected to be published soon, Jacobson added.

David Fahey, of the Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colorado — part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration — says that studies such as Jacobson's are important to fill the gaps in aircraft-emissions data following the nation's previously "muddled" research course.

Fahey says that now European leaders are calling for carbon taxes to be levied on each commercial airline flight, the United States is being driven to catch up on aircraft-emissions research. Some of the EU proposals suggest taxing a flight for emissions along its entire route. This is "absurd", says Fahey. For a more realistic levy, high-quality research is needed on the actual impact of such emissions, he adds.



Link:  http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091221/full/news.2009.1157.html

Joseph Romm: AGU stunner -- Jacobson et al., Aircraft vapor trails responsible for 15-20% of Arctic warming

AGU stunner: Aircraft Vapor Trails Responsible for 15-20% of Arctic Warming

"If black-carbon emissions from aircraft could be reduced 20-fold, warming [from plane-created vapour trails] would be halted"

Joseph Romm, Climate Progress, December 23, 2009

Photo credit:  A. Magurean/iStockphoto

Nature (subs. req’d) reports on an analysis presented by Stanford’s Mark Jacobson to the American Geophysical Union’s annual meeting last week:

The first analysis of emissions from commercial airline flights shows that they are responsible for 4–8% of surface global warming since surface air temperature records began in 1850 — equivalent to a temperature increase of 0.03–0.06 °C overall.

The analysis, by atmospheric scientists at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, also shows that in the Arctic, aircraft vapour trails produced 15–20% of warming.

This study is yet more strong evidence that we need a high priority global strategy to sharply reduce black carbon:

The results of this analysis are likely to be studied widely as nations attempt to address the impact of commercial aviation on global warming. There are around 35 million commercial airline flights every year. Studies have been conducted in Europe, with airlines coming under increased pressure as European Union leaders consider levying a carbon tax on aircraft emissions. But little research has been conducted on the topic in the United States.

Previous studies have only estimated the impacts of commercial aviation, but this is the first use of actual emissions data — from 2004 and 2006 — to calculate warming from such flights….
For the latest study, Jacobson and his team developed a model for aircraft emissions that accounts for atmospheric composition, cloudiness and the physical properties of emissions, particularly of black carbon — a major part of soot.

In his presentation, Jacobson explained how the model was applied to a nine-year simulation covering 2004 to 2013, after breaking up flight routes into 300-kilometer square grids for analysis. The model was able to calculate the characteristics of vapour trails based on the actual particulate size of emissions and their evolution over time.

Many previous studies have assumed that the impact of aircraft emissions was the same everywhere. But the new analysis reveals that aircraft emissions increased the fraction of cirrus clouds where vapour trails were most abundant, and actually decreased the cirrus fraction in several locations by increasing the temperatures in the lower atmosphere, reducing the relative humidity in such locations.

If black-carbon emissions from aircraft could be reduced 20-fold, warming would be halted and a slight cooling would occur from plane-created vapour trails, Jacobson says.

The team’s study is being peer reviewed and is expected to be published soon, Jacobson added.

While this will need to be confirmed by other analysis, I don’t think the world can dawdle any further on the addressing black carbon.  It seems to me of equal importance to, say, stopping deforestation, and possibly much easier.


Link:  http://climateprogress.org/2009/12/23/airline-vapor-trails-arctic-warming-black-carbon/

INHUMANE DENMARK: The Red Carpet Four - Greenpeace activists imprisoned in ISOLATION in Copenhagen jail -- Fascism personified!

Dear Readers,

Fascism is alive and well in of all countries -- DENMARK!  Something is very rotten there.

Let me see -- unarmed peaceful protesters unfurl a banner in a banquet hall (but not all that far from Queen Margrethe II -- who apparently is nothing like her famous and courageous namesake), and the protesters are quite logically arrested.  Then, they are quite illogically KEPT IN ISOLATION and will not receive a trial until January 7th.

OK, maybe we have become a world of whiners, but when the brutality of the Copenhagen police against legally marching, peaceful protesters (who included children and the elderly) -- marchers who were brutally beaten with batons repeatedly for nothing, marchers who were held in improvised cages and pepper sprayed -- is considered, I guess this last business is just the icing on the cake for the Danish government.

I am not going to blame the police -- they had their orders -- apparently, they followed them well.

What idiots the Danish government have running things these days.

In one fell swoop, more than 65 years of Denmark's good name have been destroyed.  Just like that!  Poof! Bye!

Tenney Naumer

Below, an update from Kumi Naidoo, Executive Director, Greenpeace International (see also the video on the planning, carrying out, motivations and fears of the Red Carpet Four):

The Red Carpet Four

by Kumi Naidoo (Executive Director, Greenpeace International), Huffington Post, December 23, 2009

Tonight four of my friends sit in a Danish jail, in isolation, detained without trial over Christmas and New Year. I've had friends in jail before, but never under circumstances quite as ludicrous as these. On Thursday December 19, Juan Lopez de Uralde, Nora Christiansen and Christian Schmutz's three-vehicle convoy was ushered through police lines, past sharpshooters and up to the Danish Parliament where Queen Margrethe II was hosting a banquet for Heads of State attending the UN climate conference.

Surprising, really, as this was anything but a sophisticated operation. It relied entirely on simple, readily available materials and had elements of farce about it. 'Greenpeace' signs displayed on the windscreens of limousines hired by the activists were in one case wedged in place by a pair of socks. One of the car number plates included "007" -- a reference to James Bond. Blue 'police' lights on top of another vehicle were purchased for Danish Kroner 50 (around US$ 9.60) off the internet.

Juan, dressed in a tuxedo, and Nora, decked out in a red silk floor-length gown, walked up the red carpet as "Head of State of the Natural Kingdom, and his wife." Christian entered behind them playing their official help. The trio was followed by Hillary Clinton. Once inside the great hall they unfurled two yellow banners reading "Politicians Talk, Leaders Act." Guards were so taken aback that it took them a few seconds to gather their wits and arrest my Greenpeace colleagues. Police later arrested Joris Thijssen, a Greenpeace climate campaigner, while he was eating in a restaurant the following day for alleged involvement in the activity.

Nora, 35, Juan, 46, and Christian, 37, had one goal when they set out to crash the Queen's banquet: to send a friendly reminder to Heads of State that there was precious little time left to secure a fair, ambitious and legally binding deal for the climate -- and that they should use their time over dinner wisely. These world leaders were gathered in Copenhagen for the UN climate conference -- but failed utterly to lead, and did nothing to stop global warming.

The "Red Carpet Four" activity is in line with a long history of Greenpeace protests. The first occurred in 1971, when a small group of concerned men and women felt it was in the best interest of the planet to stop the US from carrying out underground atomic bomb tests on the earthquake-prone island of Amchitka, off the coast of Canada. They decided to sail to the island to bear witness. Their journey -- in an old boat over dangerous waters -- was left unfinished but captured admiration and attention from around the globe. Nuclear testing on Amchitka ended that same year.

Many would argue as I do, that climate change poses the same level of threat to life on this planet that nuclear bombs did some 40 years ago. According to Kofi Annan's Global Humanitarian Forum, 300,000 people have died from the results of climate change this year alone.

In the run-up to Copenhagen, civil society spent the year trying to make politicians understand that the time has come to act. That they can not play dice with the future of our children. That nature does not negotiate. More than 15 million people joined in the call from the tcktcktck campaign (which includes partners such as Amnesty, Avaaz, Greenpeace, 350, Oxfam, and WWF) to demand a FAB "fair, ambitious, binding" treaty to stop climate change. We did achieve some small victories, not least of which was that we made climate justice an issue so big and so important that neither media, nor politicians could chose to avoid the conference.

Unfortunately, it was not enough to stop the Copenhagen talks from turning to farce and delivering only an empty shell of a document called the "Copenhagen Accord". This does not mean our actions were not without impact. No, I am convinced that if we as a united civil society persist in making our voices heard, politicians will feel enough pressure that they will take the steps necessary to avert catastrophic climate change. Let's just hope it's not too late.

In the meantime, four of my friends sit in Danish prison cells. A judge has ordered their detainment until the next hearing scheduled for January 7th. They face three charges: trespassing, falsifying documents and impersonating a police officer (the charges are aggravated because the activists were in the vicinity of the Queen). The Red Carpet Four gave up their freedom to get a message out calling for action against climate. Don't let in be in vain. Please support our new campaign to keep the pressure on world leaders for a real climate deal in 2010.

In the close to 40-year history of Greenpeace I am not aware of a single activist trying to avoid the legal consequences of his or her actions. Between the four of them, the "Red Carpet" group has five children, aged two to thirteen, and one pregnant partner. Denying these people release, thus keeping them away from their families over the holidays, for the crime of peaceful protest is a travesty of justice -- especially when world leaders who failed to stand up for the climate have been comfortably back home for days.

Let us hope that people will be inspired by these four brave souls who were not afraid to risk their freedom to demand real action against climate change. That people will make their own efforts to act against the greatest single threat we face and join the call for the prompt release of the Red Carpet Four and other peaceful climate protesters who are still detained.

Link:   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kumi-naidoo/the-red-carpet-four_b_402453.html

THE STORY OF THE RED CARPET FOUR  (this video shows the preparation for the impersonation and entering the banquet hall, as well as the thoughts of the three Greenpeace members -- their fears and their motivations)



Link to YouTube video:   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOL-X9Nk7Xw

Foto: ERIC FEFERBERG/AFP

Jonathan T. Overpeck & Jeremy L. Weiss, PNAS 106 (2009), Projections of future sea level becoming more dire

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, published online before print December 15, 2009; doi: 10.1073/pnas.0912878107. PNAS (December 22, 2009),Vol. 106, No. 51, pp. 21461-21462.

Projections of future sea level becoming more dire

Jonathan T. Overpeck* and Jeremy L. Weiss

University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, U.S.A.

Few of the possible impacts of future climate change have captured more public attention than sea-level rise. Globally, sea-level rise has accelerated since the 19th century, driven primarily by the expansion of warmer oceans and melting glaciers, along with a modest transfer of water into the ocean from the Earth's polar ice sheets. The observed rate of sea-level rise has not been uniform around the globe because of regional factors, but there is no doubt that the average sea-level trend is upwards (1). Implications for the rates and magnitudes of future sea-level rise are less clear, and a new study in this issue of PNAS (2) provides useful insight into how sea level will change through this century and beyond.

There are two main types of sea-level information needed to inform the development of effective climate change policy. First are estimates of the sea-level rise expected in the relative near term, namely by the end of the century. Second are estimates of the sea-level rise that will occur further into the future over many centuries as ice sheets and oceans come into equilibrium with a warmer atmosphere.

The Fourth Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (1) was unable to provide a strong constraint on estimates of sea-level rise likely to occur by the end of this century. Their projection of 0.26- to 0.59-m sea-level rise by 2100 (under the business as usual A1FI greenhouse gas emissions scenario; ref. 1) represents a lower-bound estimate because it …

[Full Text of this Article]
 

¹Correspondence e-mail: jto@u.arizona.edu

Link:  http://www.pnas.org/content/106/51/21461.extract

M. Sugiyama et al., PNAS 2009, Precipitation extreme changes exceeding moisture content increases in MIROC and IPCC climate models

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, published online before print December 22, 2009; doi: 10.1073/pnas.0903186107

Precipitation extreme changes exceeding moisture content increases in MIROC and IPCC climate models

Masahiro Sugiyami* (Integrated Research System for Sustainability Science and Transdisciplinary Initiative for Global Sustainability, University of Tokyo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8654, Japan),  Hideo Shiogama (National Institute for Environmental Studies, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8506, Japan) and Seita Emori (National Institute for Environmental Studies, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8506; and Center for Climate System Research, University of Tokyo, Kashiwa-shi, Chiba 277-8568, Japan )

Edited by Kerry A. Emanuel, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, and approved November 24, 2009 (received for review March 23, 2009)

Abstract

Precipitation extreme changes are often assumed to scale with, or are constrained by, the change in atmospheric moisture content. Studies have generally confirmed the scaling based on moisture content for the midlatitudes but identified deviations for the tropics. In fact half of the twelve selected Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) models exhibit increases faster than the climatological-mean precipitable water change for high percentiles of tropical daily precipitation, albeit with significant intermodel scatter. Decomposition of the precipitation extreme changes reveals that the variations among models can be attributed primarily to the differences in the upward velocity. Both the amplitude and vertical profile of vertical motion are found to affect precipitation extremes. A recently proposed scaling that incorporates these dynamical effects can capture the basic features of precipitation changes in both the tropics and midlatitudes. In particular, the increases in tropical precipitation extremes significantly exceed the precipitable water change in Model for Interdisciplinary Research on Climate (MIROC), a coupled general circulation model with the highest resolution among IPCC climate models whose precipitation characteristics have been shown to reasonably match those of observations. The expected intensification of tropical disturbances points to the possibility of precipitation extreme increases beyond the moisture content increase as is found in MIROC and some of IPCC models.

*Correspondence e-mail:   masahiro_sugiyama@alum.mit.edu

Link to abstract:  http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/12/21/0903186107.abstract

Four Greenpeace members held in isolation in Copenhagen, write to the Danish ambassador to ask for their release, please!

Nora is one of the four being held in isolation in a Danish jail.

Dear Readers,

At the time of this writing, four members of Greenpeace are being held in isolation in a Danish jail in Copenhagen for the "crime" of attending the gala state dinner for heads of state, in order to bring attention to the plight of our planet.

Danish authorities intend to hold these four brave people until January 7th, 2010. 

Aside from the fact that during COP15 perfectly legal, unarmed, non-violent marchers were beaten repeatedly with batons and thrown into cages (yes, cages!) and pepper-sprayed, and

Aside from the fact that marchers had permits to march,

Aside from the fact that elderly people and small children were walking peacefully in these legal marches,

Aside from the fact that fascist and brutal methods are absolutely certain to breed a new generation of radicalized extremists in a country that had been known for the valiant and heroic actions of its Queen Margrethe during World War II that saved almost all of its Jews from deportation, and which government apologized in 2005 for the ones who were not saved (click here),

Is the holding of peaceful protesters in isolation for weeks not a clear example of a violation of human rights!?!

Greenpeace, U.K., has a site where there is a letter that can be sent by e-mail to the Danish ambassador.  It is a form letter, but you may change any and all of it.  I did. 

Here is a link to that site:  http://e-activist.com/ea-campaign/clientcampaign.do?ea.client.id=18&ea.campaign.id=5324

Greenpeace, U.K., has provided a very polite letter to be sent to the ambassador, but I don't like to mince words, so I deleted theirs and wrote my own.

Here is a copy of what I wrote to the ambassador:

Ambassador Birger Riis-Jørgensen
Embassy of Denmark
55 Sloane Street
London SW1X 9SR

Dear Ambassador Riis-Jørgensen,

I believe that it has not escaped anyone's notice that the methods used to deal with legal and illegal protests in Copenhagen were very unprofessional, not to mention going against modern, less-violent, and in the end, far more productive methods of dealing with such protests.

Elderly people and small children walked peacefully and legally down the streets and they were viciously attacked by Danish police.

I personally watched many, many videos of the brutal methods of the Danish police. I watched them strike people who had no weapons, people who held their arms straight up in the air to show their peaceful nature, and the police struck them with clubs, again and again.

What sort of image has this given Denmark in the eyes of the world, today?

Please think on this, and help to release the 4 members of Greenpeace, who are being held -- shall we say -- in a rather fascist way, an inhumane way, that does not jibe with the image of Denmark acquired when your valiant Queen stood up to the Nazis.

Very sincerely yours,

Tenney Naumer, M.Acc., M.B.A.
Rua Leoncio Santos, 107
Bairro Recreio
Vitoria da Conquista, Bahia, Brazil

Four Greenpeace activists still held in Danish prison over Copenhagen gala dinner action

The lady in red is Nora, now in prison.

Greenpeace had a vigil outside of the jail on Saturday night, it was a pretty well-attended but solemn occasion. Not sure what future plans we have for more events of this nature, but we'll keep you all posted. In the meantime, we're asking folks to join this Facebook group to show support for the activists.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Let-Nora-go/207060739233?v=info

There's also an email address there that you can use to send personal messages of support to Nora, Juantxo, and the others. It will mean a lot to them to see our support, and I also think it's a quick and easy way to help show the Danish government that we're watching how they react to this situation. Our activists are in jail, while the real climate criminals all flew home in their luxury jets.

Regards,
Mike G.

Mike Gaworecki, Web Editor, Greenpeace USA

On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Mark Johnston wrote:

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/xmas-in-jail-for-climate-activists201209

According to the info in link, the four could be held through the Christmas holiday period.

It seems to me there needs to be a wave of international publicity to ensure that the Danish authorities allow these guys to go home too.

Mark (WWF, Brussels)

Monsanto wins Angry Mermaid prize for promoting its genetically modified (GM) crops as a solution to climate change and pushing for its crops to be used as biofuels

Monsanto awarded 'Angry Mermaid' lobbying prize

Earth Times, December 15, 2009, Copenhagen -- Biotech giant Monsanto won a dubious honour on Tuesday when an online poll awarded it the "Angry Mermaid" prize for what critics see as misleading lobbying on the issue of climate change. The award was unveiled in Copenhagen, home to an iconic statue of Hans Christian Andersen's fairytale character the Little Mermaid, on the sidelines of United Nations talks on fighting global warming.

"Monsanto was nominated for promoting its genetically modified (GM) crops as a solution to climate change and pushing for its crops to be used as biofuels. The expansion of GM soy in Latin America is contributing to major deforestation and greenhouse-gas emissions," the nomination ran. In a web-based poll of 10,000 people, some 3,700 tipped Monsanto as the most aggressive and inappropriate lobbyist, ahead of oil giant Shell (1,800 votes) and the American Petroleum Institute (1,400 votes).

"Monsanto has attracted thousands of votes from individuals who are outraged that such an environmentally damaging form of agriculture should be put forward to tackle climate change," said organizer Paul de Clerk of environmental group Friends of the Earth.

"Big business must not be allowed to sabotage action against climate change by promoting their vested interests. All the candidates for the Angry Mermaid Award have lobbied to protect their own profits and prevent effective action to tackle climate change," he said. The award was set up by Friends of the Earth and five other groups to "highlight those business groups and companies that have made the greatest effort to sabotage the climate talks, and other climate measures, while promoting, often profitable, false solutions.

"Hundreds of activists have descended on Copenhagen in recent days to push for a worldwide deal on fighting climate change and cracking down on pollution. The event has spawned a number of ironic awards targeting groups seen as hostile to a deal. As well as the Angry Mermaid, for example, environmentalists have created a "fossil of the day" prize to target the country or company which is seen as having done most to block progress.
Copyright DPA

Link:  http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/299453,sidebarmonsanto-awarded-angry-mermaid-lobbying-prize.html

2009 AGU Fall Meeting: Michael Mann hits back at “climategate” hackers, wonders about the lack of media attention to the illegal actions of the hackers

AGU 2009: Mann hits back at “climategate” hackers

Harvey Leifert
The unknown hackers who stole and published e-mails on climate research from the University of East Anglia (UK) are engaged in a smear campaign to distract the public from the truth about climate change, because they don’t have the science on their side, says Michael Mann, one of the leading climate scientists whose messages were published.

Mann agreed to requests from reporters to comment on the so-called climategate in a hastily arranged press conference at the American Geophysical Union’s annual meeting in San Francisco. He said the episode has taught him that “there is no level to which the opponents of action on climate change won’t stoop in their efforts to lock progress.”

Unfortunately, said Mann, “the other side” (that is, climate change sceptics) is engaged in a well-funded and well-timed smear campaign that is sullying the reputations of scientists unfairly in the eyes of some members of the public. The timing to which he referred, just before the current climate negotiations got underway in Copenhagen, will probably have little effect there, he said.

There is plenty of legitimate controversy at Bella Centre, Mann acknowledged, naming such issues as the gulf between low-lying island nations and mid-latitude industrial nations. “Policy makers from most nations can see through this,” he said, adding that “the scientific community has spoken quite clearly.” He thought that they must be insulted at the effort to distract them through a “malicious” attempt to provoke a false controversy. Saudi Arabia is one of the few exceptions, he added; it is asserting that the e-mails undermine the case for climate change.

What lessons has Mann personally learned from climategate? Obviously, he and his colleagues will have to be more careful in future e-mails, the principal way they correspond with one another, he said, adding that this is unfortunate. Everybody - not just the climate research community - will now be more careful about what they say in e-mails. Science thrives by ideas bouncing back and forth, and circumspection will surely have a chilling effect, he said. There will be fewer passionate discussions among researchers, as they try to make every message “bulletproof,” he lamented.

There was, in fact, nothing scientifically inappropriate in the e-mails that have been released, Mann insisted, and various terms of art have been distorted. For example, a “trick,” one of the terms famously used in a message, is simply a clever approach to an issue, he said, not a nefarious effort to hide the truth.

Mann wondered aloud about the hackers and the relative lack of attention being paid to their action. “Have we really gotten to the point where it’s considered OK to break into people’s personal correspondence, sort through them and look for ways to misrepresent them, to smear them by taking their words out of context, by twisting their words? Have we really got to the point now where that is considered valid material for the public discourse?”

 
Posted by Olive Heffernan on December 18, 2009

Link:  http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2009/12/agu_2009mann_hits_back_at_clim.html

2009 AGU Fall Meeting: Humidity more than heat cause of vanishing Kilimanjaro glaciers

AGU 2009: Humidity more than heat cause of vanishing glaciers

Harvey Leifert

The snows of Kilimanjaro, made internationally famous by Ernest Hemingway’s novel of that name, are fading away. Certainly, that is true of the glaciers that top the mountain’s summit plateau, some 5,900 metres above sea level.

Standing just three degrees south of the equator in Tanzania, Kilimanjaro is Africa’s tallest mountain. Its summit glaciers, covering 2.5 square kilometers, feature nearly vertical cliffs, ranging from three to over 40 metres in height. These cliffs are regressing, and the question is, why? At the American Geophysical Union’s annual meeting in San Francisco, Michael Winkler of the University of Innsbruck (Austria) provided some preliminary answers.

The ice cliffs face north and south and, depending on the season, receive sunlight all day long or not at all, in an alternating pattern. When in shadow, the cliffs cannot melt; only sublimation (direct change from solid to gaseous state) is possible, Winkler said in an interview. When in sunlight, the cliffs can melt as well as sublimate. Therefore, the retreat of the glacier occurs in two phases, slowly at the end in shadow and 20 to 30 times faster at the sunlit end.

Winkler and colleagues placed instruments at the base of a 25-metre cliff in 2005, to measure temperature and humidity. The humidity readings are particularly important, Winkler said, as the glaciers are mainly responsive to humidity. The air temperature is always below freezing.

The glaciers are, in fact, retreating because the climate is getting dryer, not warmer, he noted. The only way to replenish the glacier is through large, frequent snowfalls, and the big precipitation events stopped around 1850, he said. He attributed the decline to changes in the sea surface temperature and currents in the nearby Indian Ocean.

Posted by Olive Heffernan on December 18, 2009


Link:  http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2009/12/agu_2009_humidity_more_than_he.html

George Monbiot soundly thrashes Ian Plimer and his volcano CO2 claims, in live debate on Australia's ABC TV

Ian Plimer's volcano claims vaporise under questioning on Australian TV

Climate denier finally airs his weaknesses with inaccurate statements on science and 'bullying' among academics

• Watch the debate on Australian television

Guardian journalist George Monbiot is beamed into the studio of the Australian television network ABC to challenge Ian Plimer (right). Go Spock!

by George Monbiot, The Guardian, December 16, 2009

So at last we've had our fight, and Ian Plimer has cause to regret his challenge to me. Back in July, Plimer, an Australian professor of geology and a climate change denier championed by the right wing media all over the world, challenged me to a debate in London, to be hosted by the Spectator magazine. I agreed, as long as he met a simple condition: to answer a list of questions about the claims in his book, Heaven and Earth. Plimer eventually accepted this condition. My questions were straightforward: I asked him only to explain or reference the claims he made. Any reputable scientist would have answered them without hesitation.

But Plimer used a series of excuses and evasions to put me off.

Eventually I gave him a deadline. Four days before it expired, the Spectator cancelled the debate, and gave Plimer a platform to himself. It was a shocking episode, which suggested to me that neither Plimer nor the Spectator wanted to face the facts.

Anyway, the Australian television network ABC renewed the invitation. Knowing that Plimer might use any conditions as an excuse for wriggling out again, this time I agreed without terms. The debate, which was hosted by Tony Jones, took place live on ABC's Lateline last night. You can watch it here.

It began with a general discussion about Copenhagen, climate denial and, of course, the hacked emails. Plimer described the contents of the Climatic Research Unit's emails as "the biggest scientific fraud in history".

I replied that, though I deplore some of the behaviour revealed by the emails, Plimer's own behaviour is highly questionable. He continues to restate facts after they have been shown to be wrong. For example, he maintains that volcanoes produce more carbon dioxide than human activity. The US Geological Survey (USGS) reports that human beings produce 130 times as much CO2 as volcanoes.

Jones took up my charge and asked Plimer whether he stood by his claim that volcanoes produce more CO2 than all the world's cars and industries.

Plimer replied "I'm very heartened that a journalist is correcting me on my geology", then launched into a disquisition on how I know nothing about science. Both of us pressed him to answer the question. So Plimer said that neither of us had read his book. We both replied that we had and pressed him again.

Plimer tried to argue that the US Geological Survey only measured emissions from terrestrial volcanoes – not from submarine volcanoes. Jones, who had plainly done his homework, pointed out that a UK journalist (I think he was referring to the Guardian's James Randerson) had gone back to the USGS and asked them whether or not submarine volcanoes were included in its calculations. They were.

Plimer went off at a tangent, starting to list the numbers and kinds of submarine volcanoes. This, I soon found, was a characteristic tactic: when faced with a tricky situation, he starts throwing out random facts. I pointed out that he had been told many times that the USGS figures include submarine volcanoes: he was making a claim on national television that he should know is wrong.

Jones raised another of the questions I had tried to put to Plimer: the professor has stated that the Met Office's Hadley Centre has shown that warming stopped in 1998. Where, Jones asked, does the Hadley Centre say that? Again the random facts came thick and fast.

Plimer said there are four major centres that measure temperature. Some of them use thermometers (would you believe it?); some use radiosondes; some use satellites. And if you look at page 481 of my book, you'll find that I nailed the University of East Anglia, which is actually just a few yards down the road from where Monbiot lives, and, and …

It was a weird form of free association, which might have contained answers to any number of questions – but not the one he was asked. I pointed out that he had cherry-picked his start date: his claim that temperatures had fallen this century was based on his selection of the hottest year ever – 1998 – as the starting point. Had he picked 1997 or 1999, or any other year in the 20th century, he would have seen that temperatures had risen.

Tony Jones asked Plimer to respond. His answer ranged from the correspondence we had had, to my absence of qualifications, to Roman warming, medieval warming, to the Met Office saying the UK would have a barbeque summer this year, to the temperature 4,000 years ago – in fact any temperature series except the one he was asked about.

Whenever I pressed him to answer the question, Plimer said it was "the height of bad manners" to interrupt him. When Jones pushed him again, he started talking about wheat farming in Greenland and grapes in Roman Britain. In my quarter century as a journalist I have never seen anyone go to such lengths to avoid answering a simple point.

Jones asked Plimer about another of his howlers: he had exactly reversed the findings of a paper he cited. In his book, he claims that "satellites and radiosondes show that there is no global warming", and gave as his reference a paper by Charles F Keller. Here's what the paper actually says:

"The big news [is] the collapse of the climate critics' last real bastion, namely that satellites and radiosondes show no significant warming in the past quarter century. Figuratively speaking, this was the centre pole that held up the critics' entire 'tent'. … But now both satellite and in-situ radiosonde observations have been shown to corroborate both the surface observations of warming and the model predictions."

Off Plimer went with another series of random facts, about corrections of satellite data, different datasets: anything but address his reversal of the findings of the paper he referenced. Yet again I pointed out that he was evading this question, and this time he veered off on to a completely different subject: the websites I read and who is funding them. He didn't explain what this had to do with his misrepresentation of the satellite paper.

I finished by pointing out that throughout the discussion Plimer had used evasion and distraction when faced with straight questions. As soon as the interview ended, the emails started pouring in. Scores of them. The overwhelming message was that Plimer had been soundly thrashed. You can judge for yourself. If you bought his book or read the articles about him and you believed what he said, watch the interview, then tell me you still stand by him.
monbiot.com

Link:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/dec/16/ian-plimer-versus-george-monbiot

George Monbiot: Copenhagen negotiators bicker and filibuster while the biosphere burns

Copenhagen negotiators bicker and filibuster while the biosphere burns

George Monbiot despairs at the chaotic, disastrous denouement of a chaotic and disastrous climate summit

• 
• • George Monbiot in Copenhagen, guardian.co.uk, Friday, 18 December 2009, 22.24 GMT

A journalist reads the latest draft of the Copenhagen Accord at the climate summit. Photograph: Anja Niedringhaus/AP

First they put the planet in square brackets, now they have deleted it from the text. At the end it was no longer about saving the biosphere: it was just a matter of saving face. As the talks melted down, everything that might have made a new treaty worthwhile was scratched out. Any deal would do, as long as the negotiators could pretend they have achieved something. A clearer and less destructive treaty than the text that emerged would be a sheaf of blank paper, which every negotiating party solemnly sits down to sign.

This was the chaotic, disastrous denouement of a chaotic and disastrous summit. The event has been attended by historic levels of incompetence. Delegates arriving from the tropics spent 10 hours queueing in sub-zero temperatures without shelter, food or drink, let alone any explanation or announcement, before being turned away. Some people fainted from exposure; it's surprising that no one died. The process of negotiation was just as obtuse: there was no evidence here of the innovative methods of dispute resolution developed recently by mediators and coaches, just the same old pig-headed wrestling.

Watching this stupid summit via webcam (I wasn't allowed in either), it struck me that the treaty-making system has scarcely changed in 130 years. There's a wider range of faces, fewer handlebar moustaches, frock coats or pickelhaubes, but otherwise, when the world's governments try to decide how to carve up the atmosphere, they might have been attending the conference of Berlin in 1884. It's as if democratisation and the flowering of civil society, advocacy and self-determination had never happened. Governments, whether elected or not, without reference to their own citizens let alone those of other nations, assert their right to draw lines across the global commons and decide who gets what. This is a scramble for the atmosphere comparable in style and intent to the scramble for Africa.

At no point has the injustice at the heart of multilateralism been addressed or even acknowledged: the interests of states and the interests of the world's people are not the same. Often they are diametrically opposed. In this case, most rich and rapidly developing states have sought through these talks to seize as great a chunk of the atmosphere for themselves as they can – to grab bigger rights to pollute than their competitors. The process couldn't have been better designed to produce the wrong results.

I spent most of my time at the Klimaforum, the alternative conference set up by just four paid staff, which 50,000 people attended without a hitch. (I know which team I would put in charge of saving the planet.) There the barrister Polly Higgins laid out a different approach. Her declaration of planetary rights invests ecosystems with similar legal safeguards to those won by humans after the second world war. It changes the legal relationship between humans, the atmosphere and the biosphere from ownership to stewardship. It creates a global framework for negotiation which gives nation states less discretion to dispose of ecosystems and the people who depend on them.

Even before the farce in Copenhagen began it was looking like it might be too late to prevent two or more degrees of global warming. The nation states, pursuing their own interests, have each been passing the parcel of responsibility since they decided to take action in 1992. We have now lost 17 precious years, possibly the only years in which climate breakdown could have been prevented. This has not happened by accident: it is the result of a systematic campaign of sabotage by certain states, driven and promoted by the energy industries. This idiocy has been aided and abetted by the nations characterised, until now, as the good guys: those that have made firm commitments, only to invalidate them with loopholes, false accounting and outsourcing. In all cases immediate self-interest has trumped the long-term welfare of humankind. Corporate profits and political expediency have proved more urgent considerations than either the natural world or human civilisation. Our political systems are incapable of discharging the main function of government: to protect us from each other.

Goodbye Africa, goodbye south Asia; goodbye glaciers and sea ice, coral reefs and rainforest. It was nice knowing you. Not that we really cared. The governments which moved so swiftly to save the banks have bickered and filibustered while the biosphere burns.

Link:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/18/copenhagen-negotiators-bicker-filibuster-biosphere

Jeffrey Allen, OneClimate.net: Why I would sign the Copenhagen Accord

Why I Would Sign the 'Copenhagen Accord'

Jeffrey Allen, OneClimate.net, December 19, 2009

COPENHAGEN (OneClimate.net) -- I was one of the very few people around the world listening to world leaders as they took the floor one after another in the wee hours of this morning to justify their positions in favor or against the so-called "Copenhagen Accord." I was one of the even fewer people who also followed the ups, downs, frenzies, and stagnations of the Copenhagen Climate Summit for the 11 days and nights that led up to last night's dramatic oratorical jousting session.

Over the course of those 11 days as part of the OneClimate.net team streaming live from the Bella Center every day and night, I interviewed experts on topics from ocean acidification and coral reef destruction to forest-cover monitoring and emerging technologies. I spoke directly with Connie Hedegaard, Bill McKibben, and seemingly everyone in between. It's been a whirlwind two weeks. And it all came down to last night.

Countless texts had appeared, been leaked, retracted, redacted, debated, eviscerated. Finally, after what seemed like an eternity of stalemates, Obama appeared, then disappeared behind closed doors, appeared again with little to say and less to show, disappeared again, and then reappeared again with what he called a deal. Eerily, though, he appeared in voice only, since his final press conference was neither televised nor open to the world press. Regardless, by 10 p.m. last night, a single final document was on the table.

The details of the document emerged slowly, late in the night, as the text began to circulate beyond the select group of countries involved in its drafting. Obama and his U.S. press pool were long gone.

The initial reaction came from civil society -- the voice of the voiceless worldwide -- and it was loud, clear, and utterly damning. The text offered nothing new, they said. A reference to holding temperature rise to 2 °C, sure, but no clear path to make that happen (the emission targets currently pledged get nowhere near the 2-degree goal). A small amount of short-term funding to help the poorest countries adapt ($30 billion total for the next three years), and a bigger longer-term package ($100 billion per year by 2020), but this is far too little, and not entirely in the form of public grants without strings, the civil society groups said. The only good thing about the "Accord," they noted, was that it was so vague that it left immense room for potential improvements in the coming weeks and months.
At the UN climate summit closing plenary. © UNFCCC 

The EU spoke next, clarifying that they had helped draft the text, and that they had wanted it to be more ambitious, including a pledge to cut emissions 50% by 2050, but were rebuffed by unnamed nations and groups of nations who, the EU representatives said, still don't get the severity and urgency of the climate situation. Nevertheless, the EU was backing the "Accord."

So clearly, we now knew, this document was the product of a negotiation including at least the major world economic powers: the United States and Europe. But what of the most vulnerable countries, the ones whose voices and opinions were supposed to be protected by this consensus-driven process. Were they on board? Had they even been consulted? That would make all the difference to me as I tried to figure out what to make of all this -- and where I personally stood on the key question: to support the final document or agree with those recommending the conference adopt nothing rather than legitimizing this deeply flawed document.

We heard from the EU that Sudan and "a few other countries" were opposed to the document -- but there was no indication of how many other countries and who they were. Was Sudan's opinion reflective of the entire African group? If so, that could well spell doom for Obama's "deal." What about the small island nations, who had repeatedly said they would not sign any agreement that would not hold global temperature rise to 1.5 °C and do it in a legally binding way. Anything else would amount to a suicide pact for their countries, they had passionately declared time and again these past two weeks.

We waited and waited as Friday turned over into Saturday, trying to glean little bits of information in that stark, cold, conference hall dominated by delegates in suits and pants suits and almost devoid of the colorful, creative, and informative voices of global civil society, who had been excluded from the center for the previous two days.

Finally, just as we started considering cutting off our broadcast for the evening -- a little after 2 a.m., I think -- the plenary hall stirred on our computer screen. We immediately started streaming it to our viewers.

The Danish president of the conference was calling the delegates to order, and within a flash we had what seemed to be our answer. The delegate from Tuvalu, Ian Fry, who had taken the collective breath away from the assembled negotiators earlier in the week with his emotional declaration that "the fate of my country now rests in your hands," was at the mike.


Tuvalu's lead negotiator, Ian Fry. © COP 15

His judgment of the document was swift and uncompromising. The "deal" would not save his country. Tuvalu would not accept it. The hall echoed with applause. Fry was immediately followed by a bevy of outraged delegates from Latin America. Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba, Costa Rica, Nicaragua all would not sign, as they felt the deal was being "imposed" on them from above rather then negotiated in good faith among all the world's nations. Sudan spoke vehemently about how the deal would mean "incineration" for Africa, as a global 2 °C increase would likely mean a 3.5 °C increase for Africa, which is more susceptible and sensitive to temperature increases than other parts of the planet. The Danish president called for a break in the "discussions."

It had to be close to 4 a.m. now. The deal could actually be killed, it seemed. Had Obama miscalculated? Would the world's poorer countries band together this time to quash a deal that they felt would not save their livelihoods, their cultures, their people? Would the world body try a new approach this time -- choosing "none of the above" rather than its usual: "lesser of two evils"? Had the heightened stakes -- the future of humanity and most species on the planet -- altered the traditional calculus? I was just about ready to start printing my "I am Tuvalu" t-shirts.

Then the plenary hall stirred again, and Maldives president Mohamed Nasheed took the mike. He was the only head of state to stick it out through the night, as far as I could tell.

Nasheed has an incredible story. After decades within an embattled opposition party, and having spent years imprisoned by his country's autocratic rulers -- Amnesty International designated him as a prisoner of conscience -- and living in exile, he finally managed to take over the leadership of the Maldives last year in the country's first free and fair elections ever. He has since declared that his country will be the first in the world to go entirely carbon neutral, and has waged an impressive international campaign to put ambitious climate action at the top of the world's agenda.

Nasheed's country is the lowest on the planet, with an average ground level only 5 feet above sea level. No political leader in the world has more to lose from climate change than Nasheed, and so none prioritizes the global climate interest as high as he does. He speaks logically, reasonably, and passionately about the issue, and is 100-percent  informed about the realities -- both scientifically and politically. If Nasheed were to join his Tuvalan colleagues in opposing the admittedly weak draft before the UN body, there would be no telling how the rest of the developing countries would fall, but I certainly would be sure of where I stood on the issue.

He did not. Around 5 in the morning, Nasheed calmly, but resolutely told the world that, in this case, it was best for his country to move forward with the unambitious and non-binding "deal" on the table. He said that, though he highly respected his colleagues' objections, he believed that the best chance of survival now lay in accepting the limited offer on the table and then working to make it much more ambitious -- and legally binding -- by the end of 2010.

In essence, Nasheed was giving Obama the green light to punt on all the hard decisions until next year. Perhaps he decided that 2009 was about putting the Maldives -- and Tuvalu and Grenada and Sudan and all the world's most vulnerable countries -- on the world's radar screen. And putting the wealthier countries on notice that not enough was being done, and they could very well face an even stronger insurrection in 2010 if they do not come through with emission cuts.

Perhaps Nasheed has calculated that Obama just needs a few more months to let the economy begin to recover and message the American people about global warming (something his administration has done very little of). Blowing up the entire process -- which Nasheed may or may not have had the power to do -- would probably have meant no binding targets for developed countries anytime soon, and thus almost certain destruction for the Maldives.So instead, it seems Nasheed has bought Obama some time and political cover, while at the same time putting him the U.S. president on notice with the good-cop, bad-cop routine he ran with Tuvalu's Ian Fry.

There is no doubt that the "Copenhagen Accord" is a bad, bad deal for the world's most vulnerable people and countries. The failure to work out a fair, ambitious, and binding treaty here is a absolute disappointment that threatens the future of all humanity, not to mention the rest of life on Earth. But when it came time for the final up or down decision, every leader had to decide what response, at this extraordinarily precarious moment in human history, would most likely result in success down the road.

Mohamed Nasheed knows the science, he knows the politics, and I'm confident he's acting in the best interest of stabilizing the global climate as much and as soon as humanly possible. If this "deal" is good enough for him, then it's good enough for me.

--- Jeffrey Allen, OneClimate.net

Link:  http://us.oneworld.net/article/368383-why-i-would-sign-copenhagen-accord

James Hansen on David Letterman, December 10, 2009

James Hansen on David Letterman, December 10, 2009

Dear Readers,

Just after about minute 7:30, Dr. Hansen points out that the melting of the ice at the respective poles, concurrent with the heating up of the planet at the equator, will begin to be sufficient to create a temperature differential (I think I am just making up my own weather terms here) such that it will drive much more powerful storms.

Maybe it's just me, but lately, while watching the water vapor streams at this link (I have a gander or two or three, nearly every day):   http://weather.unisys.com/satellite/sat_wv_hem_loop-12.html  , I have noticed some very forceful streams in the Northern Hemisphere in the mid latitudes, rushing from west to east, from the western Pacific to straight across North America to the western Atlantic.  UPDATE:  the water vapor streams being a chaotic system, patterns do not hold for long, and indeed, it is no longer possible to view the streams mentioned above, but hopefully you will decide to become an aficionado.  SECOND UPDATE:  Maybe I should take the first update back!  Have a look at this far more complete visualization and animation of the water vapor streams.  If you look today or tomorrow, I am fairly sure you will still be able to see what I mean.  However, this link is to a site at the University of Wisconsin and Java is required. It takes some time to load, but it is well worth waiting:

http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/tropic/real-time/mosaic/movies/moswwvbbm/moswwvbbmjava.html


Link to YouTube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiJJgC7B_KY

UNFCCC PRESS RELEASE: Copenhagen United Nations Climate Change Conference ends with political agreement to cap temperature rise, reduce emissions and raise finance, December 19, 2009

UNFCCC PRESS RELEASE: Copenhagen United Nations Climate Change Conference ends with political agreement to cap temperature rise, reduce emissions and raise finance

Copenhagen, 19 December 2009 -- The United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen ended today with an agreement by countries to cap the global temperature rise by  committing to significant emission reductions, and toraise finance to kickstart action in the developing world to deal with climate change.

At the meeting, world leaders agreed the ‘Copenhagen Accord’, which was supported by a majority of countries, including amongst them the biggest and the richest, and the smallest and most vulnerable.

“We have sealed the deal,” said UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said.

“This accord cannot be everything that everyone hoped for, but it is an essential beginning,” he said.

The Copenhagen Accord recognizes the scientific view that an increase in global temperature below 2 °C is required to stave off the worst effects of climate change.

In order to achieve this goal, the accord specifies that industrialised countries will commit to implement, individually or jointly, quantified economy-wide emissions targets from 2020, to be listed in the accord before
31 January 2010.

A number of developing countries, including major emerging economies, agreed to communicate their efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions every two years, also listing their voluntary pledges before the 31 January 2010.

Nationally appropriate mitigation actions seeking international support are to be recorded in a registry along with relevant technology, finance and capacity building support from industrialised nations.

“We must be honest about what we have got,” said UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer. “The world walks away from Copenhagen with a deal. But clearly ambitions to reduce emissions must be raised significantly if we are to hold the world to 2 degrees,” he added.

Because the pledges listed by developed and developing countries may, according to science, be found insufficient to keep the global temperature rise below 2 degrees or less, leaders called for a review of the accord, to be completed by 2015.

The review would include a consideration of the long-term goal to limit the global average temperature rise to 1.5 degrees.

Heads of state and government also intend to unleash prompt action on mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology, reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries and capacity-building.

To this effect, they intend to establish the “Copenhagen Green Climate Fund” to support immediate action on climate change. The collective commitment towards the fund by developed countries over the next three
years will approach 30 billion US dollars.

For long-term finance, developed countries agreed to support a goal of jointly mobilizing 100 billion dollars a year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries.

In order to step up action on the development and transfer of technology, governments intend to establish a new technology mechanism to accelerate development and transfer in support of action on adaptation and mitigation.

119 world leaders attended the meeting, the largest gathering of heads of state and government in the history of the UN. “Climate change is the permanent leadership challenge of our time,” said UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. “I therefore urge world leaders to remain engaged,” he said.

“We now have a package to work with and begin immediate action,” said UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer. “However, we need to be clear that it is a letter of intent and is not precise about what needs to be done in legal terms. So the challenge is now to turn what we have agreed politically in Copenhagen into something real, measurable and verifiable,” he added.

The next annual UN Climate Change Conference will take place towards the end of 2010 in Mexico City, preceded by a major two week negotiating session in Bonn, Germany, scheduled 31 May to 11 June 2009.

George Monbiot in Copenhagen gives impassioned speech on "Why We Fight"

George Monbiot in Copenhagen gives impassioned speech on "Why We Fight"

Dear Readers,

Please pay careful attention to what Monbiot says at about minute 2:00 and thereafter.  I truly wish he would consider making a speaking tour of the U.S. for the entire month of January.  He is very eloquent and credible.  He's not wishy-washy or timid or working for an employer who muzzles him.  He has the right stuff.


Link to YouTube video:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHYHfrqv9lE

CLIMATE SHAME: Copenhagen agreement fails UN processes and the planet

Climate Shame: Copenhagen agreement fails UN processes and the planet

by takver, Indymedia Climate, on Saturday, December 19, 2009, 1:05 p.m.

Climate negotiations in Copenhagen ended with a whimper and some chaos in the final plenary. About 115 national leaders attended the Copenhagen climate talks but the final 'agreement' announced by the US, India, China and South Africa, was drafted far outside the consensus process of the United Nations and amounted to only aspirational targets and promises, falling far short of an ambitous, fair and binding treaty demanded by civil society.

"The conference of the parties takes note of the Copenhagen Accord," said a final decision announced by Danish Prime Minister Rasmussen. But Tuvalu declared the COP15 process completely undemocratic, conducted in closed door sessions, and slamed the target of 2 degrees for failing to be sufficient to ensure their survival. "We are being offered 30 pieces of silver to betray our children. Our future is not for sale."

Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba and Costa Rica also raised their voices that the proposal cannot be considered as the work of COP according to Copenhagen End Game of the It's Getting Hot in Here Blog of the Youth Climate Movement.

Lumumba Di-Aping, the Sudanese leader of G77, compared the proposed Copenhagen Accord to entering a suicide pact in a discussion with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now "In all four regions of Africa, and in all seasons, the median temperature [increase] lies between 3 degrees C and 4 degrees C, roughly 1.5 times the global mean response. One hundred and fifty times, so a two degrees is not three; it's actually 3.5 and above. So, for me, it means simply I will accept the total destruction of my continent, her people, in Copenhagen. That, I would not do. That should not be asked of Africa, because it is effectively saying Africa is not the part of the human family."

Similarly The Prime Minister of Tuvalu, Apisai Ielemia, says he will not sign a climate change agreement that does not meet his demands on limiting global temperature rises. Tuvalu has had a proposal on the table for 6 months for global temperature rises to be kept below 1.5 degrees to ensure the survival of island nations. Despite bullying from Australia on Pacific Island nations, Tuvalu is standing its ground: "We have nowhere to run to because our islands are tiny, we just have to prepare ourselves individually, family wise so that they know what to do when a cyclone comes in or a hurricane blows because there is nothing else we can do.
There is no mountain we can climb up, there is no other inland where we can run to like in your big countries." according to Radio New Zealand.

The negotiator for the Marshall Islands told the final plenary "Today the issue is not just about sovereignty, it is our fundamental right - that our nation is but a collection of tiny specks of corals in a vast ocean. This tiny collection of islands may be seen as navigational hazards for most people, but it is for me the land of my ancestors. Allow these islands to sink under the waves, and you will have destroyed an entire race. I leave your country, with a profound sense of loss. My country, only 2 m above sea level, is one of the biggest losers. I will have nothing to show my grandchildren for my absence the past two weeks, and I have failed to secure the future for my grandchildren and their future."

Papua New Guinea played a key role in breaking the deadlock at the Bali negotiations in 2007, when it told the USA to either commit or to stand aside. Their negotiator said in the final Copenhagen plenary "In the final analysis, we left our leaders without anything of substance to carry forward. For this reason, we support this document despite its flaws. We must identify that many of the flaws are due to us as G77; many Annex I nations were willing to make strong commitments and yet several G77 nations were the ones who struck their flaws. Many G77 countries sent only public servants who struck much of the substance out of this document. We must move forward. The world must move forward."

To be accepted as an official UN agreement all 193 nations at the talks need to endorse the deal.

Civil Society Response

Bill McKibben, American environmentalist and founder of 350.org, said that President Obama had wrecked the UN and the planet: "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."

A couple of hundred people flash rallied at 1 a.m. outside the Bella Centre with banners saying "Climate Shame" and chanting "climate Justice Now", "World wants Climate Justice, U.S. Climate Shame." Watch a Youtube video including an interview with Bill McKibben where he accuses Barack Obama and China and India selling out the planet's climate and the United Nations.

Jeremy Hobbs, Executive Director of Oxfam International described the deal as a triumph of spin over substance : "This agreement barely papers over the huge differences between countries which have plagued these talks for two years. It recognizes the need to keep warming below 2 degrees but does not commit to do so. It kicks back the big decisions on emissions cuts and fudges the issue of climate cash."

"Millions of people around the world do not want to see their hopes for a fair, binding and ambitious deal die in Copenhagen. Leaders need to get back round the table in early 2010 and take the hard decisions they copped out of in Copenhagen." he said.

Bolivia's ambassador to the UN, Pablo Solon angrily denounced the released text of the agreement, "This is completely unacceptable. How can it be that 25 to 30 nations cook up an agreement that excludes the majority of more than 190 nations. We have been negotiating for months on one of the gravest crises of our age, and yet our voice counts for nothing? If this is how world agreements will now be agreed, then it makes a nonsense of the UN and multilateralism."

At about 2:15 a.m., while discussions continued inside the Bella Centre in Copenhagen, Pablo Solon, went out to address the demonstrators holding a vigil at the main entrance. "From the substantive part, we know, we don't have the final text, but they have approved that it will be two degrees (Celsius) -- the goal. And we don't accept that. Why we don't accept because that means that several islands are going to disappear. Our glaciers in the mountains are going to disappear. Africa is going to be cooked. We are approaching a situation where we cannot guarantee that we are going to be able to save whole humanity. Maybe some millions are going to die because of the decision that tonight is being taken and this is not discussed." he said.

To cheers he told the crowd that "For us, the most important thing here is that Copenhagen was a success. Not here. Outside (cheers). Because there has been a lot of awareness, a lot of conscience, and now we have to build a very big movement. Things are not going to change in the negotiation if we don't have a strong social movement, a strong civil society mobilise in the street." (Andy Bodycombe, Bolivian Statement Outside Bella Centre)

Kassie Siegel, director of the Climate Law Institute at the Center for Biological Diversity, also identified Copenhagen as a turning point with the birth the birth of a diverse global movement for climate justice: "The people of the United States voted for President Obama based on his promise of change and hope. But the only change today's agreement brings is a greater risk of dangerous climate change. And the only hope that flows from Copenhagen stems not from the president's hollow pronouncements but from the birth of a diverse global movement demanding real solutions and climate justice -- demands made with a collective voice growing loud enough that in short order politicians will no longer be able to ignore it." she said.

Friends of the Earth were one of the NGOs excluded from observing the conference in its final days, with all their credentials suspended by the UN with no satisfactory reason given.

Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth U.S said "The blame for the failure to achieve a real deal lies squarely on the rich countries whose pollution has caused the climate crisis -- especially the United States. Rich countries refused to budge from the grossly inadequate emissions reduction proposals they brought to Copenhagen, and they failed to put sufficient money on the table so that poor countries that did not cause this crisis have the capacity to cope with it."

The failure of Copenhagen is a wake up call for those who care about the future Erich Pica said: "It is a call to action. Corporate polluters and other special interests have such overwhelming influence that rich country governments are willing to agree only to fig leaf solutions. This is unacceptable, and it must change. Fortunately, while the cost of solving the climate crisis rises each day we fail to act, the crisis remains one that can largely be averted. It is up to the citizens of the world -- especially citizens of the United States, which has so impeded progress -- to mobilize and ensure that true solutions carry the day. I firmly believe that together, we can still achieve a politics in which climate justice prevails."

Carl Pope, Sierra Club Executive Director called Copenhagen but a first step with much more work needed for a fair, binding, and ambitious climate deal. He identified the US Senate and its obstruction as one reason preventing President Obama from taking the necessary leadership on this issue: "President Obama and the rest of the world paid a steep price here in Copenhagen because of obstructionism in the United States Senate. That a deal was reached at all is testament to President Obama's leadership--all the more remarkable because of the very weak hand he was dealt because of the Senate's failure to pass domestic clean energy and climate legislation. Now that the rest of the world--including countries like China and India--has made clear that it is willing to take action, the Senate must pass domestic legislation as soon as possible. America and the world can no longer be held hostage to petty politics and obstructionism."

The climate deniers were also in Copenhagen, and while their lobbyists still have tremendous financial resources and access to politicians, the science of climate change is now overwhelmingly accepted by most nations and most politicians. Members of the Youth Climate Movement succeeded in crashing a climate denier live webcast.

"What was clear over the past two weeks is that there is no argument over the science of global warming or the urgency with which we must act. A parade of developed and developing counties alike made crystal clear that they would implement their national plans to tackle global warming and build the clean energy economy not because they were required to do so, but because it was simply in their own national interest to do so." said Carl Pope.

Scientists Respond

Scientists also responded to the failure to set ambitious emission targets that matched with the the science.

"Continued failure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions commits the World to metres of sea-level rise, with severe consequences for many millions of people and the natural environment." said Dr John Church, Principle Research Scientist in Australia's CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research and Leader of the Sea Level Rise Program at the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystem Cooperative Research Centre.

"A brave face on total failure. This is a triumph for the fossil fuel lobby," said Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Director of the Centre for Marine Studies at the University of Queensland and attended the climate negotiations and gave presentations on climate impact on marine biodiversity.

Professor Tim Flannery, Chairman of the Copenhagen Climate Council and Macquarie University's Division of Environmental and Life Sciences was more postive than others saying the agreement is good but not perfect: "We've made a huge advance at this meeting on a number of fronts, one being those pledged emissions, another being the funding we've now got for adaptation and mitigation in developing countries. The third is the REDD negotiations, the world's efforts to protect the tropical rainforests and that seems to be going very well indeed."

Dr Jim Salinger, climate scientist and honorary researcher University of Auckland writing from the Cook Islands said: "I welcome the news that the big players: USA, China, India, Brazil and South Africa have committed to limit temperature increases to 2 degrees C. It is essential that all countries sign on to effective emissions reductions targets of greenhouse gases by 40% at 2020 and 80% by 2080 to prevent disruptive climate change and sea level rise later this century that so threaten peoples such as those in the tropical Pacific."

Dr Andy Reisinger (Senior Research Fellow, New Zealand Climate Change Research Institute, Victoria University of Wellington) called the agreement a crucial breakthrough as it provides verifiable emissions reductions targets by most of the world's largest emitters. He qualified this support saying "The devil is in the details though. It is worrying that even those countries that brokered the deal have admitted that the specific emissions targets will not be stringent enough to reach their stated long-term goal, which is to limit global average temperature increases to no more than 2 °C above pre-industrial levels. We will have to wait until the final numbers are on table to see how far the actual emissions targets fall short of that ultimate goal, and what amount of warming we might expect more realistically once the dust and celebratory rhetoric has settled."

Professor Suzi Kerr, Visiting Professor, Stanford University, Department of Economics, Senior Fellow, Motu Economic and Public Policy Research said "The agreement on a transparent monitoring mechanism is a relief and a major step forward with respect to some key developing countries."

Global Movement

The Copenhagen climate negotiations have sparked a global justice movement on climate. Over Thirteen million signatures were collected on a global petition for an ambitious fair and binding treaty. Hundreds of thousands attended vigils, marched in the streets of Copenhagen, Melbourne or took direct action on the Streets of the United States.

The Science of climate change is clear on the impacts we face. The current emission reduction national proposals as of Dec 19, will result in a 3.9 °C of temperature rise above pre-industrial levels according to the Climate Interactive Scoreboard.

The Climate Crisis will deepen as more scientific studies are published. A new study on Sea Level was published in the Dec. 17, 2009, issue of Nature. Professor Michael Oppenheimer, from Princeton University said about the study that "According to the analysis, an additional 2 degrees of global warming could commit the planet to 6-9 meters (20-30 feet) of long-term sea level rise. This rise would inundate low-lying coastal areas where hundreds of millions of people now reside. It would permanently submerge New Orleans and other parts of southern Louisiana, much of southern Florida and other parts of the U.S. East Coast, much of Bangladesh, and most of the Netherlands, unless unprecedented and expensive coastal protection were undertaken."

While National leaders have not shown the necessary leadership on emssion reduction targets many local and regional Governments are taking their own actions independent of national Governments.

The Climate Justice Movement has achieved much in a short time and needs to continue to pressure national Governments to take decisive action on carbon emissions and for policies that avoid Climate Colonialism

Sources

• Oxfam Media Release, Dec 18, 2009 - Historic Moment, Historic Gathering, Historic Cop out
• Bolivia Media Release, Dec 18, 2009 - Bolivia calls Copenhagen climate accord "unacceptable"
• Statement of Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth U.S., on tonight's announcement by President Obama. Dec 18, 2009
• Sierra Club Media Release, Dec 18, 2009 - President Obama Leads World to Historic, If Incomplete Climate Deal. Progress Made Sets Stage for Fair, Ambitious, and Binding Deal in 2010
• Media Release, Dec 18, 2009 - Center for Biological Diversity Statement on "Deal" at Copenhagen
• Bill McKibben, 350.org, Media Release, Dec 18, 2009 - Bill McKibben and 350.org Response to President Obama's Speech
• Democracy Now, Dec 18, 2009 -Chief G-77 Negotiator Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping: US-Backed Proposals Mean Death for Millions of Africans
• Radio New Zealand International, Dec 18. 2009 - Tuvalu's PM says his country will not move from its bottom line
• Youth Climate Movement - Dec 19, 2009 - Copenhagen End Game from the It's Getting Hot in Here Blog 

Link:  http://climateimc.org/en/original-news/2009/12/19/climate-shame-copenhagen-agreement-fails-un-processes-and-planet

Reactions from Oxfam, Bill McKibben of 350.org, Friends of the Earth, Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity, Bolivia, Post Carbon Institute, Civil Society,

OXFAM INTERNATIONAL PRESS RELEAS, For Immediate Release: 18 December 2009

HISTORIC MOMENT, HISTORIC GATHERING, HISTORIC COP OUT  

The ‘climate deal’ announced in Copenhagen today is a triumph of spin over substance said Oxfam International.  The agreement – which was announced by the US, India, China and South Africa - has not been endorsed by the EU and many other countries.

The deal provides no confidence that catastrophic climate change will be averted or that poor countries will be given the money they need to adapt as temperatures rise. Leaders have also put off agreeing a legally binding deal until the end of 2010.  

Oxfam said this is not a done deal - any agreement must be endorsed by all countries - and demanded that it be a floor not a ceiling on action.    

Jeremy Hobbs, Executive Director of Oxfam International said:  

“This agreement barely papers over the huge differences between countries which have plagued these talks for two years.

“The deal is a triumph of spin over substance. It recognizes the need to keep warming below 2 degrees but does not commit to do so. It kicks back the big decisions on emissions cuts and fudges the issue of climate cash.

“Millions of people around the world do not want to see their hopes for a fair, binding and ambitious deal die in Copenhagen. Leaders need to get back round the table in early 2010 and take the hard decisions they copped out of in 
Copenhagen.”

THE DEAL

$100bn a year in climate cash for poor countries

This is an aspirational goal not a commitment – poor countries will have no confidence that they will receive the money they need to reduce their emissions and adapt to a changing climate.

$100bn is only half the money needed. The shortfall could mean that health workers in South Asia and Sub Saharan Africa will not get the $1.5bn they need each year to prevent climate induced deaths from malaria and diarrhoea.

There are no assurances that the $100bn will be additional to existing aid commitments. This means aid for education and health care could be diverted to pay for flood defenses.

The $100bn will not all be public money. Unless climate cash comes from public sources, there are no guarantees that it will reach the right people, in the right places, at the right time.  

SPIN: Global temperature rises will be kept below 2 degrees centigrade

REALITY

The absence of any emissions reductions targets means there is no guarantee that warming will be kept below 2 degrees centigrade. Climate science is clear on the need for rich countries to cut emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. Specific targets are essential.

Shorbanu Khatun, a climate migrant at the summit with Oxfam said: “I came all the way from a displaced persons camp on the flooded coast of Bangladesh to see justice done for the 45,000 people made homeless by cyclone Aila. How do I tell them their misery has fallen on deaf ears?”   

***********************************************************


Yup, you could say we're not so pleased with this ...

MEDIA RELEASE, December 18, 2009; Contact: Jamie Henn, jamie@350.org, +45 52 68 47 65
Bill McKibben, bill@350.org, +45 52 69 45 90

"The President has wrecked the UN (and the planet)"

Bill McKibben and 350.org

350.org, responds to Obama's press conference this evening: "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." 350.org is an international campaign that's totally disappointed in the president of the U.S.

**********************************************************************


Statement of Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth U.S., on tonight's announcement by President Obama:

"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.

"The blame for the failure to achieve a real deal lies squarely on the rich countries whose pollution has caused the climate crisis -- especially the United States. Rich countries refused to budge from the grossly inadequate emissions reduction proposals they brought to Copenhagen, and they failed to put sufficient money on the table so that poor countries that did not cause this crisis have the capacity to cope with it.

"With the future of all humans on this planet at stake, rich countries must muster far more political will than they exhibited here. If they do not, small island states will become submerged, people in vulnerable communities across the globe will be afflicted with hunger and disease, and wars over access to food and water will rage.

"The devastation will extend to those of us who live in wealthy countries. If we cannot find a way to cooperate with others to produce a real agreement to solve this problem, climate change impacts will devastate the U.S. economy, undermine our security, and inflict irreparable harm on future generations.

"The failure to produce anything meaningful in Copenhagen must serve as a wake up call to all who care about the future. It is a call to action. Corporate polluters and other special interests have such overwhelming influence that rich country governments are willing to agree only to fig leaf solutions. This is unacceptable, and it must change.

"Fortunately, while the cost of solving the climate crisis rises each day we fail to act, the crisis remains one that can largely be averted. It is up to the citizens of the world -- especially citizens of the United States, which has so impeded progress -- to mobilize and ensure that true solutions carry the day. I firmly believe that together, we can still achieve a politics in which climate justice prevails."

*************************************************************************

 

President Obama Leads World to Historic, If Incomplete Climate Deal
 

Progress Made Sets Stage for Fair, Ambitious, and Binding Deal in 2010

Copenhagen, Denmark--After two weeks of fraught, stalled negotiations, President Obama arrived in Copenhagen, built on the progress made yesterday by Secretary of State Clinton, personally negotiated with world leaders for hours, and tonight announced the elements of an international climate accord.  The Sierra Club offered the following comments in response.

Statement of Carl Pope, Sierra Club Executive Director

"The world's nations have come together and concluded a historic--if incomplete--agreement to begin tackling global warming.  Tonight's announcement is but a first step and much work remains to be done in the days and months ahead in order to seal a final international climate deal that is fair, binding, and ambitious.  It is imperative that negotiations resume as soon as possible.
 
"President Obama and the rest of the world paid a steep price here in Copenhagen because of obstructionism in the United States Senate.  That a deal was reached at all is testament to President Obama's leadership--all the more remarkable because of the very weak hand he was dealt because of the Senate's failure to pass domestic clean energy and climate legislation.  Now that the rest of the world--including countries like China and India--has made clear that it is willing to take action, the Senate must pass domestic legislation as soon as possible.  America and the world can no longer be held hostage to petty politics and obstructionism.   
 
"What was clear over the past two weeks is that there is no argument over the science of global warming or the urgency with which we must act.  A parade of developed and developing counties alike made crystal clear that they would implement their national plans to tackle global warming and build the clean energy economy not because they were required to do so, but because it was simply in their own national interest to do so.
 
"The agreement reached here has all the ingredients necessary to construct a final treaty--a mitigation target of 2 degrees Celsius, nationally appropriate action plans, a mechanism for international climate finance, and transparency with regard to national commitments.  President Obama has made much progress in past 11 months and it now appears that the U.S.--and the world--is ready to do the hard work necessary to finish what was started here in Copenhagen.
 
"A chilly two weeks in Copenhagen has given humanity its best chance of preventing the ravages of a warming world.  Today's deal is neither perfect nor complete, but we must not this chance slip away."

 

**********************************************************************

Center for Biological Diversity Statement on “Deal” at Copenhagen

COPENHAGEN— Upon news of a non-legally binding accord today in Copenhagen, Kassie Siegel, director of the Climate Law Institute at the Center for Biological Diversity, had the following response:

“We all know what we must do to solve global warming, but even the architects of this deal acknowledge that it does not take those necessary steps. Merely acknowledging the weaknesses of the deal, as President Obama has done, does not excuse its failings. If this is the best we can do, it is not nearly good enough. We stand at the precipice of climatic tipping points beyond which a climate crash will be out of our control. We cannot make truly meaningful and historic steps with the United States pledging to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by only 3 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. 

The science demands far more.

“The people of the United States voted for President Obama based on his promise of change and hope. But the only change today’s agreement brings is a greater risk of dangerous climate change. And the only hope that flows from Copenhagen stems not from the president’s hollow pronouncements but from the birth of a diverse global movement demanding real solutions and climate justice — demands made with a collective voice growing loud enough that in short order politicians will no longer be able to ignore it.”

********************************************************************************************************************

Bolivia calls Copenhagen climate accord “unacceptable”

Copenhagen, 14 December 2009 - As President Obama announced that major states had reached a deal in Copenhagen, Bolivia's ambassador to the UN, Pablo Solon angrily denounced the released text of the agreement:

“This is completely unacceptable. How can it be that 25 to 30 nations cook up an agreement that excludes the majority of more than 190 nations. We have been negotiating for months on one of the gravest crises of our age, and yet our voice counts for nothing? If this is how world agreements will now be agreed, then it makes a nonsense of the UN and multilateralism.”

Pablo Solon also condemned the substance of the agreement:

“The agreement talks of setting targets that limit warming to 2 degrees. The leaders of the rich countries should come to Bolivia to see what global warming is already doing to our country. We have droughts, disappearing glaciers and water shortages. Imagine this scaled up three times. We cannot accept an agreement that condemns half of humanity.”

*************************************************************

Statement of Asher Miller, Executive Director of Post Carbon Institute, on “Meaningful Agreement” (sic!) Announced in Copenhagen

COPENHAGEN--Despite dire warnings from his own nation’s leading scientists, and over the cries of millions of voices in hundreds of countries across the globe, US President Barack Obama has chosen political expediency over truth and justice.

The so-called Copenhagen Accord is merely the repackaging of old and toothless promises, which holds no one accountable and utterly fails to reflect the urgency of the moment at hand.
Less than one year ago, President Obama took the oath of office on a cold winter day in our nation’s capital, calling upon each of us to “summon a new spirit of patriotism, of service and responsibility where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves, but each other.”

Now, on another cold winter day, our President appears to be more concerned about saving face and avoiding sacrifice than honoring his own lofty words.

It is now time for the American people to lead, to demand action, and to show the way, as Obama himself said “block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand.”

The world can no longer wait.

*******************************************************************************************

US Undermines Climate Talks with Bullying Tactics and Backroom Deals

Civil Society Denounces U.S. Plan for Fast-Tracking Warming, Worsening Humanitarian Crisis, and Fueling Ecological Collapse

Copenhagen, Denmark --- Despite President Obama's assurances of progress today at the UN Climate Talks, the negotiations continue into the early morning as civil society leaders are left out of the sessions at the Bella Center and protesters gather outside.

"For the U.S., which is the largest historic emitter of greenhouse gases, to come to Copenhagen and try to strong arm the world into accepting a phony accord that will do nothing to prevent climate catastrophe is beyond irresponsible; it is criminal." said John Peck, Executive Director of Family Farm Defenders and member of Via Campesina.

"At the present, before the end of the final plenary, the draft Copenhagen Accord sets dangerously low emissions targets and  provides too few resources to stop the unfolding climate catastrophe gripping the planet," said Professor Michael Dorsey with the Climate Justice Now! Network. "The Accord is little more than rhetoric hiding a failure to actually address the climate crisis.  This destructive Accord represents a death sentence for Africa, the Amazon, Indigenous Peoples, and small island nations."

"An accord secretly crafted without the participation of developing countries is another example of the U.S. using its power to manipulate the outcome with no binding commitments," said Tom Goldtooth, Executive Director of the Indigenous Environmental Network. "We are highly suspicious of the tactics of the US obstructing a Kyoto Protocol agreement, while at the same time aggressively trying to push through a forest carbon offset agreement called REDD+ with weak safeguards that could violate the land and forest rights of Indigenous peoples and forest dependent communities. Indigenous peoples here in Copenhagen have been demanding action -- not false hopes and empty promises -- and these delays and bullying tactics amount to continued carbon colonialism."

"The COP 15 has seen an obscene amount of lobbying by the emerging corporate carbon dealers who are peddling false solutions, while the oil and coal lobbies are still the elephant in the room," said Camila Moreno, of the Global Justice Ecology Project from Porto Alegre, Brazil.  "The common sense solutions that have been demanded by social movements and civil society around the world are to leave fossil fuels in the ground and make a deal that is legally binding. Today's developments do nothing to move those real solutions forward and could wipe entire nations off the map."

"This is an emergency and we need climate justice now!  We must acknowledge that we from the south are the real creditors and the governments of the North are the real debtors. They owe the world economic debt, ecological debt and climate debt and they must pay now," said Wahu Kaara from the Kenya Debt Relief Network.


***************************************************************