Tuesday, January 4, 2011
African Huts Far From the Grid Glow With Renewable Power
Friday, December 18, 2009
A Letter for Sanity: Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Says "We Can Swim Or Sink Only Together" In Copenhagen
As disorder reigns and frustration builds at the Copenhagen Climate summit, his voice, joined with that of the bold leadership from African countries, is something we should all heed. This letter went out to all Heads of State and many Christian Leaders.
I write urgently to you after meeting last night with the Chairperson of the G77 at his request. This is after the walkout from the UN Climate Talks which have deadlocked.
Ambassador Di-Aping showed me papers quoting from the IPCC's 4th Assessment Report which declared that Africa is one of the most vulnerable continents to climate change and climate variability. In all four regions of Africa (West African, South African, East African, and Saharan), and in all seasons, the median temperature rise lies between 3 degrees C and 4 degrees C, roughly 1.5 times the global mean response.
Africa's major economic sectors are vulnerable to current climate sensitivity exacerbated by factors such as endemic poverty, complex governance challenges, limited access to capital, infrastructure and technology as well as ecosystem degradation and other disasters and conflict.
If temperatures are not kept down then Africa faces a range of devastating threats such as crop yield reductions, in places of as much as 50%, in some countries by 2020; Increased pressure on water supplies for 70 - 250 million people by 2020 and 350 - 600 million by 2050; The cost of adaptation to sea level rises of at least 5 - 10% of gross domestic product.
I think this is common cause. We are facing impending disaster on a monstrous scale. To keep temperature increase in Africa to below 1.5 degrees C requires a global goal of less than 1 degree C; keeping it below 2 degrees in Africa would require a global goal of less than 1.3 degrees C. that is the crux of the matter. A global goal of about 2 degrees C is to condemn Africa to incineration and no modern development. And then of course there is the matter of funding mitigation and adaptation.
The Africans do not want to be spoilers. They know that we are in this together. We have but one earth home. If we do not reach a legally binding deal that takes account of all that has been outlined above then we are all doomed. We can swim or sink only together. The African group wants a deal, a fair ambitious and legally enforceable deal. If the issues that I have delineated above are not dealt with fairly and generously, attributes that have characterized most of the developed world, then it were better to have no deal than to have a bad deal.
This is a moral issue, it is a matter of justice for especially the weak and most vulnerable and the developed world is noted for seeking to do what is right and good.
I pray that my appeal to you will not fall on deaf ears.
God bless you,
Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Copenhagen Forecast: Snow, Protest, Apocalypse; Can Obama Clear the Air?
The Final Stretch
Citizens around the world have called for a fair deal at climate talks, and in Copenhagen, they plan to make that call louder tomorrow with civil disobedience. The world's leading mayors have also called for a real deal, as have some of America's leading businesses. But where it counts, in the negotiating rooms, something is, sorry to say, still rotten in the state of Denmark.
No one said bringing all the world's countries together to hash out a deal -- or really, the foundations of a deal -- would be easy. But after nearly half a decade of facing the inconvenient truths of climate change, and its economic, political, and moral imperatives, does it have to be this hard?
Though we may not be fighting the apocalypse, as Greenpeace would have it, in Copenhagen we're staking the boldest claim yet for the future of the earth. We've messed it up -- we know that -- and we have the power to correct our mistake. So of course it has to be hard, because it has to be good.
Where We Are Now
To get things on track for the last day before heads of state take over, Denmark's Environment Minister, Connie Hedegaard, has formed five small groups to sort out the five "crunch issues" at the summit:
Improving the targets to be set by developed countries to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) that are causing climate change
* The mitigation actions of developing countries;*
* The long-term finance to be provided by rich nations so that poor countries can cope with climate change effects;
* How to deal with emissions caused by the aviation and shipping industries; and
* Special circumstances of some countries (such as Russia) in relation to mitigation.
The Divisions
The end times may not be upon us, but the developed and developing countries certainly look more divided than before. The African nations, which suspended talks on Monday, want a continuation of the Kyoto Protocol, a regime the US and most other developed countries reject outright.
Rich countries are also reluctant to dole out the long-term aid poor nations need to survive and fight climate change. The US is especially adamant that it won't give China any money -- or reparations, as the US negotiator idiotically called them -- because China doesn't need the US's money. China's negotiator seemed to agree with that at first, but then Beijing backtracked, saying China deserves money too.
What China says it doesn't deserve is to have its emissions cuts overseen by any carbon police, a demand the US insists is an absolute must for any climate deal. Meanwhile, the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) says that an upper limit of two degrees Celsius of warming isn't good enough as it would result in a loss of coastlines and sometime entire islands; they want a 1.5-degree cap, but not all developing nations do. And now, thanks to a backroom deal between France and Ethiopia, even the African nations are showing rifts.
The Agreements (Sort Of)
There have been some promising steps forward, apart from the promises made just before the summit by China, India, Brazil and others. Yesterday a number of potential financing options were put on the table. Today Holland committed to the 40 percent cuts called for by Kyoto.
Meanwhile, the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation scheme, known as REDD, got a dollar amount affixed to it today: $22 billion to $37 billion to jump start the plan, which would seek to halt deforestation in developing nations completely by 2030. (Currently, the only money being offered for a climate deal is a meager $30 billion in so-called "kick-start" financing over three years; some groups also call it "kick-end" financing because it doesn't go beyond that date).
But ultimately, these steps forward are signs of good will and good faith, not agreements that are likely to make it into a final agreement.
Endgame - Or New Game?
With expectations as low as ever, and anger and concern rising, Barack Obama may be well positioned to attempt a modest Hail Mary pass when he flies in on Thursday. The timing of the White House's report today about green jobs seems fortuitous; what better way to prime the American public for a ramping up of the US's carbon cutting commitments? But chances are, his throw won't be strong enough, and if it is, he may not have any teammates to catch it.
At the summit where world leaders were supposed to ink a binding deal on climate change, environmental groups, activists and journalists are already preparing for a greenwash, and getting ready to pack their bags for the next possible climate agreement end zone in Mexico.
Before they get there though, they may need to help remake the game completely.

