Yale Forum on Climate Change and the Media: A Look Back at COP-15:
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2009/12/a-look-back-at-cop-15/
A very in-depth analysis of the Copenhagen Accord by renowned Harvard economist Robert Stavins:
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/analysis/stavins/?p=464
"It is unquestionably the case that the Accord represents the best agreement that could be achieved in Copenhagen, given the political forces at play."
Lots of goodies in the above article, plenty of links to previous/supplementary work done by the Harvard Project on International Climate Agreements.
A joint New York Times op-ed by Michael Levi, Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, and Frank Loy, former lead climate negotiator for the U.S.: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/24/opinion/24iht-edloy.html?_r=3&ref=global
What's interesting is that there seem to be plenty of people arguing in the aftermath of Copenhagen that the UNFCCC is a framework ill-suited to tackling climate change, perhaps completely unworkable given that all 193 nations effectively have veto power over any agreement.
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Monday, December 21, 2009
Two Views from Yale e360
Bill McKibben:http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2225
"It’s possible that human beings will simply never be able to figure out how to bring global warming under control — that having been warned about the greatest danger we ever faced, we simply won’t take significant action to prevent it."
and Fred Pearce:http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2226
"Having followed climate talks since the Earth Summit in 1992, I am in many ways amazed at the progress made."
Saturday, December 19, 2009
a little optimism after big disappointments
Hi everyone...
Here is an article that points out some of the positive things that came out of Copenhagen, even though the overall conclusion was pretty discouraging.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Here's the Deal
Well, it's not what we had hoped for, but hey you gotta start somewhere!
Thursday, December 17, 2009
speeches by world leaders
Heads of state are gathered here in Copenhagen today, addressing the delegates about their respective country positions going forward from the conference and the need to create strong legislation.
Many of the same themes keep reappearing in these speeches -- a commitment to "common but differentiated responsibilities" in fighting climate change, national plans for renewable energy infrastructure, the need for money to assist developing countries grow sustainably, the millions of refugees that the world will face if sea levels rise, and more.
It is certainly exciting for me to sit here and listen to every leader speak about the urgency of the need to act on climate change. It is truly extraordinary, actually -- finally, world leaders are taking this issue seriously and are committing to legitimate action! And, it is great to hear about projects that each country has in store for the near future.
However, some leaders have taken advantage of this prominent stage to blast the United States and the capitalist system, namely Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Evo Morales of Bolivia.
I have mixed feelings about these speeches. On the one hand, this is truly an exciting moment in history. For the first time, every country is stepping forward and expressing their concerns about this most important issue. Maybe this will help propel the process forward?
On the other hand, it seems like it is also wasting precious time. The treaties are nowhere near completion, and there are just 24 hours left in the conference. But, the rest of the day will be taken up by these speeches.
Regardless, these speeches are great to watch. Check them out here: http://www1.cop15.meta-fusion.com/kongresse/cop15/templ/live.php?id_kongressmain=1&theme=unfccc&id_kongresssession=1
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Tuesday: REDD & the Private Sector and Carbon Markets
On Tuesday, I attended two very interesting side-events.
The first was a panel hosted by the Asia-Europe Foundation entitled "REDD & the Private Sector." The first speaker was Mr. Andrej Kranjc, Head of the Climate Security Service and the Minister of the Environment and Spatial Planning for the country of Slovenia. He noted that Europe's role was to faciliate the prevention of deforestation in Asia (as well as Latin America and Asia) by buying REDD credits and thus funding the projects, but he expressed worry that a huge influx of a brand new type of carbon credit could flood the European Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS, the EU's cap-&-trade system) and result in a market crash. He also advocated for what's known as a "nested" approach, or a hybrid of public and private funding for REDD projects.
Later, Dr. Renate Christ, the Secretary of the IPCC, gave a background on the Fourth Assessment's (AR4) take on forests and deforestation. She cited data from the IPCC AR4 stating that from 2000-2005, the average annual rate of global deforestation was 1.9 million hectares per year, and that the deforestation was being driven primarily by agriculture. She provided some new information about the Fifth Assessment Report, due out in 2014. In order to reflect the interconnectedness of agriculture and forestry, the IPCC AR5 will combine Agriculture and Forestry into one chapter.
Dr. Christ also noted that the economic and social benefits of forests, and also their environmental benefits, extended beyond just their function as carbon sinks. She stated that over 1.6 billion people depend on forests for their livelihoods, and that forests provide various ecosystem services, such as soil stabilization, protection of biodiversity, and flood control (this last is instrumental to adaptation efforts to counter sea-level rise).
However, Dr. Christ that saving the world's forests could be beyond us if we don't act quickly. Climate change and increased temperatures create positively amplifying feedbacks that accelerate carbon release from forests, as higher temperatures inhibit the forests' ability to store carbon and increased lightning strikes and pest invasions lead to higher rates of forest fires.
Last on the panel was Jozsef Feller, a senior environmental official from Hungary. He argued that the scope of the challenge of combating deforestation, as well as the miniscule window of opportunity we have, means that public money will simply not be enough to get the job done. He said that public money had a supplementary/facilitating role to provide for oversight, technical assistance, and other governance and enforcment issues.
However, he also cautioned about being completely gung-ho about REDD credits. He advocated for phasing REDD credits into the carbon markets so as to not shock the system. And, perhaps most significantly, he quoted the classic Qui custodiet ipsos custodes? (he didn't quote it precisely, but close enough). This was lead-in to expressing the belief that international oversight, as well as sanctions and enforcement, would be necessary for REDD to operate properly. This would require, to some extent, a relinquishing of national sovereignty in a way that certain developing countries (though none were specifically mentioned, China leaps instantly to mind) have been thus far reluctant to agree to.
The second panel I attended was hosted by the Carbon Market Investors Association. The interesting discussiont that took place revolved around the possibility of a U.S. cap-&-trade market (if the main climate legislation proposals actually pass next year) being linked with the EU's ETS. The panelists noted some obstacles, including the fact that the differences in market regulations would have to be resolved. For example, the ETS currently has no price caps or floors for carbon credits, whereas the Senate bill could potentially include both.
Another problem noted was the disparity between the prices in the markets. The EU ETS price on carbon credits currently hovers around 40 euro/ton, whereas U.S. interests have gotten skittish when any price above $20 U.S. dollars (roughly 13 euros at current exchange rates) is mentioned. Thus, for political as well as economic reasons (any linkage would inevitably result in huge transfer of wealth from the E.U. companies to the U.S.), any linkage could be very difficult. Thus, the panelists were skeptical that it could happen any time soon, and most of their projections estimated at least 2020 or later.
The first was a panel hosted by the Asia-Europe Foundation entitled "REDD & the Private Sector." The first speaker was Mr. Andrej Kranjc, Head of the Climate Security Service and the Minister of the Environment and Spatial Planning for the country of Slovenia. He noted that Europe's role was to faciliate the prevention of deforestation in Asia (as well as Latin America and Asia) by buying REDD credits and thus funding the projects, but he expressed worry that a huge influx of a brand new type of carbon credit could flood the European Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS, the EU's cap-&-trade system) and result in a market crash. He also advocated for what's known as a "nested" approach, or a hybrid of public and private funding for REDD projects.
Later, Dr. Renate Christ, the Secretary of the IPCC, gave a background on the Fourth Assessment's (AR4) take on forests and deforestation. She cited data from the IPCC AR4 stating that from 2000-2005, the average annual rate of global deforestation was 1.9 million hectares per year, and that the deforestation was being driven primarily by agriculture. She provided some new information about the Fifth Assessment Report, due out in 2014. In order to reflect the interconnectedness of agriculture and forestry, the IPCC AR5 will combine Agriculture and Forestry into one chapter.
Dr. Christ also noted that the economic and social benefits of forests, and also their environmental benefits, extended beyond just their function as carbon sinks. She stated that over 1.6 billion people depend on forests for their livelihoods, and that forests provide various ecosystem services, such as soil stabilization, protection of biodiversity, and flood control (this last is instrumental to adaptation efforts to counter sea-level rise).
However, Dr. Christ that saving the world's forests could be beyond us if we don't act quickly. Climate change and increased temperatures create positively amplifying feedbacks that accelerate carbon release from forests, as higher temperatures inhibit the forests' ability to store carbon and increased lightning strikes and pest invasions lead to higher rates of forest fires.
Last on the panel was Jozsef Feller, a senior environmental official from Hungary. He argued that the scope of the challenge of combating deforestation, as well as the miniscule window of opportunity we have, means that public money will simply not be enough to get the job done. He said that public money had a supplementary/facilitating role to provide for oversight, technical assistance, and other governance and enforcment issues.
However, he also cautioned about being completely gung-ho about REDD credits. He advocated for phasing REDD credits into the carbon markets so as to not shock the system. And, perhaps most significantly, he quoted the classic Qui custodiet ipsos custodes? (he didn't quote it precisely, but close enough). This was lead-in to expressing the belief that international oversight, as well as sanctions and enforcement, would be necessary for REDD to operate properly. This would require, to some extent, a relinquishing of national sovereignty in a way that certain developing countries (though none were specifically mentioned, China leaps instantly to mind) have been thus far reluctant to agree to.
The second panel I attended was hosted by the Carbon Market Investors Association. The interesting discussiont that took place revolved around the possibility of a U.S. cap-&-trade market (if the main climate legislation proposals actually pass next year) being linked with the EU's ETS. The panelists noted some obstacles, including the fact that the differences in market regulations would have to be resolved. For example, the ETS currently has no price caps or floors for carbon credits, whereas the Senate bill could potentially include both.
Another problem noted was the disparity between the prices in the markets. The EU ETS price on carbon credits currently hovers around 40 euro/ton, whereas U.S. interests have gotten skittish when any price above $20 U.S. dollars (roughly 13 euros at current exchange rates) is mentioned. Thus, for political as well as economic reasons (any linkage would inevitably result in huge transfer of wealth from the E.U. companies to the U.S.), any linkage could be very difficult. Thus, the panelists were skeptical that it could happen any time soon, and most of their projections estimated at least 2020 or later.
Live from the Plenary Session! and Breaking News!
Blogging live from the Plenary Session today:
3rd meeting of the COP, Report of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long Term Cooperative Action under the Convention.
This session was extremely crowded, as it was the last working session that observer parties could sit in on during the conference. After this, the heads of state will be present and only delegates and party members will be allowed in the working group negotiations.
The president of the COP, Connie Hedegaard, opened the floor to several countries to report on their progress in negotiating the future of the Kyoto protocol. A summary of their comments:
-Brazil delegate seemed to be stuck outside of security and the delegation was extremely upset by this issue.
-India also had trouble with security.
-Australia, South Africa, India, and several other countries felt that another meeting was necessary to work out the technical details of moving forward with the two track process
-the president of the COP will convene a working group to decide how to move forward with the negotiations of the future of the Kyoto Protocol
Breaking news: At the end of the meeting, it was announced that Connie Hedegaard has resigned from her post as president of the COP. She will be replaced by the Prime Minister of Denmark, who may be better able to preside over the remaining negotiations since many heads of state will be present. More details as we receive them....
Anti-REDD movement
Indigenous peoples groups have a strong presence at the conference today, holding prominent demonstrations and protests against REDD inside the Bella Center.
I spoke with one of the indigenous representatives, and they have several important concerns with the current REDD structure.
The primary issue with the proposed REDD program is that it could lead to one of the largest land grabs in history. Most indigenous people do not have legal rights to their lands; instead, they have customary rights that have been passed down for generations. If REDD is passed, foreign investors could quickly buy up forests from the government and lock them up as carbon offsets, inhibiting access to the forest lands for more than 100 million indigenous and forest-dependent people around the world.
Another problem seems to be compensation. Some of the existing programs have given less compensation to indigenous peoples as compared to other citizens, and these groups want to make sure that this situation is not repeated for REDD.
As the program stands now, the language for the REDD mechanisms as they relate to indigenous people are extremely unclear. Many questions are pending: what is the impact on indigenous people's rights? how will they be compensated? how will the land grabs be averted?
It seems, however, that the pressure to approve the program during the COP-15 conference may take precedence over creating explicit guidelines for these very important issues.
Discussing these issues and hearing from this group definitely gave me a new perspective on REDD. Although the REDD program would be an exciting step forward in helping to mitigate climate change, we must not forget about the rights of the people who have lived sustainably on these lands for generations.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Big REDD
It looks like REDD is going to be the biggest thing coming out of the conference:
Does this mean that in future years there will be more foresters and fewer politicians coming out of the forestry school in future years? I guess we'll have to wait and see!
Backgrounder and Monday Recaps: NYTimes and Earth Negotiations Bulletin
I regret not posting this as soon as I arrived in Copenhagen, but better late than never. Here is the absolute best backgrounder on COP15:
http://www.iisd.ca/download/pdf/enb12448e.pdf
This is the first of the Earth Negotiations Bulletins published by the International Institute for Sustainable Development. The subsequent bulletins provide day-by-day recaps, and are handed out for free inside the Bella Center where the conference is being held. In short, they is the go-to source that many at the conference are relying on for comprehensive and (relatively :P) accessible reporting of the main developments. However, they're honestly rather technical, so before you delve into the dizzying flurry of subsidiary bodies and ridiculous acronyms, here's a glossary of terms courtesy of the British government:
http://actoncopenhagen.decc.gov.uk/en/ambition/negotiations/a-z-of-cop15-terms/
For more mainstream coverage, the best has been a recent story linked by the New York Times from Climate Wire:
http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/12/14/14-climatewire-copenhagen-talks-enter-final-phase-43362.html
http://www.iisd.ca/download/pdf/enb12448e.pdf
This is the first of the Earth Negotiations Bulletins published by the International Institute for Sustainable Development. The subsequent bulletins provide day-by-day recaps, and are handed out for free inside the Bella Center where the conference is being held. In short, they is the go-to source that many at the conference are relying on for comprehensive and (relatively :P) accessible reporting of the main developments. However, they're honestly rather technical, so before you delve into the dizzying flurry of subsidiary bodies and ridiculous acronyms, here's a glossary of terms courtesy of the British government:
http://actoncopenhagen.decc.gov.uk/en/ambition/negotiations/a-z-of-cop15-terms/
For more mainstream coverage, the best has been a recent story linked by the New York Times from Climate Wire:
http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/12/14/14-climatewire-copenhagen-talks-enter-final-phase-43362.html
Monday, December 14, 2009
Latin America: Challenges and Opportunities for Climate Change Solutions
We hit the ground running Monday morning, attending a side event on REDD projects in Latin America right after we arrived and registered.
REDD, as a quick reminder, stands for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation, a proposed framework providing financial incentives (and potentially carbon credits) for the preservation of forests. Having been officially proposed at COP11, it is now being considered and tinkered with at COP15 and will probably be included in a post-2012 agreement if one is reached.
According to the first speaker, Mariano Cenamo, the Executive Director of the Institute for Conservation and Sustainable Development of Amazonas, there are four basic principles of REDD:
1. Recognition of the fact that tropical deforestation is a major source of GHG emissions (approximately 20-25% worldwide).
2. Past development has not been sustainable, instead resulting in increased deforestation in many areas.
3. In order to reduce deforestation, a significant amount of money as well as new models for forest use are needed.
4. The ideals of REDD rest on the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities."
When considering and evaluating REDD projects, a few key elements need to discussed. First, there is the question of the funding source: public or private? Or will the money come from carbon markets?
What about the scale: should the projects be run at the national or sub-national level? Projects at the national level solve the problem of leakage (i.e. deforestation simply moving to an area not covered by REDD or otherwise protected) within the country, but they are often slowed by bureaucracy or corruption. Projects at the regional level are often favored by the private sector, but leakage, this time between countries, can be a significant problem.
Mr. Cenamo said that there are currently 17 REDD projects in Latin America covering a total area of over 15 million hectares. Many of these projects are still in their initial phases, but the projects for which there is already reliable data have sequestered millions of tons of C02. However, several challenges still confront the REDD framework, such as the problem of accounting, establishing baselines, and deciding on a timeline.
Outside of these technical policy issues, Mr. Cenamo reminded the panel that deforestation is fundamentally spurred by economic drivers. In the Amazon, the primary drivers include cattle-raising (Mr. Cenamo noted that the burgeoning global middle class is fueling an increased demand for meat) and soy production. Also, Mr. Cenamo argued that the lack of public concern of climate change amounts to a huge barrier for establishing the political will for national or regional action. He cited polling done by the firm Latin Barometer, which found that respondents mentioned the economy and national security as their main concerns, with climate change not being mentioned. One connection that Mr. Cenamo did not explicitly make, however, is that climate change is a huge economic and national security issue, and that if the general public in Latin America begins to to see it in those terms, then substantial progress could be made on issues of deforestation.
After this initial presentation focused on REDD, the subject shifted to more general information about climate change in Latin America. The speakers, representatives of a coalition of environmental NGOs in Latin America, reiterated that the biggest challenge that this region faces is education. Right now, climate change is simply not an important issue for the general public. Many people are not aware of the urgency of the problem, and there does not seem to be a good system to distribute information. Because of this, politicians are, for the most part, uninterested.
However, there does seem to be hope. Their coalition has begun to organize national workshops on climate change in various countries, with the hopes of educating and uniting the people in order to stimulate interest and motivation for solving these problems.
After attending this side event, it will definitely be easier to understand future discussions and events relating to REDD, which is one of the many contentious topics being dealt with this week.
Copenhagen Climate Protest
This was one of the most exciting events I attended and yes it was the same protest where hundreds of demonstrators were detained on the streets for 6 hours, but I was lucky and didn't get caught up with that. I met up with the protest in one of the many starting points and as we moved on the different groups converged in route to the Bella center. I found it very surprising how many different people were there. They estimated 25,000 would show up but estimates guess that there were around 100,000 protesters in the demonstration. I was also surprised with how so many of the people weren't simply Danish but from all over Europe and the world. Many of these people in the march had come to Copenhagen to show their support for this issue even if they did not have access to get into COP15. Many of the climate activists are simply attending other side conferences like Klimaforum and they have come from equally far distances.
As for those demonstrators who were detained there are many rumors going around. Apparently there was one group of more radical protesters who wanted to break through into the Bella Center so the Danish police needed to stop this. These demonstrators we also wearing masks which apparently illegal in Denmark and gave just cause to detain them with a roadblock in the protest route. However many peaceful protesters also got caught up in this and were stuck out in the cold. One of the side events I attended later that day had one of the speakers come in late because he was stuck out in the street due to the roadblocks. It is a very interesting situation becuase in some ways the Danish police need to respond to more hardcore protesters but so many were peaceful protesters who had to be stuck within the mess. If you want to see my pictures from the parade you can follow the link below:
http://picasaweb.google.com/mramlow18/CopenhagenProtestMarch#
As for those demonstrators who were detained there are many rumors going around. Apparently there was one group of more radical protesters who wanted to break through into the Bella Center so the Danish police needed to stop this. These demonstrators we also wearing masks which apparently illegal in Denmark and gave just cause to detain them with a roadblock in the protest route. However many peaceful protesters also got caught up in this and were stuck out in the cold. One of the side events I attended later that day had one of the speakers come in late because he was stuck out in the street due to the roadblocks. It is a very interesting situation becuase in some ways the Danish police need to respond to more hardcore protesters but so many were peaceful protesters who had to be stuck within the mess. If you want to see my pictures from the parade you can follow the link below:
http://picasaweb.google.com/mramlow18/CopenhagenProtestMarch#
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice
This afternoon I attended the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice which was one of the formal meeting of the UN. It was very exciting to see all of the representatives from each country there in attendance but found the formality of the meeting not so much. These meetings are really just the culmination of all the bargaining and negotiations that occur behind the scenes. The chair would introduce the agenda items that had been written in smaller negotiation groups beforehand and unless someone at the last minute chose to speak out against a bill (which never happened at this time) she would simply pass it with a simple tap of the gavel. I found it quite disappointing how much of this isn't visible to the public but also shows how much of the work really is driven by groups of countries arguing on similar platforms trying to work out the issues.
While upfront it didn't seem too monumental it was a big accomplishment because they all approved REDD (reduced emissions through deforestation and forest degradation) and the Nairobi work program. Another thing I found interesting is everybody speaking simply read off a sheet because of all the formalities and even those trying to give slightly impassioned speeches. At the end they allow NGOs to have the floor and some of them expressed their concerns that REDD takes away rights from indigenous forest people and marginalized people which is an important concern. This meeting also forwarded CCS technologies within a CDM framework but I haven't gotten a hold of the actual text to see everything that includes. Overall I found it very informative to see how the UN works but you don't really see too much happening.
While upfront it didn't seem too monumental it was a big accomplishment because they all approved REDD (reduced emissions through deforestation and forest degradation) and the Nairobi work program. Another thing I found interesting is everybody speaking simply read off a sheet because of all the formalities and even those trying to give slightly impassioned speeches. At the end they allow NGOs to have the floor and some of them expressed their concerns that REDD takes away rights from indigenous forest people and marginalized people which is an important concern. This meeting also forwarded CCS technologies within a CDM framework but I haven't gotten a hold of the actual text to see everything that includes. Overall I found it very informative to see how the UN works but you don't really see too much happening.
Pics from Copenhagen and COP15
Its not very easy to upload photos to the blog so I wanted to share a link to my Picasa web albums you can access with a link if you want to see what it all looks like here.
http://picasaweb.google.com/mramlow18/
PS Sorry but there are also lots of albums from my previous summer in Hong Kong just ignore those.
http://picasaweb.google.com/mramlow18/
PS Sorry but there are also lots of albums from my previous summer in Hong Kong just ignore those.
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
This is my shout out to everyone back in SANC have fun with your T-shirt making today but here’s my early Christmas present for you, a piece on CCS. I found it very interesting how most of the panelist who presented were pretty doubtful of CCS even though most of them are devoted to the field in one way or another. As I was lucky enough to get a chance to meet up with Jennie Stephens, one of the presenters and a professor at Clark University, and talk with her a bit on SANC’s stance with CCS.
CCS in Industrialized Nations- It was interesting to find that much of the promotion of CCS is very recent stemming largely from 2005 when it was included as a possible mitigation strategy in the IPCC report. However they agreed with much of the research we had done in SANC that there is almost no evidence of CCS currently working as a mitigation strategy. They also mentioned some of the various technologies CCS can emcompass but really only the first one is being widely pursued:
-CCS with large combustions centers (AKA coal plants)
-CCS used with hydrogen fuel cells to create a cleaner transportation sector
-BECCS or using CCS along with biofuels to create negative carbon emissions
-direct draw-down of CO2 from the atmosphere
Positions on CCS
1) Enthusiasts- Argue we need to pursue all mitigation technologies
2) Reluctants- Believe there really isn’t anyway to avoid CCS so we might as well do it
3) Critics- Argue CCS is a dangerous distraction keeping us away from a clean energy future (guess where I fall)
CCS and the Public- CCS is a unique case because it has been widely promoted and claims are made before any of the proof that it works has been demonstrated. There also is a large gap between the international CCS community and public discourse. This is a major problem because CCS involves large investment (most likely need some funding from the public sector) and community acceptance of CCS technology. The only way to correct this is to provide more transparency on CCS projects and not hide any negative results, so that the public can fully understand the issue.
Economics of CCS- CCS is a heavy technology involving much capital investments in large-scale projects. The presenters also argued that the price of carbon is more important in driving CCS technology development because the high the price of carbon gets the quicker technology will be pursued. CCS simply is a very risk investment because we don’t know how effective the technology will become or more important how quickly it will develop. They proposed that some countries have already put much blind faith in CCS and will likely invest much public funding to support this because they believe it to be a necessary step even though we have no evidence of that. (ie the US)
CCS and Fossil Fuel Lock-In- One of the most critical aspects of CCS is that it is strongly coupled with fossil fuels and one of the main ways to keep the fossil fuel economy alive. Not to bash on our old New Haven inventors but in many ways I would say CCS is equivalent to cotton gin's relationship to slavery. One way to decouple CCS from fossil fuels is BECCS or CCS with biofuels but as mentioned in previous posts biofuels have their own issues.
-one of my favorite quotes from the presentation was, “CCS shouldn’t be included into our carbon mitigation strategies because we are likely to look back 50 years from now and regret all the time wasted on CCS development”.
Talk with Jen Stephens- She had made the argument that CCS research needed to be more transparent to gain any public trust. When I talked with her afterwards she stressed how many NGOs were having a difficult time creating a stance on CCS. Overall she agreed that CCS is being framed in many national policies as an essential transition energy but you simply cannot ignore the huge amount of research and capital that will need to be paid for in part by the public sector when we already know that alternative energy is much more desirable for carbon mitigation.
CCS in Industrialized Nations- It was interesting to find that much of the promotion of CCS is very recent stemming largely from 2005 when it was included as a possible mitigation strategy in the IPCC report. However they agreed with much of the research we had done in SANC that there is almost no evidence of CCS currently working as a mitigation strategy. They also mentioned some of the various technologies CCS can emcompass but really only the first one is being widely pursued:
-CCS with large combustions centers (AKA coal plants)
-CCS used with hydrogen fuel cells to create a cleaner transportation sector
-BECCS or using CCS along with biofuels to create negative carbon emissions
-direct draw-down of CO2 from the atmosphere
Positions on CCS
1) Enthusiasts- Argue we need to pursue all mitigation technologies
2) Reluctants- Believe there really isn’t anyway to avoid CCS so we might as well do it
3) Critics- Argue CCS is a dangerous distraction keeping us away from a clean energy future (guess where I fall)
CCS and the Public- CCS is a unique case because it has been widely promoted and claims are made before any of the proof that it works has been demonstrated. There also is a large gap between the international CCS community and public discourse. This is a major problem because CCS involves large investment (most likely need some funding from the public sector) and community acceptance of CCS technology. The only way to correct this is to provide more transparency on CCS projects and not hide any negative results, so that the public can fully understand the issue.
Economics of CCS- CCS is a heavy technology involving much capital investments in large-scale projects. The presenters also argued that the price of carbon is more important in driving CCS technology development because the high the price of carbon gets the quicker technology will be pursued. CCS simply is a very risk investment because we don’t know how effective the technology will become or more important how quickly it will develop. They proposed that some countries have already put much blind faith in CCS and will likely invest much public funding to support this because they believe it to be a necessary step even though we have no evidence of that. (ie the US)
CCS and Fossil Fuel Lock-In- One of the most critical aspects of CCS is that it is strongly coupled with fossil fuels and one of the main ways to keep the fossil fuel economy alive. Not to bash on our old New Haven inventors but in many ways I would say CCS is equivalent to cotton gin's relationship to slavery. One way to decouple CCS from fossil fuels is BECCS or CCS with biofuels but as mentioned in previous posts biofuels have their own issues.
-one of my favorite quotes from the presentation was, “CCS shouldn’t be included into our carbon mitigation strategies because we are likely to look back 50 years from now and regret all the time wasted on CCS development”.
Talk with Jen Stephens- She had made the argument that CCS research needed to be more transparent to gain any public trust. When I talked with her afterwards she stressed how many NGOs were having a difficult time creating a stance on CCS. Overall she agreed that CCS is being framed in many national policies as an essential transition energy but you simply cannot ignore the huge amount of research and capital that will need to be paid for in part by the public sector when we already know that alternative energy is much more desirable for carbon mitigation.
Satellite Observations Contributing to Global Earth System Monitoring
This was an exciting presentation because it included Nobel Bell Prize Recipient, Paul Crutzen, who received the prize for his work on ozone chemistry in the atmosphere. However the presentation seemed a bit much for Mr. Crutzen who was a very nice old man but who probably wasn’t in his best shape to give a large presentation at COP, but we were all very gracious of his efforts. He actually coined the term for the latest geological era the Anthropocene due to the large effect human have on the global environment in modern years. Most of the speakers for this event simply presented on some of the chemicals being measured by their satellites and the importance of have a system set up for continuous monitoring so when one satellite goes out of commission we have another to keep the data stream coming. Much of this data is important in modeling climate and understanding future patterns for storm intensity, cloud albedo –feedback, and precipitation patterns. They also touched upon how satellite can play important role in monitoring changes in forestry. They also mentioned the possibility of geoengineering schemes but those should only be implemented when we pass the threshold of 2-3 degrees of warming.
REDD in the Real World
REDD (Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) is clearly one of the biggest subjects at COP15 and is very likely to be in the final resolutions here. Most of the presenters here all came from an agency who had just published a comprehensive study of REDD and were very knowledgeable on the subject:
REDD- A new way to manage forests by linking it with carbon markets to value its various services. Much of REDD was designed by looking at what wasn’t working to prevent past deforestation. However it isn’t a foolproof solution and is limited by weak tenure laws in some countries, corruption, decentralization of forestry management, and it really need to push for transformational reforms that won’t always occur.
GOFC- Again I was bad and never actually saw what GOFC stood for until I looked it up later (Global Observation of Forests and Land Cover Dynamics) but they ensure effective satellite measurement of global forests. They provide technical approaches to assess REDD, support countries developing programs, and link monitoring, reporting, and verification with national policy. They try to train people in lesser developed nations to monitor on their own.
Measurements- I found it very interests how many different aspect they try to monitor but it includes:
-deforestation rates
-reforestation rates
-permanence of carbon within designated conserved sites
-changes in forests carbon levels when management practice change
-Some other good points were that deforestation is easy to define but degradation is very broad and could include forest fires, agricultural damages to forests, poor forestry management, etc.
-Also the idea the REDD must not only monitor, report, and verify carbon but should apply those same principles to management and implementation plans too.
REDD- A new way to manage forests by linking it with carbon markets to value its various services. Much of REDD was designed by looking at what wasn’t working to prevent past deforestation. However it isn’t a foolproof solution and is limited by weak tenure laws in some countries, corruption, decentralization of forestry management, and it really need to push for transformational reforms that won’t always occur.
GOFC- Again I was bad and never actually saw what GOFC stood for until I looked it up later (Global Observation of Forests and Land Cover Dynamics) but they ensure effective satellite measurement of global forests. They provide technical approaches to assess REDD, support countries developing programs, and link monitoring, reporting, and verification with national policy. They try to train people in lesser developed nations to monitor on their own.
Measurements- I found it very interests how many different aspect they try to monitor but it includes:
-deforestation rates
-reforestation rates
-permanence of carbon within designated conserved sites
-changes in forests carbon levels when management practice change
-Some other good points were that deforestation is easy to define but degradation is very broad and could include forest fires, agricultural damages to forests, poor forestry management, etc.
-Also the idea the REDD must not only monitor, report, and verify carbon but should apply those same principles to management and implementation plans too.
Developing Carbon Markets Post 2012
This isn’t reference 2012 because of the Mayan apocalypse but because that is when the clean development mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol will have to be reestablished. This was an interesting presentation given from numerous carbon certification programs and carbon economists. It was mostly assessing how effective the Clean Development Mechanism CDM was from Kyoto and how much we should continue it:
Gold Standard- One of the current NGOs certifying carbon credits which primarily looks at renewable energy, additionality, sustainable development, and can provide third party audits. One of their biggest challenges was getting carbon markets set up in the third world where they need to train people to monitor and measure carbon, and set up programs.
Scaling up the CDM- Another of the speakers focused on some of the major issues with the CDM and the ways it has failed. The biggest concerns were:
1) Who has the incentives to set robust baselines for carbon to compare with
2) How much are emissions actually being reduced, fake carbon credits
3) Risks with price uncertainty in carbon
Governance Challenges- This speaker’s argument (I was bad and forgot to write down everyone’s name and organization) was that domestic markets must be connected in effective ways and we much set up carbon markets from both the top down and bottom up. Linking should occur when markets have similar price caps, ex post adjustments, borrowing, continuity, and absolute vs relative caps. Some of the biggest challenges are market integration and convergence, environmental performance and integrity, and market efficiency and integrity
World Trade Organization as a Model- A women from the WTO also presented on how the WTO could serve as a model for linking markets. Her main points were any systems developed must have agreement on essential design schemes from all parties, it must guarantee environmental effectiveness, it must have way to deal with parties changing their markets, and it must have dispute mechanisms between parties.
-One final question that was brought up near the end was where we should continue thinking of carbon as a commodity or if we should treat carbon as a currency.
An Integrated Science and Policy Approach for Real Impact
I was not as impressed with this presentation because I was hoping is was actually sticking to the title but was primarily concerned with economical analysis and made many commonly thrown around assumptions used by policy makers like nuclear and biofuels are just as desirable as any other renewable energy source. Here is a breakdown of their presentation:
Numerous models out there but they can all be related within their values for:
-cost concepts (engineering costs, social costs, private costs)
- baseline assumptions (future economic development, efficiency improvements)
-assumed implementation periods
Developing Nations- How can we create a system that includes developing nations to set commitments that are still “fair”. Industrialized nations will have to reduce emissions 100% to get even remotely “fair” agreements.
-all of the policy solutions they proposed had a target of 450ppm carbon not 350
-admitted that a carbon market can only reach so many of the emission targets
-when should we set the target for emissions to peak, and whenever that is developed countries really need to get the ball rolling to reach it.
The one most scientific aspects of this talk I enjoyed was a proposal of how we really shouldn't even describe this as managing climate but even more broadly there are 9 basic earth systems we must always consider as a whole because nothing is isolated from the others:
1) Climate Change
2) Ozone Depletion
3) Atmospheric Aerosol Loading
4) Global Freshwater Use
5) Ocean Acidification
6) Chemical Pollution
7) Land System Change
8) Rate of Biodiversity Loss
9) Biogeochemical Loading: N and P supplies
Numerous models out there but they can all be related within their values for:
-cost concepts (engineering costs, social costs, private costs)
- baseline assumptions (future economic development, efficiency improvements)
-assumed implementation periods
Developing Nations- How can we create a system that includes developing nations to set commitments that are still “fair”. Industrialized nations will have to reduce emissions 100% to get even remotely “fair” agreements.
-all of the policy solutions they proposed had a target of 450ppm carbon not 350
-admitted that a carbon market can only reach so many of the emission targets
-when should we set the target for emissions to peak, and whenever that is developed countries really need to get the ball rolling to reach it.
The one most scientific aspects of this talk I enjoyed was a proposal of how we really shouldn't even describe this as managing climate but even more broadly there are 9 basic earth systems we must always consider as a whole because nothing is isolated from the others:
1) Climate Change
2) Ozone Depletion
3) Atmospheric Aerosol Loading
4) Global Freshwater Use
5) Ocean Acidification
6) Chemical Pollution
7) Land System Change
8) Rate of Biodiversity Loss
9) Biogeochemical Loading: N and P supplies
Agriculture and Climate: Real Problems False Solutions
The first presentation I went to in Copenhagen actually wasn’t even with COP15 but with Klimaforum09 the people climate summit. Klimaforum is one of numerous other side conferences taking advantage of all the climate-interested people and professionals who are in COP and haven’t numerous talks open to the public. While I felt very overdressed for the event it turned out to be one of my favorite panels of the day because they were the most open to comments from the audience and there were many people from across the world who were quite vocal about their opinions. Below is a summary of some of the main points I got out of this event.
Their main argument was that many of the large scale agriculture solutions currently being proposed by the UN simply are not truly sustainable and often in the interest of agribusiness. Instead they believe local solutions are the answer and the best way to make agriculture more sustainable and sequester carbon is to engage farmers locally. (As you can tell Klimaforum was clearly the hippier version of COP put on by NGOs but most of the presenters and even audience members were well versed in agricultural research and gave firsthand accounts) Some of the proposed false solutions they brought up were:
Biochar-Biochar involved growing forests to sequester carbon then converting them into charcoal and burying the charcoal to provide a carbon sink, essentially creating fossil fuels that we won’t use. The problem is that creating biochar can actually produce up to 30% black carbon and most importantly will destroy many additional acres of land to create biochar. Some audience member brought up valid points that on the local level this could be very sustainable but many people said the same thing about biofuels and that evolved into a very inefficient industrial agricultural problem.
GM Crops- Their biggest concern with GM crops were that much of the research in GM crop show that they actually don’t increase yields nearly as much as they claim and they often are accompanied by massive herbicide use (if this plant can survive chemical X then we can duse the field in it to kill all the weeds). Also they brought up how GM crop require much energy to develop.
Seed Intellectual Property Rights- Seeds these days often don’t come from plants but instead from contracts. Much of modern agriculture is controlled by these seed manufacturers who have managed to do wonders in creating seeds to make bigger crops with higher yields and many other fun accessories but to fund all this research they must sell these seeds away. Even after farmers buy the seeds they cannot save them and replant them next year because many of them have been made so that the 2nd generation seeds are ineffective and they must buy more. This can be a major problem in undeveloped nations where farmers can use the seed technology but can’t afford the high costs of the seeds and if they can must risk everything to keep up with the contracts. They also argued this seed manufacturing decreases crop biodiversity and we should involve farmers in the process of creating new seed varieties. While in many ways seed intellectual property rights are injust and corrupt they never really addressed how seed companies would be able to continue producing the seeds they do if they converted to some of these new programs.
Biofuels- Many of us have already heard this argument and it wasn’t discussed in too much depth but still must be address because it is on the much of the negotiation table at COP but biofuels simply rely too heavily on fossil fuels for their production and they keep promising technological breakthroughs but it seems to be eternally 5 years down the road.
There were also some interesting points about how they were working to engage women in some of the agricultural decision making in countries where women still cannot own land, and how many programs support some of the farming rituals or practices of elders which have underlying sound ecological principals allowing for sustainable agriculture.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
