Advertisement

Archive for Monday, November 30, 2009

Upfront money needed to ease climate deal

November 30, 2009

Advertisement

— Money on the table — perhaps $10 billion a year or more — could help close a deal in Denmark next month and keep climate talks moving toward a new global treaty in 2010. But if poorer nations see too little offered upfront, the U.N. conference could end in discord.

The money would help developing countries cope with ocean flooding, drought and other effects of climate change, while also helping them cut down on emissions of global-warming gases. The funds might eventually come from new sources, such as a tax on airline flights, but negotiators for now are seeking quicker infusions.

“Rich countries must put at least $10 billion a year on the table to kick-start immediate action up to 2012,” the U.N. climate chief, Yvo de Boer, told reporters last week in a preview of the two-week conference opening next Monday in Copenhagen.

His goal gathered backing in recent days, including from French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Britain’s Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who said his nation would contribute $1.3 billion over three years.

“The rest of Europe will do so,” Brown told a Commonwealth summit in Trinidad on Friday. “And I believe America will do so as well.”

U.S. President Barack Obama and the Chinese leadership energized lagging climate talks last week by announcing modest targets for controlling their countries’ emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases blamed for warming the atmosphere.

Although talks will now be extended, Copenhagen was originally meant to culminate years of negotiation centered on two pillars: emissions reductions and financial aid for developing countries to adapt to climate change.

Binding agreement?

The proposed emissions targets by industrialized nations for 2020 — and China’s plan to slow emissions growth — fall short of what scientists say is needed to head off damaging climate change. But if developing nations accept the quick-start financing, a deal might be reached at Copenhagen on a framework for putting all elements in a binding agreement next year, with an eye toward deeper emissions cuts and heftier financing beyond that.

“Short-term finance would be used as an opportunity to get a political buy-in for the other elements of an agreement,” said Athena Ballesteros, a climate-finance expert at the Washington think tank World Resources Institute.

The needs are becoming increasingly clear.

An international scientific update last week said changes are happening faster than anticipated. Global temperatures are rising by 0.34 degrees Fahrenheit per decade, pushing the world into a time of climate disruption, species die-off and expanding seas. Oceans are rising by 0.13 inches per year, faster than predicted.

“It threatens to submerge the Maldives. My country would not survive,” Mohamed Nasheed, president of that low-lying Indian Ocean island nation, told a conference of vulnerable nations earlier this month.

Offers of assistance thus far have been “so low, it is like arriving at an earthquake zone with a dustpan and brush,” Nasheed said.

Uses for money

In scores of nations, money will be needed to build coastal protection, modify or shift crops threatened by drought, build water supply and irrigation systems, preserve forests, improve health care to deal with diseases spread by warming, and move from fossil-fuel to low-carbon energy systems, such as solar and wind power.

The World Bank estimates adaptation costs alone will total $75 billion to $100 billion a year over the next 40 years. The cost of mitigation — reducing carbon emissions in poorer nations — will add tens of billions to that. China and other developing countries say the target should be even higher, in the range of $350 billion.

De Boer’s $10 billion a year to 2012 is barely a start. But “kick-start finance is so important because such finance will allow developing countries to plan,” he told The Associated Press.

In fact, much of the funding would go to “capacity building” — training, planning, getting a fix on needs, local emissions and related concerns.

Upfront money would also help rebuild trust between the rich north and poor south, eroded by years of relative inaction on climate, particularly by the United States.

Climate conference observers expect the European Union to offer most at Copenhagen, perhaps $5 billion a year or more. Japan might contribute $1 billion or more, as would the United States. Appropriations for 2010 totaling some $1 billion to $1.3 billion related to international climate aid are making their way through Congress.

“Quite simply it’s the bottom line for getting a deal,” New Zealand’s Prime Minister John Key said of the financing package, as he pledged up to $50 million on Sunday at a Commonwealth summit in Trinidad.

Obama might use his Dec. 9 drop-by at the Copenhagen conference — on his way to receive the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, Norway — to announce a U.S. offer on financing. Some 80 other presidents and premiers are expected to attend the final days of the conference Dec. 17-18.

Comments

SettingTheRecordStraight 5 years ago

"Upfront money needed to ease climate deal"

"Rich countries must put at least $10 billion a year on the table..."

"...$10 billion a year to 2012 is barely a start."

Are we absolute fools? How much treasure is America willing to waste on corrupt nations, third world warlords and military dictators?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years ago

That's been US policy for decades, STRS, except that historically it's only benefitted neocolonial corporatists and warmongers.

SettingTheRecordStraight 5 years ago

bozo,

Is it not "neocolonial" to prop up failed nation-states with US tax dollars earmarked for global warming when we know that rampant graft and corruption in the third world will simply funnel these billions to more war and genocide?

Godot 5 years ago

First fraud and intimidation, now extortion. What a scam.

Flap Doodle 5 years ago

It's all about getting the $.

(laughter)

Stuart Evans 5 years ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Stuart Evans 5 years ago

lol. let me rephrase

Golly no, we shouldn't be giving any more of our borrowed money to other nations. especially when the climate change in question is not man-made, but a natural cycle of the planet. if there were only some manner of asking mother earth how much money it would take to turn off the natural cycle

is that better?

SettingTheRecordStraight 5 years ago

porch,

Sarcasm and biting humor is one thing, but your insistence on laughing at other posters may indicate a moderate to severe social disorder. You may want to check into that.

Richard Heckler 5 years ago

Reversing global warming will require:

*White Roofs

*97% HVAC systems

*Energy Efficient Windows

*proper insulation

*retail shop owners NOT air conditioning the outside

*Building to LEED specs

*walking

*biking

*driving 36 mpg or better cars the lions share of the time

*computerized thermostats

*wearing sweaters and light jackets inside during winter

*going naked inside/outside if possible during hot summer months

*more socializing and dating on feet and bicycles

*stopping the war and all of the pollution created by hummers,trucks,tanks,low yield radioactive weapons,airplanes/fighter jets,chemical warfare

*cutting grass less often

*developing hydro power,solar power and wind power to the fullest extent

*move closer to work if possible

*stop buying water in plastic bottles/ use stainless steel bottles over and over and over again...will fit into bicycle water bottle cages

*building energy star homes

*making biking and walking surfaces safe to travel

*increased use of public transportation

bankboy119 5 years ago

From merrill,

Reversing global warming will require:

*going naked inside/outside if possible during hot summer months

That made my evening. Thank you, merrill. I will be sure to quote that.

Flap Doodle 5 years ago

"*cutting grass less often" {snort}

jaywalker 5 years ago

STRS,

Specualtion's over. Porch definitely has a severe social disorder, along with numerous other issues.

Which seems more plausible:

The Earth's climate is shifting naturally like it has countless times over the course of billiions of years...

or..

Man has drastically effected the Earth's climate in about 150 years since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

Flap Doodle 5 years ago

"This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998. But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures. And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm They fudge the ending of the article, but the first three paragraphs tell the tale. {tee hee}

Godot 5 years ago

Algore will invent time travel; he will travel to and return from the future and tell us that we must learn to use less oxygen, as it will be in short supply in the future. Then he will set up an exchange where the rich can buy oxygen credits from the poor and sell them to other rich people, (from which he will earn a commission on each transaction). He will win a Nobel prize for his effort, as the world population will have magically been cut by 75% since most of the poor will have sold their right to breathe to oxygen hedge funds, and oxygen will have, once again, become plentiful, blessing the chosen ones, such as those on the Nobel committee.

jaywalker 5 years ago

"Want to see the graphs? They're all over the Internet."

Graphs on the internet? Now I'm convinced.

BigPrune 5 years ago

porch_person, Are you the guy that was keeping a severed human foot in a jar on your porch?

(laughter)

leedavid 5 years ago

Looks like someone has been cooking the books on climate change data:

Lord Christopher Monckton, former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's key science adviser, wrote at Pajamas Media that society should jump directly to prosecutions of those responsible.

He earlier warned that an upcoming global warming summit in Copenhagen is laying the groundwork for a one-world government.

He said the "scientists" delivered a "global warming" fraud.

"I am angry, and so should you be," Monckton said.

"The tiny, close-knit clique of climate scientists who invented and now drive the 'global warming' fraud – for fraud is what we now know it to be – tampered with temperature data so assiduously that, on the recent admission of one of them, land temperatures since 1980 have risen twice as fast as ocean temperatures. One of the thousands of e-mails recently circulated by a whistleblower at the University of East Anglia, where one of the world's four global-temperature datasets is compiled, reveals that data were altered so as to prevent a recent decline in temperature from showing in the record. In fact, there has been no statistically significant 'global warming' for 15 years – and there has been rapid and significant cooling for nine years," he wrote.

"In effect, the global temperature trends have simply been made up," he said.

"Finally, these huckstering snake-oil salesmen and 'global warming' profiteers – for that is what they are – have written to each other encouraging the destruction of data that had been lawfully requested under the Freedom of Information Act in the U.K. by scientists who wanted to check whether their global temperature record had been properly compiled."

Source: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=117017

I know its the World Net Daily, however I did use a direct quote. So we can't trust the data from the left, because we now know they made it all upl

Flap Doodle 5 years ago

porchie, go back under your bridge & wait for the Three Billy Goats Gruff.

jaywalker 5 years ago

"Want to provide your own graphs? Or any data at all that refutes global warming?"

Provide my own graphs? Oh, like the ones you provided before that particular post? Bupkiss, right? Nice. And I know you're not playing with a full deck, so I'll just say you're "confused" if you "think" I've somehow been trying to refute global warming. But there are more than 30,000 scientists that have formed a coalition that refutes the "man-made global warming"/could humans be more arrogant movement, 9k of them w/ PhD's. Should be easy to look up, even for a simpleton like yourself. Now, if you'd like to actually post something with some semblance of substance, for a refreshing change that is, instead of cackling like the megalomaniacal fool you are, perhaps you might have your first ever 'conversation' on these boards. But that would require intelligence, porchie. Sorry, I know that's nowhere near your strong suit.

Chris Golledge 5 years ago

R. LeeDavid 5:30 a.m

Monckton is a master word-smith.

"...former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's key science adviser..."

I believe he advised a committee which in turn advised Thatcher; not sure this qualifies as Thatcher's key adviser.

"...tampered with temperature data so assiduously that, on the recent admission of one of them, land temperatures since 1980 have risen twice as fast as ocean temperatures."

This is a curious use of the words 'tamper' and 'admission'. The ocean distributes its heat to depth much more effectively that the land; it's a better heat sink. There is nothing to tamper or admit to; it's just the way it is.

"...reveals that data were altered so as to prevent a recent decline in temperature from showing in the record."

There are two broad categories of altering data, valid and invalid. An example of 'valid' would be if you have good reason to believe that one of you instruments has a reading bias, like if you have half a dozen instruments all reading very close to each other and another that is consistently higher or lower than the others by a wide margin. An 'invalid' example would be if you change the data for the purpose of supporting your position. Monckton implies the latter without really saying so, or providing a counter to the justification used to alter the original data, to my knowledge.

"...there has been rapid and significant cooling for nine years..."

Well, depending on which data set you pick and exactly where you pick your endpoints, you can get a mean difference of +/- ~0.02 degrees C over the last 10 years. In comparison, it is still about 0.45 degrees C warmer than it was 70 years ago (~1940, a local maximum warm year). Even compared with a conservatively low trend period, it'd be hard to say that anything has been "...rapid and significant..." over the last nine years.

Here, play with some graphs; knock yourself out.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:120/plot/uah/last:120/plot/rss/last:120/plot/gistemp/last:120/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:120/trend/plot/uah/last:120/trend/plot/rss/last:120/trend/plot/gistemp/last:120/trend

If you want to argue that global warming ended 1998 or later, based on a recent trend, you should also be prepared to argue that it ended in ~1941, 1950, 1960, 1971, 1982, and 1989, based on the short-term trends after those years.

Take whatever you hear from Viscount Monckton with a grain of salt.

Chris Golledge 5 years ago

Porch, Yeah, but to me it is more sad, because he is a polarizing influence, an influence in creating a division between various factor proponents. It may well be that the CO2 proponents can learn a few things from the solar people, and others, and vice versa. But when positions become encamped and divided, they don't listen to each other as much as maybe they should. The big wave appears to be CO2, but the smaller waves appear to matter as well. Planning for the future might be better served if some of the smaller waves were better understood.

Godot 5 years ago

Phil Jones has been suspended, and Michael Mann is under investigation.

Anthropogenic Global Warming has been exposed as a hoax, a fraud, a scam.

Obama must mobilze a cadre of grief and trauma counselors to fan out to university campii across the country to aid the traumatized AGW believers, and help them come to terms with reality lest they resort to violence. It will be tough, and may require years and years of counseling to overcome the shock of having their religious-like beliefs exposed to reason. Homeland Security must be alerted to the danger of AGW believers who are now affected by PTSD (Post Truth Sucks Dysfunction).who might become enraged and wreak havoc upon society as they wrestle with the tension between an irrational belief system and the truth.

leedavid 5 years ago

Seems like all the charts and graphs are corrupt, not accurate. I know we like to talk about academic research and all. "Academic research" that term cracks me up. A bunch of professional students graduate, then teach college, never work in the field, their field is the classroom. And we are just supposed to take their word for it. Then the facts come out:

Global Warming Scandal Makes Scientific Progress More Difficult, Experts Say

"The GISS and NOAA reports suffer from the same reliability concerns as the CRU ground-based temperature reports," Taylor says. "And, more importantly, are similarly staffed by outspoken global warming activists who are likely engaging in the same data rigging and data hiding as CRU."

What makes this all interesting, what with the north and south poles melting.....where is the water going? Al Gore says there will be massive flooding. Water levels are down, they should be up with all the reported ice melting, and their would be more rain and hurricanes as a result, but both are down world wide. So I ask again...where is the water? Let us go to our "academic research" people for the answer. Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578368,00.html

leedavid 5 years ago

cg22165 I apologize, I did not realize you replied to me. What are your thoughts given the data you provided, that data had been fudged and the original data collected has been destroyed?

Penn State Will Investigate 'Climategate'

"Climate change opponents say the E-mails indicate that climate change researchers—including Penn State Prof. Michael Mann—exaggerated or fabricated global warming data. And, according to the report, some E-mails indicate that the director of the research unit in question may have contacted researchers and asked them to "delete certain E-mails."

Source: http://www.usnews.com/blogs/paper-trail/2009/11/30/penn-state-will-investigate-climategate.html

In the normal course of events if I brought you data and my conclusion, the data was fabricated....what would happen to the reliablity of my conclusion?

Flap Doodle 5 years ago

mario, is uptownbulker still getting spanked over on the blackhat forum?

Commenting has been disabled for this item.