| While Australians grapple with the idea of putting a price on carbon, in many developing countries the choice looks more like a trade-off between national development out of poverty and global action to limit climate change.
In developing countries, greenhouse gas emissions don't primarily gush from power stations but from land-use: from the forest burning traditions of subsistence farmers in Asia to the large scale clearing of forest in South America to produce commodities for export.
The global community is now asking for limits on this expansion. Industrialised nations in their own interests spent 200 years creating wealth through burning fossil fuels, but now require the rest of the world to act for the global good.
Indonesian president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono passed a two-year moratorium last month on logging concessions. African nations are working with the World Bank's Biocarbon Fund to pursue funds from the sale of carbon sequestration - locked-up forests - while vast areas of cultivatable land on the African continent are being secured by nations from elsewhere for food production.
As Professor Ross Garnaut terms it, climate change is a diabolical problem which can only be dealt with through difficult international efforts. But are we in Australia really conscious of the price billions of the world's poorest face?
Australia, like many industrialised countries, is heavily dependent on coal-fired power. And exporting coal has kept our economy buoyant. As a nation we are grappling to find the least-cost ways to cut greenhouse pollution without harming our lifestyles.
But the world is shifting. A decade ago, China consumed 11 per cent of the world's energy; in 2010 it consumed 20.3 per cent of an increased global energy sector, making it the biggest energy consumer on the planet, according to a report in last week's Economist. In 2000 China used about a third of the world's coal; in 2010 it was close to 50 per cent, its economy the second largest.
Wouldn't there be justification for not only China, Brazil, India and Indonesia, but also the whole African continent, central and South East Asia to choose to pursue carbon-heavy industrialisation as their means to climb out of poverty? To emulate countries like Australia? In the process they are likely to eliminate the prospect that the world could limit escalating CO2 levels and the subsequent dangerous consequences of climate change that would, scientists tell us, be the result.
Even so, their pledges to act to reduce carbon pollution are substantial. If they proceed as they promise, the emission reductions of China, India, South Africa and Brazil - the BASIC countries - may eclipse the cuts proposed so far by the seven biggest developed countries the US, Europe, Japan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Russia by 2020.
It is clear the world needs to cooperate. According to Dr Simon Lewis, a tropical forest expert from the University of Leeds, if the forests of the Amazon were all removed for example to build Brazil's food exports - this would perhaps add 100-200 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere. Globally emissions now run at about 10 billion tonnes, so we would add 10-20 years worth of today's level of emissions. Brazil's income would rise, but there would be global consequences And these fall primarily on those who can least afford it, and least cope.
World Vision's work is among the poorest of these nations. We seek the well-being of all children, so they can enjoy ''life in all its fullness''.
We are partnering with communities to create greater prosperity in ways that sustain their livelihoods by protecting the lands they depend on.
In Ethiopia, seven small communities have banded together and restored degraded hills that is now providing more food, fodder and fuel, and the captured carbon is being sold through the World Bank.
Energy-efficient stoves mean fewer forests are cut down for fuel, and less pollution affecting families and the atmosphere.
Despite the dashing of expectations at Copenhagen, the world must pursue an agreement that helps lift poor communities from poverty but which also cuts greenhouse pollution.
Justice demands that wealthy countries who have profited from the market failure of carbon pollution ought to shoulder the biggest burden to clean it up. For Australia it means doing our fair share. (BY TIM COSTELLO)
Tim Costello is chief executive of World Vision Australia and will be a panellist at the One Just World forum in Canberra tonight at the National Library of Australia at 6pm.
Source: The Canberra Times
Some rights for the image is reserved under Creative Commons license
|
|
|
| (Reuters) - The world is off course in fighting climate change and governments need to boost green energies to build new momentum, the head of the U.N. panel of climate scientists said on Monday.
Rajendra Pachauri said governments would face ever higher costs to slow global warming after new data showed greenhouse gas emissions rose to new highs in 2010.
"We're not on the right track," he told the June 13-15 Reuters Energy and Climate Summit in a telephone interview, adding "we are far away from" a path of least cost in slowing global warming.
The International Energy Agency said last month world emissions of carbon dioxide rose by 5.9 percent to a record high in 2010 as many economies rebounded from recession. Global warming could bring more floods, droughts, heatwaves and rising seas.
Pachauri, an Indian citizen, said the outlook was not all gloom if governments designed policies to promote cleaner energies such as wind, solar, geothermal and hydropower.
Stronger policies to promote a shift from fossil fuels "could bring about fairly rapid movement in the right direction ... One expects that there could be some kind of snowballing effect," he said.
"Renewables are already viable in a number of applications," he said. At some level of promotion such as government regulation, subsidies or feed-in tariffs of minimum prices, a shift from fossil fuels could become self-sustaining.
"It's essentially a question of policies by which the world starts moving in the right direction," he said. "We have the means, we have the technologies."
80 PERCENT
A report by Pachauri's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) last month said renewables could provide up to almost 80 percent of all energy by 2050 -- with the right policies. At worst, they would account for 15 percent by 2050.
Renewables now make up about 13 percent of the world total, which is dominated by fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas.
He said renewables often lacked risk-taking investments -- noting that oil companies often spent millions of dollars in exploration wells that turned up no oil nor gas.
"Why is it that we are not doing the same with renewable energies where the benefits ... are so overwhelming?" he said.
Pachauri has remained IPCC chairman, weathering controversy in 2010 after an error in the IPCC report exaggerated the rate of melt of the Himalayas. Independent reviews backed the IPCC's main conclusions that global warming is "very likely" man-made.
He said rising emissions complicated efforts to keep to a maximum global average temperature rise of below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 F) over pre-industrial times, agreed by almost 200 governments in Mexico last year.
"One gets the sense that (the trend) is in the upper half" of scenarios considered by the IPCC in a 2007 report, he said. That "upper half" would mean a temperature rise of between 3.2 and 6.1 degrees Celsius.
He faulted governments for failing to act on the 2 degrees Celsius ceiling. The IPCC said in 2007, for instance, that world emissions would have to peak by 2015 to give a good chance of achieving a 2 degree C target.
"I think they just haven't put the pieces together," he said of related scientific findings by the IPCC. "They have just focused on bits and pieces of it ... people have not looked at the complete picture."
And he said "two degrees still has significant impacts on agriculture. Particularly in the sub-tropics and tropics." (By Alister Doyle; Editing by Janet Lawrence)
© Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters
Source: Reuters
Some rights for the image is reserved under Creative Commons license
|
| Last Updated ( Wednesday, 15 June 2011 10:22 ) |
|
| Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon today called on the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) of more than 100 countries to assist in “urgent global action” to combat the threat posed by climate change.
He said climate change was one of three fields “in which joint action by the United Nations and the Non-Aligned Movement is essential.” The others were building a safer world, and fighting extreme poverty.
In remarks to NAM’s 50th anniversary meeting in Bali, delivered by El-Mostafa Benlamlih, United Nations Resident Coordinator in Indonesia, Mr. Ban said that “the threat posed by climate change continues to require urgent global action.”
The Secretary-General told ministers from the member countries of NAM that “governments must implement fully all the agreements made at Cancún, including on climate finance, protecting forests, adaptation, and technology.”
In Cancún last December, at the 16th Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), some 190 countries made commitments to formalize mitigation pledges and ensure increased accountability for them, as well as to take concrete action to tackle deforestation, which account for nearly one fifth of global carbon emissions.
“National efforts on the ground must be accelerated to curb emissions and strengthen climate resilience,” he said. “As always, the UN stands ready to support these efforts, including in the vitally important area of energy access, energy efficiency, and clean energy.”
Turning to the challenge of eliminating extreme poverty, the Secretary-General said: “The budget crisis around the world should not be an excuse to abandon commitments. Now is the time to strengthen the global partnership for development.”
Mr. Ban complimented NAM’s efforts to try to build a safer world through responding early to emerging crises.
“Preventive action is more prudent and principled than waiting to respond to full-blown conflicts. It saves scarce resources and, more importantly, it saves lives. Conflict prevention is also intrinsically linked to our efforts to lift countries from poverty.”
The Secretary-General, noting that the Bali conference marked the 50th anniversary of the NAM, said: “Fifty years ago, many countries were still living under colonialism. The military and ideological competition between the two superpowers threatened unprecedented destruction. Sweeping changes were taking place throughout the world. From its beginning, the Non-Aligned Movement understood that there is no alternative to multilateralism.”
He complimented NAM’s principles of “respect for human rights, equality of all races and all nations, peaceful settlement of disputes, and international cooperation,” and said “a commitment to these universal values led to some of the Movement’s most important achievements, including decolonization and concerted action to resolve many conflicts. While new challenges have emerged, the values at the heart of the Non-Aligned Movement remain relevant today.”
General Assembly President Joseph Deiss, who attended the conference, called on NAM to contribute to advancing the reform process in the UN, according to a statement issued by a spokesperson for the Assembly President.
While in Bali, Mr. Deiss also met with Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, and Marty Natalegawa, the Foreign Minister, to discuss global governance, Security Council reform and Indonesia's chairmanship of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).
On the margins of the NAM conference, Mr. Deiss also met with representatives of Egypt, Thailand, Mauritius, the Palestinians, Senegal, Slovenia, Fiji, Viet Nam, South Africa, Chile, Gabon and Tanzania.
Source: UN News Centre
Some rights for the image is reserved under Creative Commons license
|
| Last Updated ( Wednesday, 15 June 2011 09:54 ) |
|
| The smallest nation in the UN is about to take the AOSIS chair at a time when low-lying coastal countries are gravely threatened
Last month I returned to Nauru, the smallest member of the United Nations and my home. The island is located in the Pacific Ocean close to the equator, about halfway between Hawaii and Australia. Our nearest neighbour is Banaba Island, 300 kilometres to the east. It is one of the most remote places in the world.
I took the opportunity to talk to my community about some of the environmental changes taking place there, and it was a very troubling discussion. The sea around us is getting warmer, droughts have become commonplace, and the coastal erosion is as bad as anyone can remember.
Similar trends are occurring across the Pacific and they have grave implications for the fish stocks we depend on for food, our freshwater supplies, and the very land we live on. Scientists have warned us that the situation will get much worse unless the greenhouse gas pollution responsible for global warming is dramatically reduced.
Thus my government is acutely aware of the responsibility we face when we assume the Chair of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), as the endorsed Pacific candidate when the Chair rotates to our region late this year.
AOSIS is a coalition of 43 islands and low-lying coastal countries from around the world that share similar sustainable development challenges and environmental concerns. The most urgent crisis we face today is climate change.
Under Grenada's leadership, AOSIS has consistently called on the developed world to cut emissions to levels that the science says will give all of our nations the best chance for survival.
This is essential, not just because we are running out of time to take the action needed to avert catastrophe, but because, frankly, there has been a crisis of leadership among the world's biggest economies in addressing the problem they are most responsible for creating.
For example, some countries have still failed to commit to cutting emissions, while others have threatened not to renew their obligations at the end of 2012 when the first commitment period for emission reductions in the Kyoto protocol expires.
It may seem ironic that the countries least responsible for climate change, and the ones most vulnerable to it, would be left to uphold standards of scientific integrity. However, the history of environmental conservation is replete with stories about people who drew a line in the sand against corporations and countries far more wealthy and powerful than them. AOSIS has taken such a stand when it has called for action based on what is necessary, not politically expedient. This will continue when Nauru is chair next year.
In the meantime, the international community must make progress in the following areas, lest the crisis run away from us all.
First, there must be a second commitment period for the Kyoto protocol. The agreement is the best available legal framework to address a global problem as complex and severe as climate change.
Second, the targets set for reducing greenhouse gas emissions are not nearly ambitious enough to mitigate the worst impacts of climate change. In fact, new research shows that faster-than-expected loss of polar ice sheets could mean sea levels rise by more than a metre, which would put cities like New York and London at risk for severe flooding and inundate many of the islands in our region.
Third, developed countries should establish readily accessible sources of climate funding once and for all. The agreement reached last year in Cancun included pledges of $100bn a year by 2020 to help the developing world adapt to climate impacts and adopt clean sources of energy. That sounds like a lot of money, but to put it in perspective, it's about one-third of the revenue of the world's largest oil company in 2010. The World Bank estimates at least that much will be needed for developing countries to cope with droughts, floods, sea level rise, and other climate impacts – and it is still not clear exactly how the money promised will be spent.
Our ability to find a solution to climate change will depend on the choices we make and the values we prioritise. It also depends on who we prioritise – the rich or the poor, the secure or the vulnerable, present generations or future ones.
These decisions will determine whether the future sees a destructive scramble for the world's remaining resources or an equitable sharing of steadily increasing prosperity. Because in the end, we all live on the same island, and how we treat it and each other will settle the fate of humanity. (By Marlene Moses)
• Ambassador Marlene Moses is the permanent representative to the UN for the Republic of Nauru. She lives in New York.
Source: guardian.co.uk
Some rights for the image is reserved under Creative Commons license
|
|
| (Reuters) - Japan's idea for a new carbon offset scheme would complement an existing U.N. mechanism and make it easier for developing countries to access clean-energy technology from Japan, a senior climate envoy said on Wednesday.
Japan has pressed ahead with plans for bilateral deals in which it invests in clean energy projects in developing countries, in exchange for credits to meet part of targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at home.
The United Nations also runs a carbon offset scheme called the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), but it has been criticized for being too complex and rigid while taking too long to approve projects.
Many developing countries have already expressed interest in Japan's proposed bilateral scheme, which would be more user-friendly than the CDM, said Kenji Hiramatsu, director-general for global issues at Japan's foreign ministry.
"We are very mindful that this mechanism will contribute to, to complement the international carbon trading system," Hiramatsu told a seminar hosted by a Japanese think tank.
"How it will be connected to the international system, or CDM system, we are in the process of discussing amongst ourselves but I am convinced that some mechanism should be made."
Europe, whose emissions trading scheme dominates the global carbon market, is also looking at the possibility of bilateral offset deals, while the United States has also floated the idea of bilateral agreements.
But some countries may find it technically difficult to launch marked-based mechanisms outside the existing U.N. framework, the U.N.'s top climate official said.
"I'm not going to say it's impossible but I think it's very complicated to do that," Christiana Figueres, the head of the U.N. climate change secretariat, said in Tokyo this week, referring to mechanisms floated by Japan and the United States.
"It probably unnecessarily complicates the life of those countries. It would be possible but not easy to do. I don't know if there would be political will either."
Figueres, in Japan for an informal meeting of climate envoys from about 30 governments, added that limits on convertibility would lessen the appeal of such offsets when compared to globally traded carbon offsets under the Kyoto Protocol.
Hiramatsu said he was open to discussion on how to improve the CDM scheme.
"I understand some of the elements in the Kyoto Protocol should be incorporated in a new framework," he said.
"We are very happy to engage in this kind of discussion, how to improve the CDM, which may incorporate some new ideas such as a bilateral offset mechanism or even a regional sort of mechanism of a carbon trading system." (By Chisa Fujioka and Risa Maeda; Editing by Michael Watson)
© Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters
Source: Reuters
Some rights for the image is reserved under Creative Commons license
|
|
|
|