Cost-saving, climate change concerns, and a desire to emulate Britain's elite cyclists are all prompting an increasing number of people to abandon the car and take to two wheels
By Susie Mesure
Sunday, 1 August 2010
Britain is on the brink of a freewheeling revolution. A bicycle boom is under way across the UK, with more and more people rediscovering the joy of two wheels rather than four. Sales of bikes have soared and cyclists are travelling further, according to latest figures. The rise of pedal power is poised to accelerate, as cities from Bristol to York invest millions of pounds in new cycling infrastructure.
New government research reveals that the number of miles cycled on average last year leapt 10 per cent, while the average distance rose 17 per cent. While bike sales have gone up by more than 25 per cent in the past three years, spending on new cars fell by 13 per cent in the same period, according to the National Travel Survey.
The upward trend has been most marked in the south of England: 8 per cent of inner London residents and one in 25 workers in the South-east and South-west say they cycle to work, according to the survey, which interviewed around 20,000 people.
But it is not only commuters who are behind the increase. Organisers of sportive events such as the Forest of Dean Classic, held around Monmouth, or next month's Tour of Worcestershire, have reported record demand for places from amateur cycling enthusiasts. It took only seven minutes for 300 extra places for the 190km Verenti Dragon Ride, held in South Wales in June, to sell out, while 4,500 riders saddled up for the 130km Etape Caledonia in Perthshire in May, 50 per cent more than last year.
Patrick Trainor, who promotes sports rides for organisations such as Wheels in Wheels, said cyclists are entering events to test themselves without racing. "Sportives make riding in different places attractive as the route is marked out for you and nutrition and back-up are taken care of," he said. A host of smaller events, including the Independent's own inaugural London to Brighton Bike Ride on 11 September, have sprung up to cater for the increase in interest.
Today the centre of Manchester will be closed to vehicles for one of 13 Sky Rides taking place this year – eight more than last year. Ian Drake, the chief executive of British Cycling, which is supporting the Sky Rides, said: "Cycling is booming and we are seeing an unprecedented growth in the number of people cycling regularly, currently 1.88 million people cycle at least once a week." He added that Sky Rides had prompted more than 100,000 people to "dust off their bikes and explore their city on two wheels". The organisation is aiming to get a million more people cycling regularly by 2013 and said its membership had risen in the past two years to more than 32,000, compared with 22,000 in 2007.
Much of the surge in interest was sparked by Britain's 34 medals in the Beijing Olympics and Paralympics. "Cycling is Britain's most successful sport, and of course there are the health, transport and environmental advantages being promoted by the Government. The recession has also helped encourage people to get on their bikes as a more economic way to travel," a British Cycling spokeswoman added.
The former chief medical officer, Sir Liam Donaldson, last year recommended the Government set national targets to increase travel by bicycle eightfold. Boris Johnson, the bicycling Mayor of London, ultimately wants one in five journeys in the capital to be made by bike – a level not reached since 1904. Today, cycling accounts for only 2 per cent of journeys in the capital.
Evidence of the cycling boom came as Mr Johnson launched his so-called "Boris bikes", 5,000 cycles that can be hired from 315 docking stations across the city by the half-hour for as little as 12p per day. A number of other cities, including Liverpool, Edinburgh, Birmingham and Newcastle, have shown interest in similar schemes, according to , the national cyclists' organisation CTC.
Carlton Reid, executive editor of BikeBiz, a trade magazine, said the London scheme, which follows the Vélib network launched in Paris in 2007, would have a "massive impact on cycling in London and elsewhere". But he warned that infrastructure still needed to be vastly improved to entice more people on to two wheels. "The Government is slowly realising that it won't get an increase in cycling unless motorists are tamed," he said. "Too many cycle routes, especially in London, aren't joined up, leaving cyclists to be spat out in the middle of junctions."
The National Travel Survey, which covered personal travel made in Great Britain during 2009, showed that the average distance travelled per person by bicycle was 46 miles, compared with 42 miles the previous year, the average trip distance rising to 2.8 miles from 2.4 miles. Chris Peck, CTC's policy co-ordinator, said: "We expected that the recession, along with high fuel prices, would lead to an increase in cycling. The growth is particularly associated with those in the highest income bracket, which may be as a result of the boom in leisure cycling and commuting by bike."
The figures revealed a class split in cycling: in households in the top fifth of income brackets, 77 miles were cycled per person. In the lowest two such quintiles, only 32 miles were cycled per household member. A bike can cost anything from £65 to £1,000. Men in their forties are among the keenest cyclists. But young people are cycling less, because of road safety fears, the report showed: the number of trips by a typical teenager has plummeted from 70 a year in the early Nineties to 28.
Born again: Joseph Byrne, 28, IT consultant
This is my Boris bike! It's like a Dutch bike. I grew up in Holland so I quite like that. It's a good relaxed bike – you can sit upright, relax your shoulders, and take a good look at the world. It glides along. It's been about 12 years since I last rode a bike. It's got drum brakes, so if it rains it doesn't really affect it. You can store stuff on it that you buy. Security's not an issue with this. I live on the fifth floor, so I just park it in a bay about two minutes up the road from me.
Fold-up: Jasna Jevremovic, 22, medical student
This is a Brompton, which is an English design. I've had it for two-and-a-half years and I mostly use it to get to work. Having said that, I do use it every day. I even used it to cycle to Paris. It's fantastic for the city. The gears are in the hub so it doesn't get dirty. I'm from Serbia and I cycled more there. I used to have a road bike there. I find cycling easy, convenient, and it's great if I buy something because I can just carry it on the bike.
DIY-er: Laura Udeh, 46, civil servant
It's a Pioneer Metro GLX. It's a basic bike. I promise it's not a Boris bike! I've had it for about five years, and I look after it. The springy bits are for the bumps. I use it to get to work. You buy the gear, the helmet and everything once, and other than that you just service it. That costs about £45. I want to learn to service it myself, mostly because it would be a nightmare if I got a flat tyre. I need to be able to change it myself, I think.
Road racer: Ali Moazed, 36, fund manager
This is a Bianchi. I'm an amateur, but it looks cool. I use it a couple of times a week. I've only had it for about five months. I started cycling again to get into shape but it's also a good way to get to work, especially in the summer. The only costs are the bike and maintenance. It cost about £600, so that's a good deal.
Fixie fan: Kavah Iyati, 27, musician
This is a fixed-wheel bike. It's old, from 1953, and I've had it about a year. It was a gift from a friend, and I changed it to a fixed-wheel for about £20 – I can control it better now. I use it every day – I'm a musician so I use it to go to rehearsals, to the studio, to friends, to my home. It all adds up. Before, I took the bus or other public transport, but this is cheaper.
Bargain hunter: Teresa Macauley, chef
I've had this Raleigh bike for about a month. I bought my other bike for £50 down Portobello market, but it wasn't very good – in fact it was really dodgy. So I bought this one instead – it cost about £200. It's faster and cheaper than public transport and good exercise. I use it to get to and from where I work in Mayfair, central London, which is about three miles from where I live. It can be scary on my bike: I have been cut up once, and – you're not going to believe this – by a police car.
Interviews by Pavan Amara
Tuesday, 3 August 2010
The dead sea: Global warming blamed for 40 per cent decline in the ocean's phytoplankton
Microscopic life crucial to the marine food chain is dying out. The consequences could be catastrophic
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Thursday, 29 July 2010
The microscopic plants that support all life in the oceans are dying off at a dramatic rate, according to a study that has documented for the first time a disturbing and unprecedented change at the base of the marine food web.
Scientists have discovered that the phytoplankton of the oceans has declined by about 40 per cent over the past century, with much of the loss occurring since the 1950s. They believe the change is linked with rising sea temperatures and global warming.
If the findings are confirmed by further studies it will represent the single biggest change to the global biosphere in modern times, even bigger than the destruction of the tropical rainforests and coral reefs, the scientists said yesterday.
Phytoplankton are microscopic marine organisms capable of photosynthesis, just like terrestrial plants. They float in the upper layers of the oceans, provide much of the oxygen we breathe and account for about half of the total organic matter on Earth. A 40 per cent decline would represent a massive change to the global biosphere.
"If this holds up, something really serious is underway and has been underway for decades. I've been trying to think of a biological change that's bigger than this and I can't think of one," said marine biologist Boris Worm of Canada's Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia. He said: "If real, it means that the marine ecosystem today looks very different to what it was a few decades ago and a lot of this change is happening way out in the open, blue ocean where we cannot see it. I'm concerned about this finding."
The researchers studied phytoplankton records going back to 1899 when the measure of how much of the green chlorophyll pigment of phytoplankton was present in the upper ocean was monitored regularly. The scientists analysed about half a million measurements taken over the past century in 10 ocean regions, as well as measurements recorded by satellite.
They found that phytoplankton had declined significantly in all but two of the ocean regions at an average global rate of about 1 per cent per year, most of which since the mid 20th Century. They found that this decline correlated with a corresponding rise in sea-surface temperatures – although they cannot prove that warmer oceans caused the decline.
The study, published in the journal Nature, is the first analysis of its kind and deliberately used data gathered over such a long period of time to eliminate the sort of natural fluctuations in phytoplankton that are known to occur from one decade to the next due to normal oscillations in ocean temperatures, Dr Worm said. "Phytoplankton are a critical part of our planetary life support system. They produce half of the oxygen we breathe, draw down surface CO2 and ultimately support all of our fishes." he said.
But some scientists have warned that the Dalhousie University study may not present a realistic picture of the true state of marine plantlife given that phytoplankton is subject to wide, natural fluctuations.
"Its an important observation and it's consistent with other observations, but the overall trend can be overinterpreted because of the masking effect of natural variations," said Manuel Barange of the Plymouth Marine Laboratory and a phytoplankton expert.
However, the Dalhousie scientists behind the three-year study said they have taken the natural oscillations of ocean temperatures into account and the overall conclusion of a 40 per cent decline in phytoplankton over the past century still holds true.
"Phytoplankton are the basis of life in the oceans and are essential in maintaining the health of the oceans so we should be concerned about its decline.
"It's a very robust finding and we're very confident of it," said Daniel Boyce, the lead author of the study.
"Phytoplankton is the fuel on which marine ecosystems run. A decline of phytoplankton affects everything up the food chain, including humans," Dr Boyce said.
Phytoplankton is affected by the amount of nutrients the well up from the bottom of the oceans. In the North Atlantic phytoplankton "blooms" naturally in spring and autumn when ocean storms bring nutrients to the surface.
One effect of rising sea temperatures has been to make the water column of some regions nearer the equator more stratified, with warmer water sitting on colder layers of water, making it more difficult for nutrients to reach the phytoplankton at the sea surface.
Warmer seas in tropical regions are also known to have a direct effect on limiting the growth of phytoplankton.
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Thursday, 29 July 2010
The microscopic plants that support all life in the oceans are dying off at a dramatic rate, according to a study that has documented for the first time a disturbing and unprecedented change at the base of the marine food web.
Scientists have discovered that the phytoplankton of the oceans has declined by about 40 per cent over the past century, with much of the loss occurring since the 1950s. They believe the change is linked with rising sea temperatures and global warming.
If the findings are confirmed by further studies it will represent the single biggest change to the global biosphere in modern times, even bigger than the destruction of the tropical rainforests and coral reefs, the scientists said yesterday.
Phytoplankton are microscopic marine organisms capable of photosynthesis, just like terrestrial plants. They float in the upper layers of the oceans, provide much of the oxygen we breathe and account for about half of the total organic matter on Earth. A 40 per cent decline would represent a massive change to the global biosphere.
"If this holds up, something really serious is underway and has been underway for decades. I've been trying to think of a biological change that's bigger than this and I can't think of one," said marine biologist Boris Worm of Canada's Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia. He said: "If real, it means that the marine ecosystem today looks very different to what it was a few decades ago and a lot of this change is happening way out in the open, blue ocean where we cannot see it. I'm concerned about this finding."
The researchers studied phytoplankton records going back to 1899 when the measure of how much of the green chlorophyll pigment of phytoplankton was present in the upper ocean was monitored regularly. The scientists analysed about half a million measurements taken over the past century in 10 ocean regions, as well as measurements recorded by satellite.
They found that phytoplankton had declined significantly in all but two of the ocean regions at an average global rate of about 1 per cent per year, most of which since the mid 20th Century. They found that this decline correlated with a corresponding rise in sea-surface temperatures – although they cannot prove that warmer oceans caused the decline.
The study, published in the journal Nature, is the first analysis of its kind and deliberately used data gathered over such a long period of time to eliminate the sort of natural fluctuations in phytoplankton that are known to occur from one decade to the next due to normal oscillations in ocean temperatures, Dr Worm said. "Phytoplankton are a critical part of our planetary life support system. They produce half of the oxygen we breathe, draw down surface CO2 and ultimately support all of our fishes." he said.
But some scientists have warned that the Dalhousie University study may not present a realistic picture of the true state of marine plantlife given that phytoplankton is subject to wide, natural fluctuations.
"Its an important observation and it's consistent with other observations, but the overall trend can be overinterpreted because of the masking effect of natural variations," said Manuel Barange of the Plymouth Marine Laboratory and a phytoplankton expert.
However, the Dalhousie scientists behind the three-year study said they have taken the natural oscillations of ocean temperatures into account and the overall conclusion of a 40 per cent decline in phytoplankton over the past century still holds true.
"Phytoplankton are the basis of life in the oceans and are essential in maintaining the health of the oceans so we should be concerned about its decline.
"It's a very robust finding and we're very confident of it," said Daniel Boyce, the lead author of the study.
"Phytoplankton is the fuel on which marine ecosystems run. A decline of phytoplankton affects everything up the food chain, including humans," Dr Boyce said.
Phytoplankton is affected by the amount of nutrients the well up from the bottom of the oceans. In the North Atlantic phytoplankton "blooms" naturally in spring and autumn when ocean storms bring nutrients to the surface.
One effect of rising sea temperatures has been to make the water column of some regions nearer the equator more stratified, with warmer water sitting on colder layers of water, making it more difficult for nutrients to reach the phytoplankton at the sea surface.
Warmer seas in tropical regions are also known to have a direct effect on limiting the growth of phytoplankton.
Why do we worship at the altar of technology?
The BP oil spill shows our blind faith in technology – when what the US really needs is behavioural and political change
Anne Lutz Fernandez and Catherine Lutz guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 3 August 2010 10.00 BST
If there is one true religion in the US, it leads us to worship at the altar of technology. Christian or Jew, Muslim or atheist, we accept the doctrine of this shared faith: that technology provides the main path to improving our lives and that if it occasionally fails, even catastrophically, it will just take another technology to make it all better. It is this doctrine that connects BP's Deepwater Horizon and Toyota's sudden acceleration debacles – and the responses to them. There are more obvious parallels between the two, of course. Both involve tragedies precipitated by our being a nation huffing on oil fumes: one associated with deaths at sea, the other, deaths on the road. But it is our belief in technology that has reassured us, along with oil company advertising and US Mineral Management Services encouragement, that drilling offshore – way offshore – could be done safely while we kept on refilling our tanks. It reassured us, along with car company marketing and NHTSA clearance, that our cars – increasingly electronically complex – would keep our families safe while we put ever more miles on the odometer.
Though our high priest may be Steve Jobs, the automobile, not the computer or phone, is the icon we venerate with the greatest fervour. The car is the most important, most expensive piece of technology most of us own. It is the technology of this and the past century, and neither BP nor Toyota would be as large and powerful, without our passionate call and response.
Simply walk on a Sunday into one of our houses of worship, an auto showroom, or drop some coins in the basket and enter, on a high holiday, one of the cathedrals that are the Detroit, New York, or Los Angeles auto shows. Witness the evangelists gazing at the gleaming new vehicles, snapping cell phone pics of spectacular concept cars so they can spread the good news.
Of course, corporations don't see this as their first mission, operating as they do on cost containment and profit maximisation, not cutting-edge technology as an end in itself. But their customer base has been convinced that each time they buy a new car, they are buying the future and lucky that the world's smartest geologists and engineers are helping fuel their experience of it. Never mind that the technology they are largely buying is media and telecom gadgetry, not the electric or more environmentally sustainable power technologies that headline auto shows or attract, like the not-yet-for-sale Nissan Leaf, tens of thousands of Facebook followers. (In fact, less than 1% of all new vehicles bought worldwide over the next five years are estimated to be electric or electric-hybrid).
Our response to BP and Toyota's failures expose the danger in our faith. Deep anxiety aroused by the deaths in the water and on the interstates is calmed by the ameliorating belief that technology will save us, and if not now, soon. After all, the promise of technology is in the better life to come. A readable black box or failsafe brake override resolves Toyota's snafu, reassuring us that there can be such a thing as a safe car. An engineered capping and better blow-out preventers promise to restore confidence in our ability to tap into fossil fuels wherever they may be.
We haven't quite realised that the idea that technology will save us from the problems that technology has created has been sold to us by people with a deep interest in our treating each of their disasters as an isolated "accident", soon and easily solved. Don't worry. Go back to driving – maybe some other make for a few years, stopping at a gas station under another sign for a while – but get back to driving into the bright, new and improved car future.
BP and Toyota also share a public perception in the US as "foreign", to the good fortune of American multinationals like ExxonMobil and Ford. But this exceptionalism will not serve us well. BP may have recently made poorer choices than other oil companies, but serious threats to our way of life are endemic to the practice of drilling (especially in the peak-oil period as it becomes increasingly hard to access and new techno-fixes are developed to get us to the dwindling supplies). Toyota may have produced too many cars too fast, but 1.2 million people are killed globally each year in car crashes, and likely would be whether they were fuelled by gas, electricity, or hydrogen.
Simply put, technological progress alone is not a strategy for a sustainable future, and finally capping the Deepwater Horizon still leaves technological faith the source of the devastation that will live on for decades. America is in dire need of behavioural and political change in areas ranging from public leadership to corporate responsibility to the individual choice to drive and consume less. Only a hard turn in this direction can avert the slow-motion, head-on collision coming between America's love of technology and a quality of life for the world's future generations.
Anne Lutz Fernandez and Catherine Lutz guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 3 August 2010 10.00 BST
If there is one true religion in the US, it leads us to worship at the altar of technology. Christian or Jew, Muslim or atheist, we accept the doctrine of this shared faith: that technology provides the main path to improving our lives and that if it occasionally fails, even catastrophically, it will just take another technology to make it all better. It is this doctrine that connects BP's Deepwater Horizon and Toyota's sudden acceleration debacles – and the responses to them. There are more obvious parallels between the two, of course. Both involve tragedies precipitated by our being a nation huffing on oil fumes: one associated with deaths at sea, the other, deaths on the road. But it is our belief in technology that has reassured us, along with oil company advertising and US Mineral Management Services encouragement, that drilling offshore – way offshore – could be done safely while we kept on refilling our tanks. It reassured us, along with car company marketing and NHTSA clearance, that our cars – increasingly electronically complex – would keep our families safe while we put ever more miles on the odometer.
Though our high priest may be Steve Jobs, the automobile, not the computer or phone, is the icon we venerate with the greatest fervour. The car is the most important, most expensive piece of technology most of us own. It is the technology of this and the past century, and neither BP nor Toyota would be as large and powerful, without our passionate call and response.
Simply walk on a Sunday into one of our houses of worship, an auto showroom, or drop some coins in the basket and enter, on a high holiday, one of the cathedrals that are the Detroit, New York, or Los Angeles auto shows. Witness the evangelists gazing at the gleaming new vehicles, snapping cell phone pics of spectacular concept cars so they can spread the good news.
Of course, corporations don't see this as their first mission, operating as they do on cost containment and profit maximisation, not cutting-edge technology as an end in itself. But their customer base has been convinced that each time they buy a new car, they are buying the future and lucky that the world's smartest geologists and engineers are helping fuel their experience of it. Never mind that the technology they are largely buying is media and telecom gadgetry, not the electric or more environmentally sustainable power technologies that headline auto shows or attract, like the not-yet-for-sale Nissan Leaf, tens of thousands of Facebook followers. (In fact, less than 1% of all new vehicles bought worldwide over the next five years are estimated to be electric or electric-hybrid).
Our response to BP and Toyota's failures expose the danger in our faith. Deep anxiety aroused by the deaths in the water and on the interstates is calmed by the ameliorating belief that technology will save us, and if not now, soon. After all, the promise of technology is in the better life to come. A readable black box or failsafe brake override resolves Toyota's snafu, reassuring us that there can be such a thing as a safe car. An engineered capping and better blow-out preventers promise to restore confidence in our ability to tap into fossil fuels wherever they may be.
We haven't quite realised that the idea that technology will save us from the problems that technology has created has been sold to us by people with a deep interest in our treating each of their disasters as an isolated "accident", soon and easily solved. Don't worry. Go back to driving – maybe some other make for a few years, stopping at a gas station under another sign for a while – but get back to driving into the bright, new and improved car future.
BP and Toyota also share a public perception in the US as "foreign", to the good fortune of American multinationals like ExxonMobil and Ford. But this exceptionalism will not serve us well. BP may have recently made poorer choices than other oil companies, but serious threats to our way of life are endemic to the practice of drilling (especially in the peak-oil period as it becomes increasingly hard to access and new techno-fixes are developed to get us to the dwindling supplies). Toyota may have produced too many cars too fast, but 1.2 million people are killed globally each year in car crashes, and likely would be whether they were fuelled by gas, electricity, or hydrogen.
Simply put, technological progress alone is not a strategy for a sustainable future, and finally capping the Deepwater Horizon still leaves technological faith the source of the devastation that will live on for decades. America is in dire need of behavioural and political change in areas ranging from public leadership to corporate responsibility to the individual choice to drive and consume less. Only a hard turn in this direction can avert the slow-motion, head-on collision coming between America's love of technology and a quality of life for the world's future generations.
Funding, infighting and forests – the Brazilian view on climate change
Brazil's special ambassador for climate change, Sergio Serra, offers an insider's view as negotiators gather in Bonn for another round of talks
The "sherpas" return to Bonn today to continue the backroom negotiations on a global deal to tackle climate change. The talks, under the UN's Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), face many challenges, not least the recent news that the US Senate has put on indefinite hold any meaningful climate change bill.
For an insider's view of the talks, I was fortunate to meet Brazil's special ambassador for climate change, Sergio Serra, during a recent trip to Brasilia. We spoke on the same day as the news came from the US Senate, so I emailed him after for his reaction. He thinks the next big meeting, in Cancún, Mexico, a year after the Copenhagen summit, is now dead as far as setting targets to cut greenhouse gases – aka mitigation – are concerned. He said:
"As for the (bad) news from the US Senate, they are not that surprising. Of course, this will affect the negotiations: We will definitely not be able to close a deal in Cancún, at least not a complete deal as regards mitigation targets, because most of the other developed countries will only commit to a final figure once they know what the US's is going to be. But we hope we can still reap some "deliverables" in Cancun, such as the fast-track financing."
The money, for Serra, is the key:
"Most important is the financing. The fast-track financing, which is a very positive development, is on three years [2010-2012] – one of those years is already here. It will be a very interesting step towards rebuilding confidence, if we have a commitment on fast-track financing. Some countries say the [proposed deal] is unambitious, the $30bn over three years. It won't save climate change in developing countries but it's a good start, especially for adaptation. By 2020, financing is expected to be $100-200bn a year. The G77 [negotiating group of developing countries] want a much bigger figure than this – 1-1.5% of GDP - but this will never materialise. The figures that are there now are not bad."
The Cancún meeting in November also hopes to make progress on combatting deforestation. That's a topic very close to the heart of Brazil, home of the Amazon rainforest, where the destruction has been falling recently. But Serra said he didn't expect Brazil to benefit as much as others from the funds aimed at making trees worth more alive than dead - a scheme known as Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (Redd).
"If you are talking about money, of course it will help us [reduce deforestation]. But personally, I think whatever money comes from the Redd scheme, grants, public funds, markets, it will mostly go to poorer countries with tropical forests like Congo. I am talking realistically. And even if no money comes from Redd, President Lula said in Copenhagen that we would do it ourselves anyway."
Serra does add wryly that Lula's comment was "off-the cuff", not what we in the UK might call a "costed promise". Perhaps inevitably for a diplomat, he sees the falling public interest in the talks as both good and bad.
"There were huge expectations [in Copenhagen], almost irrationally huge. The focus of the media and public in the negotiations, the fact is that has diminished. So that it is good as there is not so much pressure, but if there is no pressure from public opinion, the conference will not deliver as much."
We also talked about whether Brazil is a developing country. That is crucial as the UNFCCC talks splits nations into developed and developing countries, with firm obligations on the former but not the latter.
But some have wondered whether the fast-emerging economies like China, India and Brazil should be in a new category inbetween the two. Not Serra: "Yes Brazil is a developing country. We have many millions below the poverty line. We still have a literacy problem." He immediately deploys the counter-argument – citing "the historical responsibility of industrialised nations for all the carbon already in the air".
But he acknowledges that things will change in the future. "Of course this is a dynamic thing – China will overtake us, but they will have much less historical responsibility."
He also chides the US over what he sees as double standards on the "monitoring, reporting and verification" of pledges to cut emissions. "The US is pressuring countries like Brazil, India, China and South Africa much more on MRV than they will apply to themselves. Their numbers have to be accounted for internationally, just as our actions will be."
Lastly we talk about the benefits – and problems – of the consensus-based decision-making of the UNFCCC, where all 192 nations need to agree for measures to be adopted. The agreement at Copenhagen, the accord, did not achieve this and was merely "noted" by the UN.
"One bad consequence of the Copenhagen accord was some people saw it as an undemocratic result. Five or six countries were very vocal, 120+ have signed the accord, but still 60-70 have not signed. We do not think the Accord is the real answer, it is a step. We will get nowhere unless we focus on getting a transparent and inclusive process.
Serra then gives an insight into the mind-bending nature of international diplomacy:
"It is a big challenge to get a consensus. But consensus is not exactly the same as unanimity, you only can't be opposed. Countries can contribute to the consensus by their silence. Consensus provides a legitimacy for the results, we are talking here of a very complex thing, climate."
The "sherpas" return to Bonn today to continue the backroom negotiations on a global deal to tackle climate change. The talks, under the UN's Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), face many challenges, not least the recent news that the US Senate has put on indefinite hold any meaningful climate change bill.
For an insider's view of the talks, I was fortunate to meet Brazil's special ambassador for climate change, Sergio Serra, during a recent trip to Brasilia. We spoke on the same day as the news came from the US Senate, so I emailed him after for his reaction. He thinks the next big meeting, in Cancún, Mexico, a year after the Copenhagen summit, is now dead as far as setting targets to cut greenhouse gases – aka mitigation – are concerned. He said:
"As for the (bad) news from the US Senate, they are not that surprising. Of course, this will affect the negotiations: We will definitely not be able to close a deal in Cancún, at least not a complete deal as regards mitigation targets, because most of the other developed countries will only commit to a final figure once they know what the US's is going to be. But we hope we can still reap some "deliverables" in Cancun, such as the fast-track financing."
The money, for Serra, is the key:
"Most important is the financing. The fast-track financing, which is a very positive development, is on three years [2010-2012] – one of those years is already here. It will be a very interesting step towards rebuilding confidence, if we have a commitment on fast-track financing. Some countries say the [proposed deal] is unambitious, the $30bn over three years. It won't save climate change in developing countries but it's a good start, especially for adaptation. By 2020, financing is expected to be $100-200bn a year. The G77 [negotiating group of developing countries] want a much bigger figure than this – 1-1.5% of GDP - but this will never materialise. The figures that are there now are not bad."
The Cancún meeting in November also hopes to make progress on combatting deforestation. That's a topic very close to the heart of Brazil, home of the Amazon rainforest, where the destruction has been falling recently. But Serra said he didn't expect Brazil to benefit as much as others from the funds aimed at making trees worth more alive than dead - a scheme known as Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (Redd).
"If you are talking about money, of course it will help us [reduce deforestation]. But personally, I think whatever money comes from the Redd scheme, grants, public funds, markets, it will mostly go to poorer countries with tropical forests like Congo. I am talking realistically. And even if no money comes from Redd, President Lula said in Copenhagen that we would do it ourselves anyway."
Serra does add wryly that Lula's comment was "off-the cuff", not what we in the UK might call a "costed promise". Perhaps inevitably for a diplomat, he sees the falling public interest in the talks as both good and bad.
"There were huge expectations [in Copenhagen], almost irrationally huge. The focus of the media and public in the negotiations, the fact is that has diminished. So that it is good as there is not so much pressure, but if there is no pressure from public opinion, the conference will not deliver as much."
We also talked about whether Brazil is a developing country. That is crucial as the UNFCCC talks splits nations into developed and developing countries, with firm obligations on the former but not the latter.
But some have wondered whether the fast-emerging economies like China, India and Brazil should be in a new category inbetween the two. Not Serra: "Yes Brazil is a developing country. We have many millions below the poverty line. We still have a literacy problem." He immediately deploys the counter-argument – citing "the historical responsibility of industrialised nations for all the carbon already in the air".
But he acknowledges that things will change in the future. "Of course this is a dynamic thing – China will overtake us, but they will have much less historical responsibility."
He also chides the US over what he sees as double standards on the "monitoring, reporting and verification" of pledges to cut emissions. "The US is pressuring countries like Brazil, India, China and South Africa much more on MRV than they will apply to themselves. Their numbers have to be accounted for internationally, just as our actions will be."
Lastly we talk about the benefits – and problems – of the consensus-based decision-making of the UNFCCC, where all 192 nations need to agree for measures to be adopted. The agreement at Copenhagen, the accord, did not achieve this and was merely "noted" by the UN.
"One bad consequence of the Copenhagen accord was some people saw it as an undemocratic result. Five or six countries were very vocal, 120+ have signed the accord, but still 60-70 have not signed. We do not think the Accord is the real answer, it is a step. We will get nowhere unless we focus on getting a transparent and inclusive process.
Serra then gives an insight into the mind-bending nature of international diplomacy:
"It is a big challenge to get a consensus. But consensus is not exactly the same as unanimity, you only can't be opposed. Countries can contribute to the consensus by their silence. Consensus provides a legitimacy for the results, we are talking here of a very complex thing, climate."