Everything you need to know about the latest round of United Nations climate change talks in Durban, South Africa.
By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
11:00AM GMT 27 Nov 2011
What is happening in Durban?
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was set up to stop global temperatures rising above dangerous levels as a result of man made emissions. Each year the Conference of the Parties (COP) meet to discuss progress. This is COP 17. The ultimate aim is stop temperatures rising more than 2C by cutting greenhouse gases by 50 per cent by 2050. Other ways to cut emissions include deals to stop deforestation and help poor countries develop in a green way.
Who will be there?
Officials and environment ministers from 194 countries will meet at the International Convention Centre (ICC) and Durban Exhibition Centre (DEC). All together an estimated 15,000 people representing Governments, charities and media will travel to South Africa for the conference. Christiania Figueres, the executive secretary of UNFCCC, a former negotiator from Costa Rica, is trying to push the process forward. An even more important role is the President of COP 17, Ms Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, the South African Minister of International Relations and Cooperation, who is in charge of the talks.
What has this got to do with Copenhagen?
The climate change talks in Copenhagen at the end of 2009 were supposed to commit all nations to cutting carbon. However rich and poor nations failed to agree on a legally binding target to cut emissions. Instead a weak ‘Copenhagen Accord’ was signed that allows countries to choose their own targets but has no power to force them to keep their promises. At Cop 16 in Cancun the talks got back on track after progress was made on a Green Climate Fund, that pays poor countries to adapt to climate change and REDD, that pays developing countries not to cut down trees . However the talks are still a long way from the ultimate goal of a legally binding treaty.
What is the Kyoto Protocol?
The Kyoto Protocol is the only existing legally binding treaty in existence but it comes to and end on December 31st 2012. The agreement commits rich countries to cutting emissions but not poor countries and it does not include the US or China. The meeting in Durban is the best chance the world has to agree a second commitment period to the Kyoto Protocol. Poor countries are keen for this to happen because they believe that the industrialised world has caused most of the emissions and therefore should make most of the effort to clean up. However the rich world are reluctant to come on board unless ‘emerging nations’ like China and India, that will cause most of the pollution in future, also sign up for cut in emissions.
Will the climate talks collapse in Durban?
Possibly. If there is no second commitment period to the Kyoto Protocol then the world will have no legal agreement in place to stop global warming. Poor countries may also walk out in disgust if no progress is made towards achieving some sort of agreement. However most countries want to keep the talks on track and there will therefore most likely be some sort of ‘fudge’ that maintains the Kyoto Protocol for certain countries whilst promising to agree a new deal that commits all the world to legally binding targets at some point in the future.
What is the role of the UK?
As part of the EU the UK has an important role in trying to ‘leverage’ other countries into a climate change deal. The EU already has ambitious targets to cut emissions by 20 per cent by 2020. The bloc is promising to sign up to a second commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol as long as the US, China and others are part of a wider deal that will also commit them to cuts at some point in the future.
When will there actually be a deal on climate change?
Chris Huhne, the Energy and Climate Change Minister, said the UK wants a global deal “as soon as possible”. However, realistically it will take the main players, the US and China, a lot longer to agree. The UK has said a global deal must be in place by 2015 at the latest. But because it takes many nations such a long time to ratify a deal the agreement may not be fully operational until 2020. The science says emissions must peak by 2020 and start to come down for the world to have a good chance of keeping temperature rise within 2C.
Is there any money on the table?
Yes $100 (£60) billion by 2020 to help poor countries adapt to climate change and cut emissions. The main discussion at Durban is how this money for the Green Climate Fund will be raised. One of the most popular suggestion is through a tax on aviation and shipping or the ‘Robin Hood’ or Tobin Tax on financial transactions. There is also a question over who will dole out funds. Will it be the World Bank or a whole new institution? This money will be used to help persuade developing nations to cut emissions and it is essential progress is made on setting up the institutions for the talks to move forward. In the short term there is $10 (£6) billion per annum up to 2013 to help poor countries start adapting to climate change now. The UK has pledged £1.5 billion towards this ‘Fast Start Fund’, of which half has already been spent. The UK has pledged £2.9 billion in total to fighting climate change up to 2015.
Will anyone famous be there?
Angelina Jolie, Leonardo DiCaprio, U2 frontman Bono, Arnold Schwarzenegger, British billionaire Sir Richard Branson and Desmond Tutu have all promised to come to the conference.
What is the carbon footprint of the conference?
It has been estimated that the carbon footprint for this event could be in the order of 15,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent. However this does not include the flights of the 15,000 delegates that is likely to increase the emissions to the annual footprint of a small African country. Durban City Council are offsetting the footprint by through an ecosystem rehabilitation project in the uMbilo catchment west of Durban. It is expected to offsett 16,000 CO2e.
What is the latest climate science?
Greenhouse gases hit a record high last year, according to the latest figures from the World Meteorological Organisation at 389 parts per million. Meanwhile the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found the rising emissions are already causing extreme weather events. The panel of scientists warned that hot days are virtually certain to get hotter and there will be more heavy downfalls of rain unless action is taken to cut emissions.
What about ‘climategate 2’?
The sceptics have already struck a blow to the conference by releasing more emails from the university at the centre of the ‘climategate’ and there may be more to come. However the University of East Anglia claim that none of the emails cast doubt on the science and the issue of openness around research has already been dealt with in three inquiries. An argument that is likely to be taken more seriously, is that the UN process is not the right way to tackle climate change. Many critics believe that it is impossible to reach a global deal and the talks are a waste of money. Instead the world should be spending money on helping poor nations to adapt or even ‘geo-engineering’ like putting mirrors in space.
What has it got to do with me?
Whether the climate talks succeed or fail could have major implications for the future of the planet as it will affect temperature rise. It will also impact on business and the cost of living as polluting industries will become a lot more expensive and renewables will be given a massive boost. Also the cost of the conference is paid for by taxpayers across the world through contributions to the UN and each country’s costs. The UK alone is sending 46 officials. You’re paying for all this, in more ways than one.
Monday, 28 November 2011
Britain's promotion of Canada's tar sands oil is idiotic
A deal to sell tar sands oil in Europe would outweigh any good the UK might do with all its other climate change measures
Bill McKibben
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 27 November 2011 21.44 GMT
Here's the essential fact to bear in mind. The tar sands of northern Alberta are the second-largest pool of carbon on earth, second only to Saudi Arabia. It's burning Saudi Arabia, more than any other single thing, that has raised the temperature of the planet by a degree so far. But when oil was discovered in the Middle East, we knew nothing about climate change – it's not surprising that we started pumping. In the case of Canada, however, we've taken 3% of the oil from the sands. We're still at the start. If, knowing what we now know about climate change, we just keep going, then we're idiots.
That realisation explains why Americans rose up in remarkable numbers to fight the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. In August 1,253 people were arrested outside the White House during the largest civil disobedience action in a generation. Citizens ringed the president's mansion in a line a mile long and five people deep. A couple of weeks ago, the president announced that he would delay the pipeline for a new environmental review, which would cover not only the route across the country but also climate change, public health, and other issues.
That announcement caught industry off guard. Transcanada Pipeline had already mowed the strip they planned to put the pipe on, and had carried vast quantities of steel across the border. They're fighting back with every tool they can find, but for the moment they're delayed and in trouble. It's a win, though like all environmental wins a temporary one. And it's a tribute not only to an organising effort that brought everyone from Nebraska ranchers to Occupy Wall Street protesters together, but also to the slowly dawning realisation that this was a big deal. As the leading climatologist James Hansen puts it, tap heavily into tar sands oil and it's "essentially game over for the climate".
Which is where Europe comes in. Canada wants to sell some of this oil on the continent, and as today's revelations in the Guardian reveal they've dispatched endless teams of diplomats and oil barons to make the case. They have a difficult row to hoe – because the oil is embedded in sand, it takes lots of energy to get it out of the ground and hence it's even more carbon-intensive than regular oil. The EU has provisionally imposed penalties on that extra carbon severe enough to make it difficult for Canada to sell Europeans its filthy oil.
But now, for reasons not entirely clear, the UK seems to have emerged as Canada's partner in crime, leaning on Brussels to let this crud across the borders. No one seems to know exactly why. Lingering colonial attachment? Kinship among Tory governments? The effect, however, is clear. Any good that Britain's government does with new efficiency standards, runway halts, windmills, you name it; all that will be outweighed if it manages to broker a deal to bring this oil into Europe.
Just as it was for Obama, it will be among the biggest single environmental decisions the Cameron government makes. So far it's been hidden behind some obscure jargon in Brussels, but history will expose this as one of those fateful choices humans sometimes get to make. Faced with a huge new pool of carbon, will we simply make the easy choices for short-term profit? Or will we actually figure out that it's time to think anew? Odd that in this day and age choices so important to the future of an oilfield a hemisphere away, and to the entire atmosphere, would be made in Whitehall, but that's the case here. Around the world environmentalists are watching, and hoping Britain strikes a serious blow for the future.
• Bill McKibben is the author of Eaarth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet, and an organizer at 350.org
Bill McKibben
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 27 November 2011 21.44 GMT
Here's the essential fact to bear in mind. The tar sands of northern Alberta are the second-largest pool of carbon on earth, second only to Saudi Arabia. It's burning Saudi Arabia, more than any other single thing, that has raised the temperature of the planet by a degree so far. But when oil was discovered in the Middle East, we knew nothing about climate change – it's not surprising that we started pumping. In the case of Canada, however, we've taken 3% of the oil from the sands. We're still at the start. If, knowing what we now know about climate change, we just keep going, then we're idiots.
That realisation explains why Americans rose up in remarkable numbers to fight the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. In August 1,253 people were arrested outside the White House during the largest civil disobedience action in a generation. Citizens ringed the president's mansion in a line a mile long and five people deep. A couple of weeks ago, the president announced that he would delay the pipeline for a new environmental review, which would cover not only the route across the country but also climate change, public health, and other issues.
That announcement caught industry off guard. Transcanada Pipeline had already mowed the strip they planned to put the pipe on, and had carried vast quantities of steel across the border. They're fighting back with every tool they can find, but for the moment they're delayed and in trouble. It's a win, though like all environmental wins a temporary one. And it's a tribute not only to an organising effort that brought everyone from Nebraska ranchers to Occupy Wall Street protesters together, but also to the slowly dawning realisation that this was a big deal. As the leading climatologist James Hansen puts it, tap heavily into tar sands oil and it's "essentially game over for the climate".
Which is where Europe comes in. Canada wants to sell some of this oil on the continent, and as today's revelations in the Guardian reveal they've dispatched endless teams of diplomats and oil barons to make the case. They have a difficult row to hoe – because the oil is embedded in sand, it takes lots of energy to get it out of the ground and hence it's even more carbon-intensive than regular oil. The EU has provisionally imposed penalties on that extra carbon severe enough to make it difficult for Canada to sell Europeans its filthy oil.
But now, for reasons not entirely clear, the UK seems to have emerged as Canada's partner in crime, leaning on Brussels to let this crud across the borders. No one seems to know exactly why. Lingering colonial attachment? Kinship among Tory governments? The effect, however, is clear. Any good that Britain's government does with new efficiency standards, runway halts, windmills, you name it; all that will be outweighed if it manages to broker a deal to bring this oil into Europe.
Just as it was for Obama, it will be among the biggest single environmental decisions the Cameron government makes. So far it's been hidden behind some obscure jargon in Brussels, but history will expose this as one of those fateful choices humans sometimes get to make. Faced with a huge new pool of carbon, will we simply make the easy choices for short-term profit? Or will we actually figure out that it's time to think anew? Odd that in this day and age choices so important to the future of an oilfield a hemisphere away, and to the entire atmosphere, would be made in Whitehall, but that's the case here. Around the world environmentalists are watching, and hoping Britain strikes a serious blow for the future.
• Bill McKibben is the author of Eaarth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet, and an organizer at 350.org