Happy (Belated) Birthday Kyoto

As indicated in Stavros Dimas' blog, Kyoto turned ten years old yesterday. The Kyoto Protocol is a much celebrated climate change treaty. In his blog post, he discussed the Adaptation Fund for developing countries which I talked about in a previous post. He also discussed a meeting he had with a representative from California in which he recognized promise for U.S. policy on climate change. Discussions were also held with various different non-governmental organizations (NGO's). Dimas' blog offers an interesting perspective since he is strongly involved in climate change talks currently underway in Bali.

The fact that Dimas found promise in the U.S. through California is a positive sign. California, arguably the most environmental state in America, represents that not all Americans are SUV driving, anti-environmentalists. However, with the 10th anniversary of Kyoto, comes a sense of frustration that the U.S. still has not ratified this important environmental legislation.

Harnessing Lightning

In an NY Times online magazine article, the concept of lightning as an alternative energy source arose. In this new "greening" age, various different alternative energy sources are being tested. Different alternative energy sources in existence include wind energy, solar energy, bio-fuels (ethanol), geothermal energy, tide energy, nuclear energy, and hydro energy. Lightning is a new concept. The company Alternate Energy Holdings, bought a conceptual project to test this past summer in Houston, Texas. Although the testing team did not succeed, they assert the need for more funding and more testing. Others believe trying to harness lightning is not practical.

The fact that the team who actually tested this design believes that with more time and money, the project can be successful, says something. More time must be given to this team, since alternative energy sources are going to become quite important. Thousands of different ideas and concepts involving alternative energy sources are in existence. An explosion of science, technology, and money must take place in order for these projects to become actualized. However, these breakthrough happen gradually through trial and error with enactment of public policy to reach goals.

You Don't Have To Be A Treehugger To Be An Environmentalist

On TreeHugger, there is an entire sectioned devoted to "how to go green." Included in this section are various different aspects of ones life in which he or she can practice environmentally friendly activities quite easily. For example, there is a "green" gift guide that includes such products as organic clothes and solar powered tents.
Many think that environmentalism is synonymous with treehuggers, liberals, and hippies. However, this is not the case. People can do their part for the environment very simply. This does not have to be an issue split along party lines. The environment is shared by everyone, and therefore everyone must do their part in any way possible. TreeHugger provides a great wealth of information for people to follow in order to successfully "go green."

Tuvalu: The Sinking Island

A fund utilized to aid developing nations that fall prone to rising seas and droughts because of climate change, called the Adaptation Fund, is set to receive more money to accomplish its goals. This fund was discussing in a recent Reuters article, because of the climate change talks currently being conducted in Bali. Developing nations will feel the worst of climate change consequences since they do not possess the money to deal with the problems that will manifest. This is why they need a fund like this one.

Rich countries will be able to deal with climate change. Developing countries need to help, which meets much opposition from the Bush Administration. Regardless of our presidents ignorance of the issue, one consequence of climate change is a rise in sea level, which will swallow up small islands, like Tuvalu. Tuvalu is located in the Pacific in the middle of Hawaii and Australia. Approximately eleven thousand people live on the island, where more storms have been hitting annually then ever before. Because of extreme weather patterns and loss of land, they want international recognition. The Prime Minister of Tuvalu wants refugee status given to its citizens to relocate to Australia or New Zealand. Other islands subject to the effect of rises in sea levels indicated by projections from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change include Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, Kiribati, Niue, and the Cook Islands.

Many approach environmental law with a view involving intergenerational equity. This concept is cogent when thinking along the lines of the time frame encompassing global warming and other environmental issues. Projecting towards the future, incorporating past blunders and ideas, as well as including today’s thoughts allows one to view the issue on a global scale. Intergenerational equity refers to a notion of fair and equitable measures for all generations.

Implicit in implications concerning intergenerational equity, is that developed/wealthier countries should take the upper hand in fighting climate change since developing nations are still not even able to provide for the present population. This is where the U.S. has a problem with intergenerational equity. They think developing countries should be subject to restrictions too. However, can this be so when developing countries are so poor they cannot even provide for the present generation of people?

Intergenerational equity is hard to define and measure in terms of preservation for the future since no one knows exactly what the future holds. Does said state care for past, present, and future generations and their fate on Earth and should they? Because climate change scientists can predict what is highly likely to happen in the future, funding to developing nations to adapt green technologies must be increased and readily supplied.

How Much More Urging is Needed

In a recent NY Times article, coverage was afforded Al Gore, the recent receiver of the Nobel Prize on Monday, December 10 (He won the Nobel Prize jointly with the IPCC). Once again, he gave his warnings about the immediacy and grave effects global warming will have on the planet if no action is taken. Gore talks about how we do not have to face all of the horrible backlashes of inaction if something is done soon. During Gore's talk at the Nobel Prize ceremony, he specifically highlighted the U.S. and China as two main holdouts on the Kyoto Protocol (with Australia's recent ratification). Gore urges us to "make peace with the planet."

Is anyone in the world listening? It seems as though everyone is except for the Bush Administration. The U.S. must be apart of any type of climate change treaty and must take a leadership position. Obviously this will not happen until leadership changes. All we can do now is wait.

Bush versus Science

The New York Times continues to follow the climate change talks in Bali. Currently the United States and the European Union remain at odds. The EU wants to commit to definite cuts in emissions and set actual targets, while the United States does not believe in the necessity of specified abatements. The talks in Bali involve renegotiating Kyoto, discussing possible new emission cuts, and creating a framework and time for a new Kyoto. A possible scheduled year is 2009 for new Kyoto-like talks.

Picking 2009 as a date for the "new" Kyoto is no coincidence. Climate change advocates are specifically waiting for Bush to leave office. They will not even have to worry if another Republican becomes president, since most have some sort of plan to take on climate change as specified in a previous post. Ban Ki moon, the secretary General of the United Nations said, "the situation is so desperately serious that any delay could push us past the tipping point, beyond which the ecological, financial and human costs would increase dramatically.” Stavros Dimas, the EU's environmental commissioner asserted , “logic requires that we listen to the science.” “I would expect others to follow that logic.” Obviously Bush is not listening to the hard facts of science which is absolutely laughable. Maybe our president should go see An Inconvenient Truth, although I doubt this will happen anytime soon. To avoid science is to profess ignorance.

Surprise Surprise Surprise

In a New York Times article by AP, the fact that the United States plans to continue along a unilateral track in regards to climate change was highlighted. There is a UN climate change meeting going on right now in Bali at which the U.S. communicated their intentions retain a voluntary approach to rectifying climate change. Last September, the U.S. initiated climate change talks entitled Major Economies, in which the U.S. invited 16 other major economies. The NY Times article acknowledges the fact that this is the Bush Administrations way of undermining Kyoto talks. However, the scale of these talks are no where near the magnitude of Kyoto which necessitates 36 countries to cut emissions.

The fact the Bush Administration even acknowledged climate change is promising, however, the Major Economies talks definitely undermine Kyoto. Cooperation under one auspices is needed to meet the obstacles of climate change. By creating a completely different framework convention to discuss climate change is a waste of time. Watson, the U.S. representative at the UN talks in Bali, says that he does not know how Kyoto and Major Economies will converge, therefore stating, out right, the ill intentions of the Bush Administration. Obviously Bush couldn't avoid climate change anymore because of scientific consensus, so therefore this is his way of wasting time since his Administration is out the door.

United States and Iran? in Agreement

In a recent blog post on treehugger, a matter that the United States and Iran both agree on was highlighted; climate change education. Obviously the U.S. and Iran do not form consensus on anything, however, they do both acknowledge the importance of Article 6 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change or UNFCCC. The U.S. and Iran are not the only countries that agree on this subject. The reason so much focus is resting upon this is because Article 6 is set to expire quite soon.

Education surrounding global warming is very important. Now that public awareness has started to increase surrounding climate change because of the "go green" movement, it is important to teach the public what they can do. Leadership is important to begin any project to help the environment. In order to exert a positive effect on the environment, a communal approach must take place. Therefore the fact that the U.S. and Iran, and many other countries included in the Bali talks, believe in education is a promising sign. However, we will see how far the U.S. government will go to ensure a public knowledgeable in all facets of global warming.

Ski Resorts of the Future

I have been a skier my whole life and cannot imagine a winter without it. A recent New York Times article describes how ski resorts in Switzerland are working with the future in mind. They are striving to create and promote other attractions besides skiing. This is due to rising temperatures that are diminishing usual snow amounts. Other countries liable to fall victim are Germany and Austria which are both described in this article as well. Instead of boasting about how many ski trails are open and how many inches of fresh powder the mountain just received, spa highlights will be featured and talked about most. Just how the fashion industry is staying ahead of the game because of rising temperatures, so are the resorts. They have already felt the effects of increased temperatures, therefore why not stay ahead of the game?

Is this completely attributable to global warming? We know all ski resorts will not be gone tomorrow, however, if no action is taken on climate change, this will happen in the future. Of course resorts do not always have to rely on natural snow to fall because of the advent of snow making technology, however, the temperatures must be just right for human made snow as well. Now of course the resorts are responding by altering tourist attractions, alleviating focus on skiing, and instead shifting to spas and pools. However, the fact that this behavior is occurring should send a message to policy makers, especially in the United States since we are among one of the only countries not to sign Kyoto.

Organic Shade Grown Coffee At Starbucks

Everybody loves their cup of Starbucks coffee in the morning. Now by drinking coffee, you can be helping the environment too. In 1998 Starbucks joined Conservation International, promoting a relationship with environmentally friendly activities. Starbucks started selling a specific type of coffee, called shade grown coffee, which is grown in Mexico. Conservation International assists Mexican farmers in the growing the coffee.

There are two ways to grown coffee beans. Either the land can be completely cleared, or the coffee can be grown under the shade of the trees without completely demolishing habitats. This coffee is called shade grown coffee. Growing coffee in this way not only preserves habitats and trees, but also preserves water and soil as well. Organic Shade Grown Coffee is sold in all Strabucks stores and appears with the label pictured (right). Although it costs a bit extra to buy this type of coffee, you are helping the environment with your purchase.

NGO's and How You Can Help

The E.P.A. notes that certain greenhouse gases, like CO2, enter the atmosphere mostly because of human activity. The greenhouse effect is essential to the survival of humans on Earth since certain gases, like CO2, capture heat in the atmosphere so that life can survive on Earth.
However, the greenhouse effect exacerbates with increased emissions of greenhouse gases. Between 1990 and 2005, in the United States, CO2 was the main greenhouse gas emitted and increased by 20.3% during this period. In 2000, CO2 made up 55% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Because of this, an increase in human induced global climate change has occurred. A simple solution to lessening greenhouse gas emissions is to enjoy a more fuel-efficient lifestyle by easing on brake pedals, avoiding sharp accelerations, and regularly tuning up ones car.

An example of an NGO working to remedy the problem of climate change is the Sierra Club. A campaign called “Cool Cities,” operating under the auspices of the Sierra Club, is a cooperation among towns and cities in America working toward “green” policies. This campaign incorporates certain milestones, such as the town mayor signing the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This is an example of another way to get involved.

Looking to Montreal for Help

An example of successful environmental legislation is the Montreal Protocol. This Protocol addressed issues with the hole in the ozone over Antarctica caused by the release of CFC’s.
The reason for the attainment of the Protocols’ goals was the imminent danger of skin cancer, which caused heightened awareness and necessity for action in the form of legally binding legislation. People should look to the framework of environmental legislation that worked in the past (the Montreal Protocol), in order to create other legally binding mechanisms.

Perhaps necessary when creating global warming legislation is an awareness of the serious threats of global warming so that people realize the necessity for legally binding legislation.
Stated in Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration is that “where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.” The Montreal Protocol exemplifies clear signs of utilization of the precautionary principle. Therefore, why has the United States been so resist to signing and ratifying global warming legislation upon the grounds that scientific consensus is lacking?

Fashion and Climate?

A recent New York Times article highlighted the relationship between fashion and climate change. As pictured (right) the brand DIESEL even incorporated global warming into their advertising campaign, with the slogan, "global warming ready." Liz Claiborne even acquired a climatologist from Colombia University to help determine weather patterns to aide in shipping times for seasonal garments. Although DIESEL is definitely over exaggerating the immediate effects of global warming since temperature changes surely do not change as fast as these ads indicate according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). A representative from Liz Clairborne, Anne Cashill says, “With global warming and the unpredictability of temperatures, the goal is to create seasonless clothing."

This article highlights the far reaching effects of global warming. Though the advertisements of DIESEL represent the extreme, perhaps they will engender a positive effect in increasing awareness about climate change. Perhaps this commercialization of global warming and the materialistic slant put on it may prompt the greater American public to care about this issue, especially in 2008.

Genetically Modified Beets

For hundreds of thousands of years, genetic modification of plants has taken place. Beginning in Jericho in 7000 B.C. humans changed wheat by simply using their hands. This represents early manipulations techniques. Now with new technologies and concepts surrounding genetic engineering, discoveries take place nearly everyday. In a recent New York Times article, the story of genetically engineered sugar beets emerges. Robert Green a sugar beat farmer will no longer have to employ harmful herbicides any longer because of the new genetically engineered beets. The beets will survive without the harmful application of Monsanto's herbicides because of genetic manipulation.

Many believe that this interferes with the natural order of nature and will essentially create a disharmonious situation within nature. Others believe that trying to perfect a beet will lead to attempts to perfect the human being through medial genetic manipulation. Laws, standards, and regulations must be in place to ensure that situations like this do not occur. People must practice diligence. Because of genetic manipulation, harmful application of herbicides no longer has to occur, therefore this is a plus for the environment.

Strides in Kyoto

With quite recent change in leadership in Australia, came a step in the right direction for Kyoto and climate change. The new liberal Prime Minister of the Labor Party in Australia, Kevin Rudd, beat his conservative opponent John Howard. With his victory, Rudd plans to sign and ratify the Kyoto Protocol. This is quote promising for supports of this legislation, which now leave behind the United States and China.

This change in leadership and therefore, agenda, shows the importance of a nation's leader in the issue areas that get addressed. Good leadership in issue areas leads to positive outcomes. Can the battle to get the United States to sign and ratify Kyoto be as easy as using democracy to translate public opinion into public policy? Surely the public voted George W. Bush into office for a second term, therefore, climate change was obviously not the number one issue in their minds. However, with scientific consensus surrounding climate change and its human induced nature, perhaps the democratic process will work in the favor of those who wish to see steps taken in environmental legislation addressing climate change in 2008. The U.S. is most often looked to as a leader, however this has not been the case with global warming.

Alternative Energy: Aestheticism v. Solution

Many different scenarios exist surrounding climate change. One way to approach this issue is through the development of technologies in the form of alternative energy sources. One such alternative energy source is wind power. By harnessing the wind through the use of wind turbines (pictured-above-left) clean energy is produced. In a recent New York Times article, the pro's and con's of these turbines arose. Located in the travel section, this article debated the negative ramifications of wind farms on the tourism sector in Greece. Aesthetic concerns like this engender the NIMBY of the "not in my backyard" syndrome. Similar to the tourism objections surrounding the renewable energy source of wind power is another example of a renewable technology; solar power. In another New York Times article, the aesthetic nature of solar panels (pictured-above-right) was debated. The Syverson's who live in Nassau County in New York wish to install solar panels in order to do their part to help the environment. However, the town has turned them down because of NIMBY reasons and aesthetics.

Perhaps the turbines will hurt tourism in Greece, however as the Greek director of Greenpeace, Nikos Charalambidis, reasons "If the climate gets worse here, tourists will vanish and not come back." Because of increased carbon emissions, some answer to alleviate the amount of carbon released into the atmosphere is necessary. Also, as in the case of Nassau County, NIMBY reasons must not deter the use of renewable energy sources. In fact, in this day, such acts should be encouraged, not turned down.

Greater Urgency Surrounding Climate Change

A recent New York Times article highlighted the importance of action on climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or the IPCC, (the recent co-winner of the Nobel prize shared with Al Gore), in its recent report heightens the necessity for real collaborative action surrounding global warming with obligatory participation from China and the United States. Like many scientists have asserted, Rajendra Pachauri, a leader of the IPCC, says that the steps taken within the next few years to alleviate climate change effects are vital. Jeffery D. Sachs of Columbia said that, "It's extremely clear and is very explicit that the cost of inaction will be huge compared to the coast of inaction." For those that do not believe that climate change is real and human induced, must realize that the scientific evidence is incontrovertible.

This article also highlighted the response from President Bush in that, "the issue warrants urgent action and we need to bring forward in a more accelerated way the technologies that will make a lasting solution possible." Usually Bush responds to climate change in an aloof manner, however at least he actually acknowledged the "urgency" of the issue. However, will action take place during this administration? Many believe the United States must wait until 2008 for such a possibility.

The IPCC on Climate Change

Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," Controversial?

In a blog posting by Greenpeace, the story from the U.K. about the controversial nature of Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth," was represented . The judge in the case finally ruled that the movie can be featured in the school environment, with access to other information concerning the contentious sections of the movie, provided. Representation of differing views is fair, however scientific consensus surrounding global warming has been reached. During a time when the general public may not know what to believe, these contradicting views may have a negative influence on public consensus surrounding this issue. However, not allowing access to such views is not the correct path either. Heightened awareness surrounding global warming must occur.

Some examples of the scientific consensus includes the connection between rise in carbon dioxide levels, in direct coherence with temperature rise overtime. Cynthia Kuo, Craig Lindberg, and David J. Thomson theorized a relationship between carbon dioxide and temperature. Keeling utilized models and measurements taken at the pinnacle of Mauna Loa beginning in 1958. These measurements confirmed the theory of Kuo, Lindberg, and Thomson. Scientific consensus surrounds the unity present between carbon dioxide and temperature, evident in the Keeling Curve.

The Emergence of a Bi-Partisan Effort to Combat Climate Change

In a recent article in the NY Times concerning the GOP candidates for the 2008 Presidential Election, differing views surrounding global warming were represented. In the past, Republicans seemed to be labeled as not "believing" in global warming. However, beginning before other Republicans, McCain in 2003, definitely acknowledged global warming. Along with Democratic Senator Lieberman, he put forth a bi-partisan effort to cap and trade emissions of greenhouse gases. This cap and trade concept is exactly the type of system in place in the Kyoto Protocol. In an op-ed article that appeared in the L.A. Times in 2003, McCain stipulated his views on climate change.

The other candidates' views represented in this article all acknowledge that global warming is occurring, however do not possess clear or helpful ideas to remedy the issue. Giuliani and Romney support alternative energy projects, however this alone will not aid the issue of climate change. A cap and trade program coupled with other efforts like the utilization of alternative sources of energy and other technologies, must occur.
This article assets that McCain acknowledged global warming, beginning as early as 2001. He says that he supports entering a cap and trade international environmental treaty, however only if India and China do so as well. In an article from September in the NY Times, China stipulated that if the United States leads the way in a treaty like Kyoto, that they will follow in these footsteps. “China expressed frustration with efforts by the industrialized nations to impose an emissions plan on her country…” If The U.S. enters a treaty like Kyoto in the future, other countries will follow so that this global environmental problem can be met on an equitable plane.

New Leadership Needed for Climate Change

In Thomas L. Friedman's recent op-ed post in the New York Times, he highlights Al Gore as championing leadership for climate change and disparages George W. Bush as not taking any action concerning this issue. Gore received very recent recognition for building awareness and acceptance of this issue by jointly receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. (He shares this award with the IPCC or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.) Friedman quotes David Rothkopf, "Gore lost the election and had to figure out what to do with the rest of his life. He took the initiative to get the country and the world to focus on a common threat — climate change. Bush won the election and for the first year really didn’t know what to do with it. When, on 9/11, we and the world were suddenly faced with a common threat — terrorism and Al Qaeda — the whole world was ready to line up behind him, but time and again he just divided us at home and abroad.”

Rothkopf's quote illustrates the differences in the policy mind sets of W. Bush and Gore. The United States is a world leader and therefore must command this position. In a recent NY Times article entitled "At Its Session on Warming, U.S. Is Seen to Stand Apart," John M. Broder extends this concept further. The world faces the "common threat" as stipulated by Rothkopf, of climate change, however does not take a stand to lead in remedying this issue. In this article, an environmental leader from China voices that, should the United States take steps toward an emissions cutting plan, then China will also pursue legislation in this form. However, the current administration chooses to take a back seat in terms of the current global warming legislation, The Kyoto Protocol.

Instating new leadership is obviously necessary for any successful action in terms of climate change. Friedman states that Democratic Candidates for 2008, lack "real passion" surrounding the issue. However, many candidates platforms conceive positive issue stances in terms of successful global warming legislation. For example, Barack Obama supports a cap and trade international environmental legislation, like Kyoto, as well as domestic environmental measures.
The scientific consensus surrounding global warming is alive. The choice the world faces is to do something about the problem, or to sit back and deal with future consequences. It is up to American voters to elect a candidate who will pursue this issue with utmost perseverance so that the United States possesses the opportunity to take a leadership position to combat global warming, so that the rest of the world follows.