The United Nations is the main global policeman in an effort by wealthy nations to reduce the impact of their own pollution by paying for cleanups in the developing world. The program, known as the Clean Development Mechanism, is one of the most important coordinated efforts to attack global warming.
In recent months, however, U.N. regulators who administer the program have objected to dozens of these developing-world projects, ranging from hydroelectric plants to wind farms, questioning whether the projects would produce a real environmental payoff.
U.N. regulators are also concerned that some independent auditors of these projects, who are responsible for vetting their environmental legitimacy, have been letting project developers push through ventures of questionable environmental value.
The issue is two pronged: Corporations buying carbon offsets want to get the most bang for their buck. And project developers want to build high value projects for cheap, increasing their bottom line. This creates a tremendous incentive for fraudulent, or at least cheap offset projects. Add to that the fact that many of these offset projects are in developing countries, and the administrative and oversight problems become enormous.
The U.N. says it isn’t suggesting that most of the developing-word projects are illegitimate. Evaluating whether a project would have been built without carbon-credit revenue is a complex judgment call,
The U.N. is taking a closer look at project developers, mostly Europe based companies, who set up projects to sell credits to buyers. Also facing scrutiny are the 3rd party auditing firms who inspect and certify to the U.N. that the projects are environmentally sound.
A member of the U.N. board, Christiana Figueres, expressed concern that the system may be open to what she called “collusion” between auditors and project developers to push through environmentally dubious projects.
A while back James Hansen, chief climatologist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, published a paper Target Atmospheric CO2: Where should humanity aim? I finally got around to reading it, you should too.
Decreasing CO2 was the main cause of a cooling trend that began 50 million years ago, large scale glaciation occurring when CO2 fell to 425±75 ppm, a level that will be exceeded within decades, barring prompt policy changes. If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm. If the present overshoot of this target CO2 is not brief, there is a possibility of seeding irreversible catastrophic effects.
The most difficult task, phase-out over the next 20-25 years of coal use that does not capture
CO2, is herculean, yet feasible when compared with the efforts that went into World War II. The
stakes, for all life on the planet, surpass those of any previous crisis. The greatest danger is
continued ignorance and denial, which could make tragic consequences unavoidable.
Mr. Hansen uses some pretty strong language, but backs it up with some equally strong data. There is also a Powerpoint presentation available here.
It appears climate denier Lawrence Solomon (of the National Post) was trying to do some creative obfuscation editing of science historian Noami Oreskes wikipedia entry when he got caught.
From the comments at Mr. Solomon’s site:
Mr. Solomon writes an excellent article - but unfortunately most of it is significantly biased and subject to interpretation.
Wikipedia cannot take Mr. Solomon’s word that Peiser has communicated with him - or that his interpretation of Peiser is correct. That can only be established via what Wikipedia calls reliable sources. So no matter how much Mr. Solomon complains it wouldn’t matter.
Wikipedia has such a reliable source - a communication from Peiser with the Australian ABC. And we have to rely on that.
Now a bit of background here. Naomi Oreskes paper (the one mentioned here) has been published in the rather prestigious scientific journal Nature. While Peisers critique is unpublished and available on his website.
Normally this would mean that Peiser’s critique wouldn’t be mentioned at all on Wikipedia - since there is a hard rule on not allowing self-published sources. But in this case Peiser has been commented on so much, that it merits a mention on Oreskes biographical article.
Mr. Solomons edits were significantly partisan (as is his article above), and these kinds of edits are routinely reverted, especially when done on a biography of a living person - and doubly so - when the only documentation for the claims is an anonymous editors claim that “he got this from Peiser himself”. (Yes - Mr. Solomon didn’t identify himself).
The Great Global Warming Swindle came out about a year ago. I’d never seen it until this past weekend. Interesting video presenting an alternative view. You can read all about the controversy surrounding it at Wikipedia and see the video for yourself here.
In Al Gore’s brand-new slideshow he presents evidence that the pace of climate change may be even worse than scientists were recently predicting, and challenges us to act with a sense of “generational mission” — the kind of feeling that brought forth the civil rights movement — to set it right.
Despite what you may think, Mr. Gore largely get the climate science right. Yes, he over dramatizes some stuff in order to make a point, but for the most part it’s all correct.
Here’s the summary: Biofuels are bad. Government mandated biofuel demand drives increased prices for crops and increased cultivation. The result is increased deforestation, or in the U.S. removal from CRP programs, and a net increase in GHG emissions. In addition food prices are soaring because of competition from biofuels.
An explosion in demand for biofuels has raised global crop prices to record highs, which is spurring a dramatic expansion of Brazilian agriculture, which is invading the Amazon at an increasingly alarming rate. “You can’t protect it. There’s too much money to be made tearing it down, out here on the frontier, you really see the market at work.”
Using land to grow fuel leads to the destruction of forests, wetlands and grasslands that store enormous amounts of carbon. Deforestation accounts for 20% of all current carbon emissions.
[Last November] Hillary Rodham Clinton unveiled an eye-popping plan that would require all stations to offer ethanol by 2017 while mandating 60 billion gal. (227 billion L) by 2030. “This is the fuel for a much brighter future!” she declared. Members of Congress love biofuels too, not only because so many dream about future Iowa caucuses but also because so few want to offend the farm lobby, the most powerful force behind biofuels on Capitol Hill.
Someone is paying to support these environmentally questionable industries: you. In December, President Bush signed a bipartisan energy bill that will dramatically increase support to the industry while mandating 36 billion gal. (136 billion L) of biofuel by 2022.
But as noted at Grist there is some good news:
The rapid increase in ethanol production has demonstrated how quickly the nation can mobilize to produce new energy resources. With the right policies — such as a stable production tax credit — we might mobilize the economy just as quickly to create and sustain a boom in wind energy, solar energy, geothermal energy, low-impact hydro, and bioenergy from feedstocks that have positive net carbon and energy benefits. Among them are cellulosic materials grown on degraded and untillable land, organic municipal and agricultural wastes, and algae.
And of course Earth Hour is about more than just an hour. It is about making some quick and easy changes in your life to conserve energy and help the Earth. Simple things you can do:
Switch to compact fluorescent light bulbs to save money and reduce emissions. Lighting accounts for around 5% of household greenhouse gas emissions, and compact fluros use 75% less energy than an equivalent incandescent bulb. Although the bulbs cost more up-front, you will actually save money through the energy saved and extended life of the bulb.
Turn appliances off while not in use. Unplug any appliances like mobile phone chargers, TVs, microwaves, MP3 players, which are not being used and are on standby. In Australia, appliances on standby consume up to 10% of your electricity bill.
Turn off anything that doesn’t need to be on. A good rule is to turn off anything not being used. When you leave a room or leave the house, turn off your lights or appliances like the TV or computer.
Switch to green power. This is one of the best ways you can make a difference. Contact your electricity provider today and switch to green power, a cleaner, more renewable form of energy that does not contribute to global warming. If all Australians switched to green power today, Australia’s total greenhouse pollution would be cut by 30% in one year. That’s the equivalent of more than 40 million cars!
Use less hot water. This is not only a good water saving tip, it saves electricity too. Spend one minute less in the shower.
Seen over at the American Geophysical Union (subscription required). I can’t access it, but here is the abstract:
Current international climate mitigation efforts aim to stabilize levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. However, human-induced climate warming will continue for many centuries, even after atmospheric CO2 levels are stabilized. In this paper, we assess the CO2 emissions requirements for global temperature stabilization within the next several centuries, using an Earth system model of intermediate complexity. We show first that a single pulse of carbon released into the atmosphere increases globally averaged surface temperature by an amount that remains approximately constant for several centuries, even in the absence of additional emissions. We then show that to hold climate constant at a given global temperature requires near-zero future carbon emissions. Our results suggest that future anthropogenic emissions would need to be eliminated in order to stabilize global-mean temperatures. As a consequence, any future anthropogenic emissions will commit the climate system to warming that is essentially irreversible on centennial timescales.
