Despite the Climate Change Emergency, There's Some Good News to Report

Okay, the baseline is still that we're in a planetary climate change emergency, and if governments don't get their act together at the upcoming UN climate conference (COP20) in Lima, Peru this December, we're hooped. 

(Easy peasy, lemon squeezy solution: Write to every elected official you can think of to demand that governments put an end to fossil fuel subsidies, start the decline in carbon emissions next year, and opt for RCP2.6+ as the basis for their next global, legally binding agreement at Paris (COP21) in December 2015.)

We're presenting the Climate EMERGENCY Countdown in our own community this coming week. It's not all bad news (after all, if governments put an end to fossil fuel subsidies, start the decline in carbon emissions next year, and opt for RCP2.6+ as the basis for their next global, legally binding agreement at Paris (COP21) in December 2015, then there's some hope!), but at the request and behest of some friends who don't have the stomach for any of the bad news, we're going to make a point of presenting some good news on the climate front. Here's a bit of it, collected from various sources:

1. A handful of chemistry companies are mimicking photosynthesis to turn carbon dioxide emissions into products such as chemicals, fibres and jet fuel. (Source)

2. The UK is transforming old coal mines into solar farms. (Source)

3. The Environmental Protection Agency in the United States is proposing a Clean Power Plan. (Source)

4. Both UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, Christiana Figueres, both understand the urgency. Perhaps they'll be able to (what's a nice word for) knock some sense into world leaders.

5. Climate Action Network International's June 2014 position statement, Long Term Global Goals for 2050, is the best ever. 

(Hey, I didn't say it was a long good-news list!)

Let's Ride This Wave of Rising Awareness All the Way to Paris

by Sandy Hinden

"We are in the midst of an awakening. At no time in history has Mother Earth needed her children to care more than at present. Ancient prophecies from around the world warn of dramatic global change. The Elders teach [that] if we return to harmony in our lives, Melting the Ice in our Hearts, we will survive." -- Angaangaq Angakkorsuaq

For years, we've known that governments weren't going to look after us by taking care of the climate crisis. We're living in a corporatocracy where governments are controlled by corporate interests, and it's not in the financial interest of big banks and fossil fuel companies to take care of the climate crisis. Which translates into the rich people still own us and control us.

I've naively believed that if we let people know what's going on in the world, they would wake up and give a damn. Not so. It's been a pretty comfortable ride for my generation ... the best ride in humanity's history perhaps ... and nobody wants to rock a boat that seems to be taking them on a scenic cruise. 

But as I reported here, the public is finally waking up. The spate of climate change reports (the IPCC's 5th Assessment Report, or AR5; the US National Climate Assessment) has people talking. To wake people up, it took big media coverage of big scientific organizations and big important people saying that this is an urgent crisis. 

That's okay. Any alarm clock will do. (I just wish it had rung earlier. It's not like these groups and politicians haven't known the urgency until now. It's just that they can't deny the urgency any longer, corporate interests be damned. Election campaign donations? Or votes? Perhaps votes are finally winning.)

But as my friend suggests whenever this topic comes up, "If you wake people up, you'd better have breakfast ready for them." It's been common wisdom for years that talking to people about climate change must also include talking to people about climate change solutions.

Hence, after a long discussion with two climate change activists last night, we came to the conclusion that we have to hop onto this wave of awareness and GET OUR BUTTS IN GEAR FOR PARIS 2015. After the complete (and probably completely scripted) debacle at the Copenhagen climate talks in 2009, a very scary decision was made by negotiators and world leaders at the Cancun talks in 2010 that there would be no agreement until 2015, and therefore no new measures implemented until 2020. 

We've had the Bali Roadmap, the Cancun Agreements, the Durban Outcomes, the Doha Climate Gateway, and the Warsaw Outcomes. And nothing has improved. Indeed, things are still getting worse. Emissions are rising, and impacts are deepening. 

But the public is now realizing that "urgent" means "now" --  not starting in 2020. In the IPCC's latest report, the only scenario (RCP2.6) that gives us a hope in hell says that greenhouse gas emissions have to plateau by next year (hello!) and be decreasing by 2020 (apparently not something we're willing or able to make happen overnight -- or we would have already). 

Christiana Figueres, head of the UN's Framework Convention on Climate Change, knows this and is calling on different groups to get their butts in gear (my term, not hers) "in the lead up to a new, universal climate change agreement in Paris." She said in a recent speech, for example, that faith groups "have an opportunity now to provide a moral compass for their congregations and for political, corporate, financial and local leaders."

So, folks, we've got our homework assignment. It's to make sure that world leaders at the Paris Conference of the Parties (COP 21 -- memorize that number) can't, won't and don't wiggle out of an effective, efficient and binding global agreement to safeguard the biosphere and the future of humanity and the rest of nature. We figure the script is written six months ahead of each conference. That gives us one year to make sure something excellent happens in Paris.

And hey, if pigs could surf, maybe we could even get an agreement in Lima, Peru at the COP 20. You know, come up with an urgent agreement to take urgent action on an urgent crisis. But who am I kidding?

Wait, what? Pigs can surf?

If This Is What the Head Honchos Believe, We're Screwed

So, this week the executive director of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, Yvo de Boer of the Netherlands, passed on the reins to the new ED, Costa Rican Christiana Figueres. Many development agencies cheered when Figueres was appointed (and celebrated when she took office Thursday), as they felt that a woman in this position would put gender-specific climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies on the table.

In early June, before leaving his position, de Boer had this to say (as reported by Agence France Presse):

"I don't see the [negotiation] process delivering adequate mitigation targets in the next decade. Over the longer term, I think we will get this issue under control. Having said that, I do believe that it's a longer journey."

So much for Cancun!

But Mr. de Boer is tired. He's worked hard and must be broken-hearted at the lack of progress. But Ms Figueres is brand new. She'll be brimming with optimism, right? Wrong.

As reported by Agence France Presse on 9 June 2010, at the Bonn climate change talks Figueres cautioned that "it could take until 2050 to build the machinery that will ultimately tame greenhouse gases." She insisted that she is approaching her new job "with optimism tempered by hard-edged realism."

Ah, realism. I think the world has probably had enough of that lately.

"I continue to be confident that governments will meet this challenge, for the simple reason that humanity must meet the challenge. We just don't have another option," she said.

And then, she had this warning for people like me:

"I don't believe that we will ever have a final agreement on climate ... in my lifetime. Maybe in yours." Political progress on climate change would lag behind scientific warnings for many years to come — and those who expect a quick fix will be disappointed, she intimated.

So why would we have someone running the climate change negotiations who doesn't understand that not reaching an agreement in her lifetime (she's my age, for heaven's sake, and I plan on living another several decades!) will mean curtains for life on Earth?

Well, here's another quote from Figueres, one that shows she perhaps doesn't understand the science — or the human costs of climate catastrophe — all that well. In response to the question "How critical is the need for adaptation measures and how should those be focused to protect the most vulnerable populations?", Figueres first applauds the Copenhagen Accord's aspiration of a maximum temperature increase of 2ºC.

Whoa! Doesn't she get that carbon feedbacks are already kicking in, meaning we should be aiming for no more heating at all?

Then, luckily, she backpedals a bit: "While a good first step, this temperature increase does not guarantee the survival of the most vulnerable populations within their own boundaries and represents dangerous threats to their livelihood. Therefore, adaptation is critical to cover the impacts of that warming."

No. Wait. She thinks that adaptation will help those vulnerable populations who will not survive 2ºC to survive 2ºC? Am I missing something? Let's carry on:

"We know that farmers who depend on predictable weather patterns and water availability [name one who doesn't, I would ask] are going to be the most affected. Obviously, countries with the least resources or where agriculture represents a disproportionate share of their people's occupation will be the most at risk of climate change and the most in need of adaptation measures. Small island states, a large part of Africa and countries like Bangladesh should be obvious recipients of large investments in adaptation."

Got that? The hint is in the words "livelihoods" and "occupation." Ms Figueres is thinking in terms of money, not ecology. If farmers' livelihoods are impacted by climate change, folks, then FOOD is impacted by climate change. And WE ALL NEED FOOD TO SURVIVE (well, except for those breatharians). If agriculture goes, we go. We have evolved into a species dependent on agriculture — practically all of us.

Why are agriculture and food security so soundly ignored by head honchos of the climate change negotiations? Seriously, can't some of them think in terms of getting a climate agreement sooner rather than later, so that we can safeguard the future of our children? What are they going to eat? What are we going to eat?