Life History of the Plain Plushblue
from Butterflies of Singapore
Island of cativity
from The annotated budak
Don't take my picture
from The annotated budak and no petting please
Flight reaction of roosting birds
from Bird Ecology Study Group
Knobblies Galore at Cyrene Reef!
from Nature's Wonders
Straits Times 20 Dec 09;
Singapore will start making good its pledge to bring down its level of carbon emission growth, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said yesterday.
But whether it reaches the full target of 16 per cent below the 'business as usual' (BAU) level by 2020 will depend on one thing: a legally binding global deal to fight climate change.
The world is at least one or two years away from such an agreement, following inconclusive talks over the past 13 days.
To reach the 16 per cent target, Singapore will be studying and possibly introducing measures such as mandating energy efficiency standards for buildings and air-conditioning, emission trading schemes and carbon taxes, he said.
Some of these measures had already been planned under a sustainable development blueprint released early this year. The blueprint aims for a reduction in emission growth of 7 to 11 per cent below BAU.
As for the new schemes, 'whether we do them, when we do them, how we phase them in' all depend on the final outcome of the talks.
The 16 per cent target was announced earlier this month ahead of the Copenhagen talks. It is voluntary and domestically funded, but also conditional, he reiterated.
'It's conditional, of course, on the (legally binding) agreement being reached and other countries also putting their parts in and all of it adding together. But our offer stands.
'Whether or not there's an agreement, we'll start to (make cuts) because we have a sustainable development blueprint.
'That contains certain measures which we need to do anyway, because we need to emphasise energy conservation and planning for the long term and contingencies.'
Going ahead into future international climate negotiations, Singapore would just have to make sure that these voluntary emission curbs would be credited to it and not discounted, he said.
Clarissa Oon
Clarissa Oon, Straits Times 20 Dec 09;
Copenhagen: The compromise agreement that concluded the climate change summit here is useful and can form the basis of future negotiations to address global warming, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said yesterday.
However, he also expressed disappointment with the fractious nature of the talks, and what he called 'sound and fury' and 'trench fighting over procedures'.
The Copenhagen Accord, a political statement rather than a legal agreement, was the product of the so-called BASIC group of countries - Brazil, America, South Africa, India and China. It remains opposed by many poorer countries and viewed with reservation by others, on the basis that it does not go far enough to tackle global warming.
World leaders including United States President Barack Obama and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao were in Copenhagen for the critical final stage of the talks that began on Dec7.
The Singapore delegation led by PM Lee included Senior Minister S. Jayakumar and Environment and Water Resources Minister Yaacob Ibrahim.
Speaking to the Singapore media, Mr Lee said the accord was 'a useful basis to take the process forward'.
'We can continue discussing, using this in order to try and reach a less imperfect arrangement,' he said.
While all countries involved had 'no illusions' that Copenhagen would yield a legally-binding deal, it was still lamentable that basic points of disagreement among the countries were not surfaced before the conference, said Mr Lee.
As a result, the 13-day talks saw gruelling, round-the-clock negotiations during which 'every inch of ground' was contested, he noted.
Many negotiators were 'not in the right frame of mind' to take considered views which were 'practically realistic, politically feasible and showing a certain vision and detachment from the immediate close-quarter combat', he said.
He noted however that climate change negotiations were by their nature difficult, and remained optimistic that discussions would continue and a more constructive agreement reached at some stage. He stressed two points:
Firstly, climate change is a problem with a very long-term horizon. To tackle it, governments have to make commitments that may show results only decades from now, which is a difficult call to make.
Secondly, perspectives on climate change differ dramatically among countries. Some are rich and already environmentally conscious, while others are still developing and do not want to compromise on future economic growth.
He singled out countries with specific climate worries, such as small island states worried about being swamped by rising sea levels.
The measures to mitigate against climate change will involve, for many countries, 'very fundamental changes' to economic structures, lifestyles and even to political systems, he said.
'So to bring all this together, into a coherent proposal and a single set of objectives (that all 192 negotiating countries can agree on), I think, is a big challenge.'
The PM and his delegation left Copenhagen yesterday.
Mr Lee is on leave from today until Dec 31. During his absence, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean will be Acting Prime Minister.
Copenhagen Accord useful in taking climate talks forward: PM Lee
May Wong, Channel NewsAsia 19 Dec 09;
COPENHAGEN: Singapore's Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said on Saturday that he is disappointed with the outcome of the United Nations climate talks, which did not produce a unanimous agreement.
But he believes the accord reached by the United States, India, Brazil, South Africa and China serves as a useful basis for countries to take the negotiation process forward.
Speaking to the Singapore media at the end of the climate conference in Copenhagen, Mr Lee said: "I don't think it's a happy outcome. We're disappointed, but it's not the end of the world. The discussions will continue and at some stage, we'll be able to reach a more constructive agreement.
"We think it's a useful basis to take the process forward and we hope that it will not be cast aside. If it's not adopted this time, we can continue discussing, using this in order to try and reach a less imperfect arrangement."
For Singapore, it is doing its part by pledging to reduce emissions growth by 16 per cent below the level projected by 2020 – provided that there is a global agreement, and that other countries announce significant emissions reduction targets.
Even though there is no global deal now, Mr Lee said Singapore will continue to work on measures to cut its emissions growth.
He said: "Whether we get there or not depends on whether there will be an agreement. If there's no agreement, we're not obliged to hit the 16 per cent target. But we have a sustainable development blueprint which is 7 to 11 per cent target. So that part, we'll do regardless, but we must make sure that having done that, if there's subsequently a deal, we get credit for our merit.
"To reach 16 per cent, we'll have to take new measures. We have to consider what this will be and there'll be regulations. For example, energy efficiency standards may be necessary. There may be other requirements from building insulation, air-conditioning, green marks, platinum, so on and so forth, there may have to be fiscal measures.
"If you look at countries which are contemplating this problem, either they've gone for cap and trade, or they've gone for some kind of carbon tax, or at least they're thinking about that.
"We have to contemplate that and if we do, then we also have to have incentives and countervailing, balancing measures to buffer the impact so that households, companies, the economy do not bear disproportionate share of the burden."
Singapore has an interest in having a good outcome for an international climate agreement because it is a small and vulnerable city-state.
But Mr Lee conceded that reaching an agreement will be very difficult and that it is a big challenge to come up with a coherent proposal, with a single set of objectives, to move forward.
- CNA/so
Thanks to its compact nature, Tampines is on its way to becoming...
Shuli Sudderuddin, Straits Times 20 Dec 09;
To some residents, Tampines Central might just as well be dubbed Bike Central.
Around 10am last Thursday, it was already crowded with bicycles.
The racks surrounding the MRT station were full. Other cyclists resorted to chaining their bikes to pillars, railings in the area and even trees.
There are about 8,790 bicycle racks in Tampines and the Land Transport Authority recently put up sheltered parking for 247 bicycles near the MRT station as part of a pilot project.
Madam Aminah Ali, 63, a cleaner who cycles to work in Tampines Central every day, said: 'There are not enough parking spaces and sometimes we have to leave our bicycles all over the place.'
This is why cyclists are cheering the news that Tampines is set to become Singapore's first cycling town.
Announced on Dec 13, the move includes plans to improve cycling facilities there.
Said an MP for Tampines GRC, Mr Ong Kian Min: 'Tampines is a very compact town and together with the push to be more environmentally friendly, it makes sense for it to be a cycling town.
'All the blocks are within a 2km radius from the central area and MRT station. As cycling on the road is risky, using footpaths would be an obvious solution.'
Following a trial period which ended in January this year, cyclists in Tampines were allowed to use the footpaths. It will be made legal in March next year, after rules to penalise reckless cycling are put in place.
North East District Mayor Teo Ser Luck, who set up the Safe Cycling Task Force for the Tampines project, said: 'Tampines is one of five towns in Singapore with a high volume of cyclists.
'Surveys have shown that, increasingly, cycling is accepted as a mode of transport.'
A tripartite committee - comprising Tampines grassroots organisations, the Land Transport Authority and the Traffic Police - will improve cycling facilities and education efforts.
At the same time, enforcement against reckless cyclists will be stepped up.
Both bicycle users and non-riders welcomed the three-pronged action plan.
Said Mr Melvin Low, 19, a student who cycles to Tampines Central so he does not have to wait for the bus: 'It's good that they have made things easier for us.
'I hope more stands will be added as well, because in some places there are just not enough of them.'
Civil servant Md Nor Mohamed, 59, whose family of four share three bicycles, said: 'I see people chaining their bikes to railings near the road. It's very messy.'
An MP for the area, Ms Irene Ng, said: 'Improving the infrastructure is a work-in-progress. The town council has been building more bicycle spaces in certain busier areas, such as near the Tampines Street 11 wet market and hawker centre.'
She said a pilot scheme, which had bike racks built near the lift landing of one HDB block, will be studied to see if it should be expanded.
Mr Steven Yeo, chairman of the Tampines GRC Cycling Warden Committee, said: 'With the Traffic Police's help, we'll be holding monthly safety clinics teaching safe and considerate cycling, like giving way to pedestrians and using headlights at night.'
Reactions from pedestrians included that from sales assistant Daphne Yong, 18, who lives and works in Tampines.
The ubiquitous presence of bicycles there is not an issue to her. She said: 'It may be messy but it doesn't bother me as long as the bikes don't block my way.'
But 70-year-old Mustapha Embong was worried about how cyclists behaved.
He said: 'They continue to obstruct people and ride on pavements at high speed.
'They must be made to obey the rules and regulations, otherwise I'll be very disappointed when Tampines becomes a cycling town.'
Straits Times 20 Dec 09;
Even as Singapore pledged to reduce its carbon emission growth in Copenhagen last week, businesses have some catching up to do when it comes to toeing the green line. Goh Chin Lian looks at the oft-criticised bakery business, and others that have done well.
It's a common sight at bakeries: one bag for one bun when you take your tray of bread to the cashier. Then it all goes into a bigger plastic bag.
Environmentalists baulk at this excessive use of plastic, but bakeries say it is for hygiene, and customers want it this way.
Like national serviceman Sean Tan, 20. 'Sometimes I eat the buns on the go or I may share them with my friends. I'm really not that concerned about the environment,' he said.
Crystal Jade said many customers do not like having two items in one bag. The buns may have different toppings or the cream on some of these items may get crushed, said its special assistant to the managing director, Ms Stella To.
Even so, the practice prompted the Packaging Council of Singapore two weeks ago to ask two big chains, BreadTalk and Prima Deli, to reduce the thickness of their plastic bags by about 40 per cent.
The two bakeries are among more than 90 signatories to the government-initiated Singapore Packaging Agreement that commits companies to reduce the weight, size or thickness of materials in packaging.
Both BreadTalk and Prima Deli have yet to decide if they will heed the council's call.
The council's chairman, Mr Albert Lim, told The Sunday Times it is harder to ask bakeries to do away with individual packaging because customers themselves want it.
Finance executive Susie Ng, 48, also prefers to have the buns individually packed. She said: 'We don't need to wash our hands if the buns are in plastic bags. We save on water and sanitising gel.'
Each year, 2.6 billion plastic bags are thrown away in Singapore, estimates the Singapore Environment Council (SEC). Singapore Retailers Association executive director Lau Chuen Wei said while Singapore's retailers are trying to be green, they must also strike a balance to satisfy their not so eco-friendly customers.
Even as supermarkets urge customers to bring their own bags, many are seen using plastic bags as gloves to pick potatoes and chicken, then leaving the bags behind on shelves, she said.
Customers even demand more bags from cashiers or insist that their buys be packed into many separate bags.
Bakeries say they are not indifferent to the green cause. BreadTalk switched to biodegradable plastic bags two years ago. These cost 15 per cent more than conventional plastic bags. Crystal Jade also plans to introduce biodegradable bags, while Four Leaves said it uses thinner plastic bags.
SEC executive director Howard Shaw suggested that bakeries use paper bags made from recycled material or sustainable paper sources.
But bakeries argue that paper is unsuitable for bread with toppings that are oily or wet. The range of recycled paper packaging of a grade that can contain food is limited, said Prima Deli's deputy manager, Ms Pansy Wong. Such packaging also costs 20 to 30 per cent more than conventional food grade paper packaging, she added.
And while Prima Deli says staff are trained to ask customers if they need a plastic bag, most bakeries leave it to customers to take the initiative.
Said BreadTalk's senior vice-president for group branding, Ms Joyce Koh: 'If customers say they don't need a bag or want to put similar products in one bag, we will agree to their requests.'
Retiree Sylvia Low, 64, felt that individual packaging was a convenience that was too hard to give up, even though she has been supporting the green cause in other ways.
For instance, she cleans and dries her used milk cartons for collection by a recycling firm every alternate Tuesday from her Serangoon Gardens house.
She said: 'I reuse the plastic bag. If it's not soiled, we'll put rubbish in it or my maid will use it to wrap fish and put it in the freezer for my cat.'
Ms Lau felt that both retailers and consumers can play a part: Cashiers can ask if they can put more items in a single bag, while customers can request fewer bags.
Mr Thomas Thomas, executive director of the Singapore Compact for Corporate Social Responsibility, a national society helmed by employer and union representatives, urged more companies to report their green efforts according to international standards - from saving energy to responsible sourcing of materials.
Consumers should then reward pro-environment retailers by buying their products.
He said: 'Consumers must put pressure on retailers, but retailers can educate consumers and set the tone.'
Mr Shaw, who was in the Danish capital of Copenhagen for the United Nations climate change conference that ended last Friday, observed the rising consumer expectations abroad for businesses to be environmentally friendly.
Companies in Singapore must decide if they want to be a leader or a laggard on this front, he said.
What about styrofoam containers?
Straits Times Forum 27 Dec 09;
Last Sunday's column, 'The bad bag habit', faults only the humble plastic bag as 'ungreen' and a carbon emissions culprit.
Although I agree we could all do with fewer plastic bags, I find that they are not always the villain they are made out to be.
For example, plastic bags may be reused for storing meat in our freezers, to bag trash, or as gloves, before finally being thrown away.
In fact, there are other undesirable products and behaviour that are not environmentally friendly.
For example, styrofoam cups, bowls and take-away containers are worse for our environment and should be banished. They are non-biodegradable, and worse, they are bulky and quite useless for reuse in other purposes.
Since they were introduced some years back, these styrofoam boxes and cups have quickly spread and taken root in the food and beverage industry, with coffee shops, food centres and even durian sellers using them.
The packaging becomes quite a nuisance as it often turns into windblown litter.
I have often seen these light styrofoam bowls and cups blown helter-skelter on tables, tipping and rolling over and spilling their contents onto the tables and floors.
Another undesirable habit is drivers letting their car engines idle while waiting.
From the very large vehicles to the smallest car, one can easily see them on our roads.
I have come across many cases of drivers running their car engines for more than half an hour.
I wonder whether the National Environment Agency has any concerted programme to discourage this and enforce its rules.
Chan Wai Chong
Straits Times 20 Dec 09;
They may peddle upsized meals, but fast-food chains have been downsizing their packaging.
Zinger burgers from KFC, for instance, now come in smaller boxes, while the chain's napkins and plastic bags have become thinner.
For that, it won the National Environment Agency's 3R Packaging award last year and this year.
Two years ago, it shrank home delivery boxes by 20 per cent, saving an estimated 20 tonnes of paper board, or $24,600, a year.
Boxes and sleeves for its spicy Zinger burgers (below) and dessert pies have also been reduced in thickness by 12.5 per cent, from 240 gsm to 210 gsm. This has translated into savings of more than five tonnes of paper board a year.
McDonald's stopped distributing ketchup sachets over the counter and introduced self-service stations two years ago, with signs reminding customers to take only the amount they need.
Subway reduced the thickness of its paper wrappers by 9 per cent, saving an estimated 3.5 million kg of paper annually. Kopitiam introduced microwavable paper containers for all takeaways at its food court in the eco-friendly City Square Mall at Kitchener Road, replacing plastic containers.
Fuji Xerox, go-green adviser
Straits Times 20 Dec 09;
The next time you want to throw out your used toner cartridge, photocopier drum or circuit board, think twice. These items can be turned into new products.
Japanese copier company Fuji Xerox has been doing this since 2004. It collects the used accessories from its customers in Singapore and ships them to a manufacturing plant in Pattaya, Thailand, where they are broken down into finer gold and copper components and remade into new products.
'It's the parent company's vision that no equipment will go to a landfill,' said general manager Ri-chard Teo.
Recycling used components is just one of the company's green efforts. It designs its machines to use less electricity and ensures the paper it sells comes from internationally certified and approved sources, and not from illegal loggers.
It also began advising companies last year on ways to use less energy and paper at the workplace.
One multinational company in electronics manufacturing halved its paper usage after it got help to identify the number of copies of documents it actually needed to print for its operations, said Fuji Xerox's industry solutions architect Mak Chee Hong.
Giving eco-friendly advice benefits the copier company, he pointed out.
'It adds value to the hardware we sell,' he said.
Eco-friendly shopping at Tangs
Straits Times 20 Dec 09;
Use an eco-friendly tote bag, get a discount.
Department store Tangs followed in the footsteps of supermarket chains by introducing this new green measure this year.
It was one of several such measures - including putting up energy- saving Christmas decorations - that earned the store the inaugural Green Retailer of the Year award from the Singapore Retailers Association in October.
Tangs was one of two winners, the other being The Body Shop.
Tangs' assistant vice-president of marketing and communications, Ms Lin Pei Hua, said its green efforts dovetailed with its values of being a responsible retailer.
'We are promoting consumerism, but we must be responsible in letting people know there are alternatives.
'It also reinforces the positioning of our brand.'
Tangs' shoppers get 80 cents off their bill when they use the store's tote bag, and 40 cents off for using other eco-friendly bags.
Retailers like furniture store Ikea go further by charging customers five to 10 cents for each plastic bag, while supermarket chain NTUC FairPrice gives customers 10 cents back when they use their own bag and spend at least $10.
Ms Lin said that Tangs cashiers are also trained to ask customers if they need a bag.
'It's not ingrained in our shoppers yet to refuse a plastic bag. But if you remind them, they will say they don't need the bag. They do feel a bit guilty.'
Tangs' green efforts started when one of its vendors, beauty brand Clarins, set up an exhibit last year at its Orchard store to educate customers about measuring their carbon footprint.
Other vendors have since partnered Tangs to promote their eco-friendly products.
Tangs also cut back on glossy promotional mailers by encouraging its card members to go online. Window dressing has also gone green.
Tangs will continue to promote the green message in the new year, said Ms Lin. Its first sale of the year in February will come with a tagline to remind shoppers to be environmentally responsible.
Discards pose risks for wildlife, human health
Sarah J. Wachter International Herald Tribune Boston Globe 20 Dec 09;
The once-pristine Nyongo Sharif beach along Kenya’s northern coast, near the border with Somalia, seems an unlikely dumping ground for the world’s plastic garbage. But the Somali upwelling, a powerful current, sometimes tosses rubbish onto the beach from as far away as Indonesia; and when the current reverses course, it hurls another load up from Southern Africa, as far afield as Mozambique.
High in the list of flotsam is one of the most ubiquitous and least noticed symbols of modern society: the flip-flop.
“Flip-flops are a global problem, just one indicator of the myriad rubbish in the sea, which we are treating as the world’s dumping ground,’’ Julie Church, a marine biologist, said recently by telephone from Nairobi.
“Tons and tons and tons of plastic waste, including flip-flops, flow down rivers and clog drainage systems, and animals are swallowing them,’’ she said.
Looking for at least a partial solution, Church has started a company making toys and gifts from reclaimed flip-flop plastic, for sale in eco-fashion boutiques in the United States.
Flip-flops, cheap and disposable, are the footwear of choice for the poor in developing countries and seaside tourists everywhere. “Flip-flops are one of the simplest products to produce. It’s a three-step casting process, versus a typical shoe, which is made in 100 steps,’’ said Marshall Cohen, a global footwear analyst with NPD, a US-based market research company. “It is the ultimate universal product.’’
Universal, but not harmless: Church said the piles of flip-flops on the shoreline were preventing protected hawksbill and green turtles from leaving the sea to nest. And a report issued in October flagged a risk of chemicals in the plastic that could be harmful to human health.
The report, “Plastic Shoes From All Over the World,’’ by the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation, analyzed 27 pairs of plastic shoes made in various countries, from Uganda to China and the Philippines.
It said 17 pairs contained polyvinyl chloride, or PVC, which environmentalists say is the most nonrecyclable plastic; and many contained two or three varieties of plastic softening agents known as phthalates that have been classified as toxic to reproduction.
Many also contained high levels of heavy metals, which can be carcinogenic to humans and toxic to plants and animals. Heavy metals, such as lead and cadmium, are added to PVC products to make them last longer.
Moreover, the report said, the presence of toxic chemicals was not limited to cheap brands: Some expensive models also contained high concentrations of dangerous chemicals.
“We were surprised that metals were present in so many samples, and DEHP in such high concentrations,’’ said Mikael Karlsson, president of the society. DEHP is one of the phthalates used as a softening agent.
Production numbers for flip-flops are hard to come by, but Cohen and other analysts say the largest producers are probably mainland China and Hong Kong, which in turn outsource manufacturing to other countries such as Vietnam and Malaysia.
“There is always another factory opening up somewhere, selling for a penny less, which is the difference between getting the deal or not getting the deal to make flip-flops in huge quantities,’’ Cohen said.
According to the Swedish report, chemicals in shoes leach out both when the shoes are worn and when they are deposited in landfills. Heat and perspiration can cause some hazardous chemicals to be absorbed more easily by the body, it also said.
Flip-flops are just part, though a significant part, of a rising tide of plastic litter stretching down the East African coastline from Somalia to South Africa.
Last year, the UN Environmental Program inventoried the problem of marine litter in the region. The survey of eight countries, including Kenya, showed that plastics made up from 80 to 89 percent of the waste stream, with the most developed countries the worst affected.
Rapid urbanization and population growth of coastal cities such as Dar es Salaam, the capital of Tanzania, which now has a population of 4 million, are the major contributors to the problem, compounded by increasing tourism and the alarming growth in throwaway plastic products, the survey reported.
“Plastic waste from bags, bottles, and flip-flops is a very persistent and large part of marine litter on beaches and in the seas,’’ said Peter Scheren, project manager of the UNEP-West Indian Ocean Lab project, which deals with environmental problems in the marine and coastal areas of the region.
“Safe disposal of solid waste is often considered a luxury,’’ Scheren said. “The economic and social impacts of inadequate management are completely unknown, and are simply not considered by policy makers, despite the diseases, lost work days, and deaths. The impact is enormous.’’
Mabule Mokhine, an activist with Greenhouse People’s Environment Center in Johannesburg, said plastic waste is piling up, with no real waste management anywhere in the region. “There is a serious problem in the amount of plastic produced for public consumption with no reuse, recycling, or composting.’’
Lacking recycling facilities, people in East Africa often burn their waste, including plastics. “You see open incineration everywhere,’’ Scheren said.
Burning PVC produces a rash of health hazards for people who live downwind of incinerators. While studies have not been conducted exclusively on disposable plastic products, some studies on medical waste, which often contains plastic components, give an indication of the health and environmental effects of plastics that are burned without adequate incineration or that are discarded in landfills.
New Straits Times 20 Dec 09;
KUANTAN: Police arrested two men on Friday and seized 130 pangolins which were meant to be smuggled overseas.
Acting on a tip-off, police went to a Chinese cemetery in Lebuh Raya Tun Razak here at 10am and caught the two sorting out the pangolins from plastic sacks into modified compartments of two cars.
The two men and the animals were taken to the Gambang police station before police alerted the state Wildlife and National Parks Department (Perhilitan).
Perhilitan director Khairiah Mohd Shariff said investigations revealed that the scaly mammals were intended to be taken to Kuala Lumpur to be skinned before being transported to Johor for export.
She said a kilogram of pangolin meat could fetch about RM200 in neighbouring countries, the price depending on the size of the animal.
"We believe the pangolins were trapped by plantation workers and individuals to be sold to prospective buyers.
Policemen showing some of the pangolins that were seized in a raid at a cemetery in Lebuh Raya Tun Razak, Kuantan.
"To avoid being caught, the smugglers operate on public holidays and transport the animals in cars instead of lorries," she said yesterday.
Khairiah said the smuggling of exotic animals such as pangolins, clouded monitor lizards, owls, porcupines and pythons would usually rise at year-end.
She said the department was thankful for the quick action by police.
Sources said the suspects, who are in their early 20s, had made the burial ground their meeting point to collect the endangered animals.
Plantation areas used to be popular collection points but after being ambushed on numerous occasions, the smugglers have chosen other remote areas, including cemeteries, the sources said.
Khairiah said the suspects, from Pahang and Kedah, have been released on police bail and will be charged in court.
The pangolins would be released at the National Park forest here.
Pangolins are popular for their meat as well as their scales which are used in traditional medicine.
The Star 20 Dec 09;
KOTA KINABALU: A coalition of concerned groups here is hoping that Malaysia’s pledge to slash its carbon emissions over the next 10 years will start with the scrapping of an unpopular coal-fired power plant project in the state’s east coast.
“This strengthens the case against the coal-fired power plant. However, Sabah still needs to solve its power supply shortfall by other means,” said Green Surf spokesman Dr Rahimatsah Amat.
The WWF Malaysia Borneo Programme chief technical officer said Malaysia’s adoption of the National Green Technology Policy strengthened its commitment to move away from “dirty” energy and focus on renewable energy.
“As such, the issue of having a coal-fired plant should be finally put to rest as it goes against new policies and commitments,” Dr Rahimatsah said yesterday.
Addressing the United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009 in Copenhagen last Thursday, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak pledged a 40% cut in Malaysia’s emissions by the year 2020, compared to 2005 levels.
Last week, Sabah Electricity Sdn Bhd (SESB) said it was expecting the proposed 300mW coal-fired plant in Lahad Datu to be fully operational in 2014, and was awaiting environmental approval.
SESB senior general manager for operations Abd Razak Sallim insisted that the plant was the only option available to the electricity-deficient east coast, as other methods were not feasible.
According to Lahad Datu Energy Sdn Bhd (LDE), the company behind the plant, the facility will be designed to burn 1.22 million tonnes of coal annually.
Meanwhile, Dr Rahimatsah said Green Surf would conduct a thorough study of the actual energy situation in Sabah and practical alternatives for power generation.
Put coal-fired plant to bed: Green Surf
Daily Express 20 Dec 09;
Kota Kinabalu: The issue of coal-fired plant should be finally put to rest permanently as it goes against new Government policies and commitments in both the Coral Triangle Initiative and the ongoing Copenhagen Climate Summit, said Green Surf Saturday.
"Early this year, our Prime Minister launched the National Green Technology which calls for Malaysia to move away from dirty energy such as coal and to promote the use of renewable energy," noted Dr Rahimatsah Amat at a press conference.
"We applaud Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak's 'Herculean endeavour' in committing Malaysia to slash up to 40 per cent of carbon emissions by 2020 compared with 2005 levels," said Dr Rahimatsah of WWF-Malaysia.
Also present were Sabah Environment Protection Association (Sepa) President Wong Tack, PACOS leader Adrian Lasimbang and a host of Green Surf and Sepa members.
"Malaysians support the Prime Minister and this strengthens the no coal-fired power plant for the Sabah case, although Sabah still needs to solve its energy crisis by other means," Dr Rahimatsah added.
He said the Four-Fuel Policy that Sabah Electricity Sdn Bhd (SESB) uses to justify having a coal-fired power plant in Sabah is an outdated policy devised in 1981.
"This means it was designed without taking into consideration environmental impacts as well as climate change, which is a hot issue today," he pointed out.
"The environment was not a major concern back then and climate change was not even an issue. Now we know better, so let's do the right thing for Sabah's future," he pointed out further.
Dr Rahimatsah cited another policy that was adopted by the State Cabinet, the Sabah Shoreline Management Plan that has identified the coastal area of the Dent Peninsular (where the coal fired power plant is meant to be built) as being extremely sensitive and should be protected with no major development.
The identified site for the proposed coal-fired plant is also situated within the global epicentre for marine species and habitat, known as the Coral Triangle Initiative to which Malaysia has put in US$1 million (about RM3.4 million).
Sabah is also one of the few states in Malaysia that has placed environmental conservation as a priority and the Government has been working towards embracing the future by conserving age-old natural environment," according to the Sabah Development Corridor (SDC document.
The SDC also states that one of the key principles that will guide the development of Sabah is to ensure sustainable growth via environmental conservation.
SESB's statement that coal-fired power plant will have no effect on marine life in the mangrove forests, sea grass beds, the coral reefs and beyond is illogical as even small housing developments by the coast has an effect on the marine ecosystem.
To make such a hard and fast conclusion has put SESB on an obligation to furnish to the Sabah public independent scientific details on the baseline data on the condition of the marine ecosystem before coal-fired plant operation and also post-operation data clearly showing nothing has changed after non-stop discharge of waste water into the sea.
SESB's suggestion that fishermen can earn more in the manufacturing industry makes no sense as they chose to remain in the fishing industry as each family can earn RM1,500 to RM2,500 cultivating seaweed along the Dent Peninsular.
"As far as Green Surf is aware, no one has asked that the Detailed Environmental Impact Assessment (DEIA) include the whole world but just the identified zone of impact for the Dent Peninsular," said Dr Rahimatsah.
"Such simulations are the norm for DEIAs especially those situated in such sensitive areas and will not overload and crash computers as was mentioned by Lahad Datu Energy Sdn Bhd Project Director," he said.
"In 2001, energy companies across the United States were busy drawing up plans for about 150 new coal-fired power plants. However, by mid 2009, 100 of these planned plants were rejected. This is more than 50 per cent," he cited the growing unpopularity of coal-fired plants.
Dr Rahimatsah quoted the Prime Minister's own words: "We can no longer ignore these issues (climate change) but must now collectively and effectively address these challenges together where new approaches are critical".
Rahimatsah also disclosed that Green Surf is currently conducting a detailed study on all the alternative sources of energy in Sabah to "complement" studies done by TNB and SESB.
The report, scheduled to be competed by mid January, will also be presented to the Cabinet.
"I believe there is no point staying in loggerhead. The best solution is we are offering our services to help provide a solution to the energy crisis in Sabah," he said.
Dr Rahimatsah said the public have remained in the dark on the specific causes of the energy crisis in Sabah and said SESB and independent power producers (IPPs) should open their operation logbooks to the public to see exactly what is at fault.
"I don't think such books are OSA (Official Secrets Act) materials," he said.
Meanwhile, President of PACOS Trust criticised the SESB for insisting that coal is the only option.
"Renewable resources from oil palm wastes is a big option and we should look at it towards providing an alternative to coal," he said, citing two oil palm mills already doing bio-energy from biomass and biogas.
"They maybe small but if we could just upscale it a bit, I think it is an alternative to coal," he added.
Adrian also criticised SESB's planning which look at only "Centralised Systems" which are prone to management problems because they are complicated.
"They should also look at smaller scale but localised energy systems which can benefit the local economy instead of just importing energy from elsewhere."
On Malaysia's bold pledge to cut emissions by 40 per cent by 2020, Adrian noted: "2020 is not that far, yet the 2006 emission level was about 187 million tonnes of C02. This means if we cut emissions by 40 per cent from that, we are talking about removing 75 million tonnes and as I checked the figures, a 500MW-coal plant actually emits 3.3 million tonnes of C02.
So if Sabah goes for coal, by 2020 we have to phase out all these coal-fired power plants in order to meet the 40 per cent target," he noted.
"We are not just talking about the proposed 300MW power plant but all coal-fired plants in the country will have to be phased out. So the push for coal-fired plant shows we are not thinking of the climate change context and what Malaysia has vowed to do," Afdrain said.
Meanwhile, Sepa President Wong Tack said Sabah should not "jump into coal."
"Sabah should not make a decision in a rush and jump into coal because that decision will last for generations once it is made," he said.
"Give ourselves a chance, give us time," Wong said, citing the creation of the Ministry of Energy, Green Technology and Water only months ago this year. "I can see the future of renewable energy is coming up very soon.
Instead of the big rush into coal, we should study the options carefully," urged Wong tack.
HK News 19 Dec 09;
Local reefs are healthy and stable with 23 out of 33 sites surveyed recording high coral coverage, according to the results of Hong Kong Reef Check 2009.
Coral Beach and the public pier in Hoi Ha Wan Marine Park and A Ma Wan in Tung Ping Chau Marine Park recorded the highest coral coverage, ranging from 72% to 74%.
The three-month survey, starting in June, covered coral sites in eastern Hong Kong waters extending from Tung Ping Chau in the north to the Ninepin Group in the south, including Hoi Ha Wan, Yan Chau Tong and Tung Ping Chau Marine Parks.
The survey found a variation in coral coverage ranging from 19% to 74%. Twenty-three sites including dive-sites within Hoi Ha Wan, Yan Chau Tong and Tung Ping Chau Marine Parks recorded high coral coverage at above 50%.
Health status
Reefs at 22 sites were assessed using the coral-watch tool. The average health index was 4.31, similar to last year's 4.27 figure, showing corals were in a healthy and stable condition.
Coral bleaching and some damage was observed at some sites but the impact was minor and localised.
Most of the surveyed sites had high species diversity. Of the 20 assigned indicator species, 19 were recorded, two more species on last year. Wrasses, groupers, butterfly fish, sea urchins, sea cucumbers and cowries were species commonly found at the survey sites.
To better conserve the seascape and ecological resources like coral communities in the geopark, the Agriculture, Fisheries & Conservation Department is planning to designate more marine parks.
Yahoo News 18 Dec 09;
SYDNEY (AFP) – Anti-whaling activists accused Japanese fishermen Friday of using a military-type sonic device and water cannon against their helicopter as risky skirmishes in Antarctic seas escalated.
The Sea Shepherd animal rights group said the whalers used a Long Range Acoustical Device (LRAD) to repel the activists' helicopter, and then blasted the aircraft with water after it landed back on the anti-whalers' ship.
"This was an extremely irresponsible thing to do," helicopter pilot Chris Aultman said of the sonic equipment.
"That device can cause nausea and disorientation and the use of it against an aircraft is both extremely dangerous and grossly irresponsible."
LRAD is a device sometimes used for crowd control and also by US forces in Iraq. It has also been used by ships to repel pirates in waters off Somalia, according to reports.
A Sea Shepherd statement said the Japanese Shonan Maru No.2 also fired water cannon "in an attempt to destroy the helicopter on the landing pad".
Japan's Institute of Cetacean Research, which runs the whaling operations, said the sonic device was meant to warn the activists, not to hurt them.
"We are using a long range acoustic device only for the purpose of delivering our warning message to them," said an official at the institute.
"It is not meant to harm people or hurt their hearing."
When the activists come too close, he told AFP, "we spray water to prevent them from approaching us".
The Japanese also accused the activists of pointing a laser-like device at them, saying there was "no word for this but regrettable".
"As usual, we are protesting through diplomatic channels to the parties concerned," said Shigeki Takaya, an official with the fishery agency's whaling section.
The activists have pursued the Japanese fleet over the past six hunting seasons and claim to have saved the lives of hundreds of whales.
Japan killed nearly 700 whales last year using a loophole in an international moratorium that allows "lethal research".
Australia, New Zealand and the Netherlands have called for restraint on both sides after a collision last year and incidents when the activists hurled rancid butter and stink bombs.
"The situation is now very dangerous," said Paul Watson, the captain of the anti-whaling ship the Steve Irwin.
"We have deliberately led the Japanese ship into thick ice in order to lose them in the ice. The icebergs could easily damage either vessel."
He said the latest incident took place in French Antarctic waters and had been reported to French authorities.
Reuters 19 Dec 09;
MIAMI (Reuters) - A record number of endangered manatees died in Florida waters this year, according to the state's Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.
In a preliminary report on Friday, the commission said its Fish and Wildlife Research Institute had documented 419 manatee deaths in state waters between January 1 and December 11, the most for any year since record-keeping began in 1974.
The previous worst year for the mammals was 2006, when 417 deaths were documented in Florida. A lower-than-average total of 337 deaths was reported in 2008.
Manatee death counts can swing wildly from year to year and the wildlife commission has cautioned in the past not to read too much into a single year's statistics.
Along with an uptick in deadly encounters with boats, Florida's manatees faced a string of cold spells this year and a high mortality rate among infant manatees.
Cold-related deaths, at 55, were more than twice last year's total.
The West Indian manatee, related to the African and Amazon species and to the dugong of Australia, grows to 10 feet and more than 1,000 pounds (450 kg). Its wrinkled and whiskered face has won the hearts of generations.
Although they have no natural enemies, manatees are routinely crushed or drowned in canal locks, run over by speeding boats or hurt by fishing line and hooks. They are vulnerable to cold water in winter and to deadly blooms of "red tide" algae.
The Florida population is believed to have increased slightly in recent decades, in part due to boat speed restrictions. As a result, developers and boat industry interests have argued for easing restrictions to allow more construction of boat slips.
State scientists counted a record high number of 3,807 manatees in Florida waters last year, topping the previous high in 2001 by more than 500.
(Reporting by Tom Brown; Editing by Eric Beech)
Death Toll for Florida's Manatees Is Rising
Kate Spinner, Sarasota Herald-Tribune 18 Dec 09;
More manatees died this year in Florida waters than in any year on record, underscoring the state's struggle to keep the sea cow from plummeting to extinction.
The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission reported Friday that 419 manatees have been found dead so far this year, 22 percent of which were killed by boats. The total number of deaths exceeds the 2006 record of 417.
The commission's report is likely to become a rallying cry for state efforts to provide greater protection to manatees, including slower speed zones now being considered in Sarasota County.
So far this year, boats have killed 94 manatees, one less than the record in 2002.
Boating groups oppose the slower speed zones and have a great deal of influence on state regulators. Shortly before the manatee figures were released by the research arm of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, the regulatory arm of the same organization released a report saying boaters contribute $8.5 billion annually to the Florida economy.
On average, about 25 percent of manatees found dead each year die from boat strikes. So many manatees bear propeller scars that scientists use the markings to identify individual animals.
"The manatee is still an endangered species, so every death is a concern," said Martine deWit, associate research scientist for the commission's Fish and Wildlife Research Institute.
DeWit said that although scientists think manatee numbers are increasing, the death numbers are too high to attribute solely to their population growth. Manatees face a number of threats, including disease, red tide blooms, fast-paced boats and cold stress.
Previous high death years coincided with severe outbreaks of toxic red tide algae in 2006 and 1996. This year, mortality numbers soared despite relatively few red tide blooms.
Wildlife biologists do not know why so many manatees, particularly newborns, died this year. The number of dead newborns soared to 114, outpacing a record of 101 set last year.
Cold stress was a big killer this year, but accounted for only 55 deaths. An additional 110 manatees died of unknown causes.
Scientists do not know how many Florida manatees exist, but during aerial surveys last winter roughly 3,800 were counted statewide. Cold, sunny days are credited for that record high count, which exceeded a previous high count of 3,300 in 2001. That year, 325 manatees were found dead in Florida, far fewer than this year's toll.
Scientists think the manatee population is increasing throughout much of the state, but the number of dead animals suggest serious challenges still exist, DeWit said.
She said state biologist also could not identify any type of virus or disease that might have led to the higher death statistics.
Katie Tripp, director of science conservation for Save the Manatee Club, said more needs to be done to protect manatees.
"Things like watercraft mortality, as humans we are able to control that," Tripp said.
She said last year Broward County avoided a spike in manatee deaths by conducting a public education campaign among boaters when 850 manatees decided to congregate there.
"It's very possible that manatees and boaters can co-exist," she said.
www.brudirect.com 20 Dec 09;
Bandar Seri Begawan - Brunei has been the proud recipient of countless praises from the international community for its conservation and global warming mitigation initiatives and agenda.
But a recent report tells an entirely different story. According to a report published by the Inter Press Service on December 18, "On a per capita basis, a different picture emerges. With 7.2 tonne of CO2 per capita, Malaysia is still the third highest emitter in Southeast Asia. Brunei tops the list at 15.5 tonnes per capita, followed by Singapore with 12.8 tonnes. Thailand (4.3 tonnes) and Indonesia (1.5 tonnes) occupy fourth and fifth places respectively".
In a telephone conversation with the Deputy Minister of Industry and Primary Resources and Chairman of the Heart of Borneo project, Dato Paduka Hj Hamdillah bin Hj Abdul Wahab explained "You have to be very careful on how you frame your story, as you have to be very careful on how they arrived at their calculation - on what basis does Brunei top in terms of CO2 emissions
Trained as an engineer in the petroleum industry, the Deputy Minister was troubled with the report that claimed that Brunei emitted 15.5 tonnes of CO2 per capita, topping any other country in Southeast Asia.
According to him, "Firstly, Brunei is a perfect carbon sink - because the sultanate's pristine rainforests and its strong conservation policy (approximately 78 per cent of Brunei's land area is still currently under forest cover), not only that, the country's peat swamp acts as an ultimate carbon store."
Dato Hj Hamdillah went on to point out "The country's peat swamps absorb some five per cent more carbon than the forests, and together with our pristine forests -Brunei has an exceptional carbon sink."
"Secondly, although Brunei is an oil-producing country, if you look at it, we export 90 per cent of what we produce - that means that we roughly only consume 10 per cent of our resources."
Therefore, according to him, "This huge carbon sink that we inherited and preserve can easily absorb the 10 per cent. So, to say that Brunei is the largest contributor of CO2 in Southeast Asia, you really have to be very careful on how you absorb that fact."
He offered another logical explanation by saying that as Brunei has a small population relative to its oil and gas production, "any number per capita can get a bit funny".
"Do you say every Bruneian is thousands of dollars better than others since we have such a high per capita income? And similarly, can you really say that Brunei is the highest polluter of CO2 in the region since we have the highest per capita production of oil and gas? It all depends on how you measure it, and you have to be very careful on how you approach this," he reiterated, adding: "Such a calculation, or how they totalled-up their figures should be in line with the international standard."
He went on to include: "And if there is a standard benchmark recognised internationally on any certain nation's share of green house emissions, I think Brunei is very keen to it, so that we can know and act on it."
Dato Hj Hamdillah then listed out certain known facts: "But at the moment what we know is that Brunei Darussalam is one of the countries that does not contribute to the greenhouse gases because the sultanate's pristine forests act as an effective carbon sink. Brunei's peat swamp forests have been cited by numerous scientists as capable of storing carbon in its ecosystem."
"To find out later that we are labelled as the number one contributor of CO2 emitter to the atmosphere is shockingly surprising."
When asked, he offered his personal opinion that Brunei is not, because of the country's various initiatives, undertakings and regulations that protect and preserve the environment.
He added that Brunei has never stopped fulfilling its responsibility to mitigate global warming, but it is not the responsibility of the government alone. "Because more importantly, it is our personal initiative," he said.
"Even me, I will not switch on the lights at my own office unnecessarily, I open the window, I don't take my sweet time in the shower."
According to the deputy minister further on the report, "It is no use this blame game and one shouldn't wait for the authorities to enforce something. If one is aware about the environment, take the initiative to live in a responsible way so that we all can share this world in a sustainable manner."
Dato Hj Hamdillah offered several examples such as carpooling, which is the shared use of a car by the driver and one or more passengers, which according to him can be done effectively here in Brunei.
"Brunei is well-known to have several cars in one family - if one or a group of people go to the same office everyday or go in the same direction, to and fro - you can surely do something to organise some carpooling."
He believed this would further enhance the drive to mitigate against global warming by further limiting greenhouse emission.
In the mitigating adventure, the name of the game, he said is "continuous improvement". He explained that a country should strive to improve its environmental impact by continuously improving its energy efficiency.
"No country would emit zero pollution, and in the case of Brunei, we will continually produce oil and gas."
According to him, in the world we are living in, any effort to reduce global warming emissions must also produce sound business decisions that translate to profitability. "Driving efficiency up could lead to better utilisation of energy as this is the essence of the business in the global warming mitigation strategy."
Dato Hj Hamdillah recounted: "When I was in Shell, we use $120 million worth of energy. Imagine if only we were able to drive up our efficiency and improve just a mere 10 per cent of our energy needs that represents a cost reduction of $1.2 million, which is both profitable and would improve our environmental impact assessment," he said.
However, beyond making business sense out of it, the return of investment must also take into account benefits other than just dollar and cents. "Because producing a sustainable environment for a sustainable future and better quality of life makes out for good business sense."-- Courtesy of Borneo Bulletin
Michael Casey, Associated Press Yahoo News 19 Dec 09;
COPENHAGEN – A plan to protect the world's biologically rich tropical forests by paying poor nations to protect them was shelved Saturday after world leaders failed to agree on a binding deal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Burning trees to clear land for plantations or cattle ranches and logging forests for wood is blamed for about 20 percent of the world's emissions. That's as much carbon dioxide as all the world's cars, trucks, trains, planes and ships combined.
About 32 million acres (13 million hectares) of forests are cut down each year — an area about the size of England or New York State — and the emissions generated are comparable to those of China and the United States, according to the Eliasch Review.
Deforestation for logging, cattle grazing and crops has made Indonesia and Brazil the world's third- and fourth-biggest carbon emitters, after China and the United States.
All that made the failure of the forest project even more stinging.
"No treaty means that forest destruction will continue unabated, forest-dependent peoples' rights will not be protected and endangered species will continue down the path to extinction," said Stephen Leonard of the Australian Orangutan Project.
"REDD gets punted along for another year," said Kevin Conrad, executive director of the Coalition of Rainforest Nations, which includes many of the 40 tropical countries that would take part in the program.
"It's depressing," he said. "It means I've got to spend another year ... coming to meetings and talking about the same things."
But others said even without the legal framework, the forest program known as REDD — for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation — did benefit from the talks. World leaders at the U.N. talks in Copenhagen did agree to spend $30 billion over the next three years and $100 billion by 2020 to help poor nations — and some of that money could go toward the forest program.
"The failure to conclude a comprehensive agreement on forests is disappointing," said Michael Levi, senior fellow for energy and the environment at the Council on Foreign Relations. "But if developed countries can deliver the $100 billion per year aimed for in the broader Copenhagen Accord, there is little doubt that a large part of that will go to help preserve forests."
REDD would be financed either by wealthy nations or by a carbon-trading mechanism — a system in which each country would have an emissions ceiling, allowing those who undershoot it to sell their emissions credits to over-polluters.
Reducing tropical deforestation is one of the most effective and inexpensive ways to reduce emissions, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Two years ago, Norway announced it would commitment $500 million annually to reduce deforestation at a climate summit in Bali.
"Now the United States has shown that it is willing to play in the same league," said Kevin Knobloch, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Hope and funding for saving forests around the world
Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post 20 Dec 09;
COPENHAGEN -- In the months leading up to the U.N.-sponsored climate talks, there was one thing observers said with confidence: Any final outcome would establish global guidelines for paying poor countries to preserve their tropical forests.
That almost happened. The fact that it didn't may pose a slight glitch, but is unlikely to halt the proliferation of such projects around the world.
The burning and clearing of forests, primarily in Latin America, Africa and Southeast Asia, accounts for roughly 15 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions each year.
A coalition of conservationists, business interests and officials from developing countries back the idea of creating financial incentives for leaving standing trees that are in danger of being cleared for ranching or farming. According to the arrangement, known as Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation, or REDD, industries that create carbon emissions essentially pay impoverished nations to maintain their rainforests by buying pollution allowances from them.
Mark Tercek, chief executive of the Nature Conservancy, sees the mechanism as a win-win situation.
"It's a good deal for the developed world," Tercek said. "There are no losers."
Over two weeks in Copenhagen, negotiators worked out most of the details about how such a global system would work, and what type of projects would qualify for offsets.
But two key provisions -- what sort of emissions cuts countries would aim to achieve by avoiding deforestation and how much money rich nations would give to help finance it -- were tied to broader political questions that did not get resolved. So while references to REDD made it into the Copenhagen accord, the actual U.N. document that would insert it into a future treaty was tabled until next year.
The U.N.'s top climate official, Yvo de Boer, said Friday that the forestry provisions of a future climate pact, along with helping developing countries adapt to climate change and acquire clean technology, are "oven ready" and could be completed without a problem in 2010, assuming there's a final agreement then.
"Nothing will be achieved until everything will be achieved," said Fred Boltz, senior vice president for global strategies at Conservation International, who added that despite the delay, "We've come a long way in two years and we have an opportunity on a scale that was previously inconceivable to act immediately to avert emissions from deforestation."
The talks did produce concrete short-term financial commitments to fund the effort, with $3.5 billion pledged by Norway, Japan, the United States, Britain, France and Australia.
This could be the start of a broader effort to put a dollar value on the carbon benefits received from natural ecosystems, whether from sea grass or mangroves.
"The fact is the global economy is at a point where it's beginning to internalize the services of a rainforest, and bring it into the transactions of a global economy," said Achim Steiner, executive director of the U.N. Environment Programme.
Seth Borenstein, Associated Press Yahoo News 20 Dec 09;
COPENHAGEN – Around the world, countries and capitalism are already working to curb global warming on their own, with or without a global treaty.
In Brazil more rainforests are being saved, and in Chicago there's a voluntary carbon pollution trading system. People recycle, buy smaller and newer cars, and change lightbulbs.
But the impact of such piecemeal, voluntary efforts is small. Experts say it will never be enough without the kind of strong global agreement that eluded negotiators at the U.N. summit this past week in Copenhagen.
Emissions of greenhouse gases keep rising and so do global temperatures.
Dozens of countries — including the top two carbon polluters, China and the United States — came to the climate talks with proposals to ratchet down pollution levels.
But analysis by the United Nations and outside management systems experts show that those voluntary reductions will not keep temperatures from increasing by more than 1.3 degrees Celsius (2.3 degrees Fahrenheit) compared with now. That's the level that scientists, the United Nations, the European Union and the Obama administration have said the world cannot afford.
Good intentions aren't enough. The deal forged by President Barack Obama with China and several other countries sets up the first major program of climate aid to poorer nations to help them deal with climate change. But it offers few specifics and goes no farther than emissions curbs already pledged. More negotiations are planned for next year.
"It just underlines the heroic effort here that the science says needs to be done; it's not easy," said Alden Meyer, policy director at the Union of Concerned Scientists. "If it were easy, it would have been done. This is a daunting effort."
And no one knew that more than a weary Obama, who 14 hours after arriving in Copenhagen, unveiled the political agreement by saying "more aggressive" emission cuts were needed and so were still-unseen scientific breakthroughs.
"But this is going to be hard," Obama said in a news conference late Friday. "This is hard within countries; it's going to be even harder between countries."
"Hard stuff ... requires going ahead and making the best of the situation that you're in at this point, and then continually trying to improve and make progress from there," Obama added.
Upon announcement of the deal, a team of experts led by an MIT professor made quick calculatons: The average global temperature is likely to rise 3.2 degrees Celsius (5.7 degrees F.) above current temperatures.
So the response from many, but not all, environmental activists and poorer nations was "not enough."
That's not for lack of trying.
The U.S. private sector already has invested hundreds of billions of dollars to cut emissions, and that is probably just the beginning no matter what happened in Copenhagen.
Between 2007 and 2008, energy-related carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. fell 2.8 percent, though part of that was related to the recession.
A study this year by McGraw Hill Construction said between $36 billion and $49 billion of eco-friendly buildings are under development. That figure is expected to triple by 2013.
The owners of New York's Empire State building spent $13.2 million on environmental retrofits to draw new tenants.
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. retrofitted about 500 buildings this year. Part of the project included installing skylights with the goal of cutting up to 75 percent of the energy used to light stores.
In Chicago, a company started a voluntary commodities market to trade credits for reducing carbon pollution. It has reduced carbon dioxide pollution by the equivalent of 400 million metric tons in the six years since 2003. That sounds like a lot, but the U.S. emitted 7.05 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent last year alone.
But the broad range of voluntary carbon reductions falls far short of what's needed to address climate change, energy experts emphasize. To approach anything near the 17 percent reduction in emissions by 2020 that the Obama administration has targeted, a price must be put on carbon emissions, most energy expert acknowledge.
"If there was an easy answer, the countries could agree on it," said Gregg Marland who keeps track of worldwide carbon dioxide emissions at the Oak Ridge National Lab. "There is no easy answer. And there is not a cheap answer. I don't see people going very far voluntarily without incentives to do it, and that comes from government."
In much of the developing world, the biggest carbon problem is destruction of forests. Brazil, a top 10 carbon dioxide polluter, is also one of the leading countries in losing forests, which suck carbon dioxide out of the air.
Mostly by slowing deforestation, Brazil has already pledged to reduce carbon emissions by about 36 to 39 percent by 2020. Last month, Brazil reported its biggest annual decline in deforestation in two decades.
The problem, Obama said, is that "the science compels us to move as rapidly as we can."
That's where 450 parts per million of carbon dioxide comes in. The United States and European Union are aiming not to exceed that level — which corresponds with the projected temperature rise — because it's too dangerous. Some scientists point to 350 ppm as a safer level. This year the world pushed beyond 390 ppm for the first time.
Going above 450 parts per million "will change everything," said NASA climate impacts researcher Cynthia Rosenzweig.
"It's not just one or two things," Rosenzweig said. "There will be changes in water, food, ecosystems, health, and those changes also interact with each other."
At that point, among other things, millions of people would be subject to regular coastal flooding, droughts would cause food shortages, coral reefs would dramatically die off affecting the ocean food chain, and about 20 percent of the world's known species would be significantly endangered, according to Rosenzweig and other climate scientists.
Systems dynamics experts John Sterman of MIT and Andrew Jones of the Sustainability Institute in Vermont compare our carbon problem to a bathtub. Each year we pump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, much of it remains there. It lasts for about a century, although about half of the carbon dioxide produced is removed each year by forests and oceans.
Sterman and Jones figure the world can afford to churn out another 920 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide between now and 2050. Holding emissions to that level offers a better than even chance at keeping the world under 450 parts per million and avoiding a crucial temperature rise.
But that will be a challenge. Forty years of pumping emissions at the level we have now would exceed the safe level by more than 50 percent. And that doesn't even account for future levels of greenhouse gases from booming economies like those in China and India.
Ideally, the world should produce 80 percent less in greenhouse gases than we do now, Jones said.
Technically, the delay of at least one year in implementing strict emissions limits — thanks to the nonbinding deal in Copenhagen — may not hurt. But it's a momentum issue and a compounding interest issue, said Achim Steiner, head of the United Nations Environment Program. It's like debt on a credit card: Every time a person puts off paying the balance, it grows bigger and harder to resolve.
Every year of delay means the chance of achieving a stable and healthy climate "is getting smaller and smaller," said Yvo de Boer, head of U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, which ran the Copenhagen negotiations.
But as difficult as changing the momentum of atmospheric physics, the political challenge may be worse.
Think of it this way: More than 110 world leaders, an unprecedented number, convened here, with roughly two dozen crafting a weak agreement in less than a day. And yet that deal, the Copenhagen Accord, is the basis for next year's effort which will try again to reach more concrete and dramatic steps, de Boer said.
"We should be conscious of the huge challenge that lies ahead of us," de Boer said. He doesn't expect the hands-on help of world leaders next year.
Yet de Boer is optimistic.
"I think science will drive it," de Boer said. "I think business will drive it. I think society will drive it."
___
AP writers Dina Cappiello, Joseph Hebert and Steven Manning in Washington, Frank Bajak in Bogota, and Chris Kahn and Anne D'Innocenzio in New York contributed to this report.
Climate deal won't cap warming, big gaps
Alister Doyle, Reuters 19 Dec 09;
COPENHAGEN (Reuters) - A climate deal among world leaders including U.S. President Barack Obama puts off many tough decisions until 2010 and sets the planet on track to overshoot goals for limiting global warming.
Green Business | COP15
Obama spoke of "the beginning of a new era of international action" but many other leaders said it was "imperfect," "not sufficient" and at best a "modest success" if it gets formally adopted by all 193 nations in Copenhagen on Saturday.
Problems faced by China and the United States -- the world's top emitters -- stood in the way of a stronger deal for the world's first pact to combat climate change since the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol in 1997.
In big advances, the deal adds a promise of $100 billion a year to help developing nations from 2020 and promotes the use of forests to soak up carbon dioxide. But it is unclear where the cash will come from.
European leaders fell in reluctantly after Obama announced the deal with China, India, South Africa and Brazil. It was drafted by 28 nations ranging from OPEC oil produces to small island states.
A drawback is that the deal is not legally binding -- a key demand of many developing nations. The text instead suggests an end-2010 deadline for transforming it into a legal text that had long been expected in Copenhagen.
The deal sets a goal for limiting a rise in world temperatures to "below" 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial times but does not set out measures for achieving the target, such as firm near-term cuts in emissions.
"It clearly falls well short of what the public around the world was expecting," said Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists. "It's clearly not enough to keep temperatures on a track below 2 degrees."
A U.N. study leaked this week showed that current pledges by all nations would put the world on track for a 3 Celsius warming, beyond what many nations view as a "dangerous" threshold for droughts, floods, sandstorms and rising seas.
Mention in some past drafts of a goal of halving world emissions by 2050 below 1990 levels, for instance, was dropped. China and India insist that rich nations must first set far tougher goals for cutting their own greenhouse gas emissions.
And developed nations failed to give an average number for cuts in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 -- many scientists say they need to cut by between 25 and 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 to avoid the worst of climate change.
Instead, all countries would have to submit plans for fighting global warming by the end of January 2010 to the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat.
The pact sums up pledges by major economies for curbing emissions so far -- the looming deadline of Copenhagen spurred nations including China, the United States, Russia and India to promise targets.
But no nations promised deeper cuts during the December 7-18 conference as part of a drive to shift the world economy away from fossil fuels toward renewable energies such as wind and solar power.
The deal proposes deadlines of the end of 2010 for a new "legally binding" instruments.
Jake Schmidt, of the Natural Resources Defense Council, said that the talks were complicated by China's drive to assert a new, more powerful, role for itself in the world.
"Part of the dysfunction is that China is feeling its way into a new, more powerful role," he said.
Obama pushed through the pact while he faces problems at home. His goal of cutting U.S. emissions by 4 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 is stalled in the U.S. Senate.
And the deal is unclear on many points. It says developed nations should provide $30 billion in aid to help the poor from 2010-12 and then raise aid to $100 billion a year from 2020.
But it does not say where the money will come from, saying it will be a variety of sources, including public and private. That means that developed nations might try to tap carbon markets for almost all the cash and plan little in public funds.
Yahoo News 19 Dec 09;
COPENHAGEN (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama reached a climate agreement on Friday with India, South Africa, China and Brazil. The deal outlined fell far short of the ambitions for the Copenhagen summit.
Here are key points from the agreement, which is titled "Copenhagen Accord."
* LONG-TERM GOALS
"Deep cuts in global emissions are required according to science...with a view to reduce global emissions so as to hold the increase in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius."
* LEGALLY BINDING DEAL?
A reference in an earlier draft to adopt a legally binding climate agreement by next year was missing in the final draft. This upset the EU and a number of other nations, such as the Pacific island country of Tuvalu, which fears being swamped by rising sea levels.
* FINANCING FOR POOR NATIONS
The text says: "Developed countries shall provide adequate, predictable and sustainable financial resources, technology and capacity-building to support the implementation of adaptation action in developing countries."
It mentions as particularly vulnerable and in need of help are the least developed countries, small island developing states and countries in Africa.
"Developed countries set a goal of mobilizing jointly $100 billion a year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries. The funds will come from a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral."
An annex carries the following short-term financing pledges from developed countries for 2010-2012:
EU - $10.6 billion
Japan - $11 billion
United States - $3.6 billion
* EMISSIONS REDUCTION:
Details of mitigation plans are included in two separate annexes, one for developed country targets and one for the voluntary pledges of major developing countries.
These are not binding, and describe the current status of pledges -- ranging from "under consideration" for the United States to "Adopted by legislation" for the European Union.
* VERIFICATION
A sticking point for a deal, largely because China refused to accept international controls, the section on monitoring of developing nation pledges is one of the longest in the accord.
It says emerging economies must monitor their efforts and report the results to the United Nations every two years, with some international checks to meet Western transparency concerns but "to ensure that national sovereignty is respected."
* FOREST PROTECTION
The accord "recognizes the importance of reducing emission from deforestation and forest degradation and the need to enhance removals or greenhouse gas emission by forests," and agrees to provide "positive incentives" to fund such action with financial resources from the developed world.
* CARBON MARKETS
Mentioned, but not in detail. The accord says: "We decide to pursue various approaches, including opportunities to use markets to enhance the cost-effectiveness of and to promote mitigations actions."
(Reporting by Emma Graham-Harrison; editing by Janet McBride)
FACTBOX:What was agreed and left unfinished in U.N. climate deal
Reuters 20 Dec 09;
(Reuters) - A conference of 193 countries agreed on Saturday to "take note" of a new Copenhagen Accord to fight global climate change, after two weeks of U.N. talks in the Danish capital.
The accord was not legally binding, and did not commit countries ever to agree a binding successor to the Kyoto Protocol, whose present round ends in 2012.
In addition, countries were invited to sign up to the accord, meaning it did not guarantee global participation.
Following is a summary of the decisions in the Copenhagen Accord, and other decisions adopted at the U.N. summit.
COPENHAGEN ACCORD
1. A NEW TREATY?
* No decision on whether to agree a legally binding successor to the Kyoto Protocol.
* No agreement on whether to sign one new treaty replacing Kyoto, or two treaties.
* Kyoto limits the emissions of nearly 40 richer countries from 2008-2012, but the United States never ratified the Protocol and it does not bind the emissions of developing nations.
* Rich nations prefer one new treaty including all countries; developing countries want to extend and sharpen rich nation commitments under Kyoto, and add a separate deal binding the United States and supporting action by poorer countries.
* No agreement on whether a new pact would run from 2013-2017 or 2013-2020, or any another time frame.
2. LONG-TERM GOAL TO FIGHT CLIMATE CHANGE
* Recognizes "the scientific view that the increase in global temperature should be below 2 degrees Celsius."
* Agrees that "deep cuts in global emissions are required according to science."
* Agrees to stop global and national greenhouse gas emissions from rising "as soon as possible."
* No agreement on goals for global emissions cuts in the long-term, such as by 2050.
* Implementation of the accord would be reviewed in 2015 to ensure the world was avoiding dangerous climate change, to "include consideration of strengthening the long-term goal," for example to limit temperature rises to 1.5 degrees.
3. 2020 EMISSIONS CUTS BY DEVELOPED COUNTRIES
* Rich countries would "commit to economy-wide emissions targets for 2020" to be submitted by 31 January 2010.
* Rich nation parties to the Kyoto Protocol would strengthen their existing targets.
* No agreement on a base year for 2020 goals, for example compared with 1990 or 2005.
* Rich nations have so far offered 2020 targets of cuts about 14-18 percent below 1990 levels.
* Developing nations including China want collective rich nation cuts of at least 40 percent by 2020 versus 1990.
4. CLIMATE ACTION BY DEVELOPING NATIONS
* Developing nations would "implement mitigation actions" to slow growth in their carbon emissions, submitting these by January 31 2010.
* Developing countries would report those actions once every two years via the U.N. climate change secretariat.
* Actions which rich nations paid for would be recorded in a registry.
4. FINANCE
* Establishes a "Copenhagen Green Climate Fund."
* Agrees a "goal" for the world to raise $100 billion per year by 2020 to help developing countries cut carbon emissions and adapt to climate change.
* The funding would come from a "a wide variety of sources."
* Developed countries would raise funds of $30 billion from 2010-2012 to help developing nations fight climate change.
* No agreement on how much individual countries would contribute to or benefit from any funds.
* "A significant portion" of the funds would flow through the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund, which would support projects to slow deforestation, help countries adapt to climate change and fund the development and sharing of clean technologies.
5. SAVING TROPICAL FORESTS
* Recognized the "crucial role" of reducing carbon emissions from destroying forests, and to raise funds to achieve that.
OTHER OUTCOMES, DECISIONS
1. EXCLUDED SECTORS, LOOPHOLES
* No agreement on whether to include emissions from aviation and shipping in climate targets, and make it mandatory to include farming and forestry.
* Kyoto excludes greenhouse gases from aviation and shipping, responsible for at least 5 percent of global emissions.
* Under Kyoto, rich countries do not have to include in their targets emissions from land use, including forests and farming.
* Combined, farms and deforestation account for a third of all global greenhouse gases.
2. ADOPTED DECISION ON CARBON MARKETS
* No agreement on how to scale up carbon finance under Kyoto's existing $6.5-billion clean development mechanism (CDM).
* Under the CDM rich nations pay for emissions cuts in developing countries through trade in carbon offsets.
* The European Union wants the scheme to invest tens of billions of dollars annually in developing nations by 2020.
* Agreement to allow developers to appeal against U.N. panel rejections of CDM projects.
* No agreement on whether to include carbon capture storage in the CDM, a technology which cuts carbon emissions from coal plants.
* No agreement on including forest preservation in CDM.
3. ADOPTED DECISION ON CONSERVING TROPICAL FORESTS
* Agrees to ensure indigenous peoples are involved in measures to curb deforestation.
* Asks developing countries to identify drivers of deforestation and to start measuring emissions from destroying trees.
* No agreement on specific funds for forest preservation.
(Compiled by Gerard Wynn; Editing by Jon Hemming)
What was agreed at Copenhagen – and what was left out
Jonathan Watts, The Guardian 19 Dec 09;
National leaders and sleep-deprived negotiators thrashed out a text late last night that could determine the balance of power in the world and possibly the future of our species. The list below gives a breakdown of the key points:
Temperature
"The increase in global temperature should be below two degrees."
This will disappoint the 100-plus nations who wanted a lower maximum of 1.5C, including many small island states who fear that even at this level their homes may be submerged.
Peak date for carbon emissions
"We should co-operate in achieving the peaking of global and national emissions as soon as possible, recognising that the time frame for peaking will be longer in developing countries …" This vague phrase is a disappointment to those who want nations to set a date for emissions to fall, but will please developing countries who want to put the economy first.
Emissions cuts
"Parties commit to implement individually or jointly the quantified economy-wide emissions targets for 2020 as listed in appendix 1 before 1 February 2010."
This phrase commits developed nations to start work almost immediately on reaching their mid-term targets. For the US, this is a weak 14-17% reduction on 2005 levels; for the EU, a still-to-be-determined goal of 20-30% on 1990 levels; for Japan, 25% and Russia 15-25% on 1990 levels. The accord makes no mention of 2050 targets, which dropped out of the text over the course of the day.
Forests
"Substantial finance to prevent deforestation; adaptation, technology development and transfer and capacity."
This is crucial because more than 15% of emissions are attributed to the clearing of forests. Conservation groups are concerned that this phrase lacks safeguards.
Money
"The collective commitment by developed countries is to provide new and additional resources amounting to $30bn for 2010-12 … Developed countries set a goal of mobilising jointly $100bn a year by 2020 to address needs of developing countries."
This is the cash that oils the deal. The first section is a quick financial injection from rich nations to support developing countries' efforts. Longer term, a far larger sum of money will be committed to a Copenhagen Green Climate Fund. But the agreement leaves open the questions of where the money will come from, and how it will be used.
Key elements of earlier drafts dropped during yesterday's negotiations:
An attempt to replace Kyoto
"Affirming our firm resolve to adopt one or more legal instruments …"
This preamble, killed off during the day, was the biggest obstacle for negotiators. It left open the question of whether to continue a twin-track process that maintains Kyoto, or whether to adopt a single agreement. Europe, Japan, Australia and Canada are desperate to move to a one-track approach, but developing nations refused to kill off the protocol.
Deadline for a treaty
"… as soon as possible and no later than COP16 …"
This appeared in the morning draft and disappeared during the day; it set a December 2010 date for the conclusion of a legally binding treaty. The final text drops this date, but small print suggests it will still be next year.
So, what does this accord add up to? Key issues explained
The last-minute agreement is a major setback, and the world will have to regroup in its struggle to contain climate change
Michael McCarthy, The Independent 20 Dec 09;
Is it true that the world has a new agreement to fight climate change?
Yes – the Copenhagen accord, signed at the UN climate conference in the Danish capital late on Friday night.
What does it do?
For the first time it enshrines the recognition of all the world's countries that we should work together to keep the global temperature from rising more than two degrees Centigrade above the level pertaining before the industrial revolution about 200 years ago, when we began burning fossil fuels on a seriously large scale. (It is the emissions of carbon dioxide from the coal and oil and gas we burn in power stations and cars, and also of the CO2 which comes from deforestation, that are trapping the sun's heat in the atmosphere – acting like the panes of a greenhouse – and causing world temperatures to rise.)
Two degrees above the pre-industrial level has come to be regarded as a sort of safety threshold, below which the effects of global warming may, with quite a lot of adapting, be bearable by human society and the natural world. But any rise above that the risks quickly rise of tremendously damaging new climatic effects, such as devastating droughts, fiercer hurricanes with more intense rainfall that will bring flooding on an entirely new scale, sea-level rise and the consequent disruption of communities around the globe. This in turn is likely to bring about mass migration of millions of climate refugees, and a new era of wars.
How long would it take to get to the C threshold, via the pathway we are on at the moment?
Nobody really knows the timescale – although it would almost certain be in the lifetime of people born today – but in temperature terms, two degrees above the pre-industrial is not that far away. The world as a whole has already warmed by about 0.75C, and it is estimated that the delayed effect of the carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere commits us to a warming of another 0.6C, whatever we do. So we are already on course for about 1.4C – this much of the target is already taken up.
Two degrees, it should be remembered, refers to the global average temperature, which will be more in higher latitudes such as the British Isles – perhaps over 3C, which is a very big rise. If you look out of your window this weekend on a snowbound landscape and wonder what all this global warming fuss is about, you should perhaps be reminded that, according to the Met Office, the average temperature in Britain has risen a full degree centigrade in the past 40 years – that is, just since the Beatles broke up. If the snow makes you think that is nonsense, wait till the spring comes – you will find that oak trees in southern England are opening their leaves on average 26 days earlier than they were in the halcyon days of John, Paul, George and Ringo, as our springs get warmer and warmer.
Is that all the Copenhagen accord does?
No. It also formally engages the developing countries, from the giants like China and India down, to do something about their rapidly rising CO2 emissions. This is an enormously important point. When, 20 years ago, the world first became aware of the threat of climate change and began trying to deal with it, the biggest CO2 emitters in the world, by far, were the rich, developed countries, led by the US. In 1990 the US, with 4 per cent of the world's population, was responsible for 36 per cent of global emissions.
But since then the Chinese economy has exploded, with growth rates never seen before in modern times of more than 10 per cent a year, and China's own carbon emissions have soared in a way no one imagined possible only a few years ago: In less than a decade they doubled from three billion to six billion tonnes annually, and two years ago China overtook the US as the world's biggest emitter.
India, as it struggles to bring its people out of poverty – hundreds of millions of them still have no electricity – is on a similar economic growth/emissions growth path, and so are Brazil, South Africa, Indonesia and others, and it is estimated that 90 per cent of all future growth of emissions will come from the developing countries. If these emissions continue to grow unchecked, climate change will be impossible to reverse.
Have the developing countries not been required to take action about their emissions before?
They have not, for two reasons. First, when the world began to deal with the threat of climate change, their emissions were very much less, and second, the vast majority of the carbon dioxide now in the atmosphere was put there by the developed countries – such as Britain. When the first international emissions-cutting agreement, the Kyoto protocol, was signed in 1997, it committed developed countries to taking legally binding actions to cut their carbon emissions, but did not require the developing countries to take on any cuts whatsoever.
Has the Kyoto protocol been a success?
Yes and no. It kick-started the huge, long and complex process of nations trying to turn their economies on to low-carbon growth paths, with the whole panoply of carbon-saving initiatives we are now so familiar with, from the construction of wind farms and the installation of solar panels, to the personal choice of taking the train rather than flying. And it introduced firm emissions-reduction targets for nearly 40 "Annexe 1" or developed countries, with the objective of cutting their emissions to 5 per cent below 1990 levels by about now.
But there are three glaring gaps in Kyoto. First, many of the developed nations have simply not acted decisively enough and have not met their targets. Second, in a decision of enormous consequence, President George W Bush withdrew the US from Kyoto in March 2001, shortly after assuming office. The third great gap is the absence of the developing nations, whose emissions are growing so fast that the world can no longer afford to ignore then.
So has the world decided to replace Kyoto?
Not quite. But a critical moment came almost three years ago, with the publication of the fourth report of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which gave the most urgent warning yet about global warming's dangers.
So at the UN climate meeting in Bali in December 2007, it was decided to negotiate a new treaty which might bring America back into the fold – as the US was never going to rejoin anything with Kyoto in its name – and at the same time require developing countries to take actions of their own to reduce emissions, while committing the rich nations to adopt even tougher targets, of cutting by 25-40 per cent by 2020.
Yet because the developing countries were very attached to Kyoto, as it required them to do nothing while forcing the rich nations to cut their emissions, they did not want to abandon it – and negotiations for it to be renewed for several more years were set in train at the same time, and in parallel, to the negotiations for a new climate treaty (which were referred to as the "Bali road map).
This quite bizarre twin-track negotiating arrangement has been going on for the past two years and was due to come to a climax in Copenhagen, in the meeting which began a fortnight ago and ended yesterday when a new climate deal for the world – one new treaty? Two new treaties? – was due to be agreed.
Well, which was it? One or two?
They couldn't resolve it – even after talking for two years in the run-up to the meeting. It was remarkable. The European Union and the British government wanted a single new treaty, into which the basic elements of Kyoto could be incorporated and taken forward, but the developing countries, particularly the bloc known as the G77 plus China, resolutely refused to give Kyoto up or contemplate a single new agreement. It has become clear in the past 24 hours that much of this opposition was orchestrated by China, which was desperate not to have a single new treaty, which ultimately might make it, and other emerging economies, legally bound to take action on emissions.
So what happened?
Complete stalemate. By last Wednesday the negotiations between 192 countries had run into the ground, nothing of two years' work on a climate treaty was likely to be agreed – and the following day, 120 heads of state and government were arriving in Copenhagen to set the seal on the deal. So Gordon Brown, who got to Copenhagen a day ahead of every other leader, drafted, with his senior officials, a completely new text for an agreement that world leaders could sign on the spot. He got a key group of 26 countries to support the idea, and they began negotiations on it early on Friday morning.
In a full day of talks, the Chinese insisted on a number of key points being withdrawn. The opening statement that the world should strive to cut its carbon emissions by 50 per cent by 2050, a proposed timetable to make the new pact legally binding, and new short-term emission targets for all countries have been put off till next year, when they will be "listed" in an annexe to the accord.
But the Chinese did agree to have an emissions target in an international agreement for the first time, to international verification of their performance, and to the C threshold figure.
Is there anything else of note in the Copenhagen accord?
Yes, a new deal on climate finance. There will be $30bn of "fast start" funding over the next three years to help developing countries reduce emissions and adapt to global warming, plus a promise from developed countries to "mobilise" a climate fund for them of $100bn a year by 2020.
You may have seen the Copenhagen accord being criticised for being full of holes. It is, and its provisions are not remotely adequate to combat climate change, while all the work of the past two years on a new Kyoto/new treaty has been parked for another year. But at least complete collapse of the world's efforts to fight global warming was avoided last week (though it came very close) and the Copenhagen accord – last-minute, ad hoc, patched-up, full of holes as it is – at least gives the world a continuing way forward in the struggle to contain the greatest threat human society has ever known.
Countdown to 'Brokenhagen'
Monday 7 December
Dr Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC chair, says: "The evidence is overwhelming that delay would lead to costs becoming progressively higher."
Tuesday 8 December
Developing countries furious over leaked documents indicating world leaders will be asked to sign agreement handing more power to rich countries.
Wednesday 9 December
Tuvalu puts forward radical proposal to limit emissions and stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations. China and India block the move.
Thursday 10 December
Alliance of Small Island States says any deal allowing temperatures to rise by over 1.5C is "not negotiable".
Friday 11 December
Documents from summit chairmen call on developed nations to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 40% from 1990 levels by 2020. Pledges add up to about 18 per cent.
Saturday 12 December
Thousands march from Danish parliament to Bella Centre. Hundreds arrested.
Sunday 13 December
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, holds a service in Copenhagen Cathedral.
Monday 14 December
Talks temporarily suspended when teams from developing nations walk out.
Tuesday 15 December
High-level talks begin, with UN chief Ban Ki-moon telling nations to "seal a deal".
Wednesday 16 December
Pressure builds to overcome deadlock between rich and poor nations. Connie Hedegaard resigns; Danish PM Lars Rasmussen takes over proceedings.
Thursday 17 December
Hillary Clinton says US will "play its role" over funds for developing countries, but doesn't provide details. Talks make little progress
Friday 18 December
President Barack Obama warns that time is running out to strike a deal.
Saturday 19 December
Talks finally end, amid furore from climate campaigners, condemning the summit as "Brokenhagen".
Jonathan Owen
The deal in focus...
Barack Obama
US President
This progress did not come easily and we know this alone is not enough ... We've come a long way but we have much further to go.
Gordon Brown
Prime Minister
We were able to break the deadlock and – in a breakthrough never seen on this scale before – secure agreement from the international community.
Ban Ki-moon
UN Secretary-General
Finally we sealed a deal... The Copenhagen accord may not be everything everyone had hoped for, but this decision is an important beginning.
Lumumba Di-Aping
G77 spokesman
[The agreement is] devoid of any sense of responsibility or morality ... based on the same values that funnelled six million people in Europe into furnaces.
Ed Miliband
Secretary for State for Energy and Climate Change
We would have wanted a more comprehensive agreement, a legally binding one... I wanted a stronger agreement.
John Kerry
Democratic Senator
It's a powerful signal to see President Obama, Premier Wen, Prime Minister Singh and President Zuma agree on a meeting of the minds.
Kim Carstensen
Leader of WWF's global climate initiative
Well-meant but half-hearted pledges to protect our planet from dangerous climate change are simply not sufficient to address a crisis.
Guy Ryder
General secretary, International Trade Union Confederation
World leaders failed to overcome their differences. Commitments on greenhouse gas reductions have fallen short.
Caroline Lucas MEP
Leader, Green Party
We need to change the discourse around acting to prevent climate chaos. Politicians shouldn't be afraid of this – they should be promoting it.
Ashok Sinha
Director, Stop Climate Chaos Coalition
Confronted by the greatest danger that humanity has ever faced, our political leaders are trying to pass off a dismal declaration as progress.
Kevin Conrad
Executive director, Coalition of Rainforest Nations
REDD [Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation] gets punted along for another year.
Xie Zhenhua
Chief negotiator, Chinese delegation
The meeting has had a positive result. Everyone should be happy... After negotiations both sides have managed to preserve their bottom line.
Jose Manuel Barroso
European Commission President
A positive step but clearly below our ambitions. Others were much more influential than we were when it was the business of reducing ambition.
Jeremy Hobbs
Executive director, Oxfam International
The deal is a triumph of spin over substance. It recognises the need to keep warming below C but does not commit to do so.
Andy Atkins
Executive director, Friends of the Earth
A C rise would still mean the deaths of millions of people and the complete destruction of at least four low-lying island states.
Jonathon Porritt
Former chairman of the Government's Sustainable Development Commission
What we have seen is raw industrial power at its worst on the part of China, the US and other countries.
John Sauven
Executive director, Greenpeace UK
The city of Copenhagen is a crime scene with the guilty men and women fleeing to the airport. There are no targets for carbon cuts.
Angela Merkel
German Chancellor
The decision has been very difficult for me. We have taken one step; we have hoped for several more ... I view the outcome with mixed feelings.
Kevin Rudd
Australian Prime Minister
A significant agreement on climate change action. It is the first global agreement on climate change action between rich nations and poor countries.
Fredrik Reinfeldt
Swedish Prime Minister
Let's be honest – this is not a perfect agreement. It will not solve the climate threat to mankind.
Nicolas Sarkozy
French President
If we had no deal, that would mean that two countries as important as India and China would be liberated from any type of contract.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Prime Minister of Iran
The economic and political structures of some nations are based on maximum profit and cheap energy. It is difficult for them to make changes.
Steve Sawyer
Secretary general, Global Wind Energy Council
A declaration like that doesn't do much other than paper over the fact that governments have failed to keep promises.
John Ashe
Chair of Kyoto protocol talks under the UN
Anything less than a legally binding and agreed outcome falls far short of the mark. Perhaps the bar was set too high.
David Nussbaum
Chief executive, WWF
After years of negotiations we have reached a declaration of will which binds no one and fails to guarantee a safe climate for future generations.
Professor Michael Grubb
Chair, Climate Strategies
Copenhagen was a missed opportunity but I believe an international legally binding agreement is very much still on the table.
Norbert Röttgen
German minister for environment, nature conservation and nuclear safety
It's not what we would have wished for as Europeans. China should have been more willing to accept a binding agreement.
Yvo de Boer
UN's chief climate official
The challenge is now to turn what we have agreed politically in Copenhagen into something real, measurable and verifiable.
Stephen Harper
Prime Minister, Canada
It is a good agreement that achieves Canada's objectives. It is a comprehensive and realistic agreement. It is a good first step.
Joan Ruddock
Energy and climate change minister
There's been far too much talk about process. But things have been improved. The presence of the ministers and the heads of state has concentrated minds.
Posts
visitors since Nov 07