UN-Led Climate Negotiations, Are they effective?

When environmentalist are asked what is the most successful international legislation in recent history, they will say the Montreal Protocol of 1987. Aimed at reducing and ultimately phasing out the production and trade of CFCs harmful to the Earth's atmosphere, world leaders acted relatively quickly when compared to today's standards to apply the correct measures against increasing dangers from a weaker Ozone.

Although initial warnings of the dangers of CFCs were made in 1974, it took the international community over a decade to act. What is notable is that prior to Montreal, individual countries like the United States and the "Toronto Group" composed of mainly Nordic countries, passed domestic legislation eliminating the use and production of CFCs. Strong leadership within these governments as well as better scientific consensus helped the issue spring forward. Despite this, the early 1980s faced a decline in international participation for renewed doubt in the science of CFCs. At the time, the United Nations Environmental Programme was task with the challenge of renewing the efforts after a failed Vienna meeting a few years earlier to restart the talks. What followed was a string of agreements ultimately leading to Montreal in 1987 and London in 1990, where amendments and funding for developing countries were added.

So what does the Montreal Protocol have to do with current emission reduction negotiations? David G. Victor does a phenomenal job of explaining this in his book, Global Warming Gridlock, Creating More Effective Strategies for Protecting the Environment. In it, he argues that the current negotiating strategies are ineffective and will lead to more in-action. His reasoning is that policymakers and some mainstream environmentalists are relying on the mechanism the Montreal Protocol was established. Based off a goal-oriented and timetables method that is rather top-down from the UN to national governments, this was successful in Montreal because of different reasons. Among them was that CFCs had cheaper alternatives, the science was more certain on the levels needed to determine a "safe" level, and regulation of commitments on Montreal were and are largely self-enforcing.

Implementing the goal-oriented and timetables method to the global warming problem will only lead to more in-action, as mentioned earlier. Since fossil fuels are deeply embedded in the world's economy, cheap alternatives are still not readily available that would allow for the same function Montreal had. Moreover, the Copenhagen Accord agreement on limiting global temperatures to 2 degrees Celsius is, according to Victor, most likely going to be surpassed. This is because national governments need to understand what they are realistically able to do politically, and then come to the international negotiating table with numbers and not guesses. He also stresses that "legally binding" agreements are less effective because governments are more likely to be conservative in their reduction commitments. Instead, he suggests reduction agreements to be flexible and non-binding, leaving government with the incentive to increase their initial reduction otherwise seen with the binding agreements.

Unfortunately, species on the planet are headed for a warmer planet whatever reductions are implemented in the near future. As CO2 is a stock pollutant, it will take many years for levels in the atmosphere to drop unless a total stop of CO2 production is made very soon. This warmer planet will need adaptation and mitigation strategies that are not the main priority of governments. Instead, they hold hope that the world will evade the 2 degree mark. However, Victor states that realizing this scenario will help negotiations today, and tomorrow.

Jeffrey Sachs, professor at Columbia University's Earth Institute and special assistant to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon on sustainable development, is arguable seen as a proponent of the UN-led, goal-oriented agenda Victor precisely suggest against. This is interesting given the fact that with the recent Sustainable Development Solutions Network advocating for the UN-led strategy as part of its overall SD agenda.

Dr. Victor brings up an interesting alternative that looks promising given the constant gridlock on climate issues as seen with the recent Copenhagen Accord, and Rio+20. Should Dr. Sachs and the UN refocus their efforts and work with Dr. Victor, or should they stride with uncertain strategies that have already been repeated? What are your thoughts?

Indonesia and Palm Oil

Forest Conversion from WWF

Home to the Sumatran Tiger, Orangutan, Rhino and Elephant, plus a plethora of others species, Indonesia ranks as one of the most biologically diverse areas on the planet alongside Brazil and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Aside from being home to these species, the Indonesian tropical forests provide a substantial service to the world’s climate by absorbing carbon dioxide and creating oxygen. 

            This ecosystem service however, is under tremendous stress. Rise in world demand for palm oil have resulted in very high rates of deforestation, leaving many of its species in danger of poachers and displacement as a result of ensuing industrialization and destruction on their habitat. With Indonesia’s economy now running primarily on palm oil, efforts to decrease their rate of deforestation have been difficult as corruption is also rampant. 

            The high rate of deforestation must also dramatically decrease if climate scientists and the world has any chance of lowering greenhouse levels in maintaining global temperature within 2° C. It is very important for people throughout the world to understand what is happening in Southeast Asia. Learn what you can about Indonesia, and get the facts. Industry is currently winning there, but at the expense of the health of our planet and our future. 

            The Guardian recently posted ‘Indonesia’s deforestation is a disaster for the planet’ – audio slideshow. In this slideshow, you can see Paul Hilton’s account of what is occurring in the country. Take a moment from your day to watch this 6 min video, and understand what is occurring there to the animals and to our planet. The link to the audio slideshow is found below. 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/audioslideshow/2014/apr/24/indonesia-deforestation-wildlife-paul-hilton-audio-slideshow?CMP=EMCENVEML1631

Who are Progressive Environmentalists?

Who are Progressive Environmentalists?

The traditional environmental movement has basic core principles, and one of them, is that there are limits to growth. This idea is embodied in several books, particularly one first published in 1972. The Limits to Growth was written by Donnella Meadows and others. Among environmentalists and policymakers, this book is highly regarded as one of its kind in the field. It used computer scenarios to predict population and economic growth in the twenty-first century, and what impact it would have on the planet. As the title states, the planet only has a finite amount of resources from which humans can utilize, and as you can imagine it, we are very near that limit according to Meadows et al. 

This notion of realistic limits to growth has been a fundamental component of environmentalists today and it is one in which many outside the field have come into realization today. However, there are individuals now dubbed Progressive Environmentalists who argue that there is no limit to growth, and if there is, we are very far from reaching it anytime soon. Among these Progressive Environmentalists are Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger who founded the Breakthrough Institute, which is dedicated to modernizing “liberal-progressive-green-politics.” 

While Nordhaus and Shellenberger are true environmentalists – since they do not reject climate change as environmental skeptics do – they have a different approach to solving today’s environmental problems. Their main argument is that capitalism at its finest – continued growth off the planet’s resources – is better than slowing growth for the purposes of alleviating the environment of its stresses. Bill Blackwater of the Monthly Review website states in summary of Nordhaus and Shellenberger’s point of view that “while energy efficiency fails to be good for the environment because it leads to economic growth, we should still pursue it because…it leads to economic growth, and this is good because it will make us richer.”  

What the Progressive Environmentalists fail to realize is that continued economic growth to the rest of the world to the point that they are at the same consumerist level of the United States will mean tremendous increases in carbon emissions, more natural disasters costing more money, and decreases in food productivity. The Limits to Growth displays our limits to all aspects of our planet, and not just a few that we can ignore in favor of continued and unsustainable economic growth as championed by the Breakthrough Institute and its members.

AAAS publishes What We Know

            The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) recently published tier sought-after report titled, What We Know, detailing a summary report on what is currently known by climate scientists on the issue of climate change, and its impacts on our planet. Available for free on their website, the report quickly states that their main goal is not to “explain why [the] disconnect between scientific knowledge and public perception has occurred.” Instead, their main focus lies on presenting information on the consequences of climate change.

            The impact of climate change has even had a shift in American’s perception of the issue. For example, due to recent extreme weather events in the United States in the last few years, “two out of three Americans said weather in the U.S. has been worse over the past several years.” According to AAAS, this is up over 10 percent since early 2012. Besides the general knowledge that climate change is making rainy regions wetter, and dry regions even dryer, this report also focus on other aspects of the issue. 

            For example, they state that the ocean’s current rate of acidification is “the fastest in 300 million years,” with marine animals moving out of their usual location. In regards to melting Artic summer ice, the report says that in late 2012, ice melted at “nearly twice the size of Alaska.” While it is known that sea level rise impacts low-lying communities around the world, it is less well-known their impact on coastal fresh water wells. 

            The report notes that in South Florida, as a result of rising sea levels, salt water has made its way into some coastal wells. Besides the increasing costs of insurance, coastal communities must now protect their local water supplies for their long-term use. Another aspect to consider are more frequent storms and floods. With these becoming stronger, not only can they destroy homes and other infrastructure, but also accelerate the rate of asthma from flooded buildings not properly fixed after a flood. 

            When considering the impact of climate change on the military, the CNA Military Advisory Board recently said that “changes in climate are considered as potential threat multiplier or instability accelerants.” Discussion has now begun by other high-ranking DOD officials on how the American military and its infrastructure will be impacted.  

            Lastly, these scientists warn of the potential dangers frozen methane has if melted in the Arctic Ocean. As methane is the strongest of the three major greenhouse gases (CO2, Nitrogen, and Methane), scientists are not sure of the degree of high-impact they could have on our planet. Hopefully this report makes its intended impact on policymakers and, unfortunately, the last few deniers out there. Consider their points, and get to know the scientists of the report. Get informed.

 

Chevron Corp. vs Donziger el al

            For any of you who follow environment law, or just news-related subjects, the ongoing case between the Chevron Corporation and a group of Ecuadorian villagers from the Lago Agrio region within the country, continues after more than ten years. Just recently, the guardian posted an article in which an Ecuadorian lawyer named Juan Pablo Saenz, and who represents small farmers against Chevron in this case, received death threats – “They said to me: ‘Think very carefully about what you are doing, because it would be a shame if something happened to you and your family’.” This comes after an Ecuadorian court ruled in favor of the villagers, and fined Chevron USD 8bn in damages for widespread contamination in the Amazon basin in Ecuador during the years Texaco was operational in the country, roughly 1962 to 1990, though the years change by ten years depending on the report that you read. Texaco was acquired by Chevron in 2001.

            This seems like something straight out of a scene of the popular Netflix series, House of Cards. However, Chevron, rightfully defending itself, asserted that the main lawyer in this case, Steven Donziger from the United States, acted on fraud, corruption, and other related means. It is so much Chevron’s belief that this is so, that in February 2011, they filed a civil lawsuit against him and his associates under the “Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)” in a District Court in Southern New York, with Judge Lewis Kaplan.

            What follows, is the strange stance Judge Kaplan has taken in this case. After ruling in favor of Chevron in the US District Court of New York, Chevron, as well as the Judge, have taken upon themselves to issue a global injunction against the Ecuadorian team from seeking damages wherever else Chevron does its operations. In fact, a court in Canada has decided to hear out cases regarding this issue despite the effort. My own understanding of the workings of a Judge, is that they are to rule on cases, and then move on to the next, not continually support one side against the other. In response to this, the website, chevrontoxico, issued a report where they state that Judge Kaplan holds Ecuadorian law unworthy of his attention. They say that “Judge Kaplan revealed his disrespect for the courts of a small, Latin American nation like Ecuador in comparison nations, such as the United Kingdom, apparently deemed worthy of [his] respect.”

            Besides the above, many questions linger. The initial ruling said Chevron had to pay USD 18bn, however, the Ecuadorian National Court of Justice reduced the payment. Moreover, during his legal process, little mention has been of the environmental damage that has been caused. As the Swedish, Umea International School of Public Health states, “more than 30bn gallons of toxic wastes and crude oil had been discharged into the land and waterways of Ecuador’s Amazon basin.” In comparison, this is a vastly bigger number than the 205m gallons by BP’s Deepwater Horizon, or 10.8 by Exxon Valdez in 1989. Lastly, a documentary, titled Crude, leaked footage where Donziger knowingly and straightforwardly acknowledges efforts to intimidate the Ecuadorian Judge in charge of the case in the country. However, one begs to question, why would he be foolish enough to say that in camera? Did he know what he was saying was going to be leaked? Did he have underlying purposes going farther than the obvious?

            These are just good questions to look for when reading on this ongoing legal case. Whatever the result, we must remember that it is the people of Ecuador who are being affected, and who need relief and assistance from their polluted homeland

THE POWER OF RENEWABLES

 

 



Let me start by saying that my background of the issues I'll be writing about is limited, as I am using this platform of blogging to educate myself more through reading and writing. By all means, if you disagree with a point, educate everyone with facts and not just mere opinion. With that said, let's begin.

 

The website, Project-Syndicate.org, boasts some of the most revered thinkers in many contemporary issues of today. I highly recommend it. Moreover, and as is natural for anyone, I found a particular article of interest to me, written by Bjorn Lomborg, adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School.

 

He states in his article, The Poverty of Renewables, that Solar and Wind subsidies have wasted 58.6 billion USD, which could have otherwise gone to poverty alleviation programs, such as better health care, more jobs, and lower taxes. He also says that "forcing everyone to buy more expensive, less reliable energy" is counterproductive, and government financing of renewable energies should instead focus their attention on the poor, and not on the environment.

 

While I agree to some extent with Mr. Lomborg, one must consider the dire stress our environment is currently in. In times of pressing issues, it is necessary and just for the world's experts to unite and focus their attention on solving a particular issue. This is the case with environmental degradation on all fronts. Scientists from the American Association of Applied Science (AAAS) recently published their report, What We Know. If you have not read it, I recommend you do so. In it, they state the pressing need of action on limiting our impact in the environment, unless facing consequences for all of humanity in the near future.

 

Mr. Lomborg also states that China's energy, since 1971, continues to come from "highly pollution coal." While their extraordinary economic growth has lifted 680 million people out of poverty, Lomborg seems to say that this feat was due to their reliance on highly polluting coal. I would look at other factors that contributed to this success in poverty alleviation, than just the coal. Also, it is important to look at China's recent move to "declare a war on climate change," as its biggest cities, particularly Beijing, have been plagued with smog for many years. This strong commitment by the Chinese government is a major stepping stone that although investments and a small degree of uncertainty will always be in new technologies such as renewables, their benefits are high for everyone alike.

 

If international focus is divided, as Mr. Lomborg seems to support, then substantial progress will not be as fast as needed for us to avoid extreme changes to our planet, Earth.



first post:

As with any new blog, there must come a new blog entry. I've never ventured into the world of blog writing, but as I miss writing in general, I found this "temporary" hobby to be useful for now. My name is Sebastian Sarria, and I currently live in Madrid, Spain, with my wonderful girlfriend, Shannon.

The focus of this blog will be mostly professional, or academic for that matter. Yes, there might be an occasional "personal" post, where I'll talk about my life in general, but for the most part, I will be focusing on environmental issues of interest to you. More specifically, I will focus on Climate Change, Sustainable Development, Policy, Natural Disasters, Poverty Eradication, and Urban Cities.

If the international community is faced with something more "press" popular, than I will write about that, as was, and still is the case with the current Ukrainian crisis, and the MH370 missing airplane.