Showing posts with label emissions reduction. Show all posts
Showing posts with label emissions reduction. Show all posts

Ranking National Climate Action - 2020 Performance Index

The United States and Canada are some of the worst climate performers in the world. None of the countries reviewed in the 2020 Performance Index have demonstrated that they are on a path that is compatible with the goals laid out in the Paris Climate agreement. Sweden leads the group of high-performing countries, as it did in the 2018 and 2019 Indices. The other four top performing countries in the top five are Denmark, Morocco, the UK and Lithuania. The US is in last place. The 2020 Climate Change Performance Index tracks the performance of 57 countries and the EU on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, renewable energy, energy use and climate policy. The 2020 Index finds that “no country performs well enough in all index categories to achieve an overall very high rating,” meaning that no country is yet “on a path compatible with the Paris climate targets.” Countries are assessed based on their compatibility with ambitions to keep temperatures from warming beyond 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial norms.

On GHG emissions, 31 out of 57 high-emitting countries recorded decreasing emissions. Sweden received a very high rating and Egypt received a high rating for its comparatively low level of current GHG per capita emissions, additional emission reductions over recent years and an ambitious 2030 target. The UK is classified as medium for current per capita emissions, but achieved high ratings for the other three GHG emissions indicators, including a high rating for its 2030 GHG emission target. The bottom performers in this category include the Republic of Korea and Saudi Arabia.

Overall, no country received a very high rating for all the renewable energy indicators, which indicates that there is significant room for improvement in mitigating emissions by accelerating deployment of renewable energy. However, the Index states that, “additions of renewable power generation outpaced net installations of fossil fuel and nuclear power”. Sweden, Latvia and Denmark were the top performers in renewable energy. The bottom performers on renewable energy are Malaysia, Iran and the Russian Federation. The report emphasizes that Malaysia has failed to make any improvements in renewable energy, and the Russian Federation has a very low rating for its ambition in the 2030 target. On energy use, Malta, Morocco and Mexico are the top performers. Saudi Arabia, Canada and the Republic of Korea are the bottom three performers.

On climate policy, no country received a very high rating for the category, although Portugal, Finland, Sweden and Norway achieved a very high rating for their international climate policy performance. Portugal ranked first, followed by Finland, recognized for its target to become carbon neutral by 2035 and its ban on burning coal by 2029. Morocco ranked high based on its ambitious 2030 targets. The bottom three performers are Turkey, the US, and Australia.

The Index is prepared by a group of thinktanks comprising the NewClimate Institute, the Climate Action Network and Germanwatch. To read the complete report click here (PDF).

Related
We are Falling Further Behind on Emissions Reduction
Heat Records Tell Us What We Need to Know
You Can't Say You Haven't Been Warned

Video - Senator Markey Calls out Republican Climate Deniers for their Fossil Fuel Advocacy and their Obstructionism on Climate Change



The Democratic Senator for Massachusetts Ed Markey laments the collapse of the Shaheen-Portman energy efficiency bill. Had Republicans not opposed it, it would have cut carbon pollution and created jobs. He explains that the bill collapsed because Republicans tied the vote on Shaheen-Portman to three measures designed to support the fossil fuel industry:

1. Stop EPA rights to cut emissions form power plants
2. Increase exports of natural gas which will increase costs and therefore the use of coal
3. Prevent the Senate from considering global warming pollution controls

Antarctic Sea Ice

Markey referenced the studies which point to the unstoppable melting of the Antarctic sea ice and rising seas. This means cities like Boston, south Florida and New Orleans will be underwater. The world's ice is melting and Republicans are the cause. Markey suggests that the next piece of ice that breaks off of a glacier should be reserved as an island for climate deniers.

Production Tax Credit for the Wind Industry

He goes on to say that despite strong growth in the US wind industry, last year the sector lost 30,000 jobs because Republicans opposed the production tax credit (PTC). As explained by Markey if the oil and gas industry receive 7 billions of tax breaks per year than renewable technologies should as well.

He concluded his remarks by saying, "We need to be sure we are protecting generations to come"

Related Articles
Video - Former Mexican President Blames Republicans for their resistance to Combating Climate Change
Except for Republicans in the House of Representatives Climate Deniers are a Dying Breed in America
Republicans Have Painted Themselves into a Corner on Climate Change
Congressional Inaction on Climate and Energy Legislation in 2013
The US House of Representatives Anti-Environment Voting Record in 2013
House GOP's Climate Denial Circus of Lies
Video - House Hearings on Climate Change from Rep. Mark Takano
Video - House Hearings on Climate Change Opening Remarks
Government Shutdown: Environmental Impacts and Republican Extortion
Republican Controlled Subcommittee on Energy to Hold Hearings on Climate Change
House Republicans' Historic Anti-Environment Efforts in 2011 and 2012
Republicans Need a Serious Policy Review
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie Accepts the Science of Climate Change (Video)
Hurricane Sandy Underscores Republican's Anti-Science Climate Change Denial (Video)
Republicans Shout Down Climate Change Advocate (Video)
Climate Denying Republicans Delay their Convention Due to Extreme Weather
The Stark Partisan Divide on Global Warming
Political "Heroes" and "Villains" on US Air Pollution
Big Oil's Influence on US Politicians
The Ignorant Anti-Environmental Views of the Republicans
The Koch Brother's Ties to GOP's Presidential Candidates
Republicans Vow to Continue Push for Keystone XL
Video: Conservatives Against Republican Denialism
Video: The Republican War on Climate Science
Video: Republicans Anti-Scientific Stance
Republican Cuts Target Green Jobs
Republican Gubernatorial Gains and Redistricting
Republican's Fail in their Bid to Defund the EPA
Republican Assault on the Environment
Connolly Video: Climate Disasters And GOP Denial
Blumenauer Video: 'The Jihad Against Climate Change Continues'
Republicans Undermining Climate Legislation
What is Wrong with the Right
The Business of Climate Change Deception

The US House of Representatives Anti-Environment Voting Record in 2013

A new report from Henry Waxman (D-CA), shows that the Republican controlled House of Representatives voted for anti-environment positions 109 times. The 113th Congress is almost as bad as the 112th Congress which was called "the most anti-environment House of Representatives in history" by Waxman and Ed Markey (D-MA).

The Waxman report shows that House members:
  • Voted 51 times to to protect the interests of the oil and gas industry at the expense of the environment and human health
  • Voted 20 times to weaken the Clean Air Act
  • Voted 20 times to block or hinder federal carbon emissions regulations
  • Voted 27 times to cut clean energy and energy efficiency funding and block clean energy policies,
  • Voted 37 times to weaken the Clean Water Act and other regulatory efforts to improve water quality
The woeful voting record in the House should come as not surprise when you consider just how much money is being funneled to members of Congress from the fossil fuel industry. As reported by Think Progress, 160 representatives from the 113th Congress accepted more than $55.5 million from the fossil fuel industry, and 56 percent of the Republican caucus in 2013′s House of Representatives deny the reality of climate change.

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Articles
Except for Republicans in the House of Representatives Climate Deniers are a Dying Breed in America
Republicans Have Painted Themselves into a Corner on Climate Change
Congressional Inaction on Climate and Energy Legislation in 2013
House GOP's Climate Denial Circus of Lies
Video - House Hearings on Climate Change from Rep. Mark Takano
Video - House Hearings on Climate Change Opening Remarks
Government Shutdown: Environmental Impacts and Republican Extortion
Republican Controlled Subcommittee on Energy to Hold Hearings on Climate Change
House Republicans' Historic Anti-Environment Efforts in 2011 and 2012
Republicans Need a Serious Policy Review
Hurricane Sandy Underscores Republican's Anti-Science Climate Change Denial (Video)
Romney's Climate Change Ignorance on Display (Video)

Republicans Have Painted Themselves Into a Corner on Climate Change

The Republican position on climate change may drive party support to historic lows in the not too distant future. While most Americans (including supporters of the GOP) think that climate change is real and want the government to act, the majority of Republicans in Congress are science eschewing climate deniers. According to an analysis by the Center for American Progress, 58 percent of Republicans in the current Congress deny the existence of climate change or oppose action to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Congressman Joe Barton of Texas and Senator Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma are poster boys for the flat earth/Luddites in Congress. They regularly dismiss climate change as a “hoax.” However a new analysis from a Stanford University Social Psychologists makes this position politically untenable. Americans, including Republicans think global warming is real and want the government to act.

“This new report is crystal clear,” said Waxman. “It shows that the vast majority of Americans – whether from red states or blue – understand that climate change is a growing danger. Americans recognize that we have a moral obligation to protect the environment and an economic opportunity to develop the clean energy technologies of the future. Americans are way ahead of Congress in listening to the scientists.”

While Democrats are known for their acknowledgement of a science based understanding of climate change Republicans have forcefully defined themselves as "skeptics." What is most striking about the research is the fact that members of the GOP in Congress are at odds with party supporters. 

According to the Stanford study, it is people's personal experience with extreme weather like heatwaves that is driving them to acknowledge the existence of man-made global warming and support government action to combat it. The GOP's recent hearings on global warming were little more than a climate denial sham, which suggests that many Republicans in the House have yet to feel the heat.

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.


Related Articles
Except for Republicans in the House of Representatives Climate Deniers are a Dying Breed in America
Congressional Inaction on Climate and Energy Legislation in 2013
The US House of Representatives Anti-Environment Voting Record in 2013
House GOP's Climate Denial Circus of Lies
Video - House Hearings on Climate Change from Rep. Mark Takano
Video - House Hearings on Climate Change Opening Remarks
Government Shutdown: Environmental Impacts and Republican Extortion
Republican Controlled Subcommittee on Energy to Hold Hearings on Climate Change
House Republicans' Historic Anti-Environment Efforts in 2011 and 2012

Except for Republican Members of Congress Climate Deniers are a Rare Breed in America

According to the latest research, the vast majority of Americans both Democrat and Republican embrace the veracity of anthropogenic climate change and want the government to do something about it. However, according to an analysis by the Center for American Progress, a solid majority (58 percent) of Republicans in the current Congress deny the existence of climate change or oppose action to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

John Krosniak is a social psychologist senior fellow and Stanford University Professor, his research (pdf) indicates that solid majorities in both blue and red states are worried about climate change. His analysis also says that majorities in both red and blue states want the government to act to reduce global warming causing emissions.

A vast majority of red-state Americans believe climate change is real and at least two-thirds of those want the government to cut greenhouse gases (GHGs). This holds true even in stridently red states like Texas and Oklahoma. More than 80 percent of Oklahomans and Texans accepted that climate change was occurring and 76 percent in both states want the government to act to limit GHGs

Krosnick's analysis comprises more than 10 years worth of poll results in 46 states. Climate deniers were not the majority in any of the states studied.

In every state surveyed for which sufficient data was available:

At least three-quarters of residents are aware that the climate is changing. At least two-thirds want the government to limit GHG emissions from businesses. At least 62 percent want regulations that cut carbon pollution from power plants. At least half want the U.S. to take action to fight climate change, even if other countries do not.

Click here for fact sheets

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Articles
Republicans Have Painted Themselves into a Corner on Climate Change
Congressional Inaction on Climate and Energy Legislation in 2013
The US House of Representatives Anti-Environment Voting Record in 2013
House GOP's Climate Denial Circus of Lies
Video - House Hearings on Climate Change from Rep. Mark Takano
Video - House Hearings on Climate Change Opening Remarks
Government Shutdown: Environmental Impacts and Republican Extortion
Republican Controlled Subcommittee on Energy to Hold Hearings on Climate Change
House Republicans' Historic Anti-Environment Efforts in 2011 and 2012
Republicans Need a Serious Policy Review

House GOP's Climate Denial Circus of Lies

The Republicans in the House of Representatives staged a climate denial circus on Wednesday December 11. Their so-called “factual” hearing about climate change, invoked the testimony of skeptics concluded that half of scientists think that global warming is a hoax. The actual number in more like 97 percent. They also tried to dismiss any connection between climate change and extreme weather. The Subcommittee on Environment hearing was ironically titled “A Factual Look at the Relationship Between Climate and Weather.”

Much of the lies and misrepresentation came from John Christy, a climate denying professor at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. While the only scientifically factual part of the hearing came from Pennsylvania State University’s Dr. David Titley.

The Lies

As published in the Raw Story, Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) asked Professor Christy, if it was really true that “97 percent of climate scientist think that climate change is real.”

“No, not at all,” Christie replied. “The American Meteorological Society, by the way, did do a survey of its professional members and found only 52 percent said that climate change of the past 50 years was due mostly to human kind. So, 52 percent amount is quite small, I think, in terms of confidence.”

“You think the 52 percent is much more credible than the 97 percent?” Smith pressed.

“Oh, yes,” Christie insisted. “It included over a thousand respondents.”

“Fifty-two percent, I don’t think by anybody’s definition, is a consensus, by the way,” Smith noted. “So I would so say that there’s not necessarily a consensus.”

The Truth

Later in the hearing, Rep. Mark Takano (D-CA) asked professor Titley, if he agreed with the witnesses who claimed there was no link between climate change and weather.

“You know, I was almost going to start nodding my head up and down with the other witnesses until I heard that there was no linkage,” Titley said. “I think the scientific consensus is not that there is no linkage, the scientific consensus is ‘we don’t know.’ What we do know, we have a warmer and more moister world.”

“Can you comment on the claim that there have been no increase in extreme weather events?” Takano wondered.

“Just take the basic data, we have had for the last 36 years, since President Ford was in office, above normal temperatures,” Titley observed. “That’s away from the center and they’re getting further and further away. Now if you take each year as kind of its own thing and imagine flipping a coin 36 times and getting heads. I mean, if that’s a fair coin, I want to go to Vegas with you.”

“The odds of that are about 1 in 68 billion,” he added. “To put it another way, there’s a 400 times greater chance that you’re going to win the Powerball [lottery] — which is $400 million, by the way, this week — than getting 36 coins to flip heads in a row.”

“So, I would say that is extreme. And the ice in the Arctic, that’s extreme. We’ve seen geologic changes in less than 10 years.”

A survey published earlier this year the journal Environmental Research Letters looked and the work of 29,000 climate scientists published in nearly 12,000 academic papers and found that 97.1% agreed that human activity was causing climate change.

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Articles
Except for Republicans in the House of Representatives Climate Deniers are a Dying Breed in America
Republicans Have Painted Themselves into a Corner on Climate Change
Congressional Inaction on Climate and Energy Legislation in 2013
The US House of Representatives Anti-Environment Voting Record in 2013
Video - House Hearings on Climate Change from Rep. Mark Takano
Video - House Hearings on Climate Change Opening Remarks
Government Shutdown: Environmental Impacts and Republican Extortion
Republican Controlled Subcommittee on Energy to Hold Hearings on Climate Change
House Republicans' Historic Anti-Environment Efforts in 2011 and 2012

Video - German Climate Scientist Argues the Merits of a Carbon Tax in Australia

World Population Day and Curbing Co2 Emissions on a Per Capita Basis

Thursday, July 11th, is World Population Day. The issue of population growth is highly contentious as many want to point their fingers at the developing world where we are seeing the largest population increases. This is particularly true of Africa. However, rather than look solely at population increases we need to consider the significantly lower national per capita Co2 emissions profiles of developing nations as compared to developed countries.

Growing population is undeniably a serious environmental issue. The earth has a finite carrying capacity which we are already exceeding. The more people there are on this earth the greater the demands we make on the planet's limited resources.

There are currently 7 billion people on the planet and this is expected to grow to 9 billion people by 2050. The growing population will put even more strain on our finite resources. More people means more demand for water, food, and energy as well as associated increases in waste and emissions.

Even if we use conservative per capita Co2 emissions estimates of 3 tonnes per person per year, we see that 2 billion more people will generate at least 6 billion tonnes of additional annual Co2 emissions.

Much of the increase in emissions can be offset through the expanded use of renewables. Renewable energy generates a tiny fraction of the emissions associated with burning fossil fuels for energy. 

When we look at per capita emissions it is important to acknowledge the massive gulf that separates the developed and developing world. For example, China, is the world leader in total emissions (6018m metric tonnes of Co2) since it overtook the US (5903m metric tonnes of Co2) in 2007. But as assessed on a per capita basis the US generates more than four times China's Co2 emissions on an annual per capita basis (the average American is responsible for 19.8 tonnes per person, while the average Chinese citizen generates 4.6 tonnes).

The discrepancy between developed and developing countries is far worse in other places. The annual per capita Co2 emissions are 16.5 times higher in the US than in India which generates 1.2 tonnes per capita. Even though India's per capita emissions are on the rise, by 2040 the country is expected to have a Co2 emissions profile below 3 tonnes per person.

As the leading continent for population growth Africa is often unfairly singled out. To illustrate this point, the annual US per capita Co2 emission are 66 times higher than in the African country of Kenya which generates 0.3 tonnes per capita.

We are seeing very promising signs of sustainable development in Africa. The tremendous growth of renewable energy in Africa will enable the continent to keep its per capita emissions relatively low. For example, a report from the African Development Bank (AfDB) said that wind power is expected to increase by a factor of 10 over the next few years.

The prodigious growth of renewable energy in Africa and other developing nations is promising. It is clear that we will not be able to reduce global emissions if the developing world follows the same fossil fuel driven path that the developed world has taken.

Renewable energy can enable developing nations to leap frog past fossil fuels that same way they have established wireless communications without going through a stage of hard wired phones and the same way they are adopting electric vehicles without the heavy reliance on fossil fuel powered cars.

While we expect to see a reduction in annual per capita Co2 emissions in the developing world, they are still expected to be significantly higher than in developing nations. It should be obvious that if we are to curb global emission the developed world must significantly reduce their per capita emissions beyond current forecasts. Further, the developed world must assist the developing world with technology transfer and financial support to help them avoid our environmentally ruinous developmental path.

World population is a serious problem, but as we continue to seek an elusive deal on global emissions reductions, we must factor per capita emissions.

For more information on per capita Co2 emissions click here.

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
Adolescent Pregnancy on World Population Day 2013
Population Growth and Global Food Production
Population Growth is Compounding Climate Change
7 Billion Actions: A Global Movement For All Humanity
Population Growth and Climate Change
Growth in World Population Threatens the Environment
World Population Day 2010: Everyone Counts
Environmental Impact of Overpopulation

The Fate of the Keystone XL Pipeline in the Wake of President Obama's Georgetown University Speech

During his Georgetown Univeristy speech on June 25th, President Obama indicated that the Keystone XL pipeline, (which would ferry tarsands oil from Alberta to Texas) should not proceed if it will generate greenhouse gases (GHGs) and contribute to climate change.  "The net effects of the pipeline's impact on our climate will be absolutely critical to determining whether this project is allowed to go forward," the President said. Obama has instructed the State Department to approve the pipeline only if the project won't increase the net emissions of GHGs.This is the first time that the President has linked the pipeline to emissions.

"Allowing the Keystone pipeline to be built requires a finding that doing so would be in our nation's interests," Obama said. "Our national interest would be served only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution."

Newly retired James Hansen, formerly America's leading climate scientist has said that if the pipeline goes forward, the resulting emission mean "game over" for efforts to combat climate change. Hansen's position was refuted by a State Department report which exonerated the pipeline's climate impacts. However the EPA vociferously disagrees with the State Department's assessment.

It is widely understood that tarsands oil emits more GHGs than the production of conventional crude oil. A 2009 study by the consulting firm IHS CERA estimated that production from Canada's oil sands emits "about 5 percent to 15 percent more carbon dioxide, over the "well-to-wheels" (WTW) lifetime analysis of the fuel, than average crude oil." Author and investigative journalist David Strahan stated that IEA figures show that carbon dioxide emissions from the oil sands are 20 percent higher than average emissions from the petroleum production.

A Stanford University study commissioned by the EU in 2011 found that oil sands crude was as much as 22 percent more carbon intensive than other fuels.

Greenpeace says the oil sands industry has been identified as the largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions growth in Canada, as it accounts for 40 million tons of CO2 emissions per year.

According to the Pembina Institute, average GHG emissions for oilsands extraction and upgrading are estimated to be 3.2 to 4.5 times as intensive per barrel as compared to conventional oil produced in Canada or the US.
  • The greenhouse gas emissions from individual projects vary considerably because of differences in technologies, practices and oilsands quality from project to project. On average, producing one barrel of synthetic crude oil from oilsands results in 111 kilograms of CO2 equivalent emissions.
  • Production of synthetic crude oil from oilsands mining operations result in 62 to 164 kilograms of CO2 equivalent emissions per barrel.
  • Production of synthetic crude oil from oilsands in situ operations result in 99 to 176 kilograms of CO2 equivalent emissions per barrel.
  • Average emissions per barrel for conventional crude oil production are 35.2 kilograms of CO2 equivalent in Canada and 24.5 kilograms of CO2 equivalent in the U.S.
Even on a full life cycle (well-to-wheels) basis, oilsands GHG emissions intensities are between 8 percent and 37 percent higher than conventional crude, due to the greater amount of oilsands production emissions.
  • Well-to-wheels includes emissions from production, upgrading, refining, transportation, and use (combustion) in a vehicle. The greenhouse gas emissions resulting from refining, transport, and combustion of oilsands crude is essentially the same as conventional crude. Combustion accounts for most of the emissions, regardless of the source.
  • A comparison of oilsands emissions intensities (well-to-wheels) from seven data sources to the 2005 U.S. baseline (the average of all fuels consumed in the U.S. that year, calculated by the EPA) showed that oilsands emissions range from 8 percent to 37 percent higher than the baseline due to the greater production emission intensities of fuels derived from oilsands.
  • According to a peer-reviewed study completed for the European fuel-quality directive, the average oilsands GHG emission intensity is approximately 23 percent greater than the average conventional crude used in Europe on a life cycle basis.
About 7 percent of Canada's total GHG emissions came from oilsands plants and upgraders in 2010.
  • Oilsands plants and upgraders produced 48 million tonnes of greenhouse gases in 2010, an increase of 31 million tonnes over 2000 levels.
Oilsands are the fastest growing source of GHG emissions in Canada. 
  • Greenhouse gas emissions from oilsands have almost tripled (increased 2.9 times) in the past two decades. Planned growth under current provincial and federal policies indicates greenhouse gas emissions from oilsands will continue to rise resulting in more than a doubling of emissions between 2010 and 2020, 48 million tonnes in 2010 to 104 million tonnes of greenhouse gases in 2020.
  • Overall, Canada’s annual GHG emissions are projected to increase by 20 Mt between 2005 and 2020, under currently announced federal and provincial policies. Emissions from the oilsands (including emissions from upgrading) are projected to grow by 73 Mt over the same period. Because the ups and downs in emissions in other sectors largely cancel each other out, essentially the entire projected increase in Canada’s emissions between 2005 and 2020 will come from the oilsands.
If Alberta were a country, its per capita GHG emissions would be higher than any other country in the world.

While President Obama made it clear that the Keystone XL will not be approved if it generates emissions that contribute to climate change, supporters of the pipeline are nonetheless taking this as a promising signal. Oil and gas companies, the Canadian government and Republican members of Congress are interpreting the President's remarks as support for the pipeline.

To illustrate the point, a top aide to House Speaker John Boehner said the President's comments indicated that the pipeline should be approved. "The standard the president set today should lead to speedy approval of the Keystone pipeline," Boehner spokesman Brendan Buck said.

It is very hard to envision a positive outcome for the Keystone XL. If the pipeline goes forward it will result in 800,000 barrels a day of new production capacity. It should be clear that this would significantly increase GHG emissions. In the President's own words if the pipeline generates GHGs it is not in the national interest and should not go forward.

Author and 350.org founder Bill McKibben also made it clear that the President must reject the controversial tar sands pipeline. In a statement on Monday McKibben said, "The president is a logical man, and taking two steps forward only to take two back would make no sense."

With over 170 billion barrels of tarsands oil in Canada they have been called a carbon bomb. We simply cannot afford to extract and burn Canada's tarsands if we are to have a hope of curbing climate change. Supporters of the pipeline are unlikely to concede the point, but that does not make them right, it only highlights their intransigence and puts them on the wrong side of history.

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Articles
Unions Oppose the Keystone XL in the Jobs vs. Environment Debate
EPA Slams State Department on the Keystone XL
Cornell University Questions the Economic Benefits of the Keystone XL Pipeline
American Employment: Keystone XL vs Green Jobs
A New State Department Environmental Impact Assessment Clears the Keystone XL Pipeline
The DoD's Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap (CCAR) Excludes Keystone XL
Obama to Expedite the Keystone XL Pipeline
The Center for Biological Diversity CREDO and Friends of the Earth Slam Keystone Reversal
Bill McKibben on Obama's Keystone XL Reversal
Republicans Vow to Continue Push for Keystone

Redrawing the Energy-Climate Map: World Energy Outlook Special Report

The world is not doing enough to combat climate change. This June 10, 2013 report offers  four policy suggestions that would curb emissions and enable us to stay within 2 °C without incurring a net cost. 

This report is part of the IEA's efforts to provide reliable and unbiased research, statistics, analysis and recommendations. The International Energy Agency (IEA) is an autonomous organisation which works to ensure reliable, affordable and clean energy for its 28 member countries and beyond. Founded in response to the 1973/4 oil crisis, the IEA’s initial role was to help countries co-ordinate a collective response to major disruptions in oil supply through the release of emergency oil stocks to the markets.
_____________________________

To address the urgent need for action to curb greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions situation the report recommends four specific energy measures which can be quickly and effectively implemented to arrest emissions at no net economic cost. Governments have agreed upon the need to collectively limit the average global temperature increase to no more than 2 °C but we are not expected to find an agreement before 2015 and new legal obligations will not begin before 2020. While many dismiss the hope of staying within 2 °C, this Special Report states that this goal is still viable if government put reforms to the energy sector at the top of their policy agendas.

1. Targeted energy efficiency measures in buildings, industry and transport account for nearly half the emissions reduction in 2020, with the additional investment required being more than offset by reduced spending on fuel bills.

2. Limiting the construction and use of the least-efficient coal-fired power plants delivers more than 20% of the emissions reduction and helps curb local air pollution. The share of power generation from renewables increases (from around 20% today to 27% in 2020), as does that from natural gas.

3. Actions to halve expected methane (a potent greenhouse gas) releases into the atmosphere from the upstream oil and gas industry in 2020 provide 18% of the savings.

4. Implementing a partial phase-out of fossil fuel consumption subsidies accounts for 12% of the reduction in emissions and supports efficiency efforts.

The report also reviews elements of action to achieve further reductions, after 2020. It also demonstrates that the energy sector, acting in its own best interest needs to immediately address the risks implicit in climate change.

To download the entire report click here (PDF)

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
Energy Emissions Comparisons
IAIA12 Energy Future: The Role of Impact
8 Congressional Reports on Energy
Energy & Environmental Report
Breakdown of Obama's Clean Energy
The Future of Energy and the Environment
The Chinese Government is Investing in Clean Energy
Government Incentives are Growing Renewable Energy
Republican Opposition to Obama's Clean Energy
GE's Immelt Calls Current US Energy Policy "Stupid"

World Bank President Advocates Putting a Price on Carbon

Many believe that putting a price on carbon is the best way to combat climate change. Now the chorus of those calling for just that has been joined by World Bank President Jim Yong Kim. He recently urged the world’s environmental ministers to implement a five-point plan that includes putting a price on carbon dioxide emissions, improving agricultural practices and ending fossil fuel subsidies.

Kim urged more countries to roll out price mechanisms either through a tax on carbon, indirect taxation, regulation or creation of a carbon market. Kim made the remarks to 30 of the world's environment ministers gathered in Berlin for informal talks on a new global climate deal to take effect in 2020.

The European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme is struggling with low prices and may require action from EU policymakers. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has said the EU should take action on a plan to postpone the supply of permits.

Conversely, the Easter Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) is doing much better than their European counterparts.  California’s recent carbon auction fared well and the addition of five Canadian provinces has rejuvenated the Western Climate Initiative (WCI). The five Canadian provinces replace six US states (New Mexico, Arizona, Washington, Oregon, Montana and Utah) that abandoned the WCI making it the biggest North American carbon trading market by value.

Overall the North America carbon trading market doubled in 2012 with the inauguration of carbon markets in California and Quebec.

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
European Parliament Revives Cap-and-Trade
Carbon Pricing and Emissions Trading a Global Review
RGGI is Increasing Renewables while Reducing GHGs and Spurring Economic Growth
The Success of RGGI Carbon Trading Shows Cap-and-Trade Works
Video - What are the benefits of a carbon price?
Video - How does carbon pricing work?
Video - A Price on Carbon in 5 Easy Steps
Video - The Cost of Carbon
Climate Change Caucus in Washington Breeds Hope for Legislation on Emissions Reduction Perhaps Even Cap and Trade
California's Cap-and-Trade Leadership
California is Leading the US with a Cap-and-Trade
South Korea Passes Cap-and-Trade Legislation
US Cap-and-Trade Implications for Business
US Cap-and-Trade: What and Why
Small Business Can Save US Cap-and-Trade
US Cap-and-Trade: Obstacles and Solutions
Cap-and-Trade Legislation Faces Opposition
Helping Small Business Accept US Cap-and-Trade
US Cap-and-Trade: Positioning Your Business
The Kochs' Americans for Prosperity Actively Undermines Cap-and-Trade

Carbon Pricing and Emissions Trading a Global Review

Carbon trading is increasing around the world as levels of atmospheric carbon are about to move past the 400 parts per million threshold. The European Union has been operating the world’s biggest emissions market since 2005. In North America there is the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) and the Western Climate Initiative (WCI). According to Thomson Reuters Point Carbon the North America carbon trading market doubled in 2012 with the inauguration of carbon markets in California and Quebec. In 2012, the volume of permits and credits traded was estimated to be 179 million tons, valued at $782 million.

Although six US states (New Mexico, Arizona, Washington, Oregon, Montana and Utah) abandoned the WCI, five Canadian provinces joined California to form the biggest North American carbon trading market by value. In 2012 the WCI distributed 24 million metric tons of allowances in California and Quebec. As well as pursuing participating in the WCI, California has been actively creating its own cap and trade program.

Emissions markets did not appear to be have been significantly impacted by global economic woes. In 2012, they traded at volumes 19 percent higher than in 2010, although the value was up only 4 percent. Approximately 8 Gt CO2e were traded in compliance markets, compared to 7 Gt in 2010.

 "The Critical Decade: Global Action Building on Climate Change" presents an overview of progress in international action on climate change since August 2012. The report also reviews carbon pricing and emissions trading schemes around the world.

The number of countries pricing carbon is increasing, with four new schemes starting so far this year. Emissions trading schemes are now operating in 35 countries and 13 states, provinces and cities. One of the countries that adopted a carbon trading scheme in 2012 is South Korea. While New Zealand started emissions trading in 2009 and Australia is scheduled to come online with their own scheme in 2015.

These 48 schemes, together with the 7 Chinese schemes, are expected to involve 880 million people and about 20 percent of global emissions.

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
European Parliament Revives Cap-and-Trade
World Bank President Advocates Putting a Price on Carbon
RGGI is Increasing Renewables while Reducing GHGs and Spurring Economic Growth
The Success of RGGI Carbon Trading Shows Cap-and-Trade Works
Video - What are the benefits of a carbon price?
Video - How does carbon pricing work?
Video - A Price on Carbon in 5 Easy Steps
Video - The Cost of Carbon
Climate Change Caucus in Washington Breeds Hope for Legislation on Emissions Reduction Perhaps Even Cap and Trade
California's Cap-and-Trade Leadership
California is Leading the US with a Cap-and-Trade
South Korea Passes Cap-and-Trade Legislation
US Cap-and-Trade Implications for Business
US Cap-and-Trade: What and Why
US Cap-and-Trade: Obstacles and Solutions
Cap-and-Trade Legislation Faces Opposition
Helping Small Business Accept US Cap-and-Trade
US Cap-and-Trade: Positioning Your Business
The Kochs' Americans for Prosperity Actively Undermines Cap-and-Trade
Green Capitalism

Video - How does carbon pricing work?



how a carbon price can reduce carbon pollution and move towards a clean energy future. This animation explains how a carbon price can reduce carbon pollution and move towards a clean energy future. For more information, go to www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au

Related Posts
World Bank President Advocates Putting a Price on Carbon
Carbon Pricing and Emissions Trading a Global Review
RGGI is Increasing Renewables while Reducing GHGs and Spurring Economic Growth
The Success of RGGI Carbon Trading Shows Cap-and-Trade Works
Video - What are the benefits of a carbon price?
Video - A Price on Carbon in 5 Easy Steps
Video - The Cost of Carbon

Video - A Price on Carbon in 5 Easy Steps

Video - The Cost of Carbon

RGGI is Increasing Renewables while Reducing GHGs and Spurring Economic Growth

According to a report released on March 26th, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) has spurred the growth of renewable energy, reduced greenhouse gases (GHGs) and helped to grow the economy in the US Northeast. Between 2000 and 2010, the economies of the ten Northeast states grew twice as fast per capita as other states while per capita carbon dioxide emissions declined 25 percent faster.

These are the findings of a report released by Environment America. The report titled "A Double Success: Tackling Global Warming While Growing the Economy with an Improved Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative," shows that it is possible to increase renewable energy, lower GHGs and grow the economy at all at the same time.

“By promoting clean energy and energy efficiency programs, RGGI helps keep energy dollars in our local economy while reducing the risk of climate change-related costs,” said Pat Stanton, senior vice president for policy and advocacy at the Conservation Services Group (CSG), a large energy services company. “In the last five years, RGGI has helped to spur CSG’s growth. We have added over 450 new employees and improved the efficiency, comfort, and affordability of thousands of New England homes.”

Recent analyses also indicate that RGGI has produced a $1.6 billion economic boost to the region through 2011 and that strengthening RGGI could produce an additional $8 billion in economic benefits.

“By using RGGI to accelerate investments in energy efficiency, the Northeast states have made RGGI into a winner for businesses and consumers in the Northeast,” stated the Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships’ public policy director Jim O’Reilly. “This report shows that RGGI will continue to be a critical tool for states to manage their energy use and maintain our competitive advantage as we emerge from the economic downturn.”

Reducing global warming causing emissions is crucial to preempt an increase in the number of floods to affect the Northeast. These floods impact 1.5 million people in the Northeast living in coastal flood zones. The report indicates that the costs of these floods could reach $212 billion in storm-related economic losses by mid-century.

“In the wake of Winter Storm Nemo, Hurricane Sandy and Hurricane Irene, the Northeast must double-down on its commitment to lead the nation in reducing the pollution that’s warming the planet and changing our climate,” said Rob Sargent, energy program director for Environment America. Sargent went on to say “There’s no time to waste in tackling the climate challenge and it’s got to start right here and right now. The success that these states are having in limiting pollution, promoting energy efficiency and shifting to renewables should give us the confidence that they can continue to show the nation and the world that it can be done.”

In February, nine of the ten states involved in RGGI announced a new agreement to make deeper cuts in power plant carbon emissions that would lead to a 20 percent reduction over the next decade.

The report urged further action including:

  • New Jersey should rejoin the RGGI program, and lead the way in preventing increasingly severe storms and rising sea levels while bolstering the state’s economy.
  • Northeast states should adopt limits on global warming pollution that go beyond the electricity sector to include transportation and heating fuels.
  • Maryland, New Jersey, Connecticut and Massachusetts must implement their laws with binding targets for reducing global warming pollution.
  • More states should take action to limit emissions, and joining RGGI would be a great step forward.
  • The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency should move forward on limiting global warming pollution from new and existing power plants in all states.

These efforts will not only help to stave off climate change, they will also help provide a healthier environment .

“Reducing emissions from power plants has a direct positive impact on the health of our communities, translating into less asthma, less respiratory disease and less allergies,” said Gary Cohen, president of Health Care Without Harm, which works with the health care industry to promote sustainable practices. “Addressing climate change through RGGI and similar policies will help protect our families from climate-related diseases and other health impacts of extreme weather events.”

“Strengthening programs such as RGGI is a win-win for the Northeast,” said Sargent. “We can reduce the impacts of global warming while powering our clean energy economy.”

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
Carbon Pricing and Emissions Trading a Global Review
World Bank President Advocates Putting a Price on Carbon
The Success of RGGI Carbon Trading Shows Cap-and-Trade Works
California's Cap-and-Trade Leadership
California is Leading the US with a Cap-and-Trade
South Korea Passes Cap-and-Trade Legislation
US Cap-and-Trade Implications for Business
US Cap-and-Trade: What and Why
US Cap-and-Trade: Obstacles and Solutions

Helping Small Business Accept US Cap-and-Trade
US Cap-and-Trade: Positioning Your Business

Cap-and-Trade Legislation Faces Opposition
The Kochs' Americans for Prosperity Actively Undermines Cap-and-Trade

Smog Pollution Mutes Chinese New Year Celebrations

The Chinese Lunar New Year is usually celebrated with a barrage of fireworks, but this year due to serious smog pollution problems, Beijing has been forced to scale back celebrations. In the Chinese capital there were 23 days of record breaking smog in January, which is twice the recent average.

Last year's pyrotechnical display sent 2.5 microgram pollution levels as high as 1,500 parts per milion in Beijing. This year the reduction of fireworks appears to have had a significant impact as Sunday's readings showed levels around 200 which is well below the readings of more than 700 that were seen last month.

The Lunar New Year's eve celebrations on Saturday February 9th started later than usual and they were shorter in duration. Fireworks are intended to scare away evil spirits but it seems that the Chinese have decided that reducing smog is more important that warding off evil spirits.

The smog was so bad in Beijing in January that schools canceled outdoor activities. The smog also caused a large number of respiratory problems, elevated blood pressure and heart complaints. This prompted the government in Beijing to shut down 103 heavily polluting factories and take almost a third of government vehicles off roads.

In addition to closing factories, and taking cars off the road, China is taking more serious long term action. Because car emissions are one of the major contributors to smog, China is putting a new gas standard in place that caps sulfur content.  This will take effect at the end of the year, with a grace period extending to the end of 2017.

As part of a drive to cut energy consumption by 300 million tonnes of coal,  in August 2012, China announced that it is planning to invest $372 billion into energy conservation projects and anti-pollution measures over the next three-and-a-half years. The government has earmarked almost half of that amount ($155 billion) for projects that reduce energy consumption.

China is already almost halfway to meeting its target of cutting energy intensity 16 percent below 2010 levels by 2015. They have also targeted a 21 percent energy intensity reduction for industry.

The State Council plan said steel producers must reduce their energy use per unit of production by a 25 percent over the five years, coal-fired power plants by 8 percent and cement manufacturers by 3 percent. Seven Chinese cities and provinces will also launch CO2 emissions trading schemes over the next two years ahead of a national scheme set to commence later in the decade

However more will need to be done to curb the soaring fossil fuel consumption that is powering China's prodigious economic growth. At present China is the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gases (GHGs) However, the nation plans to cut its CO2 emissions per unit of GDP by 40-45 percent from 2005 levels by 2020.

To achieve these goals China has phased out thousands of old, inefficient factories and fossil fuel-fired power plants while becoming the world's biggest producer of renewable energy.

Despite these efforts China's GHG emissions continue to rise. In 2011 China's carbon output grew by 800 million tonnes to 9.7 billion tonnes, or 29 percent of the world's total CO2 emissions. These levels of emissions are expected to keep rising until 2030.

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
China is Leading in Renewable Energy
China's Most Recent Five Year Plan is Greener than Ever
China Leading the Green Economy (Video)
China Powers Ahead in Green Technologies
China's Green Laws for Business
Green Investment Opportunities in China
China's Green Investments and Growing Economic Preeminence
China's Green School Projects
China Wants a Global Climate Change Treaty
Green Asia: China
The Greening of China's Cities, Counties and Towns
China More Receptive to EVs than the US
China Poised to Challenge Global Green Auto Market
China-US Green Cooperation
China can School the US About Green Growth
China's Green Innovation and the Challenge for America

Implications of US Duties on Chinese Solar
Outlook for Chinese Solar in 2012

How the West can Capitalize on the Growth of Chinese Cleantech
China's Green Stimulus, US/China
Partial List of China's Twitter Users Focused on Green and Sustainable Business

COP 18: Bridging the Gulf Between Science and Reality

In theory the slew of recent climate studies should inspire the delegates that have assembled for the 18th Conference of the Parties (COP 18). In practice the 194 nations that are meeting in Doha, Qatar, are getting bogged down by the same old arguments.

The consensus once again this year appears to be that nothing will be accomplished. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) convened these negotiations almost two decades ago and in all that time, we have seen very little meaningful action on the primary issue of curtailing greenhouse gases (GHGs). Since 2000, the concentration of carbon dioxide has increased almost 20 percent and there is an ever widening gap between what governments are doing to curb emissions and what needs to be done.

Recent reports on GHGs and global warming

The climate data from numerous sources conclusively makes the point that we are heading towards calamity. More than a dozen studies made this point just ahead of the climate talks in Doha.
A number of scientist have warned that time is running out to avert a climate catastrophe. While they acknowledge that it is still possible to stave off the worst effects of climate change, they note that the window of opportunity is rapidly getting smaller.
In November, the World Meteorological Association’s (WMO) annual Greenhouse Gas Bulletin indicated that global atmospheric carbon levels are at 391 parts per million, the highest they have ever been in human history. Scientists warn that 350 parts per million is the upper limit for a stable planet. Levels of CO2 have been steadily rising at about 2 parts per million every year for the past decade. Current measurements of atmospheric carbon are 40 percent higher than at the start of the Industrial Revolution. Since the dawn of industrialization in 1750 humans have emitted 375 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The WMO Bulletin indicates that future emissions will make the situation far worse.
The US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) contributed to the WMO report by providing data published in their Annual Greenhouse Gas Index (AGGI). Their report stated: “Increases in the abundance of atmospheric GHGs since the industrial revolution are largely the result of human activity and are largely responsible for the observed increases in global temperature.”
On November 12, the Paris-based International Energy Agency (IEA) warned that ongoing reliance on fossil fuels will make it impossible to curtail climate change. They further state that renewable energy is being neglected in favor of coal, oil, and natural gas.
In a November 13 press release, Renewable Energy Industry (IWR) indicated that last year’s GHGs reached a record high. In total, there were 34 billion tons of GHG emissions in 2011, which is 800 million more tons than in 2010.
On November 18, the World Bank issued a report suggesting that the climate could warm a full 4 degrees by the end of the century. The study further suggests that we will not be able to avert this temperature increase even in the unlikely event that countries fulfill their current emissions-reduction pledges.
On November 21, UNEP issued a warning saying that we are on the brink of a climate catastrophe. The UN Environment Program’s Emissions Gap Report 2012 indicates that there is a massive gulf between what governments have pledged in terms of GHG emissions and what they are actually doing. To stave off a temperature increase of more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), nations have pledged to reduce their emissions a total of 44 gigatonnes (Gt) by 2020. However, the UNEP report indicates that if we stay on our current trajectory of increasing emissions, we are likely to see temperature increases of 3-5 °C. According to UNEP, the gap between GHG emission reduction pledges and what is actually being done is 8 Gt of CO2 by 2020, which is 2 Gt higher than last year’s assessment.
Also in November, Price Waterhouse Coopers offered its own climate change warning in a report titled Too Late for Two Degrees? According to this study, it may already be too late to keep global temperatures within the scientifically agreed upon upper threshold of 2°C.
In November, the World Resources Institute (WRI) put forth its own warning in a report titled Global Coal Risk Assessment. As reviewed in this study, proposed coal projects around the world will quadruple the current capacity of all coal-fired plants in the US. The report found that there are 1,199 new coal power plants in the works, totaling more than 1.4 million megawatts of capacity worldwide.
On December 2, researchers affiliated with the Global Carbon Project released a report titled, The Challenge to Keep Global Warming Below 2 degrees C. The study concludes that it is becoming increasingly unlikely that we will be able to keep temperatures within acceptable upper limits. Emissions continue to grow so quickly that without immediate action, we will not be able to stay within the upper temperature limit established by scientists.

Reports on sea level rise

According to a November 27th study, the ocean is rising much faster than predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). A number of scientists are warning that we must act now to address rising sea levels. They indicate that rising sea levels will be disastrous, but they also say that it is still within our power to not only defend against rising tides, but also to reduce the rate at which they rise.
Rising sea levels not only imperil people, the cost to property and infrastructure amounts to trillions of dollars a year. However, if governments act now, they can significantly reduce these costs. Failure to act soon will cause the costs to increase exponentially.
The threat from rising ocean levels will impact millions of Americans, including people in Florida, Louisiana, California, New York and New Jersey. In total, more than half of the US population in more than 285 cities may be at risk.
A 2011 study by the International Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program (AMAP) indicates that driven by warming in the Arctic and the resulting melt of snow and ice, sea levels could rise up to 5 feet by the end of this century. This is more than two and a half times higher than the 2007 projection by the IPCC.

Agenda for COP 18

As these studies reveal, the need for science driven governmental policy has never been more urgent. Despite the alarming state of affairs, the agenda for COP 18 is modest at best, with no new emissions targets and little progress expected on a new binding climate deal.
The meeting in Doha is scheduled to address a second round of commitments under the Kyoto Protocol, wrap up the Long-term Cooperative Action (LCA) negotiating track and deal with the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP).

Kyoto Protocol and a Second Commitment Period

The Kyoto Protocol (KP) is a historic agreement that legally binds developed (or Annex I) countries to emission reduction targets.  Out of the 195 signatories to the UNFCCC, 192 have ratified the Kyoto Protocol; the U.S. is a notable exception.
One of the advantages to KP is that it includes carbon pricing in the form of cap-and-trade based policy frameworks. The KP is currently the only legally binding mechanism we have to limit international greenhouse gas emissions, but it comes to an end on December 31, 2012.
There are efforts underway to secure a second commitment period (KP2), which will start on January 1, 2013.  While KP2 has some support including counties in the EU and Australia, there is strenuous resistance from the U.S., Canada, Russia, Japan and New Zealand.

Long-term Cooperative Action (LCA)

The discussion on LCA includes a broad range of issues including the Green Climate Fund (GCF), the Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Action (NAMA), the New Market Mechanism (NMM) and more recently, the Framework for Various Approaches (FVA).
We may see some progress here.

Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP)

The ultimate goal of the ADP track is a new global climate deal by 2015 which will take effect in 2020. To develop a comprehensive agreement, the ADP needs to define specific targets, goals and actions. One of the primary goals is the establishment of a carbon market infrastructure. It should also address a funding mechanism for developing economies that leverages private sector finance as well as technology transfer and best practices for implementation.
Few believe that Doha will succeed in setting the course for the ADP. However, we may see some modest progress on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD).

Reducing carbon emissions from deforestation

The REDD+ framework is one of the subjects being discussed at COP 18. Clearing forests to make way for agriculture and other uses is responsible for about 20 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions.
Despite some initial optimism, the WWF reports that developing and developed countries were at odds after Saturday’s meeting about how to verify carbon emissions from forests.
This may prove to be less problematic once the financing issue is addressed as many of the verification issues can be solved with appropriate funding.

The “Equity” problem

Throughout the course of their industrial development, wealthy countries have emitted vast quantities of GHGs, as a consequence, they have a historical responsibility for climate change. Countries that have undergone fossil fuel dependent development are also in a better economic position to contribute to climate solutions.
Current positions from many wealthy countries including the U.S. make little or no allowance for their historical responsibilities.
The question yet to be answered in Doha is: What responsibilities do different countries hold, and how can we implement climate solutions fairly?

How do we measure success?

We need to move beyond the obstacles and do more than make vague statements. We need to get serious about tangible commitments and concrete deadlines. With this is mind, success at COP 18 should be measured by what countries accomplish in the following three areas:
  1. A robust second commitment period KP2
  2. Successful closure of negotiations on LCA involving mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology transfer and capacity-building.
  3. A way forward for the 2015 agreement involving all countries.

Conclusion

Success at COP 18 seems very unlikely, but we are sometimes surprised. In 2011, we saw the EU, the Alliance of Small Island States and the Least Developed Countries come together to get things done. Perhaps similar alliances could help us to move forward this year.
As demonstrated by the most recent studies, we cannot afford to be patient. We must strive to achieve the explicit goal of the UNFCCC which is to reduce GHG emissions so that we can limit global temperature increases.
The current inhabitants of the Earth, along with all the generations to come are counting on us to find a way to realize these lofty aspirations. While it may seem impossible from where we are today, the facts compel us to try, or die trying.

Source: Global Warming is Real