In the last few days we’ve had the following:

Gordon Brown saying that he might personally attend, instead of just sending the Environment minister. If other world leaders follow suit, there’s a chance that there will be a bit more political will there. Or at least that they think that the deal that’s being brokered will make them look good, even if they don’t intend to follow through.

Hu Jintau is committing China to a carbon-cutting deal. Given that one of the big stumbling blocks in negotiations from Western countries (particularly the US) has been the insistence that China and India make emissions cuts – or at least stop emissions growth, this is a very positive sign. If China is willing to make big cuts, then the US has no excuse left.

The UN is planning what the Guardian describes as “shock therapy” in order to help motivate the leaders to make a deal. Whether the changes to the set-up that usually accompanies such conferences will make a difference or not is anybody’s guess. But it does show that the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon is determined to get some kind of deal hammered out.

Meanwhile, the aviation industry is claiming that it will cut emissions by half by the year 2050. Given that they seem to envisage the continuing expansion of airports and number of flights, that seems somewhat over-ambitious – to say the least. There isn’t a viable clean technology for powering aircraft – which remain the most polluting form of transport by a very very long way. Unless the scientists and engineers come up with something very good very quickly, they’ll be using the cheat of funding everybody else’s carbon cuts. It’s better than nothing, but nowhere near good enough.

And a couple of weeks ago, the new Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama pledged to cut emissions by 25% by 2020. That’s a substantial cut, but far below what is needed to avoid the worst consequences of climate change.

We can but hope that world leaders hammer out a deal to deliver massive cuts in carbon emissions before we all pay the price. Based on the signals that are being sent out, it looks likely that there will be something stronger than Kyoto. And it’s possible that there will be a commitment to the 80-90% reduction that is needed by 2050.

And it’s then that the real work begins. We will need to hold all the governments involved to account so that they actually deliver those reductions. Targets are not enough – we need policies that will actually deliver them, and whatever Copenhagen delivers in commitments and targets, it’s not going produce a series of policies to be followed in order to achieve them.

Bookmark to:

Instead, I’ll just point you to a few other great blog posts.

Andy D’Agorne points out that phone boxes can become electric car recharging points. Sounds like a very good idea to me.

The Church Mouse asks the very good question of why there isn’t a unified climate change campaign in the run-up to Copehagen. As the Green Party, and/or as Christians, we should definitely try to work towards sending a unified message on this one.

The Green Room highlights a humanist who is being deported to Afghanistan for apostasy, where he faces the death penalty for apostasy – having publicly renounced Islam. A world where somebody is not free to abandon the faith they grew up with is not one I, as a Christian or as a Green, want to live in. If you don’t believe in a religion or an ideology you should be free to walk away from it whenever you want, without fear of being murdered for doing so. That our own government should be willing to send somebody to a country which is trying to murder him for changing his faith is utterly appalling.

act now to stop this travesty of “justice” now

Bookmark to:

Meanwhile, the government claims that they are working to ensure that they are aiming to build a competitive advantage in ultra-low carbon vehicles. Living in a city which still contains several car factories, I would like to believe that this is more than just talk. Sadly, however, the government’s lack of commitment to the Vestas wind turbine factory suggests otherwise.

And France looks set to take some action against climate change by introducing a carbon tax. Unfortunately, the industries where it might make the most difference seem to be exempt.

Bookmark to:

Geo-engineering, if you haven’t come across the term before, means dealing with climate change in ways that don’t involve cutting carbon emissions. The report examines a whole range of technologies which are said to be able to counteract the increase in the number of greenhouse gases, all of which require further research to be feasible.

The report takes the rather sensible line that these options should not become a diversion from efforts to reduce carbon emissions. It also points out that the technologies all have serious risks and uncertainties. But it does outline which options look the most practical should we come to that point.

My own conclusion from reading the summary is that the use of geo-engineering techniques would indicate that the human race has failed to take seriously our duty to care for the planet we live on. However, if we fail to take appropriate action now, then these more risky and costly alternatives may prove a necessary evil.

Our response to this report should be to increase our efforts to reduce carbon emissions, in order to ensure that such methods do not become necessary.

The strategies they suggest are viable fall into two categories.

Carbon Removal Techniques

These are ways of taking the carbon out of the atmosphere, solving the problem at its root cause. It identified three with the most useful potential.

• The report said that three are currently no cost-effective ways of capturing carbon directly from the air, although this would be the best possible option.
• Enhanced weathering – using naturally occurring reactions of CO2 with rocks and minerals – may have wider environmental implications, but may prove a long-term option.
• Land use and planting forests. The report said that this could play a small but significant role. However, there are issues regarding other priorities with regard to the use of land.

I don’t think that use of any of these methods, in conjunction with reducing emissions, would be disastrous. In particular, the problems regarding land use are probably the easiest to overcome. Archaeology and historical accounts tell us that the Amazon rainforest supported a fairly large population before Europeans arrived on the continent. Apparently large chunks of it were effectively an orchard. Creative use of land could enable us to combine human needs with the need to preserve forest areas.

Solar Radiation Management

These strategies involve trying to tinker with the radiation we receive from the sun. These methods are rather more drastic, but have the advantage that they could make an impact more quickly.

• Stratospheric aerosols, which mimic the effects of major volcanic eruptions, appear to have much potential as a short-term solution. However, they would also have plenty of adverse effects. In particular, they would deplete the amount of atmospheric ozone.
• Space-based methods (reflecting solar radiation away) would be slow to implement, expensive, and complex. Their main up-point is that they may provide a long-term effect.
• Cloud albedo approaches – creating clouds, or increasing their ability to reflect solar energy away from the Earth – could have specific localised effects, but has big question marks over their feasibility, effectiveness, and environmental impact.

Techniques of little worth

The report also identified three approaches which have less potential.

• Biochar – essentially creating a charcoal-like substance to lock carbon into the soil. The report was sceptical about its scope, effectiveness, and safety.
• Ocean fertilisation – dumping large amounts of iron into the sea, in order to increase the number of plankton, thus enabling the ocean to absorb more carbon dioxide. The report concludes that it is unproven and has a very high potential for unintended negative side-effects.
• Surface albedo approaches – basically making the Earth more reflective. These were found to be ineffective, expensive, and likely to have negative effects on local weather patterns.

Bookmark to: