The participants of the 2009 World Water Week in Stockholm last Friday unanimously said that water must be included in the COP-15 climate negotiations in Copenhagen this December.
At various sessions throughout the Week, a number of organizations and officials have articulated the reasons why water needs to be an integral part of the negotiation process on climate change and adaptation. Those reasons became key points of the “Stockholm Statement” which the assembled participants of the 2009 World Water Week unanimously supported at the final plenary session this morning.
The Stockholm Statement from World Water Week to the COP-15
Introduction: Climate change is happening and adding complexity to existing global challenges. A strong and fair agreement on future global commitments on climate change measures—both mitigation and adaptation—is crucial in order to secure future water resource availability. The negotiations towards a Copenhagen Agreement are therefore of great concern to the global water community.
The importance of water must be properly and adequately reflected within the COP-15 agreement, and in processes beyond COP-15. In recent months substantial efforts have been undertaken to ensure that this is achieved including the Dialogue on Climate Change Adaptation for Land and Water Management, the 5th World Water Forum in Istanbul and during dialogues held at the Climate Change Negotiations.
Reflecting these efforts, and the urgent need to ensure that the global community is adequately prepared to respond to climate change, the following messages are conveyed from Stockholm to Copenhagen:
* Water is a key medium through which climate change impacts will be felt. Managing the resource effectively, including through well-conceived IWRM approaches and at a transboundary level, is central to successful adaptation planning and implementation, and to building the resilience of communities, countries and regions;
* Adaptation is a prerequisite for sustainable development and poverty reduction. Adaptation measures thus need proper integration within broader development goals and objectives, including the Millennium Development Goals;
* Integration of water with land and forest management is key to effective adaptation. We strongly endorse the Nairobi Statement on Integrated Land and Water Resources Management for Climate Change Adaptation; we also emphasize that water-related adaptation can and should support global mitigation actions;
* Ecosystem protection and sustainability is fundamental to adaptation and human development. We therefore urge increased efforts towards and investment in the protection and restoration of natural resources—including water—as an essential part of any adaptation process;
* Higher-quality information that is more effectively shared will strengthen responses. In particular there is a critical need for the water and climate communities to increase the sharing of information at all levels of policy and practice—from global to local, and from local to global;
* Vulnerability assessments and risk management are critical to sound adaptation practice. Knowing where and how the impacts of climate change are most likely to affect populations and ecosystems through the water cycle will help in the identification of areas for early intervention or ‘hot spots’; these include arid regions, areas highly dependent on groundwater, small island developing states, low-lying deltas and fragile mountainous areas;
* New and additional funds are essential. It is imperative that additional funding is allocated in support of developing adaptive strategies for vulnerable groups and ecosystems; there is a need for an initial mobilization of finance to assist vulnerable, low income countries already affected by climate change, followed by the establishment of a well-resourced mechanism for funding adaptation as part of ongoing climate negotiations.
Follow upWe urge the global water and climate communities to look beyond COP-15 and work through dialogue to strengthen global mechanisms that can enhance collective action on water and adaptation. These should include, but not be limited to, better sharing of knowledge and technology in support of adaptation measures in developing countries, active support for capacity building and access to improved levels of financing.
Finally, the water community expresses its commitment to strengthening institutional cooperation at all levels between the climate, water and wider development communities under appropriate mechanisms and institutional arrangements in order to work more collectively to address the immense development challenges ahead.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Triumph of the commons: Helping the world to share
DO YOU ever get the impression that civilisation has degenerated into an unedifying free-for-all? Like pigs gobbling at their troughs, we all seem to be out to get as much as possible of whatever is on offer. Everyone is at it, from loggers felling the Amazonian rainforest and fishers fighting over the last few cod to SUV drivers running the oil wells dry and politicians on their gravy trains. Science even has a name for the phenomenon - one that seems eerily prescient following the recent revelation about MPs' expense claims in the UK. It is called the Tragedy of the Commons.
Four decades ago, ecologist Garrett Hardin published a ground-breaking paper on this phenomenon, arguing that when personal and communal interests are at odds, overexploitation of resources is inevitable. His tragedy of the commons referred to the destruction of communal pasture when individual herders act rationally in their own best interests, each putting as many cows as possible onto the land. The same fate, he noted, is likely to befall any shared limited resource, from the atmosphere and oceans to national parks and rivers. Over the years, and with the rise of environmentalism, Hardin's ideas have become hugely influential.
Does this mean we are doomed to plunder the world's resources and trash our planet? Even Hardin wasn't entirely pessimistic. He noted that groups can create institutions to manage their communal resources, although these usually fail because of "free-riders" - individuals who try to reap the benefits of cooperation without paying any of the costs. The solution he came up with was "mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon by the majority of the people affected" (Science, vol 162, p 1243). In other words, people must give up their freedom to save the commons. I disagree.
Today we understand human nature and motivation far better than we did in Hardin's day. In particular, we know that individuals do not always act selfishly but also have some regard for the interests of others and the natural environment. Games such as the prisoner's dilemma and the public goods game demonstrate that under certain conditions people do behave altruistically (New Scientist, 12 March 2005, p 33). Besides, countless success stories attest to the fact that communities can overcome the tragedy of the commons without a great deal of coercion.
Putting all this together, I have identified four key conditions for the successful management of shared environmental resources: information, identity, institutions and incentives. (Current Directions in Psychological Science, vol 18, p 169). I believe we can and should use this 4i framework as the basis for a plan of action to combat local and global environmental catastrophe.
Information, identity, institutions and incentives correspond to what most psychologists believe are the four core motives that influence our decision-making in social dilemmas, respectively understanding, belonging, trusting and self-enhancing. Let's consider them in turn, starting with "institutions" because it is the one that comes closest to Hardin's prescription for overcoming the tragedy of the commons.
In our technologically and culturally complex modern world, many limited resources are managed by institutions, from private companies distributing water, to governments limiting air pollution through quotas. Hardin believed that such institutions cannot avert the tragedy of the commons without coercion because of the problem of free-riders. In fact, it is worse than that: researchers have since shown that introducing a system of policing simply creates a second-order free-rider problem - raising the issue of who guards the guards. Nevertheless, there are institutions that successfully promote environmental sustainability, so how do they do it?
The key is trust - and the cornerstone for building trust is fairness. In the 1991 California water shortage, the local water authorities tried to implement drastic water-saving measures but only with partial success. Residents were most likely to comply with authorities if they felt their concerns were taken seriously and they got accurate, unbiased information about the severity of the drought (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol 69, p 482). Likewise, in my research I discovered that following the privatisation of the British railway network in 1994, railway passengers who did not trust the private companies to run the system efficiently and fairly were more likely to switch from trains to cars (Social Psychology Quarterly, vol 63, p 355).
Next up is information. People want to make sense of their natural environment - and their impact on it - but we seldom have enough information to evaluate questions such as: Should I recycle? Is it really worth turning those lights off? Would it be better to buy a new eco-friendly car or hang onto my old one for a while longer? And it turns out that the more uncertain we are the more likely we are to bias our decisions in our own narrow self-interest. In a lab study where a group of people were asked to manage a communal resource, they were far more successful when the resource was fixed in size than when its size fluctuated (European Journal of Social Psychology, vol 20, p 475). The researchers concluded that the environmental uncertainty caused by a fluctuating resource led individuals to underestimate the damage of their actions and exploit the resource to the point of collapse.
Equipped with better information, we face less environmental uncertainty and can therefore make more sustainable choices. But how can we improve the quality of environmental information available? First we must recognise that many aspects of environmental decision-making are intrinsically uncertain. That is especially true at the global level, where there is often a bewildering array of complex interacting factors. This is why local information, relevant to specific individuals in their particular circumstances, is far more effective at persuading people to change their behaviour. We are much more likely, for example, to act on information about local flood risks than on general data about the dangers of global climate change.
The best information systems are simple but accurate. The ABC rating system used throughout Europe for labelling household electrical appliances is a good example because it allows customers to compare at a glance complex information about energy use and emissions between different products. Research designed to evaluate this system also highlights the obvious but important point that information is most likely to promote sustainable behaviour when given to people who are already committed to the environment but lack the technical know-how to make a green choice.
Just connect
Targeted environmental education programmes are a good idea and they work particularly well in situations where people share a common social identity, because we are more likely to exchange environmentally relevant information when we identify more with our community. This effect is borne out in a classic example of triumph over tragedy of the commons among the lobster fishers of Maine. Over many decades they have developed a self-policing system to maintain the limited resource upon which their livelihood depends. Research shows that the system is most sustainable in small communities with dense social networks because fishers exchanged catch information more freely than in those with fewer connections (Ethology and Sociobiology, vol 12, p 221).
Social identity, a feeling of belonging to a social group, influences our behaviour in other ways too. My colleagues and I found that the more connected people felt to their community, the more willing they were to act in the group's interests by conserving water during a shortage (Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol 27, p 1440). Since we all identify most strongly with our primary groups - family, friends and neighbours - environmental messages that appeal to these relationships, such as "think of your children's future", can be highly effective.
People who identify with a group are also more concerned about upholding a green reputation. In another study we found that when people harvested from a common resource - a shared pot of money - and their decisions were made public they behaved more responsibly (Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol 32, p 1402).
Showing people how their behaviour compares with that of others produces a similar effect. When a US energy company started issuing its customers with smiley and frowney faces to indicate whether their bills were more or less than the neighbourhood average, energy consumption went down dramatically (Psychological Science, vol 18, p 429). Various environmental pressure groups use the power of social norms to "name and shame" polluting companies into changing their policies, and with success (Quarterly Review of Biology, vol 78, p 275).
One way to connect a group of strangers is through inducing competition with other groups. David De Cremer from Erasmus University in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and I showed that students cooperated more with each other when they believed they were being compared with groups from other universities (European Journal of Social Psychology, vol 29, p 871). Creating competition between communities does not always promote environmental welfare, however. When a resource is the shared responsibility of several communities - such as the North Sea fish stocks - it is at even greater risk of depletion. That is why it is important to think of ways to blur group boundaries, for instance, by generating a superordinate social identity, such as, "we are all Europeans".
The fourth great motivator is incentives - appeals to people's desire to enhance themselves through seeking pleasure and avoiding pain. Government subsidies encourage people to adopt green technologies. Fines persuade individuals and companies to comply with environmental regulations. However, some incentive schemes are more effective than others. My own research on domestic water use indicates that economic incentives make little difference when people are already prepared to do their bit for the environment (Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol 27, p 1440). Sanctions can even be counterproductive if they are considered unfair and distort people's understanding of an environmental problem as essentially an economic one. For example, if people feel that they pay through the nose to run a car, they may be more likely to believe that they should be able to drive as much as they like
The most effective strategies to protect our shared environment are likely to combine several of the 4is. For example, when my colleagues and I conducted a survey of 120 households in the UK during the drought of 1997 we found that those with a water meter made the most efforts to conserve water. Because they were paying only for the water they used, not a flat rate, they had a financial incentive to save. The meter also allowed them to see more clearly where the most water was being wasted, so giving them a greater understanding of the situation (Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol 25, p 731).
All this shows that with a good understanding of human nature, a destructive global free-for-all is not inevitable. Of course we don't yet have all the answers, but while social psychologists like myself continue to probe human behaviour and motivation, we already know enough to make a difference. I would like ingenious conservationists, policy-makers, marketers and others to start using the 4i framework to influence the way people behave. We only have one planet and as the human population grows its limited resources are increasingly stretched. To avoid a commons tragedy we need to act decisively and we need to act now.
Back to our roots
Humans seem to have an affinity for nature. We prefer natural environments to built ones, and built environments with some natural objects, such as trees or water features, over more wholly urban landscapes (Environment and Behavior, vol 13, p 523). Across cultures, people are attracted to the savannah-type landscapes in which our ancestors are thought to have evolved, and in both Europe and the US zoos attract more visitors annually than all professional sports events combined. Nature also impacts on our health. Hospital patients in rooms with a window overlooking natural scenes recover more quickly than those in rooms with windows overlooking brick walls (Science, vol 224, p 420).
I am involved in the BeWEL network based at the University of Aberdeen, UK, conducting interdisciplinary research into how people interact with nature and how this affects their wellbeing. One study involves asking people to describe their engagements with nature to see how doing this affects their mood. In another, neuroscientists are examining which parts of the brain are involved when people see pictures of natural versus built environments and listen to natural sounds such as birdsong as opposed to artificially created sounds such as a cuckoo clock. Edward Wilson from Harvard University coined the term biophilia to describe the idea that we have a basic need to enjoy and affiliate with nature. If it turns out to be hard-wired, then biophilia could be another strong motivator in persuading people to protect the environment.
Follow that green celebrity
Like any other social animal, humans compete for status, because high status brings privileges. We do this with conspicuous "handicap" displays which, like the peacock's tail, are personally costly and so only affordable to high-quality individuals. These displays can take the form of "competitive altruism" - showy generosity such as public charity campaigns where rich people advertise their wealth by competing to be the biggest donor. My colleagues and I have found that people become more generous when their donations are made public and that generous people get more status than their stingier counterparts (Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol 32, p 1402) Men - though not women - are more generous when a person of the opposite sex is present (Evolutionary Psychology, vol 6, p 386).
All this helps explain why celebrity endorsements can benefit the environment. People look to celebrities and other high-profile figures for clues about what costly displays gain the most status. So by associating themselves with green causes and products celebrities can influence the domains in which individuals compete for status. Take the Toyota Prius. It is expensive - so not everyone can afford it - and green, so driving it is altruistic because it benefits others. And the fact that Leonardo DiCaprio owns one makes it a highly desirable status symbol.
Four decades ago, ecologist Garrett Hardin published a ground-breaking paper on this phenomenon, arguing that when personal and communal interests are at odds, overexploitation of resources is inevitable. His tragedy of the commons referred to the destruction of communal pasture when individual herders act rationally in their own best interests, each putting as many cows as possible onto the land. The same fate, he noted, is likely to befall any shared limited resource, from the atmosphere and oceans to national parks and rivers. Over the years, and with the rise of environmentalism, Hardin's ideas have become hugely influential.
Does this mean we are doomed to plunder the world's resources and trash our planet? Even Hardin wasn't entirely pessimistic. He noted that groups can create institutions to manage their communal resources, although these usually fail because of "free-riders" - individuals who try to reap the benefits of cooperation without paying any of the costs. The solution he came up with was "mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon by the majority of the people affected" (Science, vol 162, p 1243). In other words, people must give up their freedom to save the commons. I disagree.
Today we understand human nature and motivation far better than we did in Hardin's day. In particular, we know that individuals do not always act selfishly but also have some regard for the interests of others and the natural environment. Games such as the prisoner's dilemma and the public goods game demonstrate that under certain conditions people do behave altruistically (New Scientist, 12 March 2005, p 33). Besides, countless success stories attest to the fact that communities can overcome the tragedy of the commons without a great deal of coercion.
Putting all this together, I have identified four key conditions for the successful management of shared environmental resources: information, identity, institutions and incentives. (Current Directions in Psychological Science, vol 18, p 169). I believe we can and should use this 4i framework as the basis for a plan of action to combat local and global environmental catastrophe.
Information, identity, institutions and incentives correspond to what most psychologists believe are the four core motives that influence our decision-making in social dilemmas, respectively understanding, belonging, trusting and self-enhancing. Let's consider them in turn, starting with "institutions" because it is the one that comes closest to Hardin's prescription for overcoming the tragedy of the commons.
In our technologically and culturally complex modern world, many limited resources are managed by institutions, from private companies distributing water, to governments limiting air pollution through quotas. Hardin believed that such institutions cannot avert the tragedy of the commons without coercion because of the problem of free-riders. In fact, it is worse than that: researchers have since shown that introducing a system of policing simply creates a second-order free-rider problem - raising the issue of who guards the guards. Nevertheless, there are institutions that successfully promote environmental sustainability, so how do they do it?
The key is trust - and the cornerstone for building trust is fairness. In the 1991 California water shortage, the local water authorities tried to implement drastic water-saving measures but only with partial success. Residents were most likely to comply with authorities if they felt their concerns were taken seriously and they got accurate, unbiased information about the severity of the drought (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol 69, p 482). Likewise, in my research I discovered that following the privatisation of the British railway network in 1994, railway passengers who did not trust the private companies to run the system efficiently and fairly were more likely to switch from trains to cars (Social Psychology Quarterly, vol 63, p 355).
Next up is information. People want to make sense of their natural environment - and their impact on it - but we seldom have enough information to evaluate questions such as: Should I recycle? Is it really worth turning those lights off? Would it be better to buy a new eco-friendly car or hang onto my old one for a while longer? And it turns out that the more uncertain we are the more likely we are to bias our decisions in our own narrow self-interest. In a lab study where a group of people were asked to manage a communal resource, they were far more successful when the resource was fixed in size than when its size fluctuated (European Journal of Social Psychology, vol 20, p 475). The researchers concluded that the environmental uncertainty caused by a fluctuating resource led individuals to underestimate the damage of their actions and exploit the resource to the point of collapse.
Equipped with better information, we face less environmental uncertainty and can therefore make more sustainable choices. But how can we improve the quality of environmental information available? First we must recognise that many aspects of environmental decision-making are intrinsically uncertain. That is especially true at the global level, where there is often a bewildering array of complex interacting factors. This is why local information, relevant to specific individuals in their particular circumstances, is far more effective at persuading people to change their behaviour. We are much more likely, for example, to act on information about local flood risks than on general data about the dangers of global climate change.
The best information systems are simple but accurate. The ABC rating system used throughout Europe for labelling household electrical appliances is a good example because it allows customers to compare at a glance complex information about energy use and emissions between different products. Research designed to evaluate this system also highlights the obvious but important point that information is most likely to promote sustainable behaviour when given to people who are already committed to the environment but lack the technical know-how to make a green choice.
Just connect
Targeted environmental education programmes are a good idea and they work particularly well in situations where people share a common social identity, because we are more likely to exchange environmentally relevant information when we identify more with our community. This effect is borne out in a classic example of triumph over tragedy of the commons among the lobster fishers of Maine. Over many decades they have developed a self-policing system to maintain the limited resource upon which their livelihood depends. Research shows that the system is most sustainable in small communities with dense social networks because fishers exchanged catch information more freely than in those with fewer connections (Ethology and Sociobiology, vol 12, p 221).
Social identity, a feeling of belonging to a social group, influences our behaviour in other ways too. My colleagues and I found that the more connected people felt to their community, the more willing they were to act in the group's interests by conserving water during a shortage (Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol 27, p 1440). Since we all identify most strongly with our primary groups - family, friends and neighbours - environmental messages that appeal to these relationships, such as "think of your children's future", can be highly effective.
People who identify with a group are also more concerned about upholding a green reputation. In another study we found that when people harvested from a common resource - a shared pot of money - and their decisions were made public they behaved more responsibly (Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol 32, p 1402).
Showing people how their behaviour compares with that of others produces a similar effect. When a US energy company started issuing its customers with smiley and frowney faces to indicate whether their bills were more or less than the neighbourhood average, energy consumption went down dramatically (Psychological Science, vol 18, p 429). Various environmental pressure groups use the power of social norms to "name and shame" polluting companies into changing their policies, and with success (Quarterly Review of Biology, vol 78, p 275).
One way to connect a group of strangers is through inducing competition with other groups. David De Cremer from Erasmus University in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and I showed that students cooperated more with each other when they believed they were being compared with groups from other universities (European Journal of Social Psychology, vol 29, p 871). Creating competition between communities does not always promote environmental welfare, however. When a resource is the shared responsibility of several communities - such as the North Sea fish stocks - it is at even greater risk of depletion. That is why it is important to think of ways to blur group boundaries, for instance, by generating a superordinate social identity, such as, "we are all Europeans".
The fourth great motivator is incentives - appeals to people's desire to enhance themselves through seeking pleasure and avoiding pain. Government subsidies encourage people to adopt green technologies. Fines persuade individuals and companies to comply with environmental regulations. However, some incentive schemes are more effective than others. My own research on domestic water use indicates that economic incentives make little difference when people are already prepared to do their bit for the environment (Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol 27, p 1440). Sanctions can even be counterproductive if they are considered unfair and distort people's understanding of an environmental problem as essentially an economic one. For example, if people feel that they pay through the nose to run a car, they may be more likely to believe that they should be able to drive as much as they like
The most effective strategies to protect our shared environment are likely to combine several of the 4is. For example, when my colleagues and I conducted a survey of 120 households in the UK during the drought of 1997 we found that those with a water meter made the most efforts to conserve water. Because they were paying only for the water they used, not a flat rate, they had a financial incentive to save. The meter also allowed them to see more clearly where the most water was being wasted, so giving them a greater understanding of the situation (Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol 25, p 731).
All this shows that with a good understanding of human nature, a destructive global free-for-all is not inevitable. Of course we don't yet have all the answers, but while social psychologists like myself continue to probe human behaviour and motivation, we already know enough to make a difference. I would like ingenious conservationists, policy-makers, marketers and others to start using the 4i framework to influence the way people behave. We only have one planet and as the human population grows its limited resources are increasingly stretched. To avoid a commons tragedy we need to act decisively and we need to act now.
Back to our roots
Humans seem to have an affinity for nature. We prefer natural environments to built ones, and built environments with some natural objects, such as trees or water features, over more wholly urban landscapes (Environment and Behavior, vol 13, p 523). Across cultures, people are attracted to the savannah-type landscapes in which our ancestors are thought to have evolved, and in both Europe and the US zoos attract more visitors annually than all professional sports events combined. Nature also impacts on our health. Hospital patients in rooms with a window overlooking natural scenes recover more quickly than those in rooms with windows overlooking brick walls (Science, vol 224, p 420).
I am involved in the BeWEL network based at the University of Aberdeen, UK, conducting interdisciplinary research into how people interact with nature and how this affects their wellbeing. One study involves asking people to describe their engagements with nature to see how doing this affects their mood. In another, neuroscientists are examining which parts of the brain are involved when people see pictures of natural versus built environments and listen to natural sounds such as birdsong as opposed to artificially created sounds such as a cuckoo clock. Edward Wilson from Harvard University coined the term biophilia to describe the idea that we have a basic need to enjoy and affiliate with nature. If it turns out to be hard-wired, then biophilia could be another strong motivator in persuading people to protect the environment.
Follow that green celebrity
Like any other social animal, humans compete for status, because high status brings privileges. We do this with conspicuous "handicap" displays which, like the peacock's tail, are personally costly and so only affordable to high-quality individuals. These displays can take the form of "competitive altruism" - showy generosity such as public charity campaigns where rich people advertise their wealth by competing to be the biggest donor. My colleagues and I have found that people become more generous when their donations are made public and that generous people get more status than their stingier counterparts (Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol 32, p 1402) Men - though not women - are more generous when a person of the opposite sex is present (Evolutionary Psychology, vol 6, p 386).
All this helps explain why celebrity endorsements can benefit the environment. People look to celebrities and other high-profile figures for clues about what costly displays gain the most status. So by associating themselves with green causes and products celebrities can influence the domains in which individuals compete for status. Take the Toyota Prius. It is expensive - so not everyone can afford it - and green, so driving it is altruistic because it benefits others. And the fact that Leonardo DiCaprio owns one makes it a highly desirable status symbol.
UN scientist backs '350' target for CO2 reduction
The UN's top climate scientist has, for the first time, backed ambitious goals for slashing greenhouse gas emissions that many climate negotiators say are beyond reach.
"As chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), I cannot take a position because we do not make recommendations," Pachauri told AFP when asked if he supported poorer nations calling for atmospheric CO2 levels to be held below 350 parts per million (ppm).
"But as a human being I am fully supportive of that goal. What is happening, and what is likely to happen, convinces me that the world must be really ambitious and very determined at moving toward a 350 target," he said by telephone from New Delhi.
In its benchmark 2007 report, the IPCC said that the key for preventing dangerous global warming was to keep CO2 concentrations below 450 ppm.
Above that level, average global temperatures are likely, by 2100, to increase by more than 2.0 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), a threshold G8 leaders agreed last month must not be crossed.
But a growing body of scientific evidence suggests that even these hard-to-reach goals may not be ambitious enough, prompting many of the nations most threatened by global warming to set the bar even higher.
More than 80 of the world's poorest and most climate-vulnerable nations have now declared that CO2 concentrations must be scaled back to below 350 ppm, and that temperatures cannot rise more than 1.5 C by century's end.
"I think this is a good development," Pachauri said.
"Now people -- including some scientists -- see the seriousness of the impacts of climate change, and the fact that things are going to get substantially worse than what we had anticipated."
Even at current CO2 levels of 385-to-390 ppm, severe impacts from climate change -- rising sea levels, drought, violent storms -- have started and are likely to get worse, experts say.
"As chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), I cannot take a position because we do not make recommendations," Pachauri told AFP when asked if he supported poorer nations calling for atmospheric CO2 levels to be held below 350 parts per million (ppm).
"But as a human being I am fully supportive of that goal. What is happening, and what is likely to happen, convinces me that the world must be really ambitious and very determined at moving toward a 350 target," he said by telephone from New Delhi.
In its benchmark 2007 report, the IPCC said that the key for preventing dangerous global warming was to keep CO2 concentrations below 450 ppm.
Above that level, average global temperatures are likely, by 2100, to increase by more than 2.0 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), a threshold G8 leaders agreed last month must not be crossed.
But a growing body of scientific evidence suggests that even these hard-to-reach goals may not be ambitious enough, prompting many of the nations most threatened by global warming to set the bar even higher.
More than 80 of the world's poorest and most climate-vulnerable nations have now declared that CO2 concentrations must be scaled back to below 350 ppm, and that temperatures cannot rise more than 1.5 C by century's end.
"I think this is a good development," Pachauri said.
"Now people -- including some scientists -- see the seriousness of the impacts of climate change, and the fact that things are going to get substantially worse than what we had anticipated."
Even at current CO2 levels of 385-to-390 ppm, severe impacts from climate change -- rising sea levels, drought, violent storms -- have started and are likely to get worse, experts say.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Clunker Program's Environmental Merits Questioned
The Cash for Clunkers program was touted as a way to stimulate the flat-lining auto industry and to improve the environment. President Obama celebrated the program as a triumph. But while dealers could barely keep up with demand, questions remain about the plan's effect on Mother Earth.
"The program has been wonderful for the economy, but it's been only a middling success for greenhouse gas emissions," Michael Gerrard, director of Columbia Law School's new Center for Climate Change Law tells Weekend Edition host Liane Hansen.
To start, Gerrard says, "there was a provision in the law that automobiles over 25 years old could not be traded in. And that made no sense from an environmental standpoint. It was put there to help the dealers in used auto parts, but it really didn't help the environment at all."
Additionally, "the minimum required difference in the mileage for the old vehicles that were traded in and the new vehicles that were bought was just 4 miles per gallon — which is not much of a difference at all."
To make a bigger impact, the government could have required a greater mileage differential, Gerrard says. "You could have had a minimum of 15 mpg differential, which would have made a big difference."
People did buy cars with better average gas mileage, Gerrard says, "but it is still not a cost-effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions."
"There are some calculations that it cost somewhere between $200 and $400 per ton of carbon dioxide reduced, depending on what assumptions are used," he says. "That's way above the market price of carbon and way above many, many other methods of reducing greenhouse gas emissions."
At the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative — an American cap-and-trade system that trades in carbon — carbon dioxide is selling for about $3 a ton, Gerrard says. In Europe, it's around $18 or $20. "So the market price of carbon dioxide trading is much, much lower than the cost of reducing a ton of carbon dioxide under the Cash for Clunkers program."
More cost-effective ways to reduce greenhouse gases would include increasing energy efficiency in the industrial sector or in commercial and residential lighting, Gerrard suggests. Or providing combined heat and power systems in commercial and industrial settings. "All would be several orders of magnitude more cost-effective from a fuel-saving and greenhouse perspective than Cash for Clunkers was."
Successful or not, the government is putting the brakes on the popular program. After 8 p.m. Monday, car buyers will no longer be able to trade in their gas-guzzling vehicles for rebates of up to $4,500.
"The program has been wonderful for the economy, but it's been only a middling success for greenhouse gas emissions," Michael Gerrard, director of Columbia Law School's new Center for Climate Change Law tells Weekend Edition host Liane Hansen.
To start, Gerrard says, "there was a provision in the law that automobiles over 25 years old could not be traded in. And that made no sense from an environmental standpoint. It was put there to help the dealers in used auto parts, but it really didn't help the environment at all."
Additionally, "the minimum required difference in the mileage for the old vehicles that were traded in and the new vehicles that were bought was just 4 miles per gallon — which is not much of a difference at all."
To make a bigger impact, the government could have required a greater mileage differential, Gerrard says. "You could have had a minimum of 15 mpg differential, which would have made a big difference."
People did buy cars with better average gas mileage, Gerrard says, "but it is still not a cost-effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions."
"There are some calculations that it cost somewhere between $200 and $400 per ton of carbon dioxide reduced, depending on what assumptions are used," he says. "That's way above the market price of carbon and way above many, many other methods of reducing greenhouse gas emissions."
At the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative — an American cap-and-trade system that trades in carbon — carbon dioxide is selling for about $3 a ton, Gerrard says. In Europe, it's around $18 or $20. "So the market price of carbon dioxide trading is much, much lower than the cost of reducing a ton of carbon dioxide under the Cash for Clunkers program."
More cost-effective ways to reduce greenhouse gases would include increasing energy efficiency in the industrial sector or in commercial and residential lighting, Gerrard suggests. Or providing combined heat and power systems in commercial and industrial settings. "All would be several orders of magnitude more cost-effective from a fuel-saving and greenhouse perspective than Cash for Clunkers was."
Successful or not, the government is putting the brakes on the popular program. After 8 p.m. Monday, car buyers will no longer be able to trade in their gas-guzzling vehicles for rebates of up to $4,500.
India, China agree to fight trade barriers under the excuse of climate change
India and China on Monday agreed to jointly fight any attempt by western nations to link trade with climate change issues and impose trade-related penalties on developing countries to meet environmental standards.
Jairam Ramesh, India’s minister of state for environment and forest, bluntly asked Chinese officials whether they will stick to New Delhi during the climate talks in Copenhagen next December. India is worried that high-pressure attempts by western nations to get developing countries to deviate from their stand might bear fruit. "The Chinese side has assured me there will be no change in its stand. I think there is total convergence of views between India and China on the issue of climate change," Ramesh said after meeting Xie Zhen Hua, vice chairman of China’s National Development Reforms Commission. Xie briefed the Indian delegation, which included environment secretary Vijai Sharma and climate change negotiator R.R.Reshmi, about a recent China-US accord on climate change issues. He assured Indian officials that the accord was on renewal energy and technological collaboration and nothing else should be read into it. In a significant move, the two countries have agreed to coordinate their views on different aspects of climate change before every major international meeting on the subject. These conclusions reached between Ramesh and Xie are expected to be spelt out in the form of an agreement in the coming days. Both countries want to negotiate with the West for higher levels of financial assistance and technology transfer in return for promises to do their best to tackle environmental problems. China remains committed to the principal of "common but differentiated responsibilities" of developed and developing nations, Ramesh said. But they would not agree to any legal binding on reducing emission norms because it would come in the way of their development goals. India and China will also not agree to the creation of any trade barriers on the excuse of climate change. Ramesh suggest that China consider reducing carbon dioxide levels in power plants supplied by it to India. This would be part of the mitigation activities that the two countries expect to carry out jointly. Meanwhile, Xie told the standing committee of the National People’s Congress today that the government will display "utmost sincerity" in pushing for the success of climate talks in Copenhagen. He did not reveal what public stand China will take besides its commitment to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which laid the principal of "common but differentiated responsibilities" for developed and developing nations
Jairam Ramesh, India’s minister of state for environment and forest, bluntly asked Chinese officials whether they will stick to New Delhi during the climate talks in Copenhagen next December. India is worried that high-pressure attempts by western nations to get developing countries to deviate from their stand might bear fruit. "The Chinese side has assured me there will be no change in its stand. I think there is total convergence of views between India and China on the issue of climate change," Ramesh said after meeting Xie Zhen Hua, vice chairman of China’s National Development Reforms Commission. Xie briefed the Indian delegation, which included environment secretary Vijai Sharma and climate change negotiator R.R.Reshmi, about a recent China-US accord on climate change issues. He assured Indian officials that the accord was on renewal energy and technological collaboration and nothing else should be read into it. In a significant move, the two countries have agreed to coordinate their views on different aspects of climate change before every major international meeting on the subject. These conclusions reached between Ramesh and Xie are expected to be spelt out in the form of an agreement in the coming days. Both countries want to negotiate with the West for higher levels of financial assistance and technology transfer in return for promises to do their best to tackle environmental problems. China remains committed to the principal of "common but differentiated responsibilities" of developed and developing nations, Ramesh said. But they would not agree to any legal binding on reducing emission norms because it would come in the way of their development goals. India and China will also not agree to the creation of any trade barriers on the excuse of climate change. Ramesh suggest that China consider reducing carbon dioxide levels in power plants supplied by it to India. This would be part of the mitigation activities that the two countries expect to carry out jointly. Meanwhile, Xie told the standing committee of the National People’s Congress today that the government will display "utmost sincerity" in pushing for the success of climate talks in Copenhagen. He did not reveal what public stand China will take besides its commitment to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which laid the principal of "common but differentiated responsibilities" for developed and developing nations
Aggravation Mounts in Minn. Over Governor's Shift on Climate
Minnesota's Republican governor used to make soaring speeches about defusing climate change. Now he's making jokes, and some environmentalists are wondering whether his gone-missing support amounts to "bait and switch" politics.
Gov. Tim Pawlenty is stoking frustration among Democratic state lawmakers and prominent climate thinkers for becoming "totally silent" on two major efforts to stem greenhouse gas emissions in Minnesota and in a strip of states stretching from Canada to Kansas.
The turnaround is striking because it was the governor who powerfully promoted the initiatives. Now, chafed participants believe Pawlenty is abandoning climate action to mend his conservative credentials before taking a stab at the Republican nomination for president in 2012.
"What we're seeing from our governor currently is all focused on his national political ambitions," said state Rep. Bill Hilty, the Democratic chairman of the state's House Energy Committee.
It may not be that simple. The governor is cooling toward bold climate steps that could raise costs on businesses and residents, his supporters say. There was no way to know how big the price would be without delving deeply into the issue, one supporter said.
Not long ago, Pawlenty and Hilty were cooperating on muscular legislation to slash greenhouse gas emissions. Hilty introduced the bill and Pawlenty signed it in 2007, establishing Minnesota as an early carbon-cutter. The law set goals to reduce emissions 15 percent by 2015 and 80 percent by 2050.
Pawlenty went further. He named more than 50 science and business leaders to an advisory group tasked with designing ways to meet those targets.
"Our global climate is warming," Pawlenty said when he named the group in April 2007. "We cannot solve it by ourselves, but we need to lead and do our part."
Governor is 'delaying action'
A few months later, Pawlenty punctuated his commitment to pulling the nation back from its climatic "tipping point" when he was elected chairman of the National Governors Association.
"Our nation is too dependent on imported sources of energy, and greenhouse gas emissions continue to grow too quickly," he said. "Governors have a tremendous opportunity to lead the country toward a cleaner, more independent, more secure energy future."
Those were remarkable words coming from a Midwestern Republican in a state where coal cars click-clack on rail lines and river barges filled with the black stuff float through the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul. About 75 percent of the state's power comes from coal, compared to the national average of 55 percent.
Then something happened.
After more than a year of meetings, tussles and compromises, the Minnesota Climate Change Advisory Group sent the governor its recommendations. The list included capping carbon by the ton, energy efficiency measures and renewable power mandates. Silence from the governor.
The recommendations are getting dusty, according to participants. Lawmakers plan to introduce legislation addressing some of the issues, like a low-carbon fuel standard, but the governor's new position is feeding uncertainty about the likelihood of success.
"I think you would say that's delaying action," said J. Drake Hamilton, a member of the advisory board and a climatologist with Fresh Energy, a renewable energy group. She believes Pawlenty is "ignoring" the recommendations of the group he established.
"At best, it's disingenuous to have created and staffed a process that says we're going to create economic opportunities around clean energy in the Midwest, and then to abandon that process without offering any other way to move forward," Hamilton added. "What does this man really believe?"
Using 'climate change' against Obama
Aides to Pawlenty did not respond to requests for comment or to appeals for an interview with the governor. But Pawlenty appeared to break his silence on global warming last week. He used the term "climate change" to mock President Obama's health-care initiatives at the GOPAC conference in Chicago.
"It appears that President Obama is making great progress on climate change," the governor chided, according to Politico. "He is changing the political climate in the country back to Republican."
Pawlenty is also damping down wider efforts to curtail carbon output, according to sources. In November 2007, he and Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle, a Democrat, helped launch a regional effort to reduce emissions from power plants, industry and transportation sources. The collaborative of six states and the Canadian province of Manitoba is called the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord.
Its backbone is a proposed cap-and-trade program that would contribute to a "de facto national energy policy" and jump-start an "energy revolution," Pawlenty said in November 2007.
The future of that plan, too, is now uncertain in Minnesota. Each state would have to approve the accord in its legislature, or by executive order. Some states plan to consider a model rule for the regional program this year.
"He is not helpful at this point," Minnesota state Rep. Kate Knuth, a Democrat and the assistant majority leader, said of Pawlenty. "We're obviously very frustrated."
An official in Wisconsin said the regional plan is "a bit bogged down, because Pawlenty has gotten squirrelly, because he's going to run for president and the Republicans are all over him to back off, and he has. That process is in trouble based on Pawlenty's failure to engage."
He's evolving, not flip-flopping
The Midwestern accord -- which includes Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Manitoba -- was devised to help shape national cap-and-trade legislation around the particular needs of interior states, such as providing agricultural offsets and other benefits.
As those states were scrambling to finish a list of draft recommendations for cutting carbon this May, in the hope of influencing Congress as it debated a bill introduced by U.S. Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.), Pawlenty had other ideas.
The governor sent a letter to Minnesota's congressional delegation on the eve of the House's vote on Waxman-Markey. It was an argument against the bill. In essence, he signaled opposition to a national plan that proposed somewhat less robust carbon reductions than both the Midwest plan and the targets in his own state.
"I oppose any cap and trade system that does not set emission caps at pragmatic levels or fails to provide free allowances to producers instead of creating an expensive auction that would bid up prices, and in turn dramatically increase costs," Pawlenty wrote.
Some participants in the Midwestern accord say Pawlenty is responding to the potential economic impacts from cap and trade that surfaced through the arduous planning process undertaken by the Midwestern Governors Association (MGA). He's not flipping positions for political convenience, says Mike Robertson, a participant in the regional program representing the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce.
"I think he was more positive about [cap and trade] at the beginning of the MGA effort," Robertson said. "But as the process began, and as he began a process within his own state, he began to hear concerns about the economic impact of such a program. So he was listening to that as the process went forward."
Whatever the reason is behind Pawlenty's shift has apparently not been publicly aired in his state. That has led Hamilton, the climatologist, to wonder "was this really a bait and switch all along?"
"What is in his mind?" she asked
Gov. Tim Pawlenty is stoking frustration among Democratic state lawmakers and prominent climate thinkers for becoming "totally silent" on two major efforts to stem greenhouse gas emissions in Minnesota and in a strip of states stretching from Canada to Kansas.
The turnaround is striking because it was the governor who powerfully promoted the initiatives. Now, chafed participants believe Pawlenty is abandoning climate action to mend his conservative credentials before taking a stab at the Republican nomination for president in 2012.
"What we're seeing from our governor currently is all focused on his national political ambitions," said state Rep. Bill Hilty, the Democratic chairman of the state's House Energy Committee.
It may not be that simple. The governor is cooling toward bold climate steps that could raise costs on businesses and residents, his supporters say. There was no way to know how big the price would be without delving deeply into the issue, one supporter said.
Not long ago, Pawlenty and Hilty were cooperating on muscular legislation to slash greenhouse gas emissions. Hilty introduced the bill and Pawlenty signed it in 2007, establishing Minnesota as an early carbon-cutter. The law set goals to reduce emissions 15 percent by 2015 and 80 percent by 2050.
Pawlenty went further. He named more than 50 science and business leaders to an advisory group tasked with designing ways to meet those targets.
"Our global climate is warming," Pawlenty said when he named the group in April 2007. "We cannot solve it by ourselves, but we need to lead and do our part."
Governor is 'delaying action'
A few months later, Pawlenty punctuated his commitment to pulling the nation back from its climatic "tipping point" when he was elected chairman of the National Governors Association.
"Our nation is too dependent on imported sources of energy, and greenhouse gas emissions continue to grow too quickly," he said. "Governors have a tremendous opportunity to lead the country toward a cleaner, more independent, more secure energy future."
Those were remarkable words coming from a Midwestern Republican in a state where coal cars click-clack on rail lines and river barges filled with the black stuff float through the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul. About 75 percent of the state's power comes from coal, compared to the national average of 55 percent.
Then something happened.
After more than a year of meetings, tussles and compromises, the Minnesota Climate Change Advisory Group sent the governor its recommendations. The list included capping carbon by the ton, energy efficiency measures and renewable power mandates. Silence from the governor.
The recommendations are getting dusty, according to participants. Lawmakers plan to introduce legislation addressing some of the issues, like a low-carbon fuel standard, but the governor's new position is feeding uncertainty about the likelihood of success.
"I think you would say that's delaying action," said J. Drake Hamilton, a member of the advisory board and a climatologist with Fresh Energy, a renewable energy group. She believes Pawlenty is "ignoring" the recommendations of the group he established.
"At best, it's disingenuous to have created and staffed a process that says we're going to create economic opportunities around clean energy in the Midwest, and then to abandon that process without offering any other way to move forward," Hamilton added. "What does this man really believe?"
Using 'climate change' against Obama
Aides to Pawlenty did not respond to requests for comment or to appeals for an interview with the governor. But Pawlenty appeared to break his silence on global warming last week. He used the term "climate change" to mock President Obama's health-care initiatives at the GOPAC conference in Chicago.
"It appears that President Obama is making great progress on climate change," the governor chided, according to Politico. "He is changing the political climate in the country back to Republican."
Pawlenty is also damping down wider efforts to curtail carbon output, according to sources. In November 2007, he and Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle, a Democrat, helped launch a regional effort to reduce emissions from power plants, industry and transportation sources. The collaborative of six states and the Canadian province of Manitoba is called the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord.
Its backbone is a proposed cap-and-trade program that would contribute to a "de facto national energy policy" and jump-start an "energy revolution," Pawlenty said in November 2007.
The future of that plan, too, is now uncertain in Minnesota. Each state would have to approve the accord in its legislature, or by executive order. Some states plan to consider a model rule for the regional program this year.
"He is not helpful at this point," Minnesota state Rep. Kate Knuth, a Democrat and the assistant majority leader, said of Pawlenty. "We're obviously very frustrated."
An official in Wisconsin said the regional plan is "a bit bogged down, because Pawlenty has gotten squirrelly, because he's going to run for president and the Republicans are all over him to back off, and he has. That process is in trouble based on Pawlenty's failure to engage."
He's evolving, not flip-flopping
The Midwestern accord -- which includes Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Manitoba -- was devised to help shape national cap-and-trade legislation around the particular needs of interior states, such as providing agricultural offsets and other benefits.
As those states were scrambling to finish a list of draft recommendations for cutting carbon this May, in the hope of influencing Congress as it debated a bill introduced by U.S. Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.), Pawlenty had other ideas.
The governor sent a letter to Minnesota's congressional delegation on the eve of the House's vote on Waxman-Markey. It was an argument against the bill. In essence, he signaled opposition to a national plan that proposed somewhat less robust carbon reductions than both the Midwest plan and the targets in his own state.
"I oppose any cap and trade system that does not set emission caps at pragmatic levels or fails to provide free allowances to producers instead of creating an expensive auction that would bid up prices, and in turn dramatically increase costs," Pawlenty wrote.
Some participants in the Midwestern accord say Pawlenty is responding to the potential economic impacts from cap and trade that surfaced through the arduous planning process undertaken by the Midwestern Governors Association (MGA). He's not flipping positions for political convenience, says Mike Robertson, a participant in the regional program representing the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce.
"I think he was more positive about [cap and trade] at the beginning of the MGA effort," Robertson said. "But as the process began, and as he began a process within his own state, he began to hear concerns about the economic impact of such a program. So he was listening to that as the process went forward."
Whatever the reason is behind Pawlenty's shift has apparently not been publicly aired in his state. That has led Hamilton, the climatologist, to wonder "was this really a bait and switch all along?"
"What is in his mind?" she asked
World youth calls for more action and less talk
The largest-ever gathering of young climate activists urged world leaders on Thursday to do far more to combat climate change, Reuters reports. "We young people – 3 billion of the world population – are very concerned and frustrated that our governments are not doing enough to combat climate change ... we feel that radical and holistic measures are needed urgently from us all," they said in a statement following their conference in Daejeon in South Korea. "We now need more actions and less talking." Organized by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), the some 700 delegates from all over the world met to discuss their concerns ahead of the decisive UN climate conference in December in Copenhagen. "We are the generation of tomorrow. The decisions that are made today will define our future and the world we have to live in. So we young people of the world urge governments to commit to a strong post-Kyoto climate regime. It is our lives we are talking about," UNEP quoted 23-year-old delegate Anne Walraven as saying. The statement urged governments to impose strict laws on polluters, develop independently-monitored carbon action plans and encourage wider use of green fuels
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)