COPENHAGEN: 40,548 Reasons Why We May Not Get a Climate Agreement That Works in Copenhagen
posted by: Dave R. 104 days ago
Picture a fleet of 100,000 cars, idling for 2 straight weeks in the middle of Copenhagen. That's the estimated greenhouse gas emissions impact of The UN's Climate conference (aka COP-15), which starts today. 40,548 tons of CO2 to be exactly inexact.
I, like many of us, consider a global agreement on reducing greenhouse gas emissions to be crucial to averting the massive humanitarian and ecological crisis that looms in our future. We simply can't keep cutting down trees, burning fossil fuels, and consuming mindlessly. We already consume 1.4 times more than the earth can sustain, and if everyone consumed like Americans, we would need 5.4 earths.
But the irony of the Copenhagen conference is that while delegates will be meeting to discuss measurement, compliance, reduced emissions, and dramatic change in our fossil fuel consumption, the carbon footprint of the conference itself highlights why COP-15's goals are elusive at best, and at worst potentially unreachable:
Token gestures vs real change
According the UN, "the main objective of the organisers is to minimise greenhouse gas emissions as far as possible", and the UN is happy to promote the 20% reduction in energy use at the conference center and elimination of bottled water and gift bags. While this is a good start, research by ClimatePath reveals that 90% or more of the impact of meeting and events is driven by travel related emissions. There are simply too many people traveling too far by airplane, and no real plan by the UN to reduce this. Bravo for including Cisco conferencing, but this is being promoted as a way to include interested parties that are unable to travel to COP-15, not as a serious alternative to in-person attendance. If travel is considered a non-reducible emission source for the conference, then our delegates should recognize that it might be considered a non-reducible area for the rest of us as well.
Measurement challenges
COP-15's footprint estimate was "based on the calculations from the Poznan Conference in December 2008 (COP-14) and extrapolated for 15,000 participants." Accurate measurement and reporting is a foundation issue, and allocating emissions targets is a key to a successful agreement. I can tell you with almost 100% certainty that this 'Guestimate' is low. There will be thousands, and perhaps tens of thousands of additional "non official" attendees, and this does not count the millions participating in protests, rallies, and other events around the world as a part of the process. If we can't get accurate estimates from a 12 day conference, then can we really expect an accurate inventory from India, a country of over 1 Billion people?
My emissions are more important than your emissions
I mentioned in a previous blog that even some of the NGOs that are most active and engaged on the issue of climate change are jetsetting multiple writers to Denmark. A friend of mine who works for a large enviro-NGO is going to Copenhagen simply because she could get cheap tickets and the time off - and she is not alone. Whether to blog, because this is seen as "Copen-stock", or because a delegate's presence is 'vital', the idea that "living light" is a concept that applies to others is a sentiment that is pervasive not just at the talks, but around the globe, and stands in the way of a meaningful agreement.
Offsetting is the elephant in the room
Kudos to the UN for mitigating the emissions of the conference. How are they doing it? The will be offsetting, by replacing outdated brick kilns in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Quite interesting, considering that role of this type of mitigation is expected to be a hot topic at the conference. Most of the Western world has offshored manufacturing and agriculture, yet for many reasons the idea of doing this for carbon reduction and capture seems to be more problematic. I strongly support offsetting, particularly in support of projects which simultaneously improve lives.
What's at stake in the next two weeks is huge, but this all feels a bit like the US senate debating the high quality of US health care, while enjoying their own cushy plan.
Every hotel room in Copenhagen should contain a copy of the Aesop's fable The Mice in Council. We need to ask delegates "Who will bell the cat?", or--as the updated version from one of my favorite childhood cartoons (below) put it--we'll be left wondering why "After all was said and done, more was said than done."
I, like many of us, consider a global agreement on reducing greenhouse gas emissions to be crucial to averting the massive humanitarian and ecological crisis that looms in our future. We simply can't keep cutting down trees, burning fossil fuels, and consuming mindlessly. We already consume 1.4 times more than the earth can sustain, and if everyone consumed like Americans, we would need 5.4 earths.
But the irony of the Copenhagen conference is that while delegates will be meeting to discuss measurement, compliance, reduced emissions, and dramatic change in our fossil fuel consumption, the carbon footprint of the conference itself highlights why COP-15's goals are elusive at best, and at worst potentially unreachable:
Token gestures vs real change
According the UN, "the main objective of the organisers is to minimise greenhouse gas emissions as far as possible", and the UN is happy to promote the 20% reduction in energy use at the conference center and elimination of bottled water and gift bags. While this is a good start, research by ClimatePath reveals that 90% or more of the impact of meeting and events is driven by travel related emissions. There are simply too many people traveling too far by airplane, and no real plan by the UN to reduce this. Bravo for including Cisco conferencing, but this is being promoted as a way to include interested parties that are unable to travel to COP-15, not as a serious alternative to in-person attendance. If travel is considered a non-reducible emission source for the conference, then our delegates should recognize that it might be considered a non-reducible area for the rest of us as well.
Measurement challenges
COP-15's footprint estimate was "based on the calculations from the Poznan Conference in December 2008 (COP-14) and extrapolated for 15,000 participants." Accurate measurement and reporting is a foundation issue, and allocating emissions targets is a key to a successful agreement. I can tell you with almost 100% certainty that this 'Guestimate' is low. There will be thousands, and perhaps tens of thousands of additional "non official" attendees, and this does not count the millions participating in protests, rallies, and other events around the world as a part of the process. If we can't get accurate estimates from a 12 day conference, then can we really expect an accurate inventory from India, a country of over 1 Billion people?
My emissions are more important than your emissions
I mentioned in a previous blog that even some of the NGOs that are most active and engaged on the issue of climate change are jetsetting multiple writers to Denmark. A friend of mine who works for a large enviro-NGO is going to Copenhagen simply because she could get cheap tickets and the time off - and she is not alone. Whether to blog, because this is seen as "Copen-stock", or because a delegate's presence is 'vital', the idea that "living light" is a concept that applies to others is a sentiment that is pervasive not just at the talks, but around the globe, and stands in the way of a meaningful agreement.
Offsetting is the elephant in the room
Kudos to the UN for mitigating the emissions of the conference. How are they doing it? The will be offsetting, by replacing outdated brick kilns in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Quite interesting, considering that role of this type of mitigation is expected to be a hot topic at the conference. Most of the Western world has offshored manufacturing and agriculture, yet for many reasons the idea of doing this for carbon reduction and capture seems to be more problematic. I strongly support offsetting, particularly in support of projects which simultaneously improve lives.
What's at stake in the next two weeks is huge, but this all feels a bit like the US senate debating the high quality of US health care, while enjoying their own cushy plan.
Every hotel room in Copenhagen should contain a copy of the Aesop's fable The Mice in Council. We need to ask delegates "Who will bell the cat?", or--as the updated version from one of my favorite childhood cartoons (below) put it--we'll be left wondering why "After all was said and done, more was said than done."
Read more: copenhagen, global warming, climate change, cop15
comments
Thanks for the post. It helped me to understand what is going on in the world around me.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
TOTAL FARCE !
Al Gore is NOT a scientist; he is a politician ... a prostitute with his own agenda !
what Liberal Lefty's want is to place all industrialized nations at a tremendous disadvantage. Soon all cars would be 'built on the cheap' in India and China (where polution is unchecked and rapant); and no one could afford a U.S. built anything because of skyrocketing manufacturing costs ! Pull your heads out of ... and see how it is in more highly 'SOCIALIST' economies !
Rich !
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
Hi Folks,
I don't believe in Copenhagen. It's only a dance macabre there. and none of those politicans will have nerve to ban aviation.
http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin/download/Grassl_Brockhagen.pdf
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
thank you James G. Good point. You are probably (and hopefully) right! :)
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
I am all for getting to the actual issues at hand here that demand our attention - a few examples - pollution/deforestation/preserving natural ecosystems and habitats/sustainable clean energies/reducing waste/recycling etc. etc.
One of the most appalling things about the whole AGW scam: it puts ALL the focus on CO2 (a natural gas that's necessary to make this planet inhabitable for humans by the way - not a "pollutant"), and hence takes the attention AWAY from the issues above!
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
Bravo, Jelica R., you tell them!
There are bound to be those whose poison-spewing businesses, gas-guzzling transport, power-gorging comfort are threatened, who will summon specious arguments to attempt denial of the damage being inflicted upon this planet by their excesses. Fortunately they are steadily being contemptuously dismissed.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
Talk about breaking a few eggs to make on omellett! Hopefully this meeting will get real results through.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
Carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere have gone up 38% since 1750 - the year the industrial revolution started. Rising levels of greenhouse gases are directly linked to human activity like burning fossil fuels and clearing forests. There is a clear link between more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and global warming. CO2 is only one of greenhouse gases.
"Let's plant plants!" Sure, if you can find a place for plants, watter and soil which will not burn them, and air which will not cloth them so they can breathe. Be realistic.
US puts 4 % reduction on table. How generous! With this offer, in 2020 Americans will average 14,5 tons/person/year, China 6,5 and EU 5,5 (with 20 % reduction).
Did you know that US has 5 % world transport vehicles which consume 42 % of all fuel spend for transport in world.
Keep denying! It's easier than learn a few facts.
Hope you can swim like Phelps.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
I just hope it goes well and that they come up with ideas and follow through to help our mother earth. It's the only one we have. I send love and kindness to all who goes who really want to help this world.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
The carbon footprints for getting to Copenhagen are nothing compared to what benefits could result from something really accomplished there.
Can't expect leaders of countries to rickshaw in.
Don't expect leaders to be activists or environmentalists even. They're politicians, have protocol and all that (crap).
So worrying about how they get there and all that is not worth the worry.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
Facebook account:
Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.
1323450