FAIL: the Copenhagen Conference's Carbon Footprint

Tallying Copenhagen’s Carbon Footprint

By LEORA BROYDO VESTEL, New York Times

Johan Spanner for The New York Times The food court at the Bella Center in Copenhagen.

As the world focuses on the effects of climate change in Copenhagen, some observers are focusing on the impacts of the conference itself.

Despite efforts by organizers to green the conference – by using limos fueled by plant waste, serving organic food and tap water (instead of bottled), and offering the free use of 200 bicycles – the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change estimates that the conference will generate about 40,500 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. (By way of comparison, Denmark, the conference host, emitted 72 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2006.)

Most of this is the result of travel to and from Copenhagen by the 15,000 or so participants (not including thousands of journalists), but it also includes emissions that result from energy use at the Bella Center (which has nearly 80,000 square meters of conference space and enough telecommunications infrastructure to handle 80,000 simultaneous phone calls), hotel stays and local transportation.

Martin Nesirky, a spokesman for the U.N. secretary general, said in a news briefing on Tuesday that action is be taken to ensure pollution generated by the conference is canceled out – via an emissions-reduction project in Bangladesh.

“The Danish government says it is offsetting the emissions through a project in Bangladesh that reduces emissions in a brick manufacturing plant,” Mr. Nesirky said. “And the offset more than covers all the travel and emissions related to the conference.”

According to the Danish Ministry of Climate and Energy, the million-dollar project, made possible through an agreement between Denmark, the World Bank and Bangladesh, will involve replacing heavily polluting brick kilns with 20 new energy efficient ones. The kiln swap, the ministry notes, will cut more than 100,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions each year and “improve air quality in one of the world’s most polluted cities.”

Still, groups like Greenpeace say organizers didn’t go far enough in addressing the event’s carbon footprint. Tarjei Haaland, a climate and energy campaigner for Greenpeace, told the Copenhagen post that claims of being “carbon neutral” were effectively meaningless.

The Guardian: Copenhagen climate summit in disarray after 'Danish text' leak

Other than the news that global warming is actually happening (who knew?) this is the biggest news out of Copenhagen so far. It's not good. Seriously, this is fucked up.

Guardian:

The UN Copenhagen climate talks are in disarray today after developing countries reacted furiously to leaked documents that show world leaders will next week be asked to sign an agreement that hands more power to rich countries and sidelines the UN's role in all future climate change negotiations.

The document is also being interpreted by developing countries as setting unequal limits on per capita carbon emissions for developed and developing countries in 2050; meaning that people in rich countries would be permitted to emit nearly twice as much under the proposals.

The so-called Danish text, a secret draft agreement worked on by a group of individuals known as "the circle of commitment" – but understood to include the UK, US and Denmark – has only been shown to a handful of countries since it was finalised this week.

The agreement, leaked to the Guardian, is a departure from the Kyoto protocol's principle that rich nations, which have emitted the bulk of the CO2, should take on firm and binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gases, while poorer nations were not compelled to act. The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank; would abandon the Kyoto protocol – the only legally binding treaty that the world has on emissions reductions; and would make any money to help poor countries adapt to climate change dependent on them taking a range of actions.

The document was described last night by one senior diplomat as "a very dangerous document for developing countries. It is a fundamental reworking of the UN balance of obligations. It is to be superimposed without discussion on the talks".

A confidential analysis of the text by developing countries also seen by the Guardian shows deep unease over details of the text. In particular, it is understood to:

• Force developing countries to agree to specific emission cuts and measures that were not part of the original UN agreement;

• Divide poor countries further by creating a new category of developing countries called "the most vulnerable";

• Weaken the UN's role in handling climate finance;

• Not allow poor countries to emit more than 1.44 tonnes of carbon per person by 2050, while allowing rich countries to emit 2.67 tonnes.

Developing countries that have seen the text are understood to be furious that it is being promoted by rich countries without their knowledge and without discussion in the negotiations.

"It is being done in secret. Clearly the intention is to get [Barack] Obama and the leaders of other rich countries to muscle it through when they arrive next week. It effectively is the end of the UN process," said one diplomat, who asked to remain nameless.

Antonio Hill, climate policy adviser for Oxfam International, said: "This is only a draft but it highlights the risk that when the big countries come together, the small ones get hurting. On every count the emission cuts need to be scaled up. It allows too many loopholes and does not suggest anything like the 40% cuts that science is saying is needed."

Hill continued: "It proposes a green fund to be run by a board but the big risk is that it will run by the World Bank and the Global Environment Facility [a partnership of 10 agencies including the World Bank and the UN Environment Programme] and not the UN. That would be a step backwards, and it tries to put constraints in developing countries when none were negotiated in earlier UN climate talks."

The text was intended by Denmark and rich countries to be a working framework, which would be adapted by countries over the next week. It is particularly inflammatory because it sidelines the UN negotiating process and suggests that rich countries are desperate for world leaders to have a text to work from when they arrive next week.

Few numbers or figures are included in the text because these would be filled in later by world leaders. However, it seeks to hold temperature rises to 2C and mentions the sum of $10bn a year to help poor countries adapt to climate change from 2012-15.

• For news and analysis of the UN climate talks in Copenhagen sign up for the Guardian's environment email newsletter Green light

VIEW THE LEAKED TEXT HERE

Grist: Annie Leonard misses the mark in her new video, “The Story of Cap-and-Trade”

The Story of Cap & Trade from Story of Stuff Project on Vimeo.

I posted this video the other day about Cap and Trade, and said that it oversimplified the issues.

Here is a more complete explanation of what's wrong with this video from Grist:

The greenosphere is all abuzz about a new video from Annie Leonard, creator of semi-famous anti-consumerism video/book The Story of Stuff. It’s being billed as a definitive debunking of cap-and-trade, but it’s more like a perfect representation of all the confusion and misplaced focus that plagues the green left right now.

Now, I suppose I’m generally viewed among greens as a defender of cap-and-trade—or, in the less charitable version, a defender of the “party line,” a shill for the administration, a sell-out “insider,” whatever. A “pro” in the “pro vs. anti cap-and-trade” argument. But that’s not how I see it. It’s more that I think it’s the wrong argument. Activists like Leonard are just mis-identifying the barriers to effective climate action. I’ll have lots more to say on that subject soon, but for now, let’s focus on the video.

The Story of Cap & Trade

The video contains four basic arguments against cap-and-trade:

1. Allowance giveaways are bad. This is true. It would be better to auction 100% of the pollution allowances and use the revenue to invest in clean energy and protect consumers. The bill in Congress gives away too many allowances (Leonard elides the fact that the bulk of them are devoted to consumer protection, though it’s open to debate whether they’ll be used that way, and some Senators are pushing for more giveaways).

The most obvious solution to this is to give away fewer allowances. Yet Leonard and crew imply that allowance giveaways are inherent to cap-and-trade and the only solution is to ditch it. They imply that other “real” solutions would somehow be immune to polluters seeking loopholes and special favors, but never explain why.

The allowance giveaways in the climate bill reflect the power of the fossil fuel lobby. Switching policies would not diminish that power. Reduce that power and any climate policy gets better. The policy isn’t the problem; the power of the fossil fuel lobby is.

2. Offsets are bad. Leonard’s “argument” against offsets, if it can be called that, is fairly typical for this genre. She highlights a few ridiculous-sounding projects from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), implicitly conflates those projects and the CDM with offsets generally, and then concludes, based on the anecdotes, that offsets are bad and they make cap-and-trade toothless.

The reality is far more complex. The quality of offset projects varies widely, as do enforcement mechanisms. The bill in Congress actually contains some fairly stringent measures for policing offsets. Many people close to international policy negotiations believe that high-quality offsets are a vital measure enabling a stronger international treaty. (See Glenn Hurowitz.) Many think that emissions reductions will prove cheap enough that offsets won’t be extensively utilized in early years. Others think that moving emission reductions overseas short-sells the clean energy revolution needed here in the U.S.

These are complex topics, and they’re not well-served by the simplistic, hand-waving dismissal of offsets in Leonard’s video. Regardless, if you think offsets are a problem, the obvious solution is to reduce the number of offsets. But again, Leonard and crew pretend that offsets are inherent to cap-and-trade and the only solution is to ditch it. Again, they pretend that “real” solutions would be immune to similar loopholes and giveaways.

One more time, from the top: The number of offsets in the climate bill reflects the power of the fossil fuel lobby (and the common impression that reducing emissions will be costly). Switching policies would not diminish that power (or that impression). The policy isn’t the problem; the power of the fossil fuel lobby is.

3. Carbon markets are bad. I hesitate to call this an “argument” in the video, since it mainly consists of using the words “Enron,” “bubble,”“Wall Street,” and “scam” suggestively, without saying anything at all specific about why this commodity market—which would be one of any number of commodity markets, most of which work perfectly well, including the carbon market in Europe—would be uniquely evil. I’m with Kevin Drum: there’s no meat here. I’ve never seen anything to this argument but the kind of suggestive handwaving that’s in the video. I don’t know why the green left has decided that markets are bad, in and of themselves, but it seems both politically unwise and substantively thin.

It’s certainly true that certain financial instruments should be eliminated or regulated more heavily; this is true for financial markets in general. There’s some fairly strong language in the bill about regulating carbon markets; that language will likely be folded into the larger financial market reforms that the Senate will address soon. But no one, outside this narrow topic, is suggesting that markets should be abolished!

Remember, trading of allowances is the feature of cap-and-trade that makes it more flexible than a flat tax that applies to all entities equally. This was always the argument for C&T over a tax. Instead of rebutting that argument, Leonard et al. seem instead to have decided that “market Goldman Sachs derivatives bugga bugga!” suffices.

4. Cap-and-trade is a “distraction” from “real solutions.” Of all the arguments, this is, forgive my bluntness, the silliest. The idea is that cap-and-trade has (for reasons never explained) magically come to dominate the policy conversation and made people forget about other options. “Cap-and-trade makes citizens think everything will be OK if we just drive a little less, change our light bulbs, and let These Guys do the rest.” Whaaat? It does? Any empirical evidence for this? Polls? Surveys? Anything? Honestly, it’s a depressing hallmark of liberalism to view progress—or the impression of progress—as a deflating force. Over on the other side of the aisle, they’re constantly declaring victory. Why do we think they do that? Does it seem to be de-motivating the conservative base?

First of all, there are reasons cap-and-trade has garnered the most support, but C&T bashers are so busy attacking a caricature they can’t see them. Second of all, what is the sociopsychological theory here supposed to be? If we just stopped talking about cap-and-trade, everyone would wake, as though from mysterious trance, and start talking about “real” solutions? The only reason the world hasn’t come together around tough measures that would financially damage fossil fuel companies is that the world’s citizens are, like kittens, distracted by the shiny cap-and-trade bauble?

This is the worst feature of the C&T bashers (and carbon tax advocates): their utter political naivete and Romanticism. There’s no plausible story about power here, and no real effort to tell one. It’s just: “Once everyone hears our clever arguments, the world will unite around Real Solutions!” It’s irresponsible.

The video concludes by saying, “the next time somebody tells you cap-and-trade is the best we’re going to get, don’t believe them.” But why not? Literally nothing in the video even addresses that point! It’s a fundamentally political point that the video just wishes away. At this point the green left desperately needs less Mead and more Machiavelli. Unless greens get serious about identifying the loci of political and financial power, identifying ways to block or leverage that power, and building power of their own, they’re going to lose. Policy arguments are more-or-less orthogonal to that important undertaking, not a substitute for it.

———

There are also some straight-up errors in the video. Europe’s trading system is working, despite relentless hype to the contrary. Any program that caps and reduces CO2 would help those hurt by climate change, even if the money was distributed inequitably. The Clean Air Act does not enable EPA to “cap” carbon the same way cap-and-trade does, and would not serve as an equally effective substitute for a cap. Etc etc.

But my larger critique is that the video, and the bashing of cap-and-trade generally, just misses the point. I’ve got longer posts on this coming up, but here’s a capsule summary: it’s clear that politics as currently constituted, particularly in the U.S., will not tolerate a high price on carbon. So we’re going to end up with a fairly low price, hopefully with mechanisms to automatically raise it over time. A different carbon pricing mechanism won’t solve that problem.

The smart response would be to secure the low-and-rising carbon price and then start pushing other emission reduction policies, namely sector-specific regulations, industrial policies focused on capacity building, and large-scale investments in RD&D. If all the C&T bashers would turn their energy in that direction, we’d be having a much more productive conversation. Instead they’re echoing arguments from Exxon and Don Blankenship, vaguely hoping that if cap-and-trade is politically destroyed, a herd of ponies will thunder in to replace it. Once and for all: there are no ponies.

NYtimes: The Road to Copenhagen - Tree Harvester Offers to Save Indonesian Forest

Ok, so I admittedly have been slacking on posting updates from the whole "Road to Copenhagen" process but frankly there is just too much happening to really make sense of it and there are daily BREAKING NEWS that aren't that interesting, such as Obama setting emissions targets, the African delegation walking out of talks, the Chinese fucking around, etc.

Anyway, I'm gonna try to post more interesting snippets and MAJOR things happening in Copenhagen over the next few weeks. Hopefully we'll get a robust internationally binding treating, but it's a long shot. Till then, check out some of the international efforts to help mitigate climate change.

This article should highlight some of the difficulties of the climate negotiations, and accounting for what should be eligible and ineligible for carbon credits.

NYtimes:

TELUK MERANTI, Indonesia — From the air, the Kampar Peninsula in Indonesia stretches for mile after mile in dense scrub and trees. One of the world’s largest peat swamp forests, it is also one of its biggest vaults of carbon dioxide, a source of potentially lucrative currency as world governments struggle to hammer out a global climate treaty. The vault, though, is leaking.

Canals — used legally and illegally — extend from surrounding rivers nearly into the peninsula’s impenetrable core. By slowly draining and drying the peat land, they are releasing carbon dioxide, contributing to making Indonesia the world’s third biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, after China and the United States.

The leaks were evident to a family of fishermen from this village, just south of the peninsula, as they paddled up a creek in a dugout canoe.

“I can tell the peat land’s leaking because the water here is getting browner and more acidic,” said Amiruddin, 31, who like many Indonesians uses only one name, as his wife, Delima, 29, scooped up the creek’s coffee-colored water to drink.

Forests like the one on the Kampar Peninsula are at the center of a growing battle over the shape of a new climate treaty and efforts to curb the destruction and degradation of forests. Though countries are expected to reach only a broad agreement at next month’s summit meeting in Copenhagen, governments, scientists, businesses and environmentalists are already arguing over what kinds of forests should qualify as carbon reducers and what kinds of projects should be rewarded financially.

The arguments over the Kampar have become particularly heated, not just because of its ecological importance, but because, so far, the most detailed plan to stop the leaks from the peat land comes from an unlikely source: a giant paper and pulp company that, according to its critics, has been one of the driving forces of deforestation in Indonesia. The company, Asia Pacific Resources International Limited, or April, says it wants to create a ring of industrial tree plantations around the peninsula’s core to preserve it.

What is more, it hopes to receive carbon credits for doing so under a United Nations program to reward nations for conserving forests and reforesting degraded ones. The program, Reducing Emissions From Deforestation and Forest Degradation, or REDD, is expected to be part of a new climate treaty. Unlike the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, a new treaty is expected to tackle deforestation, which alone accounts for 20 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. Halting deforestation in tropical forest nations like Indonesia and Brazil, the world’s fourth biggest emitter, is considered crucial to reining in global warming.

Developing nations that preserve forests would be paid with carbon credits that they could sell to industrialized nations seeking to meet emissions reduction targets. Though the program’s specifics will probably take months or years to be worked out, more than a dozen projects of the United Nations program are already under way in Indonesia, backed by such diverse entities as conservation groups, the Australian government and Merrill Lynch, in addition to paper and pulp companies.

Environmental groups say the paper and pulp companies, after years of despoiling Indonesia, should not be rewarded under the program.

“They are the ones that did the damage,” said Michael Stuewe, an expert on Indonesia at the World Wildlife Fund. “Now they’re saying: ‘We were bad boys. Now we’re good. So give us the money.’ ”

The companies argue that the United Nations program could provide them with the financial incentives to preserve forests even as they expand their operations, a goal supported by the Indonesian government, which sees the paper and pulp industry as a mainstay of the country’s economic development.

“We could perhaps reduce the annual Indonesian emissions by 5 percent with this one project,” said Jouko Virta, April’s president of global fiber supply, referring to the company’s plan to ring the peninsula’s core. “It’s so significant. One project.”

Everyone agrees, at least, on the importance of saving the Kampar Peninsula, a nearly one-million-acre peat bog on the equator inhabited by Sumatran tigers, bears, monkeys, crocodiles and other wildlife.

Most of the peninsula remains free of humans, though small fishing camps can be found up its creeks. More significantly, illegal loggers can be seen operating in bases set up along some canals and creeks. And east of here, near a village called Pulau Muda, more than a dozen houses flank a long canal jutting into the peninsula, in what appears to be the biggest human settlement on the Kampar.

Made up of decomposed trees and plants, sometimes as deep as 50 feet, the waterlogged land stores billions of tons of carbon dioxide. But once drained or cleared, the peat land releases many times more carbon dioxide than the deforestation of rain forests. Most experts believe that, as with rain forests, the protection of peat swamp forests will be eligible for carbon credits under the United Nations program.

The Kampar Peninsula is one of the last tracts of green left in central Sumatra, where forests have been cleared to make way for palm oil plantations and industrial tree plantations, especially those belonging to April and its chief rival, Asia Pulp and Paper, both owned by Indonesian conglomerates. According to the World Wildlife Fund, here in Riau, the province where the two companies have their main mills and plantations, two-thirds of the area’s forests have disappeared in the past quarter century.

Illegal loggers have also clear-cut vast chunks of forest. Migrants often slash and burn land for farming, sometimes inside national parks; like people elsewhere in Indonesia, they are often encouraged by local governments seeking to populate areas for economic or political reasons, in defiance of officials from the understaffed Forestry Ministry.

April, which, with its partners, has government-issued concessions across a third of Kampar, says its ring of acacia plantations around the core will block off any such encroachment, though it says it needs to acquire more land to complete the circle. On plantations already in operation, the company uses a sophisticated network of canals and dams that minimizes leakage from the peat land, environmental groups acknowledge.

If April acquired control over the core, it could be paid for protecting it. The company says it believes that it can be, at the very least, rewarded for the ring, about half of which would be turned into acacia plantations and half left as natural forests or what it calls “conservation areas.”

“The carbon we are storing in the conservation areas could be financed through REDD,” Mr. Virta said in an interview at April’s 4,300-acre mill, about two hours west of here by car.

Agus Purnomo, who leads the government’s National Council on Climate Change, said it would take months or years of negotiations after next month’s climate conference to determine whether April’s ring would be entitled to carbon credits.

Much will depend on whether an agreement includes stipulations against the conversion of natural forests into industrial tree plantations. Indonesia, like other countries with paper and pulp industries, counts industrial tree plantations as forests.

Environmental groups caution against any project of the United Nations program involving the conversion of natural forests into industrial tree plantations. Bill Barclay, policy director at the Rainforest Action Network, said the priority in Indonesia should be to “halt further conversion of natural forests” and “further draining of peat lands.”

But that kind of argument finds little traction in a nation with an economy that is still developing.

Mr. Purnomo, of the country’s climate change council, said government officials were worried that Indonesia’s ranking as the world’s third biggest emitter of greenhouse gases would increase pressure to reduce emissions.

“Are we going to remain underdeveloped because of that?” he asked.

Since starting operations on a new concession near here in September, April has brought jobs to Teluk Meranti. As part of its community outreach, it has brought a new generator to increase the supply of electricity and construction material to renovate two mosques. Still, Teluk Meranti had yet to buy April’s vision of the future. Villagers remained overwhelmingly opposed to the company’s presence here, opponents and supporters of the company said.

“We don’t know what we’ll get,” said Firdaus, a 39-year-old man operating a makeshift convenience store. “What rights do we have?”

He was unaware of April’s ring project. But, yes, he had heard of the importance of peat from environmental groups. “We were told,” he said, “to protect the peat for the climate.”