2009 Copenhagen Climate Summit News 12/16/09 – G77 Wants 350ppm & Other Developments

As of Monday, poorer nations (the G77) continued to stall talks at Copenhagen.  Despite pressure from rich, developed, polluting nations, the group of developing countries have stood firm in their resolve to get 350ppm (concentration CO2) as a stated goal of the Copenhagen Summit.  350ppm has been identified by climatologists as the likely value that can exist without sending the climate system into either a more chaotic state or a stable state which consists of a much warmer and acidified world.  Current concentrations have reached 387ppm.  Good for the poorer nations.  I sincerely hope they maintain their stance and force real action.

China and the U.S. continue to differ in what they’re willing to accept moving forward.  It all comes down to transparency and accountability, really:

China, which last month for the first time publicly announced a target for reducing the rate of growth of its greenhouse gas emissions, is refusing to accept any kind of international monitoring of its emissions levels, according to negotiators and observers here. The United States is insisting that without stringent verification of China’s actions, it cannot support any deal.

Colorado Could Be 9.3°F Warmer By 2100

An unbelievably ironic situation could evolve over the Midwestern U.S. during the rest of this century. The states whose Senators are most adamant about derailing any meaningful action on climate change are most likely to experience the worst effects of that climate change.

How will Colorado’s Senators vote when (if?) a climate change/energy bill comes to the Senate floor. To be clear, there is no such bill currently in the Senate today. Unfortunately, all we can conjecture about are generalities at this point. That being said, this general question should be posed to our Senators (even better would be to get a reasonable response): Will you vote for a climate bill that avoids most of the 9.3°F of warming that Colorado can expect to see by 2100?

It would be best, of course, to see a climate bill that would actually do so. The House’s climate and energy bill, H.R. 2454 doesn’t do enough in my opinion, for example. It would lock in some portion of that predicted warming. At this stage, it is up to the Senate to produce a bolder climate bill.

Desertification Affecting Italy

One of the strongest arguments to take aggressive action regarding our greenhouse forcing is the threat of desertification – the process by which arable land that can be farmed or otherwise productively used by people turns into a desert.

Desertification is another process that would otherwise be natural if people didn’t exist.  With people, desertification can be amplified and dampened.  Due to unsustainable farming and water-use practices, desertification is expected to become amplified in the 21st century, absent the action I and other climate activists call for.

Case in point: Italy.  The deserts of Africa are spreading north and south as freshwater from water tables is being used faster than it can be replenished.  Saltwater takes the opportunity to spread in some of the affected places.

[The] Italian environmental protection group Legambiente warns that the livelihoods of 6.5 million people living along its shores could be at risk.

A recent report by Legambiente estimated that 74 million acres of fertile land along the Mediterranean were turning to desert as the result of overexploited land and water resources.

Desertification is one process that adds to political instability, as we’ve seen for decades in Africa already.  Due to the developed world’s lack of concern, primarily because they weren’t personally affected by such events, the process has had the opportunity to reach the shores of Europe.  What will happen when millions of Europeans suddenly can’t eat?  As in Africa, it will cause governments to tumble – there’s nothing special about European politics that would insulate them from massive food riots.

The time to act is now.  Desertification is one reason why European countries have been more proactive about their response to climate change.  They understand the implicit threats to their livlihoods – the short-term costs are much smaller than the long-term costs.  Citizens in the U.S. have become increasingly aware of the similar threats to their livlihood.  They have begun to accept the short-term costs as a hedge against those long-term greater costs.  Passing H.R. 2454 – the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES) in the House was one good step toward doing something on a national scale.  The Senate now needs to take up and pass similar legislation so President Obama can sign it into law.  As Italy and the Mediterranean show us, this cannot happen soon enough.