The Irish Environmental Network

All bar one presentation from the recent conference on Delivering Appropriate Assessment in Ireland are now available at the BirdWatch Ireland website.

More information on Appropriate Assessment will be added to this page shortly.

Link

Fr. Seán McDonagh, SSC December 14th 2009

On December 9th 2009, negotiations at the UN climate summit in Copenhagen dramatically broke down after a split between ‘developing’ countries who favoured a new protocol and others who wished to continue with the legally binding Kyoto agreement. The crisis was partly precipitated by revelations that the host nation, Denmark was proposing another negotiating mechanism which would sideline, if not kill off, the Kyoto Protocol.

In response, Tuvalu, an island nation in the Pacific which is threatened by a rise in sea-levels, proposed a new treaty which would force deeper global emission cuts on rich, industrialized nations, but could also lead to emerging economies, such as China, India, Brazil and South Africa having to make serious cuts also. Needless to say, these nations did not support the Tuvalu call, hence the split. Many other economically poor countries such as Grenada, Trinidad and Tobago and several African states supported Tuvalu. As a result of Tuvalu’s intervention one of the two negotiating tracks of the Convention of the Parties (COP) was suspended for several hours as no consensus could be reached.

Civil society groups, many of them members of the Climate Action Network (CAN), supported Tuvalu even though they are aware of the risk of collapsing the whole process. A front page article in the December 10, 2009, of the CAN paper called ECO praised “Tuvalu’s proposal for an open and transparent process, such as a Contact Group, serves as a ray of sunshine in an otherwise cloudy and dark city.”

The most telling speech for me during week one of this Convention on Climate Change came from the Tuvalu negotiator when he returned to the COP on Friday morning. He put words on what many of us are thinking. This is ultimately not about money, or economic power, it is about survival. I taped his speech. What follows is a slightly edited version of what he said.

“Madam President, thank you for allowing me to take the floor. During the last couple of days there has been lots of interest in this agenda item. There have been lots of discussions about how to proceed with this process and lots of media interest in this agenda item. In some media it has been presented as if Tuvalu has been trying to embarrass the Danish government over this issue. I wish to make it perfectly clear that this is not our intention. We know very well your sincerity and you dedication to coming to a meaningful outcome in Copenhagen. You have given enormous amount of time travelling the world, discussing with leaders how to come to an acceptable conclusion to this item. We know that the Danes have a strong history of travelling the world. In fact, there are people in Tuvalu who have Danish names.

Unfortunately, you (Madam President) never made it to Tuvalu, though I think you tried. It you had made it to Tuvalu you would realise why we are concerned about this issue. The entire population of Tuvalu lives below two metres above sea level. The highest point above sea-level, in the entire nation of Tuvalu is only four metres.

Madam President, we are not naive about the political difficulties that lie before us. It appears that we are waiting for some senators in the US Congress to conclude (a Climate Bill) before we can consider this issue properly. It is an irony of the modern world that the fate of the world is being determined by some senators in the U.S. Congress. We note that President Obama recently went to Norway to pick up a Nobel Prize for Peace. We can suggest that, for him to honour this Nobel Prize, he should address the greatest threat to humanity that we have before us – climate change. It is also the greatest threat to security. So I make a strong plea to work for legally binding treaties here in Copenhagen.

Madam President, this is not merely an issue for Tuvalu. Pacific Islands countries Kiribati and the Marshall Island, countries in the Caribbean – Haiti, Bahamas and Granada, in Africa – San Tome and poor countries, such as Mali, Uganda and millions of other people around this world, are affected enormously by climate change. This is not just (an issue for) Tuvalu. During the past two days I have received calls from all over the world, offering faith and hope that we can come to a meaningful conclusion on these issues.

Madam President, this is not just an ego-trip for me. I have refused to do media interviews because this is not an ego-trip for me. I am just a humble and insignificant employee of the Ministry of the Environment in Tuvalu. And as a humble servant of the government I have to make a strong plea to you that we can consider this matter properly. I don’t want to cause embarrassment to you or the Danish government. I clearly wish to put before the leaders a legally binding (agreement) which they can sign up to this week. I make this as a strong and passionate plea. We have had our proposal on the table for six months, not two days (as is being implied). I woke up this morning and I was crying and that is not easy for a grown man to admit. The fate of my country rests in your hands. Thank you.” (He broke down at the end of his speech.)

So, where does this leave the process for week two? On Saturday, December 12, 2009, I met an Irish negotiator who is a veteran of the COP process. We first met in Nairobi in 2006. I asked him how the negotiators were going to get the process back on track for this week. He said that there would be a lot of horse-trading during the weekend, but even so, it is going to be very difficult to hammer something out in a week. But, on the other hand, he pointed out that almost 100 leaders of different countries will be arriving this week. Among them will be Presidents Sarkozy of France, Medvedev of Russia and Obama of the U.S., Prime Ministers Brown of Britain, Merkel of Germany and Wei Jiabao of China. None of these would relish being part of a massive political failure on such an important topic. This pressure might be enough to impel them to sign a robust treaty. I hope he is right.

Fr. Seán McDonagh, SSC, December 9, 2009

In the run up to the Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change, hackers broke into computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Centre and got access to many private emails exchanged between climate scientists who have worked with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This ignited a global controversy about the reliability of the IPCC’s data and methodology. It forced the chief scientist at the centre of the row, Professor Phil Jones, to step down temporarily as head of the university’s climate research centre, while an independent enquiry into the matter was being conducted,

Many of these emails were seized upon by climate sceptics who claimed that scientists associated with the IPCC had excluded data from scientists who questioned the IPCC’s consensus that human-induced activities, especially burning fossil fuel, are significant elements in the current planetary global warming. News outlets such a Fox News in the U.S. and conservative politicians such as Senator James M Inhofe, the Republican Senator from Oklahoma, and Tony Abbott, the new leader of the opposition in Australia and Nigel Lawson in Britain claimed that the content of the emails vindicated their scepticism.

So, everyone expected that the chair of the IPCC, Prof. R.K Pachauri would deal with the issue at the first possible opportunity at the Copenhagen conference. At a meeting on the “IPCC Findings and Activities and their Relevance for the UNFCCC Process” on December 9th 2009, Pachauri addressed the controversy head on. He said that “it is unfortunate that an illegal act of accessing private emails communication between scientists who have been involved as authors in the IPCC assessment in the past has led to several questions and concerns. It is important for me to clarify that the IPCC as a body follows impartial, open and objective assessment of every aspect of climate change carried out with complete transparency.” He pointed out that “the IPCC relies mainly on peer reviewed literature in carrying out its assessment and follows a process that renders it unlikely that any peer reviewed piece of literature, however contrary to the views of any individual author, would be left out. Furthermore, “the entire report writing process of the IPCC is subjected to extensive and repeated review by experts as well as governments. Consequently, there is, at every stage, full opportunity for experts in the field to draw attention to any piece of literature and its basic findings that would ensure inclusion of a range of views.” He went on to emphasise that “there is no possibility of exclusion of any contrarian views, if they have been published in established journals or other publications that are peer reviewed.“

He was at pains to point out that the IPCC reports while using the best available science, are not completely dependent on scientists. “I would like to highlight the fact that the summary for policymakers of all the reports of the IPCC are accepted and approved by all the governments of the world.”

As a consequence of this painstaking and thorough process “no individual or small group of scientists is in a position to exclude a peer-reviewed paper from the IPCC assessment. Likewise, individuals and small groups have no ability to emphasize a result that is not consistent with a range of studies, investigations, and approaches.” There are many layers in the IPCC process, beginning with the large number of authors, from a wide range of scientific disciplines, who are involved in the writing process. On top of that, there is an extensive monitoring and review process and, finally governments sign off on the findings. As a result Dr. Pachauri rejected any biased findings. On the contrary he claimed that “the IPCC assessment Reports are comprehensive, unbiased and based on the best scientific data available at the time. Its findings can be relied upon and can form the basis for relevant policy decisions by policy makers. The remit of the IPCC does not allow it to become policy prescriptive.”

At the end of his statement he returned to the illegal hacking of private emails at the University of East Anglia. According to Pachauri the private emails have been taken out of their proper context. If I say, in a private email, that I could kill a particular scientist for writing a non-peer- reviewed, contrarian article about climate change, it doesn’t mean I plan to buy a gun and go out and shoot him. It means that I am as mad as hell, because I believe promoting non-peer reviewed, contrarian positions muddies the waters and slows down the possibility for the decisive actions which will be needed to stabilize atmospheric gases immediately. It is essential that these decisions are taken here at Copenhagen in order to avoid the worst consequences of climate change, which will affect the poor disproportionately. According to Dr. Pachauri the “incident only highlights the importance of IPCC procedures and practices and the thoroughness by which the Panel carries out its assessments.” Whether these answers will satisfy the sceptics or those sitting on the fence remains to be seen.

“You can’t negotiate with the atmosphere. Physics doesn’t compromise,” according to leading Irish scientist

Friends of the Earth has accused negotiators at the UN climate talks of “playing Russian roulette with the future of humanity”. As ministers begin arriving at the summit in Copenhagen, the environmental organization has called on Presidents and Prime Ministers to end the short-sighted jostling for national advantage and focus on “our common interest in a safe climate”. The first week of the conference has been marked by bitter divisions between Western countries and the global south on targets for reducing emissions and finance for coping with the climate change already underway.

From Copenhagen, Friends of the Earth policy officer, Molly Walsh, said:

“So far Western negotiators have showed more interest in limiting progress than limiting climate change. They are constantly looking to minimize commitments and maximise loopholes. They seem intent on ignoring the science and abandoning those on the frontline of climate change, the poorest people on the planet, to their fate.”

Arriving in Copenhagen, Prof John Sweeney, one of Ireland’s leading climate scientists, who will be attending the second week conference as an observer at the invitation of Friends of the Earth, observed:

“The offers on the table at Copenhagen so far simply aren’t enough to limit global warming to 2C. The trouble is you can’t negotiate with the atmosphere. Physics doesn’t compromise. We either cut emissions enough to prevent dangerous climate change or we don’t. The presidents and prime ministers arriving in Copenhagen this week will have to show real leadership if we are to get a fair and effective deal”

Oisin Coghlan, Friends of the Earth Director,

“Our negotiators are playing Russian roulette with the future of humanity, and right now all the chambers are loaded. The political leaders arriving in Copenhagen need to put an end to the short-sighted jostling for national advantage and focus on our common interest in a safe climate. They can still turn these negotiations around and do a deal, but it must be real deal that safeguards the climate and the poorest, not a political fudge to save face.”

ENDS

Notes

1. An analysis of the offers currently on the table estimates that they would put us on a path to global warming of 3 to 4 degrees Celsius. The EU and the G8 agree that 2C is the limit beyond which climate change becomes dangerous. More than half the countries at the summit, lead by Tuvalu, are pushing for a 1.5C limit.

2. The IPCC suggestions of cuts by developed countries of 25-40% by 2020 and 80-95% by 2050, as part of a halving of global emissions, would give us a 50/50 chance of limiting warming to 2C

Car scrappage scheme misguided, wasteful

Where is the promised carbon audit of capital spending?

Finance for retro-fitting, electric cars weclome

Friends of the Earth has welcomed the introduction of carbon tax in today’s Budget, while criticising the exemption of big polluters, and claiming that the tax level falls far short of what is needed to reflect the damage carbon pollution does. The other measures with an environmental impact are a mixed bag according to the environmental organisation.

Welcoming the carbon tax, Friends of the Earth Director, Oisin Coghlan said

“Putting a price on carbon is an important step in the fight against climate change. Friends of the Earth welcomes the fact the Government has finally decided to introduce a carbon tax. It is particularly welcome that the Minister indicated that the revenue will be used to reduce payroll taxes and finance rural transport and energy efficiency”.

The environmental organisation has a number of concerns about how the Government plans to implement the tax. Commenting Mr Coghlan said:

“It is lamentable that the Government plans to exempt big polluters from the carbon tax. They will tell you it’s because these companies face a carbon price through the European ETS. In fact we all know they got almost all their pollution permits for free. That didn’t stop them raising prices to customers to reflect the market value of the permits. Until they have to buy the permits at auction they should pay the carbon tax like everyone else”.

“How does the Government expect ordinary taxpayers to accept a carbon price, however low, while big polluters get a windfall profit from the emissions scheme?”

“There must be absolute transparency in how the revenue is used in order to re-assure people that the revenue is used to reduce other taxes or ring-fenced to finance the transition to a low-carbon economy and society”.

“€15 a tonne is far lower than is necessary to drive the transition to a low-carbon future. The tax will need to increase year-on-year until it fully reflects the damage carbon pollution does. As it rises towards €100 a tonne and beyond the measures to ensure the tax is fair and revenue neutral will need to be beefed up.”

On other measures in the Budget, the environmental organisation commented:

• The car scrappage scheme is a waste of money and will not have a significant effect on emissions. Most of the money will go to overseas manufacturers and each new car represents two to three years of pollution before it even hits the road. It would have been far better to wait until the infrastructure was there to allow electric cars go mainstream. That would have been the moment for a scrappage scheme to drive a big switch to electric cars. Instead this will lock drivers into another generation of petrol cars.
• There is no sign that the re-prioritisation of capital spending has been subjected to the carbon footprinting that was promised in the 2007 Programme for Government. Without a comprehensive and transparent cost-benefit analysis that includes a realistic shadow price for carbon we risk further capital spending on fossil-fuel dependent infrastructure such as airport expansion and new ports, locking ourselves into a high-carbon future.
• The increased funding for retro-fitting homes is welcome but a lot more needs to be done in this area.
• The continued relief on the purchase of an electric cars is welcome, now the urgent thing is to ensure the roll out of the re-charging infrastructure.

The organisers of a campaign to reduce Ireland’s greenhouse gas emissions are asking for this weekend’s Christmas tree lighting ceremonies to be delayed for a symbolic 10 minutes.

The campaign, called 10:10 because it seeks to reduce Ireland’s greenhouse gas emissions by 10% in the year 2010, is asking local organisers to delay the lighting of their Christmas trees as a symbolic gesture to raise awareness and commit to reducing their use of power by 10%.

10:10 is appealing through the media to not only community groups but county managers, mayors, local authorities and town councils urging them to consider reducing light up time by at least 10%. 10:10 will be making official contact with all Local Authorities and Town Councils throughout the country asking them to sign up to the campaign for next year..

The organizers of 10:10 point out that in Copenhagen, host to world leaders meeting on climate change next week, volunteer bicyclist are using pedal power to produce electricity for the city’s Christmas tree. The Mayor hopes the “greenest” tree that has ever lit up the City Hall Square will prevent nine tonnes of carbon dioxide from being produced.

The 10:10 campaign manager, John Hesnan, explains that “we can all help in reducing our country’s emissions with small and simple changes – like cutting the time you have your Christmas tree lights on by 10%. If everyone does this, it will make a big difference. This campaign is about people making the very small but effective changes needed.”

“In homes, workplaces, schools, hospitals, sports clubs and universities, it’s a support network where people encourage each other to take the first necessary steps on the road to becoming a low-carbon society.  It takes a common sense approach – reduce your carbon output, reduce energy bills and reduce spending and by doing this you save energy, save money and save the planet.”

“By signing up to 10:10 you are not just promising to reduce your own emissions – you become part of a national drive to hit an ambitious goal, not only in your own organization or in your own town or community but country-wide.”

10:10 is encouraging individuals and businesses as well as organizations, schools, and third level institutions to sign up on the 1010.ie website. ‘The website will provide tips and support for how you can help. Each month next year we will be looking at ways you can save energy – and money.’

‘Over Christmas you can go for a walk instead of going for a drive – dress a little warmer and turn down your heating thermostat! Your transport, heating and electricity bills will decrease – you and the planet will get healthier.’

John Gormley, the Minister for the Environment, signed up online at the Facebook Headquarters in Dublin last week and is writing to all Government Departments to ask them to sign up to 10:10.

Further information and comment:

www.1010.ie