Ditching REDD for geoengineering

A deliberate effort to steer myself away from all things REDD (crowded, uncomfortable affairs at COPs - although there are fewer of them at COP15 than there were at 13 or 14) resulted in my sitting in on an event entitled "Geoengineering the climate: Science, governance and uncertainty" (a Royal Society report of the same name was released earlier this year). I have previously no experience of the topic of geoenginering (other than a questionable Channel 4 documentary a couple of years ago about launching thousands of mirrors into space to reflect the Sun's rays), so I thought it would be interesting to test both the accessibility of the content of the presentations, as well as how interesting it actually is. As it turns out, it is very interesting!

The presenters all stressed that geoengineering was not an alternative to mitigation efforts - it is more of a way of providing an option for the future, in case of high climate sensitivity and/or inabilities to come to global and lasting CO2 reduction agreements. There are basically two broad options: let less solar radiation hit the earth or take CO2 out of the atmosphere. The solar options are characterised by being efficient (their effect could become obvious in as little as a year) and risky (no-one can accurately predict what the effect of injecting the upper atmosphere with aerosols would be); while the CO2 reduction ones are safer (we know we can do it safely - c.f. trees) but long-term (decades).

The presenters pointed out that the adoption of these options would ultimately not be technological (humans can't help but invent), but social: primarily the ethical acceptibility of these large scale (importantly DELIBERATE) climate interventions. But even if it is agreed that more attention should be paid to it: Who gets to control the climate - i.e. which entity sets the thermostat? If efficient technologies are developed, should they be publicly available or would that be too risky? Who does/has access to R&D? How do you conduct experiments, when it's the global atmosphere that we're talking about?

In truth, the session provided far more questions than answers, but very valid and interesting food for thought.

Joel Scriven

Senegalese agro-ecological impacts project manager seeks research collaborators from ECI

Hello ECI, Jasper Sky here manning ECI/Tyndall/UEA's booth at COP15 at the moment. A Senegalese gentleman has just stopped by and asked us whether there is a possibility that some researchers interested in climate adaptation in relation to agro-ecosystems might be found at ECI or among people we know. Here is a research opportunity, perhaps? Please get in touch with him if you're interested, or know someone who might be (Polly, perhaps this is your area?).

In his own words...

Hi!
I am Souleymane Bassoum, Coordinator of Agrecol Afrique, an NGO in Senegal promoting local innovations in agro ecological farming adaptation on climate change.
We are working at community level and gathered a lot of rough materials. We are seeking
to have a connection with researchers in order to help us to digest such kind of informations.
My contact: sibassoum@hotmail.com

day one for me day three for many

Woke early to meet Julie's Bicycle team (Al, Catherine and KT Tunstall) for breakfast and then to the conference center where I was relieved that it only took 30 minutes to register and enter the center today. Was able to find ECI/Tyndall stand easily and find my way around. My first goal was to track down my own PhD adviser Steve Schneider and catch up. Was particularly keen to get his views on the email hacking and was not disappointed. His new book, Science as a Contact Sport is all about dealing with climate deniers and he doesn't mince words.

Next connection was lunch with ECM alum Simon Billet who is working for UNDP and had lots of interesting insights on what is happening. Also saw ECI alums Danae Maniatis (registered as a party for New Guinea) and had a long talk with SEI researcher Richard Klein about adaptation funding and eligibility which is a big area of debate. Then sat in on a long side event with speakers for Indigenous rights before heading back to the city center to speak at the Klimaforum. Its the alternative venue and full of people protesting for social justice and various issues. I saw banners on everything from WTO to corruption and whales to veganism. Was able to see Tim Jackson (sociology, Surrey) give a rousing speech on sustainable living without growth, then a session on sustainable agriculture, and then sat on my own panel on climate science and impacts where I thought we were a bit boring but we got good audience questions and response. A lot of discussion abotu forests and about climate science.

Then Will Steffen (Australian National University) and I found our way out to Katharine Richardsons (Univ of Copenhagen) house which is at the end of the local train line in one of the Royal forests. Her husband is, I believe, the chief forester for the Danish crown and the house is a beautiful old Danish farm/hunting lodge. They fed us a stew of local venison and we had a great conversation about REDD with another guest who is developing projects for Ecuador.

News from the negotiations is mixed. Apparently the negotiators want to nail a deal down before their heads of state arrive next week (they dare not leave it up to the leaders!) and the committment to funding that are on the table are helping smooth the way. I was reminded today that Kyoto is certainly not dead - there are two tracks here, the convention track (which the US is in) and the Kyoto track (which it is not). The diplomatic skill is to create parallel documents that work for both tracks and bring the US on board. Other signs look good for REDD to go ahead - within the carbon market with as yet undefined share of credits.

Diana

Rotten Eggs

Copenhagen is here. The world is set to come together to throw their eggs at a new climate change deal – or are they? Much of the discussion is on what Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emission reduction targets developed (Annex 1) countries should take on by 2020.

Most following the climate change negotiations have safely placed their eggs in their negotiation baskets. How many of these will be broken is yet to be seen. Civil society for one, spear headed by the CAN International network, has published its Fair, Ambitious & Binding document highlighting what is expected from Copenhagen. The CAN eggs call on industrialized countries as a group to take a target of more than 40% below 1990 levels by 2020.

Similarly, much of the least developed world knows what they want out of Copenhagen. When it comes to emission reduction targets for Annex 1 countries their eggs are branded with bold “-45%” from 1990 levels by 2020. Their call is aimed at bringing GHG emission concentrations down to 350ppm CO₂e, a target that returns the climate to a pre-industrialization state, as predicted by science. The Association of Small Island States has been throwing its eggs with particular strength, because they do not want to disappear under the rising seas.

But how are the eggs of the developed countries actually branded? Only three countries have presented ambitious emission reduction targets of 40% or more by 2020 from 1990 levels, namely Norway, Germany and Scotland. Of these, Germany and Scotland fall under the EU basket target of 20-30% reductions from 1990 levels by 2020.

Most developed country eggs are branded with a range and underscored with fine text stating what baseline year they wish for or whether carbon emissions from the land use and forestry sectors should be incorporated. Once transformed to a 1990 baseline the baskets of Australia, Canada and the United States contain the most rotten eggs. The foulest eggs in their baskets indicate pledges to increase their GHG emissions, while their best eggs project emission reductions of less than -10% by 2020. This is well outside of the range of 25%-40% below 1990 levels by 2020 required to stabilize at a GHG concentration of 450ppm.

In general the eggs of Annex 1 countries are rotting well below the levels required by science. According to the C-ROADS model the confirmed proposals presented would result in a climate stabilizing at 1035ppm CO₂e, which could result in temperature increases anywhere between 2.2°-6° C. The healthier of the rotting eggs presented by Annex 1 countries would result in temperature increases of up to 4.5° C, which is miles away from the call to keep global warming well below 2° C.

So, let us throw all our healthy eggs at the developing countries to get them to commit to ambitious GHG emission targets.

By: Max Thabiso Edkins

Getting to Copenhagen

One of the ironies of the COP meetings is that bringing thousands of people from all over the world to gather together in one place is hardly the most environmentally-friendly act you can think of. So to encourage European attendees to reduce the climate impact of their journey, as well as highlighting the environmental advantages of train travel, the International Union of Railways (UIC) organised a special 'Climate Express' from Brussels to Copenhagen on 5 December.

I had a particular reason for travelling to Copenhagen by train, given that I work as the environmental adviser for the Community of European Railways, which lobbies on behalf of Europe’s railway companies in Brussels. Asides from rail industry folk, there were around 400 people on the train with me: these included senior figures such as Achim Steiner, executive director of UNEP, Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, the vice-chair of the IPCC, and Isabelle Durant a vice-president of the European Parliament. There were also plenty of NGO representatives and activists, including Lizzie Gillet and Franny Armstrong, the producer and director of The Age of Stupid, Roz Savage, a UNEP ‘climate hero’ who has rowed solo across the Atlantic, and walked all the way from London to Brussels before getting on the train, and Alison Gannett, the founder of the Save Our Snow Foundation who was easy to spot thanks to the pair of skis sticking out of her backpack.

In addition, there was an assortment of media people who were looking for their first stories of the conference, including the BBC, CNN, Al Jazeera, Associated Press, and representatives of several national UK newspapers. Somewhat bizarrely, there was even a reporter and photographer from The Sun booked to travel, but perhaps fortuitously they didn’t turn up.

Given the journey lasted most of the day, there was plenty of time to fill, so one of the coaches was set aside for a series of discussion panels on issues related to the conference. The train was also ideal for networking– with few places to hide, and only two stops en route, it was an ideal occasion to get to know many of the people on board. My particular favourite was meeting The Man In Seat Sixty-One, who has probably done more to promote international train travel in the age of the internet than any other individual. If you want to know how to get anywhere in Europe by train, then take a look at his website: getting to Copenhagen doesn’t automatically have to mean flying there.

Matthew Ledbury

Taking part back in the office...

It has been a busy start to Copenhagen back in the ECI and today I breathe a sigh of relief that the USB sticks, which we have been frantically trying to get out to the Oxford stand, have now all been removed from my office and are on their way to the exhibition centre. While a number of ECI affiliates are making their way to Copenhagen over the next week or so (we know of at least 60 Alumni, 16 current students from our MSc programme, and 25 ECI staff/DPhil candidates due to attend) many of us are staying put in Oxford to support and watch things progressing from afar.

While many of us have been thinking about COP for months and months (I should probably even say years?), we kick started our direct action a few weeks ago when the ECI knitting group began sewing a banner for the London Climate March last weekend: the Wave. Over 20 of us went along dressed in blue to proudly wave the banner (I must admit I was not one of them). From what I hear the day was very peaceful and enjoyed by all, with estimates of somewhere between 20,000 and 40,000 taking part in London alone. It was good to have an ECI representation.

We have also been really busy trying to pull together a selection of research material from across Oxford University for a USB stick which is being disseminated in Copenhagen. For those of you not able to get your own USB, the material is also available online

You can keep up with all our other related news as it happens on the ECI website. I’m hoping to post updates throughout the two weeks, so do keep looking.

Deborah Strickland

Arrival in Denmark

Arrived in Copenhagen which is full of people walking around looking for their hotels. Although I will be staying with a friend for most of the time (Katharine Richardson from University of Copenhagen) I am staying at an ecohotel near the main station tonight. Already bumping into interesting people - long chat with someone who has helped Virgilio Viana (from Brazil) set up a prototype REDD scheme in Amazonas.

News from the negotiations includes a 4 hour wait to register and get a badge and an exciting rumor that Russia will give the planet a Christmas present by retiring their unused credits (the so called hot air from emission declines after 1990). See the Climate Action Network ECO newsletter for details. Can't believe it will really happen.

Tomorrow I am meeting Alison Tickell and KT Tunstall for coffee (they are here representing the music industry and are associated with Julies Bicycle). Then will try to register at the main conference at the Bella Center and catch up with ECI alum Simon Billet who is here with UNDP and should have good insights. And at 4pm I am on a panel with the University of Copenhagen at the Klimaforum which is the alternative conference in central Copenhagen....we are supposed to be a science resource panel and answer questions.

Diana Liverman