[Our ongoing series "Communicating Climate Change" with Dave Levitan will often feature conversations with journalists and other communicators who face the challenge of writing on climate issues. We have previously featured former New York Times climate reporter and Dot Earth blogger Andy Revkin as well as Climate Progress blogger Joe Romm. - Ed.] Kate Sheppard covers energy and environmental politics in Washington, D.C., for Mother Jones. Prior to joining Mother Jones, she wrote for Grist in Seattle, and her work has also appeared online at the Washington Post and New York Times, as well as in the Guardian and elsewhere. You can follow her on Twitter @kate_sheppard. Links and emphasis are mine. Dave Levitan: You went to Copenhagen, and participated in what was a brief deluge of coverage for climate change and related policy issues. How do you keep people's interest or attention when there isn't such a large and visible event to pin stories on? Kate Sheppard: Well, usually I'm covering what's going on with day-to-day politics in Washington. And even if what's happening right now is going really slowly, there are almost constant updates on what's happening on policy, and new perspectives on where that debate is going. So that is one way to keep people-especially people who are really focused on politics or policy-involved, is to just keep following that day-to-day. I think for a wider public who might not be quite as tuned in with what's happening here in Washington, it's about making the connections between the policy and climate change and their everyday lives. What does the clean energy future mean for you as person who is a homeowner or a driver, or a parent concerned about public health - it's about connecting those things I think to what people experience every day. Climate change itself is something that's big and far away and somewhat nebulous, but there are a lot of implications for politics and policy and everyday life. DL: I've noticed that lacking in a lot of coverage of climate policy, and I've written about this here - do you try and get in explanations of WHY cap-and-trade, or WHY a focus on clean energy jobs, what it means in the larger view? KS: I think in a lot of articles I do attempt to make that connection. And a lot of times covering the policy debate it's about covering the individuals and the personalities that are played here as well, and sometimes stories focus more on that than on the direct outcomes. But I think making those connections wherever possible is really important. And to some level a lot of the political stories people just care about because they follow politics closely and they want to see who is doing what, here in Washington especially. And an angle I feel I approach it from is looking at the impediments to acting on this problem. So, what industry groups, or lobbies or people or ideas are standing in the way of doing something about what is recognized to be a significant challenge? DL: Can that sort of thing create any backlash? Do you get differing responses when you write about the types of people who are standing in the way? KS: No, I'm writing to an audience that generally is concerned about the issues and wants to do something about climate. I probably wouldn't have much success at getting the head of ExxonMobil on the phone. But I think our readers connect with pointing out who is standing in the way. DL: I've gotten really interested in this, and asked others about it - the problem of preaching to the choir. At Mother Jones, do you see that as sort of the point, or is there an attempt to reach out to a broader audience? KS: We have a more generally politically progressive audience who maybe isn't following the climate debate quite as closely, but is following other really important political and social issues right now. So, it's about bringing in readers to the climate conversation who maybe came for something else. And it also reaches a wider audience. I think a lot of reporters read what we cover and can get new and different ideas and insights from what we write as well. We're covering specific angles that they might not have been covering, and we have to do a lot of investigative work, so it is reaching a wider audience through that. DL: How did you first come to the environmental policy beat? KS: I was a journalism and politics major in college, and my first job after college was working at Grist magazine out in Seattle. I had been interested in politics but hadn't followed environmental politics quite as closely as some other things, but I just became really interested in the subject area. It was an area where there was constantly news, and I didn't think it was being particularly well covered. And it has become the only thing I really want to write about right now. DL: How has your approach changed in going from Grist to Mother Jones? KS: I'm writing for people who maybe don't follow things quite as closely, so you need to explain things a bit more in depth. I don't think its too drastically different. I think my approach has been-no matter which place I'm writing for-that I'm writing to people who don't necessarily have an in-depth understanding. That's the important thing, to make it accessible to more people. I try to imagine I'm writing for my folks back home, or people who aren't either obsessed with politics or obsessed with environmental news. DL: Since I'm looking through the challenges of covering climate change, what are we in the media doing the worst at? KS: I think that communicating the science is one of the biggest challenges for everyone. Scientists have trouble communicating it to the public. They are by nature cautious, and everything is very measured, and it takes a long time to study these things and its often very hard to communicate that nuance and care, and that's also hard for reporters. And scientific literacy in the US is not very high, so to figure out how to overcome those barriers and communicate theories accurately is huge. DL: Do you think it is getting better? KS: I don't know if I've been around long enough to say if its getting any better. Especially with communicating science, there is a very loud echo chamber out there that is actively fighting against the science, and that definitely hasn't gotten much easier. Reprinted with permission from Ecopolitology Follow Dave Levitan on Twitter @davelevitan. Image credit: Kate Sheppard; America.gov ]]> Climate Change climate change global warming environment emissions green house gas carbon Wed, 10 Feb 2010 07:06:00 -0800 http://www.matternetwork.com/2010/2/communicating-climate-change-kate-sheppard.cfm Ecopolitology http://www.matternetwork.com/2010/2/nations-co2-pledges-enough-slow.cfm have submitted voluntary CO2 reduction targets, but a top UN climate official says they still fall short of what's needed to limit future temperature increases to 2 C (3.6 F). Meeting a Jan. 31 deadline established at the December climate summit in Copenhagen, the European Union set a goal of reducing emissions 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2020; Japan pledged to slash CO2 emissions by 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2020; the U.S. set a more modest target of reducing carbon dioxide emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020; and China vowed to cut the so-called "carbon intensity" of its economy - the amount of CO2 produced per unit of gross domestic product - by 40 to 45 percent by 2020. Some conservationists hailed these targets as an important step in slowing global greenhouse gas emissions, but Janos Pasztor - the top climate advisor to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon - said that even with these voluntary reductions "it will still be quite difficult to reach 2 degrees." Meanwhile, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao reversed an earlier position and said he supports the ratification of a binding global agreement on CO2 reductions at the next major round of climate talks in Mexico City this December. Reprinted with permission from Yale Environment 360

The NASA study showed that global temperatures have been rising at the relatively rapid rate of 0.36 degrees Fahrenheit per decade for the past 30 years. A separate temperature analysis by the U.S. National Climatic Data Center also concluded that the 2000's were the warmest decade since record-keeping began, although that study disagreed with the NASA study on whether 2009 was the second or the fifth warmest year on record.

There is no debate, however, that the 10 hottest years on record have all occurred since 1998, or that in the Southern Hemisphere 2009 was the warmest year since temperature measurements began.

Gavin Schmidt, a climatologist at Goddard, said the debate over which recent year was the hottest is irrelevant, and that the key data is the trend of the world warming by roughly 1 degree F every 30 years. Average global temperatures have risen by roughly 1.5 F since 1880.

NASA's data was collected from more than 1,000 meteorological stations worldwide, satellite observations of sea surface temperatures, and Antarctic research station records.

Reprinted with permission from Yale Environment 360

Scientists around the world have worked for a decade to solve one of the most apocalyptic aspects of climate change: that heat kills crops. This work is needed because, even just in the US, an 82% drop in corn and soy is predicted by the end of the century because there will be too many days over 86 degrees Fahrenheit in the Corn Belt, if we keep on adding greenhouse gases at the current rate.

Now, Philip Wigge and Vinod Kumar, two Norwich-based scientists at the John Innes Centre have just had the necessary breakthrough. They subjected grain plants to drought stresses that normally kill them, and isolated genes from survivors to create new variants, and just published their findings in the current edition of the US-based peer-reviewed scientific journal Cell.

They located the "thermometer" gene that helps plants sense temperature; even variations of just one degree Celsius, "and yet no one had asked how plants were able to do this"says Wigge.

They took the lab rat of plant research; the Arabidopsis (mustard) plant and studied all its genes to see which were affected by warmer temperature. It took five years for them to create a mutant plant that had lost its ability to sense temperature correctly. It grew as if the temperature was optimal all the time. The sensitive genes were then used in new plants.

It is possible that these scientists will be able to get it working just in time; within the next ten to fifteen years. In ten years, climate change impacts will be already widespread. Temperatures in the American West and Southwest could average nine degrees Fahrenheit hotter by the end of this century. Australia had to stop irrigating 40% of its crops in 2007.

The worldwide scientific consensus, as summarized in the papers at the last Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projected that food production in some regions could be severely compromised by 2020.

Whenever plants are subjected to extreme stress, such as very high or low temperatures, they do not flower and grow because they divert their food to their embryo.

"Their instinct is to protect the next generation," said Wigge.

Plants are better adapted to survive, than people are, in that respect. They might outlive us. But then they have had a million or so more years to learn that clever trick.

Reprinted with permission from Cleantechnica ]]> Green Agriculture Climate Change climate change global warming environment emissions green house gas carbon green agriculture green agriculture posts green agriculture entries Thu, 21 Jan 2010 08:05:00 -0800 http://www.matternetwork.com/2010/1/scientists-locate-thermometer-gene-creates.cfm Cleantechnica http://www.matternetwork.com/2010/1/animal-health-organization-study-meat.cfm PARIS (Reuters) - The World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) is to study the impact of meat output on climate change in the light of debate about meat's contribution to greenhouse emissions, the Paris-based body said on Thursday. The initiative, which will be the OIE's first on an environmental issue, follows requests from its member countries to look at a question that has prompted calls to eat less meat. Meat production is estimated to account for 18 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions, according to the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization, and some scientists have cited lower meat consumption as a way of tackling climate change. A campaign led by former Beatle Paul McCartney to get people not to eat meat one day a week has also drawn attention to the issue. But OIE Director-General Bernard Vallat warned against oversimplifying the issue, stressing factors such as the carbon-stocking role of pasture land would have to be evaluated. "It's a question that needs to be studied with a lot of distance," he told a news conference. "We want to make a modest and independent contribution." People also needed to be aware that livestock production generated milk and eggs as well as meat and so could not be sacrificed at a time of fast-growing protein demand among the world's population, he said. "There is not yet a scientific model that can prove that our planet could do without milk, eggs or meat." The study would thus likely recommend further research to find ways of limiting the direct effects of meat production on the environment, such as methane emissions, Vallat added. Another focus for the OIE this year would be reducing cases of rabies, which kills 50,000 people worldwide annually, mainly following dog bites. The body was notably calling for developing countries to devote more money to vaccinating dogs rather than just treating infected people which was much more expensive, Vallat said. (Reporting by Gus Trompiz; Editing by Keiron Henderson) Reprinted with permission from Reuters ]]> Climate Change climate change global warming environment emissions green house gas carbon Fri, 08 Jan 2010 07:20:00 -0800 http://www.matternetwork.com/2010/1/animal-health-organization-study-meat.cfm Reuters http://www.matternetwork.com/2010/1/communicating-climate-change-isolated-weather.cfm By Dave Levitan of Ecopolitology

The idealist in me really thought we would have gotten past this by now, but it seems that one of the biggest obstacles remaining in climate science messaging is the disconnect between weather and climate. Vocal deniers still trumpet about cold weather, and both sides of the issue correctly assert that individual weather events cannot be definitively attributed to global warming. A largely confused public could use some clarity on this.

Communicating the importance of climate change has always been difficult, given that it is a slow process (well, relative to human lives at least) that doesn't have any particularly tangible thing on which to hang the message. Sea level rise is not a visible process until Bangladesh is already under water, and Rhode Island-sized ice shelves only slide into the sea every so often. Journalists and advocates resort to pretty faces like polar bears and penguins, or the sharp contrast of a living coral reef with a bleached and dead one.

These images, though, clearly haven't been enough to dispel continuing disinformation about the contrast between what you see out your window and what the world will look like in 10 years, 50 years, 100 years. Hurricanes and droughts seem like good images to convince the public, but how many times have you seen something along the lines of: "An individual storm cannot be blamed on global warming"? So, when the mercury drops below freezing, it means global warming was a hoax, but when a hugely powerful hurricane drowns a city, suddenly everyone and their mother understands the science a bit better.

I know that the hurricane habit is a good one. Even though there is increasing evidence that warming is probably causing hurricanes to get stronger, and will almost certainly cause longer and worse droughts in various parts of the world, it is correct to stay away from "global warming caused Katrina" kinds of headlines. What bothers me about this is that is basically just taking advantage of a loophole to avoid an important point.

I'll dip into the sports analogy bag to explain. Mark McGwire hit 583 homeruns in his career, currently tied for the eighth most ever hit. But after his career was over it became (mostly) clear that he had, um, enhanced himself a bit (read: he injected lots of drugs into his ass). He gave one disastrous bit of testimony to Congress, and all of a sudden he is a pariah. His entire legacy is tainted, and last year he received only 22 percent of Hall of Fame votes (you need 75 percent to be elected). This is the man with the best home runs-per-at-bat rate in history (better than Babe Ruth), and only 22 percent of voters (all of whom are sports journalists, by the way) think he belongs in the sport's Hall of Fame.

But how many of those 583 home runs can be definitively linked to steroid use? Forget for a minute the fact that he never even really tested positive for anything (because testing hadn't been implemented yet). Even if we assume drug use, that doesn't tell us which of those hits would have landed 15 feet shorter, or if he would have been injured more often. But in this case, we the public take the opposite route from the climate change/weather version: we decide that they all were linked to steroid use.

Imagine if we, the climate science communicators, had somehow managed that coup in the public discourse. Yes, I know it's not true. But neither is the steroid/home run argument. I'm not advocating pretending an individual hurricane is the direct result of global warming, but I am advocating an increased focus on the bigger picture. Fine, an individual home run isn't tainted, but that 583 number looks hugely suspicious. Polar bears will only take you so far, and when cities drown and countries bake, journalists shouldn't be afraid to use those images to try and advance a scientific message.

This article originally appeared on Ecopolitology ]]> Climate Change climate change global warming climate change Wed, 06 Jan 2010 06:35:00 -0800 http://www.matternetwork.com/2010/1/communicating-climate-change-isolated-weather.cfm Ecopolitology http://www.matternetwork.com/2009/12/obama-reaches-climate-deal-emerging.cfm President Barack Obama reached agreement with major developing powers on a climate deal on Friday, a U.S. official said, but he said the accord was only a first step and was insufficient to fight climate change. The official said Obama, China's Premier Wen Jiabao, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and South Africa's President Jacob Zuma had reached a "meaningful agreement," after a day of deep divisions between leaders of rich and developing nations. Brazil also approved the deal that appeared to bypass other participants at UN-led climate talks in Copenhagen. The accord did not have guaranteed approval from all 193 nations. Noticeably, EU nations were absent from the meeting. Tensions between China and the United States, the world's two biggest emitters, had been particularly acute after Obama -- in a message directed at the Chinese -- said any deal to cut emissions would be "empty words on a page" unless it was transparent and accountable. Negotiators struggled all day to find a compromise acceptable to all 193 countries which could avert the threat of dangerous climate change, including floods, droughts, rising sea levels and species extinctions. A draft text under discussion on Friday included $100 billion in climate aid annually by 2020 for poor countries to combat climate change, and targets to limit warming and halve global greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. But it abandoned earlier ambitions for any deal in Copenhagen to be turned into a legally binding treaty next year. "Today, following a multilateral meeting between President Obama, Premier Wen, Prime Minister Singh, and President Zuma a meaningful agreement was reached," the U.S. official said. "It is not sufficient to combat the threat of climate change but it is an important first step." "No country is entirely satisfied with each element but this is a meaningful and historic step forward and a foundation from which to make further progress," the official added. Under the five-nation agreement, rich and poor nations had agreed to a "finance mechanism," emissions cuts to curb global warming to 2 degrees Celsius, and "to provide information on the implementation of their actions." Earlier, Indian environment minister Jairam Ramesh told Reuters December 7-18 meeting was "close to seeing a legally non-binding Copenhagen outcome after 36 hours of grueling, intensive negotiations." The European Union had pressed for a strong deal to limit global warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius and which included tough carbon curbs from other industrialized nations such as the United States. Scientists say a 2 degrees limit is the minimum to avoid some of the worst impacts of climate change including several meters sea level rise, species extinctions and crop failures. "Given where we started and the expectations for this conference, anything less than a legally binding and agreed outcome falls far short of the mark," said John Ashe, chair the Kyoto talks under the United Nations. (With reporting by Alister Doyle, Gerard Wynn, Anna Ringstrom, John Acher, Anna Ringstrom, Richard Cowan, David Fogarty, Pete Harrison and Emma Graham-Harrison; Writing by Dominic Evans; editing by Janet McBride). Reprinted with permission from Reuters ]]> Climate Change climate change global warming climate change Sat, 19 Dec 2009 07:37:00 -0800 http://www.matternetwork.com/2009/12/obama-reaches-climate-deal-emerging.cfm Reuters http://www.matternetwork.com/2009/12/copenhagen-summary-signs-of-hope.cfm

Developed nations rounded up additional pledges for adaptation and mitigation funding in Copenhagen on Wednesday, and on Thursday developing nations won a procedural battle that has slowed negotiations over the past week and a half.

Japan stepped up with a large commitment to add about $19.5 billion to short-term funding for developing nations for the years 2010-2012, according to an AFP report. Along with previous commitments of $10.6 billion by the European Union, this is enough to fund the $10 billion a year proposed for this time period.

The U.S. has yet to commit to commit to specific funding amounts.

Thursday morning, Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen, who is presiding over the remainder of the conference, said he would abandon an attempt to combine various negotiating texts into a single document for review by heads of state in the final hours. (Reuters reporting)

Developing nations have repeatedly protested against the creation of such a text, arguing that it benefits industrialized nations and their desire to create a single unifying agreement to replace Kyoto Protocol.

Delegates agreed to split talks into two tracks--one looking at further commitments by developed nations except the United States to cut emissions until 2020 and another looking at ways to get all nations to slow climate change.

UN Climate Secretary Yvo De Boer on Wednesday asked the U.S. to make a specific proposal on climate financing to developing countries, according to the Xinhua News Agency. He noted that the US is in a difficult position, not having taken steps to slow emissions under the Kyoto Protocol. He also said he believes China's offer to reduce the intensity of its greenhouse gas emissions 40-45% by 2020 is "very encouraging."

US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton arrived on Thursdsay and said the US is willing to participate in a $100-billion-a-year fund through the year 2020, but that China must be willing to allow for verification of its emissions reduction efforts.

Although Clinton did not give a specific US contribution figure, the commitment was considered a breakthrough, leading de Boer to say: ""Hold tight. Mind the doors. The cable car is moving again."

Clinton said the money would be a mix of public and private funds, including "alternative sources of finance." Typically in multilateral financial efforts the United States contributes about 20% according to the New York Times.

Reuters on Wednesday quoted an unnamed Western negotiator who said China told participants it saw no possibility of achieving a detailed accord to tackle global warming. But on Thursday, China refuted the story as a rumor meant to lay blame on China, should negotiations fail.

China's climate change ambassador Yu Qingtai said "Copenhagen is too important to fail." He said the Chinese delegation "came to Copenhagen with hope and have not given it up." (Reuters reporting)

China has softened its stance against mandatory verification of its promised emissions reductions, according to a separate Reuters story. The country's head negotiator Su Wei said "national communications" on emissions as outlined by the Kyoto Protocol would be sufficient.

"It will not be difficult for us to find a solution to this problem (verification), as long as we adhere to the principles of the convention, it is not a crucial problem," he said.

Another hopeful sign that developing and developed nations may be moving closer on their demands is that Africa reportedly scaled back its expectations for climate aid on Wednesday, according to a report on MSNBC.com. The report did not state by how much, but African nations had previously asked for $40 billion a year in the mid-term.

The US on Wednesday pledged $1 billion to the reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD) program, bringing total funding for the period 2010-2012 to $3.5 billion.

The New York Times report did not give any details as to the current form of the program. Environmentalists earlier in the week said it had been stripped of important targets and safeguards.

Republican Senator and climate change denier James Inhofe (R-Okla.) made an unwelcomed press appearance Thursday morning, after failing to receive an invite to talk within the conference.

"I am here to make sure the 190 countries here don't go home with the false impression," he told a somewhat hostile crowd. "The United States is not going to pass cap and trade. It just isn't going to happen. Its chances are zero."

Fox News reported that "Inhofe often looked like a lamb on his way to slaughter."

Obama arrives in Copenhagen Friday morning. Obama is unlikely to propose a more aggressive emissions reduction target, according to Reuters.

However, he may have wiggle room to raise his pledge from 17% below 2005 levels to 20%--the level proposed in a current US Senate bill.

Combined with specific, big numbers to support Clinton's $100 billion proposal, Obama could prompt agreement to a specific, but non-binding framework on Friday. However, that would likely require other developed nations to push to higher levels for emissions reductions--a brave step in light of US history on Kyoto and the Obama Administration's inability to guarantee cooperation of the US Congress. ]]> Climate Change Emissions smart grid smart grid posts smart grid entries smart grid climate change global warming climate change emissions carbon capture co pollution Fri, 18 Dec 2009 07:23:00 -0800 http://www.matternetwork.com/2009/12/copenhagen-summary-signs-of-hope.cfm SustainableBusiness http://www.matternetwork.com/2009/12/clinton-copenhagen-100-billion-tends.cfm By Dave Levitan

With only a couple of days left in the COP15 climate summit in Copenhagen, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton showed up with a pretty solid secret weapon: $100 billion per year by 2020 promised (maybe) to poor and at-risk countries to aid with adaptation to rising sea levels, increased drought and other severe effects of climate change. It came at just the right time.

The past few days had seen the protests in Copenhagen ratchet up and the chances of a major deal of any sort being reached ratchet down. On Monday, delegates of 130 poorer nations walked out of the conference in protest to what seemed like a lack of commitment on the part of the rich, developed nations. Even the New York Times editorial page seemed shaken to the point of confusion, with a on again-off again editorial on the benefits of preventing deforestation and the looming disaster of a failed climate summit.

Enter Hillary and her suitcase full of money. She stressed that the money, which will come from a mix of public and private sources, is only going to be available if India and China stop stalling and agree to real emissions targets very soon. "Without that accord, there won't be the kind of joint global action from all of the major economies we all want to see, and the effects in the developing world could be catastrophic," Clinton said at a press conference in Copenhagen.

No one seems to think that COP15 will result in a binding agreement, but a framework on which to set up that agreement by next year is a realistic goal. Well, at least now it is. Suddenly, after days of looking like the bad guy, China reiterated a willingness to establish an agreement, with the country's Climate Change Ambassador Yu Qingtai telling Reuters "I can assure you that the Chinese delegation came to Copenhagen with hope and have not given it up. Copenhagen is too important to fail."

The news isn't all good, of course - the $100 billion is actually less than a goal set by the European Union, and of course the poor countries themselves wouldn't mind having a few more dollars to fight off complete catastrophe. But it's a start, and it seems to have kickstarted these last few unbelievably important days of COP15.

Read the original article at Ecopolitology

By Joe Walsh

In this space last week, I wrote a column that I thought might draw the ire of some greens for its cynical outlook on Copenhagen. Instead, it drew a fair amount of attention from readers concerned that I had glossed over the significance of "Climategate." Like that column, this one is not about Climategate in the broader sense, but about its impact on the goings-on this week in Denmark. And, as we look back at week one of COP-15, last week's column looks to have been borne out in that context. Join me for this more complete review of the political freeze that has taken over the warming talks.

Climategate is Good as Gone...For Now - As expected, Climategate disappeared as fast as it rose to the top of Google's search rankings. Worldwide, media reports are focusing on the very compelling, very well-packaged stories about climate change impact and emerging technologies that were in the can as this conference approached. The email controversy may well reemerge at the conclusion of the conference; and, as I noted in comments responding to reader comments to last week's piece, Climategate may ultimately be seen as the sort of watershed moment that was needed to reignite some passion in this debate. But, at least in the world-within-the-world at Copenhagen this week, Climategate-stoked doubt about climate change is not the issue.

US Fizzles- After months of pressure and rhetoric in US politics, marked by doomsday scenarios that would befall the world should the US not have a climate change bill on the President's desk before Copenhagen, the US delegation arrived with the following: an EPA declaration that was inevitable and had been dramatically undersold in favor of pushing for legislation; and, a December 10 announcement by a tri-partisan (including an independent) group of Senators, which purported to "outline the basics" for a domestic climate bill that might come to the floor in the spring. In a week when the President of the United States delivered what has to be the most impassioned defense of war in the history of Nobel Peace Prize acceptances, his delegation at the climate conference tried to claim leadership in a very tricky geopolitical negotiation after having failed to clear the relatively less complex partisan, political and special interest hurdles at home.

China Sizzles, But Where's the Steak? China is the Donald Trump of climate change action. Big promises, high-dollar investments. Big, big, big! 800 turbines in three gorges? Bring it on! Planting enough new trees to cover all of Norway? Why not! Just don't ask them to cut emissions. First, it is not practical to do so, their growth makes it impossible. Second, they don't have the money to pay for it (probably because it is all on loan to the US, but that is another column for another blog). And, the reports coming from state-controlled media do not offer much comfort. Long term, China looks like a promising green partner for the world. They are going to continue to develop clean energy technologies domestically and will continue to flood the global market with low-cost, Chinese-fabricated panels, blades and batteries.

Right now, the Chinese would be foolish to have fabricators sell those products to domestic buyers and capture the revenue in yuan when they could be sold overseas for more valuable dollars, Euros and pounds. Will they ever reach a tipping point where some of those items will stay in country instead of being produced exclusively for export? That tipping point appears to be approaching for jeans, TVs and other Chinese-made goods, but clean energy technology? Don't hold your breath.

For signs of success in week two, watch the tail numbers of planes at Copenhagen Airport - It will be interesting to see who actually shows up in Copenhagen next week. We know President Obama is en route, but will the Russians, Chinese or Indians keep their dates to have heads of state make the trip to town? Probably. Will it move the needle? I doubt it.

In the end, the problem with Copenhagen cannot be solved by next week, no matter who is at the table. That problem can best be discerned in the verb tense most-often used in speeches, discussions and negotiations there: the future. For thirty-five years, the public (including skeptics) have been hearing about what WILL happen to the planet and about the technologies that WILL emerge to make clean energy affordable. The urgency has not come yet. The world is not ready. Let us hope that by the time we are, it is not too late.

Reprinted with permission from Red Green and Blue ]]> Carbon Emissions Climate Change climate change global warming environment emissions green house gas carbon carbon emissions carbonemissions posts carbonemissions entries carbonemissions business technology Mon, 14 Dec 2009 05:26:00 -0800 http://www.matternetwork.com/2009/12/copenhagen-week-one-climategate-china.cfm Red Green and Blue http://www.matternetwork.com/2009/12/soros-says-he-has-way.cfm COPENHAGEN (Reuters) - Billionaire financier George Soros told Reuters on Thursday he had found a way to unlock a stalemate on climate finance using International Monetary Fund assets. Soros wants to invest $1 billion of a total of his own $25 billion funds in low-carbon assets. U.N. talks in Copenhagen, meant to agree the outline of a new climate treaty to succeed the Kyoto Protocol, are stuck on splitting the bill to cut carbon emissions and prepare for more droughts, floods and rising seas. Poorer nations want rich countries to spend 1 percent or more of their national wealth on emissions cuts in the developing world, or at least $300 billion annually, about double the closest estimates by industrialized countries. "I've found a way for someone else to pay ... to mobilize reserves that are lying idle," said Soros, on the sidelines of the December 7-18 conference which world leaders will attend in the closing two days. "The whole conference might break down because of this, and this $100 billion fund I think could just turn this conference from failure to success." Developed countries could invest a portion of $283 billion IMF special drawing rights (SDRs) in carbon-cutting projects in developing nations, he said. The IMF made the rights available to help combat the recession, by unlocking financial liquidity after panic froze debt markets -- including more than $150 billion for the 15 biggest developed economies, Soros said. The low-carbon projects themselves would pay the interest on the proposed $100 billion to be spent over the next decade, from earnings which would depend on a carbon price for example under a global market in offsets and other carbon emissions permits. IMF gold reserves would guarantee the principle and interest. Soros acknowledged a series of obstacles to his proposal, including U.S. Congress approval, IMF director approval and a global carbon price. "The IMF directors are not keen to use it (gold reserve). If you on the board of directors you like to have this nice substantial reserve to sit on so they won't actually do this of their own free will," he said, adding political will was needed to drive his initiative. Other ideas on the table to unlock climate finance include a levy on transport fuels in shipping and aviation, a tax on rich nation carbon emissions rights or a fund raised from countries according to their contribution to climate change and ability to pay. (Reporting by Gerard Wynn, Editing by Janet Lawrence) Reprinted with permission from Reuters ]]> Environment Climate Change environment global warming air pollution climate change causes global warming greenhouse effect carbon dioxide global climate change carbon footprint carbon capture water purification process carbon sequestration algae carbon sequestration food vs fuel Thu, 10 Dec 2009 08:43:00 -0800 http://www.matternetwork.com/2009/12/soros-says-he-has-way.cfm Reuters http://www.matternetwork.com/2009/12/copenhagen-summary-day-1.cfm

The largest climate meeting in history kicked off in Copenhagen, Denmark yesterday drawing 15,000 participants from 192 countries.

The meeting will conclude next week with a Summit of 105 world leaders, marking the significance and high expectations for this event, which aims to produce a global agreement on combating the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. It's worth noting that the Kyoto meeting, which resulted in the current protocol, was attended only by environmental ministers.

Six-Month Deadline

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown wrote in the Guardian that the goal of Copenhagen is to secure a "comprehensive and global agreement" to be converted into a legally binding treaty in "no more than six months."

"If by the end of next week we have not got an ambitious agreement, it will be an indictment of our generation that our children will not forgive," he wrote.

China, Brazil, South Africa and India also called for a legally binding treaty to be complete by mid-2010.

Reuters obtained a draft document jointly prepared by the countries, in which they state the negotiating group should complete its work by 2010. Other countries have suggested December 2010 as a deadline, an issue that could present a sticking point.

The document also states that rich nations must not create border tariffs that would undermine the economic advantages for emerging nations under a global treaty. Lawmakers in the U.S. and other developed nations have discussed creating such tariffs to limit the impact on domestic businesses from competition in countries without tough carbon limits.

Funding for Emerging Countries

The draft document also calls for the creation of a global climate fund to help developing countries prepare for and mitigate against climate change, to be administered by the Global Environment Facility.

UN Climate Secretary De Boer wants developed nations to immediately fund $10 billion a year for this purpose--though estimates for funding needed in later years is much higher.

The US proposed that such a fund should be managed by the World Bank, according to a New York Times report. This proposal is likely to draw opposition from activists who believe the World Bank favors fossil fuel development and rich nations.

The NY Times report suggests the US may commit to initial funding of $1.3 billion.

Bangladesh environment minister Hasan Mahmud Khondoker told a news conference today, that his country is entitled to ask for at least 15% of any climate adaptation fund, because it is the most vulnerable to climate change.

"The population of our one coastal district is bigger than the entire population of all island countries and in that consideration at least 15% of any climate fund should come to us," he said. (Reuters coverage)

The President of the Africa Development Bank (AfDB) said rich nations should commit $40 billion a year to help Afica adjust to global warming. "Climate change is costing this continent almost 3 percent of GDP (gross domestic product) per year. Now translate that into numbers, the kind of things we need: about $40 billion a year," he told Reuters in an interview.

South Africa Steps Up

South Africa offered a birght spot in the news cycle. The country said it will reduce its carbon emissions 34% by 2020, from estimated business-as-usual levels for that year.

"This undertaking is conditional on firstly a fair, ambitious and effective agreement," a South African government statement said. "And secondly, the provision of support from the international community, and in particular finance, technology and support."

Read the full BBC story at the link below.

Website: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8398775.stm

Reprinted with permission from