Maybe I was too hasty to get depressed about Copenhagen.

Sounds like I might have reason for optimism. First I checked out the interview with James Hansen that I posted previously. Now I've found this post from Joe Romm over at Climate Progress.

It seems that the agreement reached in the final hours of Copenhagen, regardless of the shame of how the developing world and civil society was shut out, could end up being the best outcome we could have hoped for.

Could be.
Check it out.
What do you think?

Copenhagen!? I couldn't have said it better than Monbiot

As the last 2 weeks rolled by I got more and more disgusted and depressed. Now the big finish, I wanted to blog about it but Mr. Monbiot says it far better. Here are some excerpts;

" ... It’s as if democratisation and the flowering of civil society, advocacy and self-determination had never happened. Governments, whether elected or not, without reference to their own citizens let alone those of other nations, assert their right to draw lines across the global commons and decide who gets what. This is a scramble for the atmosphere comparable in style and intent to the scramble for Africa.

At no point has the injustice at the heart of multilateralism been addressed or even acknowledged: the interests of states and the interests of the world’s people are not the same. Often they are diametrically opposed. In this case, most rich and rapidly developing states have sought through these talks to seize as great a chunk of the atmosphere for themselves as they can – to grab bigger rights to pollute than their competitors. The process couldn’t have been better designed to produce the wrong results....

This idiocy has been aided and abetted by the nations characterised, until now, as the good guys: those which have made firm commitments, only to invalidate them with loopholes, false accounting and outsourcing. In all cases immediate self-interest has trumped the long-term welfare of humankind. Corporate profits and political expediency have proved to be more urgent concerns than either the natural world or human civilisation. Our political systems are incapable of discharging the main function of government: to protect us from each other."

See the previous post for a more positive note on what we all can do.

It's up to us.

Naresh Giangrande of the Transition Network is at Copenhagen and has posted a very interesting blog post over at Transition Culture

Here is the bit that I find most interesting and distressing at the same time.
"This leads to an uncomfortable conclusion, and one which Bill McKibben of 350.org came to, that there will be no treaty to protect us against climate change. It is just too politically unrealistic. That means that if we are to create a resilient world it will be down to us, civil society to create it. It will be down to non governmental organisations, campaigners, and activists, permaculturalists and organic gardeners."

Video - Copenhagen Kids

"Six kids tell the world leaders how it is from the very room where the Climate Change talks will take place in December 2009."

6 key messages from Copenhagen

2,500 of the worlds scientists from 80 countries have gathered in Copenhagen to build consensus and draw conclusions about the acceleration of the degradation of the planets' climate . The full report will come out in June but they have 6 key points ready for distribution now. I found them over on World Changing

Those of you who visit this blog regularly won't be surprised to learn that my favorite is #5 "Inaction is inexcusable". No Kidding?! Also, I especially like part of #6, "reducing the influence of vested interests that increase emissions and reduce resilience;".

Meanwhile, short term thinking threatens to stall progress in Congress, read more, again, over on World Changing.

I've been trying to scan US media, ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN, for the last several days of this Copenhagen meeting and have seen nary a mention of it. I did see it on the BBC, as expected. To paraphrase one quote, "Scientists warn that worst case scenarios mentioned 2 years ago are already coming to pass." There is no shortage of Chevron ads on US media though. Please let me know if you see coverage of the Copenhagen meeting in America. On a brighter note I caught David Letterman talking to Tom Brokaw about global warming, and their individual efforts and involvement, on the tonight show.

"The scientists' six key messages are:

1) Climatic trends

Recent observations confirm that, given high rates of observed emissions, the worst-case IPCC scenario projections (or even worse) are being realised. For many key parameters, the climate is already moving beyond the patterns of natural variability within which our society and economy have developed and thrived. These parameters include global mean surface temperature, sea-level rise, ocean and ice sheet dynamics, ocean acidification, and extreme climatic events. There is a significant risk that many of the trends will accelerate, leading to an increasing risk of abrupt or irreversible climatic shifts.

2) Social disruption

The research community is providing much more information to support discussions on "dangerous climate change". Recent observations show that societies are highly vulnerable to even modest levels of climate change, with poor nations and communities particularly at risk. Temperature rises above 2C will be very difficult for countries to cope with, and will increase the level of climate disruption through the rest of the century.

3) Long-term strategy

Rapid, sustained, and effective mitigation based on coordinated global and regional action is required to avoid "dangerous climate change" regardless of how it is defined. Weaker targets for 2020 increase the risk of crossing tipping points and make the task of meeting 2050 targets more difficult. Delay in initiating effective mitigation actions increases significantly the long-term social and economic costs of both adaptation and mitigation.

4) Equity dimensions

Climate change is having, and will have, strongly differential effects on people within and between countries and regions, on this generation and future generations, and on human societies and the natural world. An effective, well-funded adaptation safety net is required for those people least capable of coping with climate change impacts, and a common but differentiated mitigation strategy is needed to protect the poor and most vulnerable.

5) Inaction is inexcusable

There is no excuse for inaction. We already have many tools and approaches — economic, technological, behavioural, management — to deal effectively with the climate change challenge. But they must be vigorously and widely implemented to achieve the societal transformation required to decarbonise economies. A wide range of benefits will flow from a concerted effort to alter our energy economy now, including sustainable energy job growth, reductions in the health and economic costs of climate change, and the restoration of ecosystems and revitalisation of ecosystem services.

6) Meeting the challenge

To achieve the societal transformation required to meet the climate change challenge, we must overcome a number of significant constraints and seize critical opportunities. These include reducing inertia in social and economic systems; building on a growing public desire for governments to act on climate change; removing implicit and explicit subsidies; reducing the influence of vested interests that increase emissions and reduce resilience; enabling the shifts from ineffective governance and weak institutions to innovative leadership in government, the private sector and civil society; and engaging society in the transition to norms and practices that foster sustainability.

This piece originally appeared in the Environment section of the Guardian"