The AWG-LCA’s chair Michael Zammit Cutajar feels good, got some sleep. 
Discussions at the AWG-LCA area have started, they realise – finally – that time is short. There’s a problem at AWG-KP (EU and the African Union), but at AWG-LCA things are better. In the area of mitigation contact group there are no subgroups, everything is happening under one big group. Would be good to get all LCA’s work into one contact group for Copenhagen, to bring everything together. The specific figures for finance and mitigation are still being debated. Hopefully the outcome of Copenhagen will be legally binding. It’s also important that the outcome conveys a clear political message to the world. Decision should give rise to an immediate action, not depending on what decisions might follow or be added later. All that should translate into a legally binding, ratifiable treaty. But because there’s no consensus on that, Michael Cutajar doesn’t have a personal confidence that there will be no a legally binding treaty ready by the December 18th. But hopefully it will create conditions for a creation of such treaty shortly after COP15.
Questions & answers:
Q: Can the different views converge under the Convention, as they are supposed under the Bali Action Plan?
A: There’s different understanding of the UNFCCC. The convention is a framework. It’s been filled with content for the past 15 years. It’s a construction, it’s guided by certain principles and provisions. The main contempt is what is common and what is differentiated responsibility?
Apart from the negotiation that will be happening at Copenhagen in December, the climate negotiation is an ongoing year long process. At this point, the negotiation has taken foot at Barcelona, Spain. The last place government officials will convene prior to its final destinations in Denmark. And yes, the usual welcome picture and welcome address in the settings below.
But like any other negotiations, we always look forward to the civil society to come up with creative means to push hard to get the targets done through the influence of media and people action. Today, an interesting action was done called “Waking up Barcelona”.
In the cloudy early Barcelona morning today, I’m stood with a group of people winding up more than 1000 bright green alarm clocks. The action was trying to give the government negotiators attending this meeting another urgent “wake up” call, from the people of the world, that we need a bold climate deal, now.
It was a powerful message. With thousands of clocks assembled in front of
the conference centre, and “350″ and “TckTckTck” t-shirts and signs all around the entrance area. These were people that made up of Barcelona residents, conference observers, and fellow climate friends that gathered together to chat so loud that the arriving negotiators could not ignore as the alarms began to sound.
This week’s meeting in Barcelona is the last chance for the critical elements of an international agreement to fight climate change to be thrashed out before Copenhagen.
Campaign director, Ben Margolis, addressed the crowd saying progress on the new climate deal had to date been beset by unacceptable delays, “We stand here today united to tell our leaders that time is running out to agree a fair, ambitious and binding climate deal”
And not forgetting a few “big head” action on leaders of countries on their opinions about giving money to the climate negotiations
What a great day to begin the climate negotiation in Barcelona.
Wilson
(With love…from Barcelona)
I refer to the two articles in the Straits Times (published Friday, 30 October) regarding Singapore and its position on climate change. First off, Andy Ho’s article smacks of irresponsibility and misleading statements on the state of play of climate science. Climate science indeed does have its uncertainties. There are many variables to the climate system and it is therefore impossible to accurately predict the exact extent of climate change that will occur in the coming years. However, it is beyond reasonable doubt that current climatic changes are anthropogenic (human-induced). Carbon dioxide levels are currently at 387 parts per million (ppm) as of July 2009 and still rising at around 2 ppm annually. This level has not been witnessed in the climate system for over 800,000 years. The scientific consensus on climate change is also very conclusive. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which includes 2500 scientific experts from 130 countries has concluded with the publication of their peer-reviewed 4th Assessment Report in 2007 that recent climatic changes is very likely (over 90%) attributed to human causes. Furthermore, numerous national academies of science and various academies from the disciplines of earth science, paleoclimatology, meteorology, oceanography, biology and human health and come out and concluded that the debate of climate science is over and the world must take serious action to avoid its far-ranging deleterious impacts.
Andy Ho’s points on climate science dissent have been proven to be false. The petition project supposedly signed by over 9000 scientists has been found out to be a fraud. The National Academy of Sciences of the United States has said that its signatories were not experts in climate science. The only criterion for someone to sign it would be a bachelor’s degree in any science discipline. In addition, some of the signatories were discovered to be fake, showing the dubious process of how it gathers names. These have included an actor, a fictional character and a spice girl. Lord Christopher Monckton similarly has no training in any scientific discipline and his credibility on such issues cannot be trusted. According to an August 12, 2005 New York Times article, Roy Spencer admitted his satellite data research that he said demonstrated a cooling in the troposphere was flawed. Interestingly, the exact opposite is occurring and the troposphere is getting warmer. Occurences of extreme weather have increased largely in recent years as well as forest fires, drought and desertification. Summer arctic ice and glaciers have been decreasing in size year on year. Sea level rise have been recorded in many low-lying areas, especially in the Pacific islands and ocean acidification has caused coral reefs to bleach significantly, causing irreversible damages to many ecosystems. These are just a few of the many negative impacts of climate change already being seen.
At this point in time, it is extremely disappointing to note that with the impacts of climate change becoming ever more tangible and severe that we as a nation are still dithering in our efforts to tackle this problem. It is encouraging to note that measures highlighted in the sustainability blueprint especially with regards to green buildings, energy efficiency and recycling. However, the fact that there are no concrete plans to decrease our absolute emissions is without a doubt very discouraging. Per capita wise, we are one of the highest emitters of greenhouse gases. Some have argued that a significant amount is attributed to manufactured products that are to be exported. While this is very true, we cannot discount that we also import a large amount of carbon-intensive products for our own consumption and we are no doubt a very materialist country. In addition, while we only contribute to around 0.2% of global emissions, we cannot say this is insignificant. Around 165 countries in the world emit the same amount or less and therefore, cumulatively, add up to a significant portion of worldwide emissions. It would be flawed to use the argument that we should not cut emissions as if each of these nations would do the same, a large proportion of the problem would not be mitigated.
As a responsible member of the global community, we must cut our absolute emissions. First of all, as mentioned time and time again, we must recognize that environmental protection and economic growth are not mutually exclusive goals and therefore a transition to a low-carbon economy presents considerable opportunities to diversify our economy. Therefore, specific emission reduction cuts would send a signal to all of society from industry to the average consumer that it is imperative to internalize the negative externalities caused by carbon-intensive economic development. It will be a clear step to massively incentivize low-carbon growth. Many in the world have argued that having mandatory emissions cuts will have disastrous impacts on the economy. However, recent studies have concluded that a transitioning to a 350 ppm scenario would entail a cost of 3-4% of global GDP, insignificant if put into perspective. If the world can spend trillions of dollars on short-term stimulus measures to get us out of the current economic crisis, why cannot we mobilize similar amounts of money to invest in our planet and humanity’s long-term future. The cost of inaction will definitely ruin our economy to a worse extent. If we allow the effects of climate change to continue, it will only do us more harm. The costs of increased natural disasters, extreme weather and crop failures will be exarcebated in the future. The choice to make is clear-cut and simple, whether Singapore and the world can muster up the political will to do so would be the big question.
If you’re pondering whether to read this because it seems like another loaded post (after the slew of heavyweight articles over the last week), well, don’t worry, because as this is really more of a snack than what the title may suggest. I recently chanced upon this article published by the Guardian, which discusses the impact of meat production on climate change.
Indeed, given the need to slash greenhouse gas emission across the board, the significance of the meat trade cannot be overlooked. The fact that meat is an inefficient source of energy has been discussed to the death – given that they are higher up in the food chain than vegetables, which are primary producers, consumption of meat requires that the energy from the sun go through levels of energy transfer, during which a significant amount of that energy is lost.
Furthermore, livestock is infamous for the amount of methane that is further emitted over the life cycle of the animals, primarily in the form of eructation and flatulence (that’s burps and farts).
On the whole, as the article points out, worldwide livestock farming generates 18% of the world’s greenhouse gas emission, while transport accounts for only (that’s relative!) 13%. This is against a backdrop of surging demand for meat as increasing wealth and prosperity in developing nations leads to greater demand for meat products.
As we look towards the governments for greater political will in addressing the pressing problem of climate change, perhaps it is also wise to examine our lifestyle habits and to act more responsibly in our capacity as citizens of a developed nation.
One does not have to give up meat completely, of course, but cutting down on consumption would surely help. Not to mention that this is only one aspect of our embarrassingly extravagant lifestyles that could use some work.
And if that doesn’t move you, then let me appeal to your vanity: Paris Hilton never got her waistline stuffing her face with meat (not that anyone should aspire to be like her).
Meanwhile, you might like to read more about how noisy emission of gases from various bovine orifices is an important contributor to global warming in the following article:
—————————–
The Methane Makers
Dan Bell
BBC News
The man behind one of the most influential reports on climate change, Lord Stern, has highlighted the impact meat production has on greenhouse gas emissions. Part of it comes through methane made by the animals as they digest food. So which farm animals expel the most methane?
A diet that relies heavily on meat production results in higher emissions than a typical vegetarian diet, says Lord Stern.
The author of the 2006 Stern Review into the cost of climate change attacked the “enormous pressure” meat production puts on the world’s resources and said people were becoming increasingly aware about “low carbon consumption”.
He told the BBC that cutting greenhouse gas emissions was important across the board, in areas such as electricity, transport and food.
In a 2006 report, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) concluded that worldwide livestock farming generates 18% of the planet’s greenhouse gas emissions. By comparison, it said, all the world’s cars, trains, planes and boats accounted for a combined 13% of greenhouse gas emissions.
Belching
The greenhouse gas emissions associated with meat consumption has many components, the largest of which is land use change – the clearing of forests for pasture or for the production of soya for animal feed. Other elements that have an impact on emissions include the rearing and slaughter of livestock, and the transport, refrigeration and cooking of meat.
There is also the nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas, in the manure of animals reared for meat and the methane, another greenhouse gas, in their flatulence. Molecule for molecule, methane has a much larger warming effect than carbon dioxide.
As the diagram above shows, methane emission is dramatically higher in cows (primarily from belching) than other animals. But cutting back on eating meat is not the simple answer, say scientists.
For a start, many of the cows responsible for producing methane are not reared to be eaten, according to Elaine Matthews, a methane expert at Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
The breeds favoured in non-western countries are often bred for other uses, such as work, and these non-western cows are far more numerous than the larger dairy varieties reared in North America and Europe.
The larger western cows actually produce more methane per cow than their smaller non-western breeds, but because there are fewer of them, they only account for about 15% of all the methane produced by cows in general.
Meat output ‘doubling’
Ms Matthews also says the quantity of methane they produce depends on the quality of food they are given. Cows that eat grain, she says, produce less methane than cows grazing on wild grass.
And methane is not the most important consideration in relation to livestock, says Friends of the Earth – it’s the intensity with which they are reared.
According to the environmental pressure group, methane from livestock accounts for about 6% of greenhouse gas emissions, with 6% from CO2 released when forests are cleared for pasture and to produce soy for feeds.
What is clear is that people are eating more meat and dairy products every year.
Global meat production is projected to more than double from 229 million tonnes in 1999/2001 to 465 million tonnes in 2050, while milk output is set to climb from 580 to 1043 million tonnes.
Hi guys!
I am so so excited about our party that SupperClub has so very generously agreed to sponsor. We did the photoshoot yesterday at the park and I am astounded by how amazing this entirely youth-run event will be: Our talented photographer and designer, JingLiang, is an NTU ADM student, Charm our brilliant make-up artist is with Raffles Design, and our two GORGEOUS models, my friends Johan and Shu Min, are students in NUS. Then of course there is me and Eileen, the “two assistants” for the day!!
To be honest, I was really nervous about the shoot when I got up yesterday morning. It had stormed the night before and I just knew that the ground would be soaking wet—how the heck were we supposed to get the models to be barefoot on the icky,muddy ground, much less lie on it for the poses we wanted to achieve? Thank GOODNESS (and of course, credits to mother earth) the sunlight prevailed and our 2 excellently good-natured, impeccably beautiful models humoured us by obeying JingLiang’s every command.
[On a side note, I'd felt so sinfully creepy/presumptuous to be buying nude underwear for Shu Min and so embarrasingly naughty to be in a men's department trying to figure out with the impatient salesgirl what "size" Johan's boxers ought to be! LOL]
Here are the teaser pictures to entice you before the real poster and tickets are done up.
Date: 20 Nov 2009
Door opens at 9pmWatch this space for more details on the night’s programme!
