What would Failure at Copenhagen Mean?

This piece in Scientific American by Douglas Fischer does a great job of exploring a bunch of angles to the international negotiations taking place in Copenhagen this December, and what they mean for preventing catastrophic climate change.  Notable excerpts below

“This is the consequence of failure at Copenhagen: A marked shift in scientific effort from solving global warming to adapting to its consequences, a hodge-podge of uncoordinated local efforts to trim emissions – none of which deliver the necessary cuts – and an altered climate.

Climate experts, scientists and negotiators say that, absent international agreement, the children and grandchildren of those living today will negotiate a world where planetary geo-engineering is a part of daily life, sea-walls defend coastal cities, the world’s poor are hammered by drought, floods and famine and our planet is heading toward conditions unseen for the last 100 million years.

The December talks are, in other words, the last, best chance to change course before chaos descends.”

“Copenhagen is mitigation,” said Guy Brasseur, director of the Climate Service Center in Hamburg, Germany. “If that fails, we move to adaptation and geo-engineering.”

Adaptation will require hundreds of billions of dollars on the low end. It will force a vast transfer of wealth, technology and aid from industrialized counties to developing ones. That buys no more than a Band-aid for those most at risk, said Saleemul Huq, head of the climate change group at the London-based International Institute for Environment and Development”

“Previous negotiations all pointed to 2009 as the year to draw a line in the sand, but it’s more than just a diplomatic deadline. By virtually every metric – emissions, deforestation, fuel use, land development, economic growth – business-as-usual projections point to catastrophe.

“Civilization will experience the greatest disruption in its history,” said Jeffrey Kiehl, a senior scientist at NCAR’s climate change research program. “We’re applying a forcing to the planet that it hasn’t seen for tens to hundreds of millions of years, … when there was no ice at either pole.”

“I don’t think we want to go down that path.”

“For the scientists, their job in some ways is done. Climate disruption is now a political question, an economics issue, a security threat.  ”Clearly it’s hard to think how we could better present the case,” said Brasseur, the Climate Service Center director. “The science has been very clear.”

“It is now up for society to decide.”

“There is time, Brasseur said, but not much: If delegates cannot seal the deal in Copenhagen but can make sufficient progress to deliver an agreement within five years, the talks can be considered successful.

WRI’s Morgan, who has spent a decade playing key roles at UN climate talks, takes a harder line. After December, there is not enough time to get a treaty ratified and in place by 2012, when Kyoto expires, she said. Countries and industries need to know what market mechanisms and signals will be in place post-Kyoto.”

“In some ways, that’s the great irony of climate change. So many of the initial impacts from a carbon-intensive lifestyle are first hitting those who use the least amount of carbon: Drought in the Sahel, floods in Bangladesh, changing agriculture patterns in India, parts of Asia and Africa, increased water stress for millions living downslope of the Andes and Himalaya.

That will change, scientists predict, and discussion over how to adapt will move quickly from the Third World to the First.

Soon – absent steep cuts and the pressure of a global treaty – politicians across the United States will confront questions that make budget woes and health care costs seem downright quaint, said Brasseur.

“Where will I get my water? What is my strategy (for adaptation)? …. How am I going to have enough food to feed all of California?” he said, rattling off a hypothetical list.

By then the solutions may carry a frightful cost.

“The later we take action, the more we have (climate) impact,” Brasseur said.

“And that impact is going to be irreversible.”

Coal Front Group “Hijacks Veterans, Dishonors Veterans Day”

This is according to Veteran Richard Allen Smith, a member of the group VoteVets and Operation Free, in response to an e-mail sent out by ACCCE, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, which reads

“Greetings!

With Veterans Day around the corner, we wanted to take a moment to reflect on all the military personnel who are involved in ensuring our country is protected.

Energy security is one issue that has become increasingly important to our veterans. In fact, national veterans groups Votevets and Operation Free are urging the government to become more energy independent and less reliant on foreign oil.

We can do this by using the abundant domestic fuels we already have. With more than 250 billion tons of recoverable coal reserves, the United States has more coal than the Middle East has oil.

We need to start putting our coal to use – and technologies such as hybrid-electric cars and cleaner, more efficient power plants are making it easier for us to do that.

How do you feel about the issue? Let us know on Facebook or Twitter.

As always, thank you for your continued support. We hope to hear from you!

Cheers,

The ACCCE Team”

This e-mail is of course misrepresenting what VoteVets and Operation Free advocate for.  As Smith writes, the groups are not advocating for increased coal use…

“ACCCE got one thing right. Veterans do have a unique perspective to offer on national security as it relates to climate change and clean energy. Producers of non-renewable energy are lobbying against clean energy legislation and are implying that we’re campaigning for their energy plan. The fact that they are attempting to hitch on to our wagon (albeit falsely) shows the level of credibility we have in this debate.  ACCCE, a coalition of carbon polluters, understands that the work their members do is part of the problem.

VoteVets and Operation FREE are not, have not and will never advocate the continued use of carbon based fuels. Such an action would be completely counter to the work we do, as so called “clean  coal” only pushes us closer to inevitable catastrophic climate change and threatens our national security. For the ACCCE to hijack America’s Veterans who are working to ensure secure, clean American energy alternatives while simultaneously claiming to honor us on Veterans Day is an act of despicable hubris.”

I don’t think many are surprised that ACCCE is willing to stoop so low in order to protect their own interests, but this gaffe certainly doesn’t help their side.