Secondly - I've been away for a bit - but the impression I got from the media is one of Obama rescuing some sort of s deal - any sort of a deal - from the shambles of a chaotic process which had too many actors and conflicting agendas ever to have had any prospect of success.  As such it is a minor PR rescue operation for Obama, and nothing more.  Certainly no meaningful progress in any objective sense.

If this debacle does not lead to some review and improvement of the process of how global Treaties are negotiated, I don't know what will.

The only positive I can take from the outcome is that the responsibility for taking the process forward now seems to lie squarely where it has to - on the largest polluters - China and the USA.  Europe is already a good deal more efficient in per capita and as proportion of GDP terms - and so has less scope for dramatic improvement in the short term.

The EU offer of 30% off 1990 levels compares to the US paltry offer of 3% off 1990 co2 levels - so how much further could the EU be expected to go especially when US 1990 levels were already so much higher?

While it is regrettable that the EU has now lost its leadership position in the one area of policy where it did have a global leadership position - in this case the spotlight has to be, and needs to be on the US and China.

I don't know if this will lead to a more positive outcome for COP16 - hopefully all leaders will be keen to avoid another Copenhagen cop-out - but the US claim for global leadership on anything positive will be on the table - as will China's pretensions to a global superpower role.

Perhaps the EU should start imposing a carbon tax on all imports (and local production) to reward the more efficient producers, but I suspect more unilateral action will be required before the global polity can move forward.  

notes from no w here

If that 20% reduction was more than the rest of the World (US, BRIC, the G77...) wanted to bargain for, that would explain the EU being sidelined.

If this is the situation it's clear the rest of the world is embarking on a business-as-usual course. The EU doesn't need to follow. I suppose the EU should just press ahead with a transition to a low-carbon economy and start working seriously on climate disaster preparedness and climate change mitigation.

Eventually the whole thing might result in a trade war when the EU starts imposing carbon tariffs on products from the rest of the world.

Or maybe the EU's negotiating position was just intended for domestic public consumption and nothing will be done here either.

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma

Efforts to secure a legally binding climate change deal failed last week because talks were "held to ransom" by a small number of countries, British prime minister Gordon Brown said today.

As the UK pointed the finger of blame at China for blocking progress at the UN-sponsored summit in Copenhagen, he called for a new international body to take charge of future negotiations.

Days of chaotic talks between more than 190 countries produced an accord that average world temperature rises should not exceed 2C but without commitments to emissions cuts to achieve it.

There was also agreement on a fund, to reach 100 billion US dollars by 2020, to help poorer countries deal with global warming, but no precise detail on where the money will come from.

Mr Brown, who spent four days in the Danish capital trying to secure a stronger deal, admitted that he feared the talks could collapse without even

those advances. In a webcast to be posted on the Number 10 site, he pledged to continue pressing for a binding deal and demanded action to ensure a minority of countries could not block future efforts.

"The talks in Copenhagen were not easy. and, as they reached conclusion, I did fear the process would collapse and we would have no deal at all," he said. "Yet, through strength of common purpose, we were able finally to break the deadlock and - in a breakthrough never seen on this scale before - secure agreement from the international community."

Calling on the world to "learn lessons" from last week's frantic scenes, he said: "Never again should we face the deadlock that threatened to pull down those talks; never again should we let a global deal to move towards a greener future be held to ransom by only a handful of countries.

"One of the frustrations for me was the lack of a global body with the sole responsibility for environmental stewardship. I believe that in 2010 we will need to look at reforming our international institutions to meet the common challenges we face as a global community."

Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband earlier accused China of "hijacking" the Copenhagen summit and said Beijing had "vetoed" moves to give legal force to the accord and prevented agreement on 50 per cent global reductions in greenhouse emissions - 80 per cent in the most developed countries - by 2050.

Despite his frustrations, Mr Miliband insisted that Britain was right to sign the limited Copenhagen accord, which he said delivered "real outcomes" on temperature rises and finance. "We should take heart from the achievements and step up our efforts," he said.

Global temperatures could rise more than expected, new study shows

New Haven, Conn.--The kinds of increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide taking place today could have a significantly larger effect on global temperatures than previously thought, according to a new study led by Yale University geologists. Their findings appear December 20 in the advanced online edition of Nature Geoscience.

The team demonstrated that only a relatively small rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) was associated with a period of substantial warming in the mid- and early-Pliocene era, between three to five million years ago, when temperatures were approximately 3 to 4 degrees Celsius warmer than they are today.

Climate sensitivity--the mean global temperature response to a doubling of the concentration of atmospheric CO2--is estimated to be 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius, using current models.

"These models take into account only relatively fast feedbacks, such as changes in atmospheric water vapor and the distribution of sea ice, clouds and aerosols," said Mark Pagani, associate professor of geology and geophysics at Yale and lead author of the paper. "We wanted to look at Earth-system climate sensitivity, which includes the effects of long-term feedbacks such as change in continental ice-sheets, terrestrial ecosystems and greenhouse gases other than CO2."

To do this, the team focused on the most recent episode of sustained global warmth with geography similar to today's. Their reconstructed CO2 concentrations for the past five million years was used to estimate Earth-system climate sensitivity for a fully equilibrated state of the planet, and found that a relatively small rise in CO2 levels was associated with substantial global warming 4.5 million years ago. They also found that the global temperature was 2 to 3 degrees Celsius higher than today while CO2 levels were only between about 365 and 415 parts per million (ppm)--similar to today's concentration of about 386 ppm.

"This work and other ancient climate reconstructions reveal that Earth's climate is more sensitive to atmospheric carbon dioxide than is discussed in policy circles," Pagani said. "Since there is no indication that the future will behave differently than the past, we should expect a couple of degrees of continued warming even if we held CO2 concentrations at the current level."

With the Social Dominates controlling the Right Wing Authoritarians we're smack into the scenario Altemeyer ran: No Action Taken.  This was the scenario with the largest percentage of global depopulation that didn't have a war.  

With governments and other Public Bodies ignoring or refusing to deal with the problems we're going to have people had best start making plans on their own.


She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

Anyone for some clash of civilizations for Iraqs I and II, Pakistan v India, Afghanistan. Y'all know yer Eurohistory bettern' I do.

So now I hear the scientists telling us, as they have before, that if we don't DO some particular things, we're going to force war through climate crashes. Sounds right to me, and I see CopOutFifteen more like CopOutFifteenHundred. Sad. I thought we had scared ourselves sorta straight with NukeFear, but it looks like we'll Holocaust half the world population, mostly non-white, retain our technology, and do a Never Again Again.

Sad really. I don't hope much anymore, unless the regular people on the Internet learn to filter the facts from the bullshit. Could happen. Probably won't.

As Woody Guthrie sang "I'm just hanging around to see what happens next."

Donate to Wikipedia!

OECD - Paris, 23 December 2009

OECD Secretary-General looks beyond Copenhagen

 "Though far from perfect, the Copenhagen Accord is a hard-fought political agreement. With most countries likely to sign, it is a breakthrough towards collective international action to limit global emissions and help build cleaner, more resilient economies", said OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurría.

The Accord's package of measures, which includes new financing for developing countries, was agreed by leaders of both the largest emitting countries and small vulnerable states. It was also noted by the fifteenth Conference of the Parties of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

"We look forward to working with Mexico and the broader international community, ideally to establish a legally-binding agreement for post-2012 action under the UNFCCC by the 16th Conference of Parties (COP16) in Mexico City in 2010.  To achieve this agreement, international organisations have a major role to play by informing the discussions and helping negotiating parties reach a common understanding of the issues at stake".

In the coming year, the OECD will contribute to international efforts by engaging in discussions with governments, advising on the design, and encouraging the implementation of cost-effective policies to adapt to and mitigate climate change.

Countries' declared emissions reduction targets are not yet enough. OECD analysis suggests that developed countries would reduce emissions by only 18% in 2020 compared with 1990 levels, still below the 25-40% reduction needed to stay within a 2oC temperature increase.  Developing countries also need to go further. OECD will support efforts to help both developed and developing countries identify where they can step-up reductions, while still growing the economy.

Given the climate change that is already likely to take place, we will also step-up analysis of how to integrate adaptation to climate change into all aspects of economic development.  Much of the focus will be on ways to assist developing countries to best manage the risks and make their development resilient to the impacts of climate change.

On the issue of financing, OECD is investigating mechanisms for innovative international finance.  It is looking at ways governments can ensure that their domestic policy frameworks set the right price for carbon and send the right signal to encourage private investment to support a low-carbon society.  For example, recent OECD analysis found that, if the proper mix of policies and instruments to price carbon is put in place to reduce emissions by 20% in developed countries by 2020, this could raise the equivalent of 2.5% of their GDP.  While there will be many competing demands for using these revenues, a fraction of that amount would be enough to supply the public money developed countries agreed to provide in the Copenhagen Accord.

In addition, OECD is advancing policy options to stimulate innovation, from the early stages of technology development through to diffusion and transfer. Easy and rapid access to low-carbon technologies and technologies that can support adaptation will be critical to ensuring timely and effective action in developing countries.  OECD is also looking at ways to better inform consumer and industry choices and working with sub-national governments to identify and disseminate good local-level policy practices to reduce emissions.

Last but not least, to help advance the Accord, OECD will build on existing work to propose ways to measure, report and verify (MRV) timely progress on national emissions reduction targets, mitigation efforts and finance. This will be critical to ensure the transparent accountability of actions by all countries.

For more information visit: oecd.org/cop15

FWIW