Members of the Maldives Cabinet meet underwater on October 17. Photo: 350.org on Flickr

In December, delegates from most of the countries from around the globe gathered in Copenhagen to discuss how to slow the pace of climate change.

While no full-scale agreement was reached, a political accord emerged from the conference, which China and India endorsed just last week.

But rather than discussing the big greenhouse gas emitters, we want to look deeper at the immediate consequences of climate change on small islands — from the Caribbean to the South Pacific.

Joining Martin Savidge are Ronald Jumeau and May Boeve to discuss:

• Copenhagen conference: results, shortcomings and lessons
• Best/worst-case scenarios: small islands, climate change and the future
• U.S./wider world: carbon emissions, regulation and Obama’s policies

GUESTS:

Ronald Jumeau has been the Permanent Representative of the Seychelles to the United Nations since 2007. Previously, he served as Minister for the Environment and Natural Resources, and as Minister for Culture and Infomation.

May Boeve is a co-founder of the climate change group 350.org, where she works on international partnerships and political strategy. Previously, she worked on the Step It Up campaign, which helped shape the debate about global warming policy in the U.S.

CREDITS:
Host: Martin Savidge
Producer: Ben Piven

Some studies predict sea levels could climb six feet by the end of the century due to climate change. For the Maldives, an island chain off the southwest coast of India with a population of about 300,000, such a change would be disastrous.

For a look at how the Maldives are trying to deal with the problem, Worldfocus producer Megan Thompson traveled there recently as part of an 18-day trip sponsored by the U.N. Environmental Program.

In this extended interview, he talks about why he believes his nation faces grave danger from climate change — and how the Maldives hopes to set a positive example by becoming the world’s first carbon-neutral country.

Watch our signature story, Creeping seas threaten tiny island chain of Maldives.

In the Caribbean, she heard from residents of Grenada and Antigua how rising tides are dramatically effecting their livelihoods.

The report was sponsored by the U.N. Environmental Program and the Alliance of Small Island States. Some of the underwater footage was provided by Acqua Films.

Read Megan’s blog from the field: Message in a Bottle: reporting from Antigua and Grenada.

Grand Anse beach, Grenada. Photo: Flickr user tps58

The Association of Small Island States (AOSIS), an advocacy group of 42 states, has been pushing hard for action on climate change, which it argues could render many low-lying islands uninhabitable.

Worldfocus spoke with Dessima Williams, chair of AOSIS and Grenada’s Ambassador to the UN.

Worldfocus: The small island states pushed hard for a legally binding document to come out of Copenhagen, even introducing a different version of the Copenhagen Protocol. But the talks ended up producing a voluntary agreement. What is your reaction to this outcome?

Williams: First of all, the Copenhagen Accord does not represent a legally binding document, nor does it serve as the basis for the continuation of negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. This is exclusively a political document, providing guidance for individual countries to establish their own negotiating positions moving forward.

While we recognize the measurable progress that this Accord represents, we are generally disappointed with this substandard, insular document that does little to guarantee the safety and continued survival of the small island states. The level of ambition necessary to tackle climate change is simply not reflected in the Accord, and in substantive terms, ignores the scientific exigency of this impending climatic catastrophe.

Worldfocus: Industrialized nations did agree to create a fund that will help small, developing countries cope with the effects of climate change. Are you satisfied with the terms of this fund, and are you confident the funds will start to flow soon?

Williams: The special access fund that was created is a first step in staving off the worst effects of climate change, which the small island states will inevitably be the first to suffer. However, as it based more on political needs and compromises than genuine international compromise on legally-binding emissions limitations, it falls woefully short of producing meaningful change.

Undoubtedly, these funds are critical to our ability to adapt to climate change and our efforts to develop cleaner and more efficient economies. But without substantial cuts in emissions, the funds will only be used to delay the inevitable – complete destruction and immeasurable suffering.

Additionally, it remains to be seen whether the industrialized countries are able to follow through with their commitments, especially in the face of continuing global recession and fears of economic relapse.

Moreover, the notion that oil-producing countries should be compensated for significantly reduced demand as a result of binding emissions targets –- one embodied in the Accord -– is illogical and radically inequitable. This will surely draw funds away from those countries that need them the most, and will work to further erode the legitimacy of future negotiations.

Worldfocus: “1.5 to Stay Alive” was your slogan going into Copenhagen was — meaning that your survival depends on global temperatures not rising above 1.5 degrees Celsius [about 3 degrees Farenheit]. But negotiators settled on a target of 2 degrees Celsius. What does this mean for small island states?

Williams: Our slogan will always, unequivocally remain “1.5 to Stay Alive,” regardless of the outcome of Copenhagen. This number is absolutely essential to our collective survival, in addition to the continued vitality of the Earth’s wide-ranging ecosystems and biodiversity.

While we consider it encouraging that this political accord agrees to an increase in global temperature of less than 2 degrees Celsius, we will continue to fight for less than 1.5 degrees C benchmark in all of our future negotiating sessions.

The science has explicitly demonstrated time and time again that a level of ambition which stabilizes global temperatures below 1.5 degrees C is required for the survival of our island states. Moreover, this number is both technologically and economically feasible –- per usual, only the politics lags behind this reality.

If this level is not reached, the international community is signaling its indifference to the certain doom of the small island nations, which in our mind is entirely deplorable.

Worldfocus: Is the United States doing enough on the issue of climate change? What would you like to see from the U.S. this year?

Williams: The United States is not doing anywhere near what it should be doing on the issue of climate change. Their legislative system is exasperatingly paralyzed by partisan politics, their environmental agencies are stymied by sharp budget cuts and leadership voids and their chief executive seems to be flustered –- or worse, unaware –- of the sheer magnitude of this global problem.

While the rhetoric is always stimulating and focused, federal actions do little to validate such promise. We are sincerely appreciative of the effort put forth by President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton at Copenhagen, and welcome the continued support of the administration in terms of both financing and resources.

However, their willingness to bypass the traditional fora for negotiation in favor of bilateral and multilateral side agreements with the largest emitters undermined the UN system and actively frustrated progress. Moreover, the political endgame waged constantly against China and the developing countries grew tiresome.

As for this coming year, it is critical that the U.S. pass some form of climate legislation to expedite the process of developing an international, legally-binding agreement at the COP16 [the next climate summit] in Mexico next November. This will give U.S. negotiators the leverage and legitimacy they need to play their role in facilitating this agreement crucial to our survival. Also, continued contribution to the “green fund” for adaptation is very important.

- Megan Thompson

These two rapidly growing economies have formally agreed this week to be part of the climate change accord that was worked at last December’s climate change conference in Copenhagen.

The nonbinding document calls for limiting the rise in global temperatures.

Andrew Potter of Al Jazeera English reports on the significance of the news.

Daljit Dhaliwal talks about the acute problem of deforestation in Indonesia with Michael Novacek, the provost of science at the American Museum of Natural History.

Perhaps most notable was how the nations of the developing world came together to make their case.

For more on the climate conference, Daljit Dhaliwal interviews Lane Greene, an international correspondent for The Economist who recently returned from Copenhagen.

Will the Copenhagen conference do anything to solve the problem of climate change?

Tell us what you think in the comments section below. Please be respectful and on-point. Malicious or offensive comments will be deleted, and repeat offenders will be banned.

But in Bangladesh, there is no such certainty, as locals attribute rising waters and lost land to global warming.

Step Vaessen of Al Jazeera English recently traveled to the island of Bhola in southern Bangladesh, where more than a million people have had to flee to higher ground.

The debate is often portrayed as an “either-or” proposition in which economic needs trump nature. But are these two really at odds with each other?

For a closer look at the impact of climate change on nature, Daljit Dhaliwal speaks with Steve Sanderson, president and CEO of the Wildlife Conservation Society.

On the key issue of helping developing nations deal with global warming, Hillary Clinton said that the U.S. would join other countries in raising $100 billion.

But the likely economic impact of cleaning up the environment is preventing many nations from committing to a regulatory blueprint.

Melissa Chan of Al Jazeera English reports from Shanxi province in the coal belt of northern China.

How concerned are you about the economic impact of tougher environmental standards?

Tell us what you think in the comments section below. Please be respectful and on-point. Malicious or offensive comments will be deleted, and repeat offenders will be banned.

. Traditional Chinese drummer takes part in a Global Day of Action on the environment. Photo: Greenpeace International

I want to write about China, but let me first take a moment to note that the leaders of the entire world are coming together, in the snow, to tackle a global threat. Yes, it’s chaotic and disappointing so far, but that such a gathering is taking place at all is somewhat amazing and hopeful.

The more each of us recognizes that we are world citizens as well as citizens of our nations, tribes, religions, etc, the better able we will be to find solutions to our common problems. If global warming has a silver lining, other than for Canadian farmers, it is that it encourages us to think in planetary terms.

Onto China. China has a lot of good reasons to demand all it can from the developed world at the Copenhagen summit. And the developed world needs to own up to its responsibility for past and current emission sins.

The U.S. has a long way to go to meet its own obligations, and we need to make up for the last eight years of irresponsible inaction. But the future of global warming belongs in large part to China.

The U.S. negotiator, Todd Stern, pointed out earlier in the summit that almost all the growth in emissions from now until 2030 will come from the developing world, half from China alone. At the end of the day, as a pivotal power, China has to be willing to sacrifice for the global common good.

In a recent report, I concluded that it is still rare for China to act proactively to solve global problems. But it has happened, as in the case of North Korea’s nuclear program — and on pandemics.

When it comes to global warming, with the international spotlight shining brightly, China did pledge to cut the amount of carbon dioxide emitted for each unit of its gross domestic product by 40 to 45 percent by 2020, compared with 2005 levels. That was a significant development, though not ambitious enough, according to many.

Now the sticking point seems to be “MRV.” China is refusing to have its targets be “measurable, reportable and verifiable.” Without that provision, other countries, most notably the U.S., will not know whether China is sticking to its commitment or not. China’s point of view is that the burden should be on the West to do more, not on them.

So what are China’s reasons for holding firm against developed world demands that they do more in a treaty on global warming?

• It’s the economy (and demography). The imperative to grow the Chinese economy, and safely manage its estimated 24 million unemployed (and thus hold onto political power) is an immediate mandate, requiring great energy resources, whereas the threat of global warming is more distant and will evolve more gradually. Moreover, the Chinese population is aging rapidly and could peak as early as 2020, which means that by 2035, China will be carrying an enormous elderly population. There is great pressure on China’s leaders to develop and grow the economy as quickly as possible.
• Equity. The Chinese argue that the West grew rich spewing carbon and that it is unfair to demand costly limitations from them at this stage in their development. Deborah Seligsohn explains: “Chinese scratch their heads. They know they live in tiny apartments, turn off all lights, wear three layers of clothing indoors in the winter, and only run the air conditioner on the hottest days. Then these Americans come to town on jets, blast the air conditioning and lecture them about their energy use.” The Chinese also argue that when Western nations import industrial and manufactured products en masse from China rather than producing them domestically, they effectively outsource their carbon emissions to China.
• Skepticism. The American Clean Energy and Security Act that passed in the U.S. House of Representatives earlier this year falls far short of where China thinks developed economies need to be. The Chinese are also skeptical about whether the United States will ultimately make it law and then implement it in a rigorous way. They also point out that the bill uses “offsets,” or credits for carbon that was not released but otherwise would have been, which China thinks is a politically expedient provision that could act as a major loophole.
• Suspicion. The belief that American demands for carbon reductions are motivated not by concern for the planet but by a desire to limit China’s growth and keep it weak continues to find some currency in China.
• Performance anxiety. China has set ambitious domestic targets for itself, as noted above. Yet the Chinese don’t want to commit to them internationally because they want to be able to outperform whatever they promise. They have a strong political incentive to exceed all targets. Beijing is also concerned that if they don’t make the targets, they won’t get credit for trying.
• Lagging self-perception. As it has happened so quickly, some Chinese leaders have not come to terms with the size of China’s impact. “It was like squeezing blood from a stone,” explains a senior U.N. official, requesting anonymity, “to even get the Chinese to realize even implicitly, let alone explicitly that they are now the world’s largest emitter.”
• Uncertainty. Climate targets being considered by the international community reach out to 2050. But China is likely to change between now and then in ways difficult to predict. The level of uncertainty is substantially higher than in most countries in the developing world and may contribute to a reluctance to commit internationally to long-term goals.
• Tactics. China may still be waiting to make its big move so it can “save the day.”
• Beijing’s limited leverage. While Beijing elites may prefer a more environmentally balanced growth structure, they sometimes can exert little control over provincial politicians who favor GDP growth at any cost.
• Wanting to keep its coalition together. China does not want to take actions that will separate it from its developing country caucus. China has worked hard to build relations with the developing world and does not want to be seen abandoning them but rather defending their interests in international arenas.

As I said, these are compelling reasons for trying to get the best deal possible. But they are not good enough to scuttle the possibility of a treaty that will help forestall the devastation a heating planet will visit on China, and every other part of the world.

I want to be hopeful and, generally, when heads of state show up, if things are going to happen, they happen. But in this case the divisions seem very deep.

And as much as the symbolism of more than 100 heads of state coming together is exciting, I worry they will bog down negotiations as much as help them. Still, here’s hoping China doesn’t want to pass up an excellent opportunity to look like the world’s savior.

Read much more at the Center for American Progress‘ climate change blog.

- Nina Hachigian

Worldfocus has selected four multimedia pieces from the Tibetan Plateau in Peril series that address climate change in Tibet, where glacial melting threatens to diminish the water supply for all of Asia — leading to potentially disastrous consequences for almost half the world’s population.

The plateau feeds most of the major river systems from China to Pakistan, including the Yellow, Yangtze, Mekong, Salween, Brahmaputra, Ganges and Indus. But the rapid retreat of its glaciers has jeopardized what glaciologist Lonnie Thompson has termed Asia’s “fresh water bank account.”

Rivers and lakes have depleting water levels, pastures are becoming drier, deserts are expanding and weather patterns are becoming more unpredictable. The Tibetan Plateau’s ecosystem are moving toward an environmental catastrophe that will have continental implications far beyond Tibet.

Watch Origins of Rivers: Omens of a Crisis:

An ancient Chinese proverb: When you drink the water, think about its source. Signs of water scarcity in the Yellow River watershed can be seen all the way back to its origin in Qinghai, where glaciers melt on the slopes of the sacred Tibetan mountain Anyemaqen.

The warming climate has endangered the human habitat in this area of the Tibetan Plateau. And hundreds of millions of people at lower altitudes in northern China are threatened by the Yellow River’s demise.

Read more about the Tibetan Plateau by Michael Zhao in the Far Eastern Economic Review and World Policy Journal, and watch Less Blessed: Anyemaqen, Glaciers and the Yellow River:

The next piece is a bleak visual tour of some of the world’s highest glaciers in the Himalayas: at the foot of Mt. Everest, in eastern Qinghai province and in the Tianshan Mountains of Xinjiang province.

See what these giant ice sheets looked like decades ago and how much they have thinned down. The alarming images document lakes expanding due to accelerated glacial meltdown and also lakes shrinking due to desertification at lower altitudes.

Watch On Thinner Ice: Disappearing Glaciers on the Tibetan Plateau (Part I):

In the fall of 2007 and again in 2008, David Breashears traveled to the Chinese face of Mt. Everest, a mountain he has climbed five times. His goal was not to scale the peak but to see series of ledges and outcroppings on Everest’s western side.

Breashears brought photos taken in a 1921 expedition to survey Everest. Returning to the exact same locations, Breashears recreated the photos — pixel for pixel.

Watch On Thinner Ice: Everest’s Vanishing Glaciers:

Climate change workshop at a school in Vilandai, India. Photo: Flickr user 350.org

Navroz K. Dubash is a senior fellow at the Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi, India. He writes about the climate change debate within India.

This article originally appeared in Eye on Earth, Worldwatch Institute’s online news service. It was also posted at Chinadialogue.net, a bilingual website on the environment.

U.S. climate politics loom large on the global stage. The twists and turns of senate deliberations are a favored topic among the world’s “climaterati” – the climate-change policy community. But with India’s prime minister Manmohan Singh recently making his inaugural visit to Washington to meet US president Barack Obama, it is worth recalling that India has complex climate-change politics, too. Moreover, India has been invoked frequently as an obstacle to US climate politics, second only to China, making it vital to explore these dynamics further if we are to get constructive movement on the global stage.

It may be surprising to discover that a variety of stances on climate change exist in India, which make consensus on domestic politics a challenge. For some, the climate negotiations are seen as no more than an economic containment strategy by the west. These “growth-first stonewallers” argue that even if climate change is real, the objective should be to maximize growth, so that India can better handle the impact. Until then, the country should not compromise.

For others, the effort to prioritize environmental sustainability and equity is stronger. These “progressive realists” are growth critics and, although keen to generate action on climate change, they are deeply cynical about the global negotiations. With the belief that these discussions sideline core concerns of equity, they call on India to take aggressive climate measures, but to do so domestically, delinking these from the global process.

Others believe that India should take on ambitious emission reduction measures and throw its weight fully behind a global climate deal. These “progressive internationalists” argue that doing so will help shift the global debate forward and spur matching action in other countries. Since climate impacts will disproportionately affect India’s poor, they suggest that a pro-poor approach is also a pro-climate regime approach.

For advocates of a global climate deal, the good news is that the influence of growth-first stonewallers has waned in India. The bad news, however, is that the center of gravity in India lies firmly with the progressive realists, who shy away from engagement in global climate politics, rather than with progressive internationalists, who seek to embrace it.

Unlocking progressive climate politics in India will build confidence in a far more progressive global, and particularly US, climate politics. Yet we are still far from this point, and three major issues get in the way.

To begin with, industrialized countries signal bad faith by making their commitments toward climate action conditional on similar commitments by developing countries. Americans, for example, should be reducing their emissions because they are responsible for 25% of carbon dioxide emissions released in the past 50 years.

Suggesting responsibility for past emissions carries politically unpalatable overtones of an ecological debt; however, arguing for no responsibility is effectively granting Americans squatter’s rights to the atmosphere. In addition, the 1992 Earth Summit bargain required rich nations to “take the lead” in reducing emissions, but the United States has not done so.

Now, economic competitiveness is being used as a basis to challenge the 1992 compromise itself. Doing so sends a dangerous signal that moral arguments have no role in shaping the climate regime and that national expedience will regularly trump global deals. These are both extremely dangerous signals to send, in climate as in other world affairs. To get more action from India, we need to see more unconditional action from the United States.

Second, Indians fear that there is insufficient understanding of their continued development burden at home. India is growing rapidly, yes, but starting from a very low base. Just under one-third of Indians live on less than US$1 a day, and 77% live on less than $2 a day. Most surprising, less than 1% of Indians (or 10 million people) are middle class by American standards – that is, they consume more than $13 a day. To be sure, within this top 1% there is an emergent and problematic class of oligarchic super-rich, and India has a moral obligation to spread the benefits of growth more equally. But by discounting India’s continued development burden when allocating climate responsibilities, the industrialized world is hiding behind India’s narrow rich class.

Third, India gets insufficient credit for what it already has done and is doing to shift to a low-carbon economy. The country uses less energy per unit of GDP than the United States and half as much as China. Electricity prices for industry and petrol prices in India, when adjusted for purchasing power, are four times US prices, creating incentives for further improvements. India has recently publicized a slew of new measures and is discussing legislation to give teeth to these efforts. Collectively, this amounts to a substantial down payment.

None of this is to suggest that India cannot and should not do more to contribute to a constructive global climate regime. Indeed, as the fourth-largest aggregate emitter of greenhouse gases worldwide, India must be far more creative and visionary about creating a low-carbon future. Because of the vulnerable poor in India and elsewhere, the country must better integrate its domestic actions into a strong global climate regime. Climate negotiators have to be as vigorous about championing emissions equity within India as they are about advocating equity across nations. And it would help its negotiation stance if India better managed the tensions of being simultaneously an aspiring power and a poor society.

But the three irritants described above enable stonewallers and realists to portray any further climate efforts by India as a futile strategy of appeasement. Far from leading, U.S. emissions in 2005 were 16% above their 1990 levels, and the United States continues to signal its intent to displace the climate burden onto societies far more disadvantaged. Progressive internationalists in India and elsewhere have gone as far as they can to move their own societies and polities in favor of progressive climate politics. To move any further, India needs a positive and adequate signal of intent from the United States.

- Navroz K. Dubash

They discuss the the continuing security problems in Iraq, where more than 100 people were killed this week.

Then, they turn to President Barack Obama’s acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize and the prospects of a climate agreement in Copenhagen, Denmark.

This week, world leaders from almost 200 countries are meeting to discuss the future of our planet. From Tonga and Mauritius to Japan and Brazil, the community of nations hopes to enact lasting change.

Watch all the videos from Worldfocus’ signature series: Green Energy in Denmark.

While a host of difficult decisions often scare business leaders, voters and politicians, global pressure continues to mount. China and India, as well as the U.S. and E.U., have already committed to significant cuts in the release of harmful greenhouse gases.

Will China accept slower economic growth, stricter rules and higher energy costs that could result? While virtually no one in China denies climate change, debate focuses on the speed of the shift to renewable energy.

Joining Martin Savidge from Beijing is Greenpeace China’s senior campaigner Rashid Kang and from Washington D.C. Julian Wong, senior policy analyst at the Center for American Progress.

Windmills in China’s far western Xinjiang provice. Photo: Flickr user gzlu

They explore the following issues:

• how China is greening rapidly and developing many alternative energy programs — from the world’s most efficient coal power plants to vast wind power fields and solar water heating technology
• why nuclear power could be the wrong alternative energy solution for China
• how food security affects China’s alternative energy strategy
• why there are no climate change skeptics in China, but why China can’t go green overnight
• and, the holy grail of renewables — energy storage.

GUESTS:

Rashid Kang is a senior campaigner on climate and energy issues for Greenpeace China. Originally from an overseas Chinese Malaysian family and trained as an engineer, he has worked on development and democratization issues in different parts of Asia over the past 10 years.

Julian L. Wong is a senior policy analyst at the Center for American Progress, a think tank in Washington, D.C., where he works on climate change, energy and environmental policy. Julian researched clean energy as a Fulbright scholar in Beijing and writes regularly at GreenLeapForward.

Credits:
Host: Martin Savidge
Producers: Ben Piven and Lisa Biagiotti

In 2008, a United Nations’ Adaptation Fund was launched to help poor countries finance projects to blunt the effects of global warming, but industrialized nations have failed to make the promised donations. In Copenhagen, Denmark, climate talks may reveal a deepening rift between developing countries and industrialized nations.

Producer Steve Sapienza of the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting provides a view from Bangladesh, a nation already reeling from the impact of climate change.

For more on climate change, watch videos from Worldfocus’ signature series: Green Energy in Denmark.

Worldfocus recently spoke with Scott Barrett, a professor of natural resource economics at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs & Earth Institute. He gave us his thoughts on the conference and what leaders hope to achieve.

Worldfocus: What is the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference?

Scott Barrett: It’s a meeting of the parties that are signatory to the framework convention on climate change –the Kyoto protocol — and others who are not, such as the United States. The parties are supposed to come up with a framework to succeed Kyoto. The Kyoto Protocol came into force in 2005 to tackle global warming and applies to some countries from 2005 to 2012. The big question is what comes after 2012.

Worldfocus: Who are the key players?

Scott Barrett: Participation by the United States is central. The world went ahead with Kyoto back in 2005 but they realize it did no good. The United States will not engage any framework seriously unless other countries such as China enter it as well. China is shorthand for fast growing developing countries like India. China and the US are the key players.

Worldfocus: So, does India not matter?

Scott Barrett: India matters, but if a deal can be agreed upon with China, India will get on board.

Worldfocus: What’s at stake at the conference? What does the conference hope to achieve?

Scott Barrett: If success means we have to meet target timetables to meet target emissions, I’m not sure that is success. We used this framework for the Kyoto Protocol and that did not work. Success is defined as if an agreement is reached it changes behavior. It has got to change what countries do and how they operate in regards to climate change.

Worldfocus: Is there any hope that a new treaty will be agreed upon?

Scott Barrett: I think what we are going to get most likely is political agreement. The U.S. has not issued firm goals to curb climate change. President Obama simply cannot pledge to do something unless he can be sure the Senate and Congress will ratify it. At the Copenhagen summit President Obama will affirm his concern for climate change and his conviction that the US has to play a part in addressing the problem but I don’t see how he can make a firm commitment to a new treaty.

Worldfocus: At the end of the day will a deal at Copenhagen effectively address climate change?

Scott Barrett: There will be meetings on climate change for the rest of our lives. No matter how much you achieve these meetings will go on.

A view of Mount Kilimanjaro from Kenya. Photo: Flickr user mailliw

Worldfocus: The grandfather of global warming, James Hansen, recently came out saying that the Copenhagen Summit should fail. What is the motivation behind this statement?

Scott Barrett: I assume what he means is that there is a legitimate concern that politicians are so eager for a decision they will agree to pledges and these promises will only be a distraction and not be achieved. Governments have to be moved to tackle climate change by how they spend money, what technology is developed, etc. This is how success should be defined, not just agreements.

Worldfocus: Where do developing nations fit in?

Scott Barrett: The poorer, smaller countries are in a difficult situation because they themselves cannot do much to fundamentally address their situation. However, they are the most likely to feel the effects of climate change, and the developing nations feel they should get assistance.

Richer countries have accepted they have a responsibility to poor countries. While they [richer nations] acknowledge their role, their response to development financing is much more muted.One of the things we are going to have to do is adapt. Developing nations will have an uphill battle. But the idea is to convert responsibility to meaningful developmental assistance.

We need to rethink development to highlight this. As we see our future unfold, climate change has the ability to exacerbate current difficulties. Climate change is not just an environmental problem. It has a profound impact on whatever we do.

- Connie Kargbo

Worldfocus’ John Larson has been reporting on Denmark’s forward-thinking energy policy, as the small Scandinavian nation plays host to the Copenhagen summit.

Here, he journeys to Denmark’s Samso Island. In 1998, Samso, population 4,000, won a national contest with a bold plan to completely switch to renewable energy.

In just ten short years, the island has achieved its goal of becoming carbon-neutral. Residents use wind, sun — and even rapeseed oil — to power their homes and cars.

Below are four different maps showing global emissions totals. All data graphics are by Stephen Rountree.

Current Emissions (millions of tons): Rapidly-growing China has surpassed the U.S. as the world’s top contributor of greenhouse gases. Manufacturers in the U.S. are pressuring Congress not to commit to emissions cuts — thus forestalling higher energy costs in the future.

Per Capita Emissions (tons per person): Compared to industrialized countries, less developed nations contribute relatively little to global emissions. But some developing countries such as India, with the world’s second highest population and rapid economic growth, could see sharp per-person emissions increases.

Cumulative Emissions (millions of tons): Using totals from the mid-19th century up to the present day, the U.S. and E.U. far surpass other countries in their historical contribution to global warming. The original 1992 UN climate change convention in Rio de Janeiro, which paved the way for the Kyoto Protocol of 1997, called for developed nations to take the lead in cutting emissions.

Emissions Intensity (tons per million dollars of GDP): In many developed countries, increased energy efficiency has resulted in a reduction of greenhouse gas intensity (emissions per unit of gross domestic product). China is pledging to cut its energy intensity but will need to take even more drastic action to prevent disproportionate contributions to future global warming.

- Ben Piven