Climate change has been good - so far - but its getting worse

So says Richard Tol in this new research paper that uses the FUND3.6 model to examine the impact of climate change in the 20th century.

So what is the punchline - overall climate change has been good for the world (on average).


The Economic Impact of Climate Change in the 20th Century

Date: 2011-02

By: Tol, Richard S. J.

URL: http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:esr:wpaper:wp376&r=env

The national version of FUND3.6 is used to infrapolate the impacts of climate change to the 20th century. Carbon dioxide fertilization of crops and reduced energy demand for heating are the main positive impacts. Climate change had a negative effect on water resources and, in most years, human health. Most countries benefitted from climate change until 1980, but after that the trend is negative for poor countries and positive for rich countries. The global average impact was positive.

Keywords: Climate change/impacts/Impacts of climate change/Human health

.

Humanities and climate change

From the inbox:

Humanties Professors at Stanford look at climate change under the banner of "human experience".

Humanities Scholars Shed New Light on the Past, Present, and Future of Environmental Change

At first glance, Stanford University history professor Richard White might seem an unlikely source for fresh perspectives on today’s environmental debate. But White—a humanities scholar whose research focuses on American history—believes that looking back at events of the past often gives keen insights into what has shaped the present, as well as offering glimpses of what the future holds.

White’s examination of the expansion of railroad system in the American West during the 1800s, for example, revealed an unexpected and lingering ecological downside. While creating a brief economic boom for dozens of cities at the time, many of the regions that were developed have been in economic and environmental decline for years.

“Americans tend to focus on the environmental disasters of other countries and point out the ways in which they had environmental catastrophes,” White said. “You sometimes forget that we in the United States also have a history which has many of the same elements.”

White, the Margaret Byrne Professor of American History, is just one of a number of humanities researchers at Stanford who feel that current-day environmental issues should be considered by a range of scholarly disciplines, including those in the humanities and in the sciences.

Scholars from the University’s philosophy, literature, and history departments are contributing to interdisciplinary discussion through their publications and in academic workshops and research groups. They stress that their unique perspectives are valuable because science alone can’t completely address the massive problems of global climate change, industrial pollution, food shortages, and vastly unequal living standards in Western and developing nations, none of which can be fully understood without considering their complex historical and cultural legacies.

With input from colleagues in academic disciplines from the economics to medicine, humanities professors across campus have created a variety of opportunities for interdisciplinary discussion about the environment. Graduate students, too, are working alongside faculty members in several workshop groups and research teams. In all these cases, their aim is to paint a more detailed picture of the nuanced reality of the past, present, and future of environmental change.

“You might be able to do scientific studies about what is happening,” White explains, “but if you want to know why it’s happening, how it’s happening, the political background, and what to do about it, then you’re into the humanities and social science research.”

Researchers consider the following questions:

Philosophy Raises Questions of Environmental Ethics

Multi-Disciplinary Conversation Inspires and Informs

Digital Humanities Projects Uncover the Roots of Environmental Change

Research Predicts “Climate Migrants”

.

The Hatwell paper " new direction for climate policy after the crash of 2009"

An interesting paper that I should have blogged on a long time ago:

The Hartwell paper "new direction for climate policy after the crash of 2009"

From wikipedia:

The Hartwell Paper calls for a reorientation of climate policy after the perceived failure in 2009 of the UNFCCC climate conference in Copenhagen. The paper was published in May 2010 by the London School of Economics in cooperation with the University of Oxford. The authors are 14 natural and social scientists from Asia, Europe and North America, including Mike Hulme, Roger A. Pielke (Jr), Nico Stehr and Steve Rayner, who met under the Chatham House Rule.
Hartwell House, where the meetings took place.

The paper argues that "decarbonisation will only be achieved successfully as a benefit contingent upon other goals which are politically attractive and relentlessly pragmatic."

It emphasizes human dignity as a necessary guiding principle for climate policy: "To reframe the climate issue around matters of human dignity is not just noble or necessary. It is also likely to be more effective than the approach of framing around human sinfulness – which has failed and will continue to fail."

It has three main objectives:

* 1. Energy access for all
* 2. Clean energy
* 3. Dealing with climate change

The ultimate goal is "to develop non-carbon energy supplies at unsubsidised costs less than those using fossil fuels

.

.

Krugman on climate change, the press and the republicans

Hot on the heels of my first post of today Paul Krugman joins in.

His main point and something hinted at in the previous posting is exactly this:

"Where do they find these people".

More to the point - why do they find "these" people when there are so many to pick from?

The Truth, Still Inconvenient [NYT]

So the joke begins like this: An economist, a lawyer and a professor of marketing walk into a room. What’s the punch line? They were three of the five “expert witnesses” Republicans called for last week’s Congressional hearing on climate science.

But the joke actually ended up being on the Republicans, when one of the two actual scientists they invited to testify went off script.

Prof. Richard Muller of Berkeley, a physicist who has gotten into the climate skeptic game, has been leading the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, an effort partially financed by none other than the Koch foundation. And climate deniers — who claim that researchers at NASA and other groups analyzing climate trends have massaged and distorted the data — had been hoping that the Berkeley project would conclude that global warming is a myth.

Instead, however, Professor Muller reported that his group’s preliminary results find a global warming trend “very similar to that reported by the prior groups.”

The deniers’ response was both predictable and revealing; more on that shortly. But first, let’s talk a bit more about that list of witnesses, which raised the same question I and others have had about a number of committee hearings held since the G.O.P. retook control of the House — namely, where do they find these people?

My favorite, still, was Ron Paul’s first hearing on monetary policy, in which the lead witness was someone best known for writing a book denouncing Abraham Lincoln as a “horrific tyrant” — and for advocating a new secessionist movement as the appropriate response to the “new American fascialistic state.”

The ringers (i.e., nonscientists) at last week’s hearing weren’t of quite the same caliber, but their prepared testimony still had some memorable moments. One was the lawyer’s declaration that the E.P.A. can’t declare that greenhouse gas emissions are a health threat, because these emissions have been rising for a century, but public health has improved over the same period. I am not making this up.

Oh, and the marketing professor, in providing a list of past cases of “analogies to the alarm over dangerous manmade global warming” — presumably intended to show why we should ignore the worriers — included problems such as acid rain and the ozone hole that have been contained precisely thanks to environmental regulation.

But back to Professor Muller. His climate-skeptic credentials are pretty strong: he has denounced both Al Gore and my colleague Tom Friedman as “exaggerators,” and he has participated in a number of attacks on climate research, including the witch hunt over innocuous e-mails from British climate researchers. Not surprisingly, then, climate deniers had high hopes that his new project would support their case.

You can guess what happened when those hopes were dashed.

Just a few weeks ago Anthony Watts, who runs a prominent climate denialist Web site, praised the Berkeley project and piously declared himself “prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong.” But never mind: once he knew that Professor Muller was going to present those preliminary results, Mr. Watts dismissed the hearing as “post normal science political theater.” And one of the regular contributors on his site dismissed Professor Muller as “a man driven by a very serious agenda.”

Of course, it’s actually the climate deniers who have the agenda, and nobody who’s been following this discussion believed for a moment that they would accept a result confirming global warming. But it’s worth stepping back for a moment and thinking not just about the science here, but about the morality.

For years now, large numbers of prominent scientists have been warning, with increasing urgency, that if we continue with business as usual, the results will be very bad, perhaps catastrophic. They could be wrong. But if you’re going to assert that they are in fact wrong, you have a moral responsibility to approach the topic with high seriousness and an open mind. After all, if the scientists are right, you’ll be doing a great deal of damage.

But what we had, instead of high seriousness, was a farce: a supposedly crucial hearing stacked with people who had no business being there and instant ostracism for a climate skeptic who was actually willing to change his mind in the face of evidence. As I said, no surprise: as Upton Sinclair pointed out long ago, it’s difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.

But it’s terrifying to realize that this kind of cynical careerism — for that’s what it is — has probably ensured that we won’t do anything about climate change until catastrophe is already upon us.

So on second thought, I was wrong when I said that the joke was on the G.O.P.; actually, the joke is on the human race. 

.

Communicating Climate Change

Climate sceptics remain "sceptical". The "significant" chance of "catastrophic environmental, social and economic consequences" during the next 100 years barely registers on the public's list of concerns.

Kevin Parton and Mark Mossison investigate.

This is an interesting topic of debate.


Communicating Climate Change: A Literature Review
Date: 2011
Parton, Kevin
Morrison, Mark
URL: http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ags:aare11:100693&r=env

For climate scientists, climate change is a problem that has a significant chance of having catastrophic environmental, social and economic consequences during the course of this century. In contrast, public opinion seems to regard with scepticism the pronouncements on climate change that emanate from the scientific community. Why the difference? This is what our research project was designed to examine. Or to put it another way: Assuming that the scientific information is correct, and that without a dramatic change in technology (and policy to promote such a change) there would be a significant risk of man-made, global catastrophe, what must be done to communicate this urgent issue to the public? We have approached the analysis of this problem by reviewing the literature on communicating climate change. By organising the literature according to the role of the major groups of participants in the information transfer process, useful insights can be gleaned. These groups include scientists, business, the government, the media and the general public. This analysis leads to an overall model of the information transfer process that highlights various issues including the role that the media plays as a lens through which the public observes scientific results.

.

Third World US and Europe

Arriving at an agreement on limiting carbon emissions was never going to be easy but when one looks a little more closely at the lobbying going on in the US it is no surprise that the average American is skeptical about the whole global warming "scare".

The following article goes straight for the emotional jugular. "Jobs, revenue and modern living standards". These are all in danger - why? Because of the scare-mongering "warmists" and environmental regulations.

This article and others like it reveal clearly why the planet is ultimately doomed.

The solution? Move to a high place and either buy or sell oil stocks.

Welcome to the Third World [No pain, no gain]

../

Welcome to the Third World, Europeans, where costly electricity is available only from time to time, at unexpected hours, depending on bureaucratic whims and how much power wind turbines and other “environment-friendly” generators can muster.

Is the USA next in line? The United States is reaping imaginary bounties from its $814-billion “stimulus” spending orgy. It hemorrhaged $223 billion in red ink during February alone – on its way to a projected 2011 deficit of $1.5 trillion, the Congressional Budget Office reports.

Over 13.7 million Americans remain unemployed; another 8.3 million are involuntarily employed only part-time; black unemployment stands at 15.3 percent; and gasoline prices have hit $4 per gallon, foretelling more rough waters ahead for the still fragile US economy.

America depends on abundant, reliable, affordable energy – 85% of it hydrocarbons. Coal generates half of all US electricity, and up to 90% in its manufacturing heartland – versus 1% from wind and solar. Newfound natural gas supplies promise a sea change in US energy supplies and electricity generation. However, oil still powers transportation, shipping and petrochemicals – and in 2010 the United States exported $337 billion to import 61% of this precious liquid fuel.

../

Unlocking America’s still abundant hydrocarbon resources and unleashing our innovative, hard-driving free enterprise system would generate hundreds of billions of dollars in leasing, royalty and tax revenues for federal, state and local governments. It would put millions back to work … help stanch the flow of red ink … keep tens of billions of crude oil spending and investment in America … and create enormous new wealth, instead of redistributing a dwindling pool of old wealth.

We must drill safely, use fuel more efficiently in vehicles and power plants, and get more from every underground reservoir. And we could do so, if government would allow it.

Just consider the incredible revolution that the genius of American capitalists has presented the world: hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” to tap previously inaccessible oil and gas deposits. This technology has turned “depletion” and “sustainability” claims upside down. It has already doubled US natural gas reserves and given North America over a century of recoverable gas, at current consumption rates.

It is also unlocking oil wealth in the vast Bakken shale formation of Montana, North Dakota and Saskatchewan. Oil production there has already soared from 3,000 barrels a day five years ago to over 225,000 today. The US Energy Information Administration says it could reach 350,000 barrels a day by 2035; industry sources say it could top a million barrels by 2020. Related oilfield employment has soared from 5,000 to over 18,000 in the same five-year period, and could eventually reach 100,000 jobs. At $100 a barrel, even 350,000 barrels a day could mean $1.6 billion in annual royalties, from Bakken oil alone.

The new Made in America technology is already changing energy, economic and political landscapes in Europe, and will soon do so across the globe. It is a technologically possible and economically affordable solution that generates bountiful jobs and revenues – as opposed to pixie dust solutions that require perpetual subsidies and address speculative problems. Offshore and ANWR drilling could do likewise.

../

President Obama wants oil, gas, coal and electricity prices to “skyrocket,” to make “green” energy appear more attractive. Energy Secretary Steven Chu wants to “boost the price of gasoline to levels in Europe” – over $8 per gallon! Most of all, these anti-hydrocarbon politicians want a self-sustaining political-environmentalist-industrial-public sector union complex based on government subsidies to favored industries and companies, in exchange for campaign contributions that will keep them in power.

This palpable, intolerable insanity must end. It’s time to tell Congress (and the European Commission) we need real energy for real jobs, real revenues and a revitalized economy. And we need it now.

.

Ancient Megadroughts

I have not come across the term "megadroughts" before but I like it.

The findings to not surprise me - small changes in the climate could be enough to set off a series of feedback effects that result in large changes in local climate and of course lead to "megadroughts".

Ancient Megadroughts Preview Warmer Climate: Study [PlanetArk]

Ancient megadroughts that lasted thousands of years in what is now the American Southwest could offer a preview of a climate changed by modern greenhouse gas emissions, researchers reported on Wednesday.

The scientists found these persistent dry periods were different from even the most severe decades-long modern droughts, including the 1930s "Dust Bowl." And they determined that these millennial droughts occurred at times when Earth's mean annual temperature was similar to or slightly higher than what it is now.

These findings tally with projections by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and others, according to study author Peter Fawcett of the University of New Mexico. The results were published in the current edition of Nature.

"The IPCC model suggests that when you warm the climate, you'll see extended droughts in this part of the world and this is what the paleo record seems to be telling us," Fawcett said in a telephone interview. "When you've got past temperatures that were at or above today's conditions, conditions got drier."

The U.S. Southwest has seen steep population growth over the last century, with population increasing by 1,500 percent from 1900 to 1990, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. The total U.S. population grew 225 percent over the same period.

The settlement of this area depended, as all human settlements do, on access to water. There would clearly be less water available in a megadrought.

EARTH'S ORBIT AND GREENHOUSE EMISSIONS

Megadroughts in the past were caused by subtle changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun, which were also responsible for periodic ice ages. If these orbital changes were the only influence on the planet's climate, Earth should be heading into a cool period, Fawcett said in a telephone interview.

However, recent temperature statistics indicate that is not the case. The decade that ended last year was the hottest since modern record-keeping began in 1880. The previous decade, 1991-2000, was next-warmest and 1981-1990 was third-warmest.

Emissions of climate-warming greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide help trap heat near Earth's surface and could be influencing the natural orbital cycle that would dictate a cooling period.

To figure out just how long these megadroughts lasted, and what happened during them, scientists took samples from a dried lake bed in northern New Mexico called the Valles Caldera. They analyzed these sediments for biochemical signs of drought, ranging from which trees and shrubs grew and how much calcium was in the cracked mud in the dried lake bottom.

Looking at records going back more than a half-million years, they also developed a technique to determine temperature in the ancient past by looking at signs left by soil bacteria, Fawcett said.

The fats in the walls of these bacteria change their structure in response to temperature changes, he said, and act like a "tape recorder" for antique temperatures.

.

Per capita carbon

A fantastic graphic (HT: Env-econ) that clearly shows why the odds of finding a climate solution are so distant.

Simply look at the China circle on both pictures and there is your answer.

Click HERE for a large version.

Those naughtly Gibratarians.

.

Responding to Threats of Climate Change Mega-Catastrophes

There is nothing like a paper on "mega-catastrophes" to begin the new year with a bang. Excellent work.

The small but uncertain possibility that the world could be ending as we know should appeal to economists everywhere.

Responding to Threats of Climate Change Mega-Catastrophes [PDF]

Carolyn Kousky, Olga Rostapshova, Michael Toman, and Richard Zeckhauser

Abstract
There is a low but uncertain probability that climate change could trigger “mega-catastrophes,” severe and at least partly irreversible adverse effects across broad regions. This paper first discusses the state of current knowledge and the defining characteristics of potential climate change mega-catastrophes. While some of these characteristics present difficulties for using standard rational choice methods to
evaluate response options, there is still a need to balance the benefits and costs of different possible responses with appropriate attention to the uncertainties. To that end, we present a qualitative analysis of three options for mitigating the risk of climate mega-catastrophes—drastic abatement of greenhouse gas emissions, development and implementation of geoengineering, and large-scale ex ante adaptation— against the criteria of efficacy, cost, robustness, and flexibility. We discuss the composition of a sound portfolio of initial investments in reducing the risk of climate change mega-catastrophes.

Key Words: climate change, catastrophe, risk, decisionmaking under uncertainty
JEL Classification Numbers: D81, Q54

The Impact of Climate on Life Satisfaction

Straight from the economics department at the University of Birmingham comes a new paper that comes hot on the trail of David Cameron's speech on measuring "happiness" to be used alongside traditional GDP figures.

What if happiness is driven by the climate? What does that mean for the Cancun negotiations and David Cameron's grand plans?

It appears that people are happy when the climate is very average.

David Maddison and Katrin Rehanz investigate.

The Impact of Climate on Life Satisfaction [PDF]
Date: 2010-11

David Maddison
Katrin Rehdanz

URL: http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:kie:kieliw:1658&r=env

We analyse the influence of climate on average life satisfaction in 87 countries using data from the World Values Survey. Climate is described in terms of ‘degree-months’ calculated using an optimally-selected base temperature of 65°F (18.3°C). Our results suggest that countries with climates characterised by a large number of degree-months enjoy significantly lower levels of life satisfaction. This finding is robust to a wide variety of model specifications. Using our results to analyse a particular climate change scenario associated with the IPCC A2 emissions scenario points to major losses for African countries, but modest gains for Northern Europe

Keywords: climate; climate change; happiness; life satisfaction; survey data
JEL: D60

.

The Role of Carbon Offsets in Climate Policy: Theory and Practice

A call for papers for a conference at Cornell on the role of carbon offsets in climate policy.

Verification, leakage and permanence are important obstacles to the effective use of carbon offsets and this is an important policy issue.

I have my doubts on how effective carbon offsets will be given these difficulties. the post below on fraud in the EU carbon trading market gives pause for thought.

This is a timely conference. The forestry and agricultural sectors in the US in particular have powerful friends and the distributional impact will be important - unless this is fully understood there may be unintended consequences.

CALL FOR PAPERS

The Role of Carbon Offsets in Climate Policy: Theory and Practice [PDF]

A Conference at Cornell University, May 13-15, 2011

It is now recognized that Carbon Offsets should play a major role in Climate Policy, by providing cost-effective reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and sequestering carbon. However, there are many challenges associated with the production of offsets, including its verification, as well as issues related to additionality, leakage and permanence. At the same time, there is also a need to guide the design of public policies that will regulate the market for carbon offsets.

Yet the challenges of implementing carbon offsets and the role that carbon offsets can play in climate policy is under-researched:

(i) There is insufficient theoretical work that integrates the various challenges associated with the production of offsets – leakage, additionality, permanence - in a unified framework; the potential interactions between these challenges need to be analyzed in depth;

(ii) There is limited empirical evidence of the magnitudes of leakage and additionality associated with various carbon offset projects for different countries;

(iii)There is virtually no work on the effectiveness of various public policies that regulate the market for carbon offsets, through standards (e.g. quality or quantity limits), or other ‘mechanism-design’ type policies;

(iv)The interactions between cap-and-trade systems, voluntary consumption of offsets, and the production of carbon offsets needs to be better understood. Specifically, potential unintended emissions or welfare consequences need to be identified and measured. And the voluntary consumption of offsets remains under researched;

(v) The distributional impacts associated with the production of carbon offsets needs to be better understood, especially for the agriculture and forestry sectors.

With this background, Cornell University will host a major international conference
– “The Role of Carbon Offsets in Climate Policy: Theory and Practice” – May 13-15, 2011. The conference organizers are Antonio Bento and Ravi Kanbur of the Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management, Cornell University.

The conference will discuss theoretical, empirical and policy-oriented papers. The suggested topics include, but are not limited to, the issues (i)-(v) highlighted above.

The organizers invite the submission of completed papers or substantive abstracts (3-5 pages) by December 15, 2010. Submissions should be sent electronically to amb396@cornell.edu. Decisions will be communicated by January 15, 2011.
Participants who can use their own funds to cover part or all of the cost of their participation are requested to do so. The conference will provide accommodation and economy class travel for one presenter per paper accepted for those who do not have funding. Please indicate with your submission what funding you need.

.

Health effects of climate change

When writing an environmental economics paper one always needs to provide motivation and there is nothing better than some scary numbers on the health and mortality impacts of climate change.

These numbers are real and it is important that as economists we try to relate economics to the real world. I have used the WTO quote before and will probably do so again.

This new working paper by Grasso, Maera, Chiabai and Markandya provides a good survey of the literature.

The Health Effects of Climate Change: A Survey of Recent Quantitative Research [PDF]

In recent years there has been a large scientific and public debate on climate change and its direct as well as indirect effects on human health. According to World Health Organization (WHO, 2006), some 2.5 million people die every year from non-infectious diseases directly attributable to environmental factors such as air pollution, stressful conditions in the workplace, exposure to chemicals such as lead, and exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. Changes in climatic conditions and climate variability can also affect human health both directly and indirectly, via changes in biological and ecological processes that influence the transmission of several infectious diseases (WHO, 2003). In the past fifteen years a large amount of research on the effects of climate changes on human health has addressed two fundamental questions (WHO, 2003). First, can historical data be of some help in revealing how short-run or long-run climate variations affect the occurrence of infectious diseases? Second, is it possible to build more accurate statistical models which are capable of predicting the future effects of different climate conditions on the transmissibility of particularly dangerous infectious diseases? The primary goal of this paper is to review the most relevant contributions which have directly tackled those questions, both with respect to the effects of climate changes on the diffusion of non-infectious and infectious diseases. Specific attention will be drawn on the methodological aspects of each study, which will be classified according to the type of statistical model considered. Additional aspects such as characteristics of the dependent and independent variables, number and type of countries investigated, data frequency, temporal period spanned by the analysis, and robustness of the empirical findings are examined.

.

"Weather throws the punches but climate trains the boxer"

In a recent grant application those of us contributing had a long debate over the appropriate use of "weather" and "climate".

In the end it was clear we were talking about "weather" although it sounds far less "current" and interesting than using "climate".

We were talking about the economic impact of severe weather events (not climate events).

The quote "weather throws the punches but climate trains the boxer" now makes it all clear to me and would have saved a number of long email debates on the distinction between the two.

This quote came up when reading a review of a new book.



In a review in the TES the reviewer continues the boxer theme and suggests that some of climate change's heavyweight contenders have not even entered the ring yet. Rising sea levels are one such heavy weight.

This book is suitably doom-laden so should appeal to economists everywhere.

"At the end of the last Ice Age, for instance, oceans rose over 420ft over a few millennia, including one period when the process topped 15ft per century".

If the same speed of change occurred today it would be far harder for humans to adapt. Back them you would quite literally just "up sticks" and move inland.

Those economists who argue that even if man made climate change is real it does not matter because we can adapt would do well to read this book. There are practical limits to adaption under extreme scenarios.

.

Is the US really a "mythic pig preening itself"?

As the insults fly over climate change the Chinese hit well below the belt with the insult to the US likening the US criticisms of China to "a mythic pig preening itself."

It is hard to believe that the Chinese would have to resort to such aggressive language.

Just in case there are any readers are still a little perplexed or indeed would like to know more about the mythical pig please read on.

Zhu Bajie

Su likened the U.S. criticism to Zhubajie, a pig in a classic Chinese novel, which in a traditional saying preens itself in a mirror.

"It has no measures or actions to show for itself, and instead it criticizes China, which is actively taking measures and actions," Su said of the United States.

UK readers of a certain age may well remember the always excellent TV programme "Monkey" where the mythical pig appears regularly.

.

US -China Tianjin face off over climate change

Tianjin is a city I know well after a recent visit to Nankai University. It is a good venue for climate change talks especially given the air quality in Tianjin which was something to behold.

Let us hope that delegates can find the venue for the talks.

I gave a talk to future Chinese leaders on trade, development and climate change recently and it is very clear that whilst China is fully aware of its obligations to tackle climate change it still sees the onus being on developed countries to take the lead.

The 80:20 rule would satisfy the Chinese in my view. It will be difficult to move them off this percentage. The West may need to face up to that fact and just get on with making the 80%. To expect anything different would be foolish and waste everyone time (yet again). The problem with be the US (yet again).

When China say they will not budge it is worth listening.

Climate Talks Struggle As China, U.S. Face Off [PlanetArk]

The United States and EU said on Wednesday that U.N. climate talks were making less progress than hoped due to rifts over rising economies' emission goals, while China pushed back and put the onus on rich nations.

Negotiators from 177 governments are meeting this week in the northern Chinese city of Tianjin, trying to agree on the shape of the successor to the current phase of the Kyoto Protocol, the key U.N. treaty on fighting global warming, which expires in 2012.

Midway through the talks, however, initial hopes that they can deliver progress on trust-building goals have become snared in procedural skirmishing that boils down to feuding over how far rich and emerging nations should curb their greenhouse gas emissions and how they should check on each other's efforts.

Negotiators said the contention could damage prospects for negotiations late this year in Cancun, Mexico, which are intended to lay the foundations for a new, legally-binding climate pact.

"There is less agreement than one might have hoped to find at this stage," said Jonathan Pershing, the United States' lead U.S. negotiator in Tianjin.

"It's going to require a lot of work to get to some significant outcome by the end of this week, which then leads us into a significant outcome in Cancun," he told reporters.

Fraught climate negotiations last year failed to agree on a binding treaty and climaxed in a bitter meeting in Copenhagen, which produced a vague and non-binding accord that later recorded the emissions pledges of participant countries.

Fearing deadlock in efforts to reach a binding pact by late next year, governments have been pushing in Tianjin for broad agreement on less contentious objectives: a fund for climate action, a scheme to protect carbon-absorbing rainforests, and policies to share clean energy technology with poorer nations.

Pershing said he still hoped that the makings of a deal can come together at Cancun, and warned that failure in Mexico could damage the whole U.N. climate negotiations.

Big developing nations -- such as China, India and Brazil -- should take on firmer emissions reduction obligations as part of a new treaty that would abandon a simple division between rich and developing countries, said Pershing.

The current Kyoto Protocol only commits nearly 40 industrialized nations to meet binding targets.

A European Union official at the Tianjin talks said they had made headway on some issues, but also voiced worry for Cancun.

"We are very concerned with the procedural blockages and we find it simply inexplicable that they keep on popping up on the issues that are of vital importance for the final deal," Jurgen Lefevere of the European Commission climate action office told reporters. "There is still hope," he added later.

CHINA PUSHES BACK

China is the world's top greenhouse gas emitter from human activity, with the United States second. China and India have pledged emissions reduction steps under the Copenhagen accord, but want Kyoto to be extended to lock in commitments by rich countries and to ensure their own emissions are not subject to binding international caps.

China's greenhouse gas emissions will keep rising for years yet, but its top climate change negotiator Xie Zhenhua said it was unfair to press the country on when its emissions would peak while rich nations failed to slash theirs.

He also told reporters at the talks that his government would not budge from demanding the Kyoto Protocol be the basis of any new climate deal. The United States is not a party to the Protocol and would have to come under a separate deal.

"When the world's emissions peak depends on developed countries leading with dramatic cuts in their emissions, making space for developing countries," said Xie.

China and other emerging nations will accept international "consultation and analysis" of their emissions, but not anything equal to the standards expected of rich economies, said Xie.

.

"Exploding Children"

A video that graphically depicts a teaching blowing up her climate change denying pupils has been withdrawn from youtube.

This is a strange one to comment on given the obvious sensitivities. I will leave it to the BBC to explain.

As with all "humour" some will find this funny and others will not.

Environmental campaigners axe gory film [BBC]

Environmental campaigners 10:10 have withdrawn a film showing a teacher graphically exploding two of her students who refuse to reduce their carbon emissions, after complaints.

In a statement, the group apologised to anyone offended.

The film aimed to "bring this critical issue back into the headlines whilst making people laugh", the group said.

Starring Gillian Anderson it was scripted by Richard Curtis, whose films include Four Weddings and a Funeral.

It was directed by a leading commercials director.

In the film, which was subsequently posted to Youtube and which contains disturbing images, a teacher invites her class to take part in the environmental campaign. Two children, who do not want to, are asked why.

The teacher tells them: "Fine, it's absolutely fine. It's your own choice."

But moments later she presses a button and the children explode into a mess.

Similar scenes are played out in an office where four workers are blown up and a football training session where footballer David Ginola, who also says he does not want to do his bit to combat climate change, disappears in an explosion.

In the final scene, Gillian Anderson, who provides the voice- over is similarly dispatched after saying she thought doing the voice over was enough of a contribution to the campaign.

'This is dreadful'

Comments left on the Guardian website where the film was posted before being taken down on the 10:10 site, were split between those congratulating the team and others who thought it was in bad taste.

"I think this is dreadful," said one comment.

"To suggest that people who disagree with you deserve to die is incredibly stupid. Imagine if some Christian group in the US did that to gays, Muslims, or anyone else they disagree with. The outrage would be palpable. And deserved.

"It's like a parody of something that people mocking enviros would do."

Lizze Gillett, Global Campaign Director for 10:10, told the BBC: "As you can see from various comments and social media sites some people thought it was funny and a good tool to get people talking about climate change but others strongly disliked the mini-movie. We decided to take it off our website to avoid upsetting people. "

In the official campaign statement, the group said: "At 10:10 we're all about trying new and creative ways of getting people to take action on climate change. Unfortunately in this instance we missed the mark. Oh well, we live and learn."

However, 10:10 said they would not make any attempt "to censor or remove other versions currently in circulation on the internet."

.

"Climatopolis" - we are not all doomed after all (or are we)

The new Matt Khan book is out. Climatopolis. I enjoyed his previous books on Green cities and the American Civil War.

It is always impressive when academics can publish well and also write accessible books for a general audience.

I can't provide a full review as I have not bought the book yet although there are a number of obvious questions. I agree that it is pretty much too late to stop significant climate change and that adaption will be crucial. Luckily for him and many Americans, the US will suffer a lot less than many countries. Those on subsistence wages and the poor in developing countries will find it harder to move anywhere - that is where the real suffering will take place.

Arguing that "economic development" will solve the problem misses the endogeneity issue. Environmental degradation will impact on growth making development even harder and the suffering all the greater.



You can read a Grist interview with Matt Khan HERE.

His new book, Climatopolis: How Our Cities Will Thrive in the Hotter Future, argues that while it's too late to avoid the major effects of global warming, that's OK because most people will simply move to places that are effectively adapting to the changes. And here we'd been so worried! Kahn, a University of Chicago graduate, takes the school's free-market tradition to an extreme, arguing that rational agents in a market economy will simply "vote with their feet" and make winners out of the cities that are most able to innovate and attract new residents. It's a provocative argument, to say the least.

This question gets to the heart of the issue:

Q. You seem to see this all as a market problem. To me, 10 million Bangladeshis who can't feed themselves anymore and are crossing the border into India where they're not wanted -- that's a humanitarian and political problem. How does an entrepreneur innovate for that?

A. In India, many households benefit from access to cheap labor. Migrants to India will move to those cities where they will have the greatest opportunities. One could imagine a win-win, where the growing Indian middle class is actually happy to see many of these Bangladeshis if they need help with household chores.

But I agree with your point that adaptation in the developing world is the trickiest. My magic bullet is economic development. The Nobel laureate Tom Schelling contrasts malaria in Singapore and Malaysia. These countries are very close and have the same geographic conditions. Yet one [Malaysia] has much more malaria than the other. Schelling argues that economic development helps to mitigate environmental challenges through things like better diets and better access to medical care.

.

China seeks binding deal "with principles"

China was unhappy with the post-Copenhagen reviews some of which squarely blamed China for the failure to come up with a deal that could be considered anywhere close to a "good deal for the climate".

China will not attempt to take the moral high ground and to put the pressure back on the US. My understanding is that China does accept its obligations and is making considerable progress to reduce per-capita emissions even in the face of continued economic growth.

Of course China has a strong incentive with China likely to experience significant discomfort from climate change induced whether events and rising sea levels.

What is interesting is China is blaming US politics for the failure at Copenhagen. It is hard to argue against this claim. Obama is well meaning but will find it hard to fight against the lobbying powers of big industry in the US.

What is more interesting from this small news item is the following quote:

Li Gao, a senior Chinese negotiator on climate change, said his government would remain unyielding on issues of "principle" in the talks aimed at forging a successor to the Kyoto Protocol.

What this means is that China will require a deal along the lines of the 80:20 that has been previously mooted. The West reduces emissions by 80% and the developing world by 20%. After all, the vast majority of CO2 in the atmosphere was put there by us.

What does this posturing really mean? It means that chances of a deal are close to zero and our expectations for Cancun should be low. Mine never got off "low" before Copenhagen and are certainly no higher. Chinese "principles" are hard to change.


China Seeks Binding Climate Treaty Late 2011: Report [Planet Ark]

China wants the world to seal a binding climate change treaty by late 2011, a Chinese negotiator said in a newspaper on Friday, blaming U.S. politics for impeding talks and making a deal on global warming impossible this year.

Li Gao, a senior Chinese negotiator on climate change, said his government would remain unyielding on issues of "principle" in the talks aimed at forging a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. The first period of that key treaty on fighting global warming expires at the end of 2012.

Li also vowed to keep pressing rich countries to promise deeper cuts to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from human activity that are stoking global warming, said the China Economic Times, which reported his comments.

Many governments and experts have already dismissed hopes for a full climate change treaty at the next major negotiation meeting, to be held in Cancun, Mexico at the end of this year.

Li underscored that gloom, but also said his government hoped Cancun could be a stepping stone to negotiations next year that will culminate in a meeting in South Africa in November.

"China hopes that based on the outcomes from Cancun, we'll be able to settle on a legally binding document at the meeting in South Africa," Li said, according to the Chinese-language newspaper.

"After the South Africa meeting, we'll move to concrete implementation."

Li oversees the international climate change negotiations office at China's National Development and Reform Commission, a sprawling agency that steers economy policy.

The deadline for a new binding global pact was originally set for late 2009, but a final round of negotiations in Copenhagen ended in acrimonious failure, with some Western politicians saying China was not willing to compromise.

China will be a crucial player in the follow-up talks.

With its 1.3 billion people, it is the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gases from human activity, but is also a developing country with average emissions per capita well below those of wealthy economies.

The United States, European Union and other governments want China to take on stronger commitments to control and eventually cut its emissions.

But Li said it was U.S. political uncertainty that had stymied any hope of the Cancun meeting agreeing on a treaty to succeed Kyoto.

"The biggest obstacle comes from the United States," he said. "Without any (climate change) legislation, it can't possibly join in a legally binding international document."

The U.S. Senate has dropped efforts to put emissions curbs in an energy bill now focused on reforming offshore drilling.

Negotiators from nearly 200 nations are haggling over a complex draft accord on climate change, and a further round of talks at the northern Chinese port of Tianjin opens on October 4.

Li said Beijing would keep pressing for certain principles, including that developing countries like China should not shoulder the same absolute caps on emissions that rich countries must take on.

.