GWPF | 12 Feb 2015
The European Union Sunday said it expects India and other emerging economies to contribute to the Green Climate Fund after 2020, stating that “geopolitical realities have changed significantly”. South Africa, speaking on behalf of G-77 plus China, and supported by BASIC, LMDC and other groups of small nations, warned that “any attempt to re-negotiate, re-write or re-define” the basic principles of the UNFCCC would delay the process of reaching the Paris agreement. —Press Trust of India, 9 February 2015
2) Business As Usual At UN Climate Talks – Business Standard, 10 February 2015
3) UN Climate Deal Complicated As Length Of Draft Text Balloons – Reuters, 12 February 2015
4) UN Official Reveals Real Reason Behind Warming Scare – Investor’s Business Daily, 10 February 2015
5) Climate Skepticism in British Newspapers, 2007–2011 – Environmental Communication, 27 January 2015
6) Europe Turning Cold On Wind Farms – Financial Times, 10 February 2015
Climate change negotiations started at Geneva on Sunday, working to draw the rough blueprint for the global Paris agreement, which will be agreed upon by the end of the year. The signs of solidarity over select issues, which had emerged in the developing country block, G77+China, at Lima last year, reverberated at the Geneva venue too. On Monday several of the groups that fall within the umbrella of the G77 demanded that the ‘Loss and Damage’ track of negotiations be treated separately from the talks on the issue of adaptation. At the same time, the European Union (EU) demanded that the preamble of the Paris agreement not have any reference to the existing provisions of the United Nations (UN) Framework Convention on Climate Change or to historical responsibility of the developed countries. –Nitin Sethi, Business Standard, 10 February 2015
Almost 200 nations complicated a drive for a UN deal to combat climate change in 2015 on Wednesday by more than doubling the length of a draft negotiating text to about 100 pages of radically varying solutions. The new text, of about 100 pages, swells a draft of 38 pages from talks in Lima last year, complicating the task ahead of a Paris summit starting in November that is due to agree a UN deal to limit global warming. Geneva is the last session for adding texts. Under UN rules, an official draft as the basis for talks has to be ready six months before the summit. The text lists a huge range of options that are unlikely to be resolved before Paris. —Reuters, 12 February 2015
The alarmists keep telling us their concern about global warming is all about man’s stewardship of the environment. But we know that’s not true. A United Nations official has now confirmed this. At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism. “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said. Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.” —Investor’s Business Daily, 10 February 2015
After analyzing more than 3200 articles, it finds that skeptical voices increased their presence markedly across all newspapers and all types of articles in the second period, and maintained a significant presence in many in the third. Clearly, over a considerable period of time, and judged by their ongoing presence in the UK’s print media, skeptics have been successful merchants of doubt. Previous studies have shown that since its formation in 2009, the GWPF has been particularly adept at achieving a very significant presence in the UK print media. –James Painter & Neil T. Gavin, Environmental Communication, 27 January 2015
A wave of political and regulatory uncertainty sweeping across the EU has caused the rate of wind farm installations to plummet by as much as 90 per cent in some countries. Investments have been severely undermined by “erratic and harsh” changes to renewable energy policies in several previously large wind markets, according to the European Wind Energy Association. The rate of installations plunged by 90 per cent in Denmark; 84 per cent in Spain and 75 per cent in Italy, the association has reported in its latest annual assessment of the industry. –Pilita Clark, Financial Times, 10 February 2015
1) EU Wants India To Contribute To $100 Billion UN Climate Fund
Press Trust of India, 9 February 2015
Geneva: The European Union Sunday said it expects India and other emerging economies to contribute to the Green Climate Fund after 2020, stating that “geopolitical realities have changed significantly”.
India, as part of LMDC and BASIC, has long resisted that all parties be treated similarly post-2020 a position that defies the principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR) which, India argues, is the basic principle of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
The hard fault lines between developed and developing nations was apparent once again in the first session of the six-day climate change talks which began in Geneva today.
Elina Bardram, head of the European Commission delegation stated that for a successful deal in Paris all major economies and other countries should submit their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDC) by the end of March and that there is “no excuse for them not to do so”.
The position will ruffle many feathers in the developing world.
“We are not saying that India needs to adopt a target that is the same as the EU. INDCs allow all parties to contribute in light of their specific circumstances and their development status,” stated Badram.
Sources who are part of the climate change talks, however, said that “Lima decision only invited countries to submit INDCs. It is not compulsory and there was no deadline of March or any other date”.
India, as part of Like Minded Group of Developing Countries (LMDC) and BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) group, argues that the focus on a mitigation-centric text will neglect issues of adaptation, technology transfer and financing incumbent on the developed nations, which again is a contravention of the convention.
“Developed countries want to confine the scope of the INDCs to only mitigation, while developing countries wanted all the elements to be covered, including on what developed countries will provide as regards their contributions for finance and technology transfer to support the developing countries’ mitigation and adaptation actions in the post-2020 period.
How could developing countries be expected to submit what they can do on mitigation when they do not know whether financial support is forthcoming and if so, how much?” said Martin Khor, head of the South Centre, an intergovernmental organization of developing countries, in Geneva.
South Africa, speaking on behalf of G-77 plus China, and supported by BASIC, LMDC and other groups of small nations, warned that “any attempt to re-negotiate, re-write or re-define” the basic principles of the UNFCCC would delay the process of reaching the Paris agreement.
2) Business As Usual At UN Climate Talks
Business Standard, 10 February 2015
Nitin Sethi
Climate change negotiations started at Geneva on Sunday, working to draw the rough blueprint for the global Paris agreement, which will be agreed upon by the end of the year. The signs of solidarity over select issues, which had emerged in the developing country block, G77+China, at Lima last year, reverberated at the Geneva venue too.
On Monday several of the groups that fall within the umbrella of the G77 demanded that the ‘Loss and Damage’ track of negotiations be treated separately from the talks on the issue of adaptation. It was an issue that had rocked the Lima talks and the developing countries did not lose their chance to put it on the central table at Geneva.
At the same time, the European Union (EU) demanded that the preamble of the Paris agreement not have any reference to the existing provisions of the United Nations (UN) Framework Convention on Climate Change or to historical responsibility of the developed countries.
Developing countries, especially the poorest ones, want that a special mechanism should be central to the Paris agreement. They want this system to provide compensation for the losses and damage arising out of inaction to reduce emissions by the rich world. The developed countries have fought hard over previous years to keep it as a notional concept within the larger frame of how the world adapts to inevitable climate change, consequently nullifying any new liability or responsibility.
Country groups such as the Alliance of Small Island States, the Least Developed Countries and AILAC, the Independent Alliance of Latin America and Caribbean, all came together on the issue of loss and damage.
The EU, in contrast, took a hard-line at Geneva on Monday, wanting to reduce even its existing responsibilities by asking that references to historical responsibility, which exist under the UN climate convention, be dropped in the new agreement. With historically accumulated emissions of greenhouse gases being much higher for developed countries, the responsibility for reduced emissions and funds to fight for climate change in developing countries falls largely on their shoulders.
With issues of financial support from the rich to developing countries and loss and damage being a common rallying point for even the most disparate groups under the G77+China umbrella, India too aligned with the others on the issue. With its other partners in the like-minded developing countries’ group, which includes China, it reiterated that the Paris agreement must reaffirm the “decisions on the Warsaw International Mechanism on loss and damage and make these operational”.
The first few days of negotiations at Geneva are expected to see all countries add to the existing wish list of what the Paris agreement should look like. The wish list, or the ‘elements text’ as it is called in negotiating jargon, is expected to consequently bloat and enlarge before countries get down to trimming and fine-tuning it.
Countries and groups began inserting specific language that reflected their views in the ‘elements text’. At the moment these remain as options on the table.
3) UN Climate Deal Complicated As Length Of Draft Text Balloons
Reuters, 12 February 2015
Almost 200 nations complicated a drive for a UN deal to combat climate change in 2015 on Wednesday by more than doubling the length of a draft negotiating text to about 100 pages of radically varying solutions.
Government delegates said the additions at the Geneva talks, set for Feb. 8-13, were to let all countries air their views, ranging from OPEC nations fearful of phasing out fossil fuels to small island states worried about rising sea levels.
“It’s like 195 authors trying to write a book together,” said Ahmed Sareer of the Maldives, chair of the 44-nation Alliance of Small Island States, which added text including stress on a need for deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.
“It’s to be expected,” Elina Bardram, head of the European Commission delegation, said of the additions. […]
The new text, of about 100 pages, swells a draft of 38 pages from talks in Lima last year, complicating the task ahead of a Paris summit starting in November that is due to agree a UN deal to limit global warming.
Geneva is the last session for adding texts. Under UN rules, an official draft as the basis for talks has to be ready six months before the summit.
The text lists a huge range of options that are unlikely to be resolved before Paris. One option is to cut greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050, another sets no clear timetable.
The length “is not a show-stopper,” said Christiana Figueres, head of the UN Climate Change Secretariat, adding that it was vital to hear all views.
Still, the length, twinned with sharper positions by many nations, increased the challenge for the next round of talks in June, she said.
The last time nations tried to work out a deal to combat climate change, in Copenhagen in 2009, draft texts ended up unmanageably long at 200 pages, said Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists. Copenhagen failed to nail down a deal.
“Adding text was the easy part,” he said. Still, he said 100 pages should not be a problem since countries could not complain – as many did in Copenhagen – that their views had been ignored.
4) UN Official Reveals Real Reason Behind Warming Scare
Investor’s Business Daily, 10 February 2015
The alarmists keep telling us their concern about global warming is all about man’s stewardship of the environment. But we know that’s not true. A United Nations official has now confirmed this.
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.
Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”
The only economic model in the last 150 years that has ever worked at all is capitalism. The evidence is prima facie: From a feudal order that lasted a thousand years, produced zero growth and kept workdays long and lifespans short, the countries that have embraced free-market capitalism have enjoyed a system in which output has increased 70-fold, work days have been halved and lifespans doubled.
Figueres is perhaps the perfect person for the job of transforming “the economic development model” because she’s really never seen it work.
5) Climate Skepticism in British Newspapers, 2007–2011
Environmental Communication, 27 January 2015
James Painter & Neil T. Gavin
Climate skepticism in the UK media has not been a major focus of recent research. This paper aims to help fill the gap by looking at the incidence of skeptical voices in UK newspapers across three periods: 2007, 2009/2010, and 2010/2011. After analyzing more than 3200 articles, it finds that skeptical voices increased their presence markedly across all newspapers and all types of articles in the second period, and maintained a significant presence in many in the third. Uncontested skeptical voices were particularly prevalent in opinion pieces and editorials in right-leaning newspapers in the second. It also finds that skeptical voices or opinions were more likely to be included in pieces written by in-house non-specialist columnists than by environment editors or correspondents. The negative implications of the results for public understanding and the quality of public debate are then explored. […]
Conclusions and Implications
[…] There are several possible explanations for the notable increase in the number of skeptical voices in the second and third periods compared to the first. As mentioned above, in the second period, there were a number of developments in the news which provided the editorial context for the inclusion of voices questioning mainstream climate science, the behavior of climate scientists, the IPCC, or the international negotiations. The leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit at the UAE, the Copenhagen summit, the errors in the 2007 IPCC reports, and the questioning of the IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri, all fell within this three month period.
Another important factor was the formation of the GWPF, whose two leaders Nigel Lawson and Benny Peiser were, by a considerable margin, the most quoted skeptics in this period (Painter, 2011, p. 105)…. The higher presence of skepticism in the UK compared to other countries is to a significant extent due to the presence of politicians espousing some variation of climate skepticism, the existence of organized interests that informs skeptical coverage, and partisan media receptive to this message (Painter, 2011). A preliminary case could be made that in period 2, the formation of the GWPF was a very significant driver, whereas in period 3, the ideologically driven approach to climate change coverage by certain newspapers was more significant.
Clearly, over a considerable period of time, and judged by their ongoing presence in the UK’s print media, skeptics have been successful merchants of doubt, to use Oreskes and Conway’s (2010) terminology. Previous studies have shown that since its formation in 2009, the GWPF has been particularly adept at achieving a very significant presence in the UK print media (Painter, 2011, p. 105). Such promotion of uncertainty around climate science can act as an obstacle to public understanding and engagement. And this public lack of understanding, minimal anxiety about climate change, or a sense that the problem has been exaggerated or poses no real threat are unlikely to give impetus to further legislative endeavors to reduce CO2 emissions. This is especially so for politicians with other priorities to deal with and a time horizon that may go little beyond the next election. This may be the case even if the skeptic coverage has no actual impact on those exposed to it. For, if politicians believe the public are, or could be, influenced by it—the so-called third person effect (Davison, 1983; Gunther, Perloff, & Tsfati, 2008) — they may act (or neglect to act) accordingly.
6) Europe Turning Cold On Wind Farms
Financial Times, 10 February 2015
Pilita Clark
A wave of political and regulatory uncertainty sweeping across the EU has caused the rate of wind farm installations to plummet by as much as 90 per cent in some countries.
The overall amount of wind power generating capacity installed in the EU still rose by 4 per cent last year, outpacing new gas and coal plant capacity combined, writes the FT’s Environment Correspondent, Pilita Clark.
But investments have been severely undermined by “erratic and harsh” changes to renewable energy policies in several previously large wind markets, according to the European Wind Energy Association.
The rate of installations plunged by 90 per cent in Denmark; 84 per cent in Spain and 75 per cent in Italy, the association has reported in its latest annual assessment of the industry.
