CleanTechnica

One of the contentious issues at Copenhagen is how much money to give to the developing world to help avert the sharp rise in carbon emissions expected in the about-to-industrialize countries. The funds are to come from the developed world, and this fund is generally framed in the US media (and not just by Glen Beck), as a giveaway. The New York Times puts it like this: Climate Deal Likely to Bear Big Price Tag.

“The money would be used to help developing nations reduce emissions by switching to renewable energy sources like wind and solar and by compensating landowners for not cutting down or burning forests, a major source of carbon dioxide emissions.

Other funds might be used to adjust to effects of a changing climate, like rising sea levels, by building flood walls or relocating settlements to higher ground.”

Is this a “big cost”? Actually, no. This is an investment in solar, and wind, and even flood wall businesses. The real beneficiaries are the countries whose renewable energy businesses will grow from this investment. A more appropriate headline might be: Climate Deal Likely to Bring Big Boom to Renewable Sector.
Read the rest of this entry »

The Copenhagen Climate Conference would produce an internationally agreed climate change treaty which would be aimed at achieving significant global reduction in carbon emissions, feels the Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Mr. Yvo De Boer expressed his positive views saying that there is still a lot or room for negotiations and convergence of views among the representatives of more than 190 countries meeting in the Danish capital.

Sadly, though, there are still many issues on which there is almost no consensus, quantum of emission targets being the most important one. Although the developed and developing countries have issued several emission reduction targets none comes close to the IPCC’s recommendation of 25-40 percent emission reduction in global carbon emissions by 2020 from 1990 levels. The developing countries continue pressurize the developed countries to commit to stricter emission targets while the developed countries want the developing nations to restrict their emissions output growth rate. Read the rest of this entry »

One of the hardest parts of checking foreign news sources – to find out what others think of the emissions reductions targets their countries are bringing to Copenhagen – is deciphering the meaning of all those political parties’ names. Who knows which side each of these is on, when it comes to climate change.

The names are bafflingly similar to each other. Who could guess which foreign political party wants a higher target and which one wants a lower; between the Democratic-Republican-National Party and the the Social-National Party or the Christian-Socia… lets just say; it’s confusing!

Lets just call the two parties in every country what they really are. In every country there’s a Fossil Party and a Future Party. One party represents hope for a future for humanity, and one represents the continued use of fossil-fueled energy that will pretty much wipe out the human race over the next few centuries. Read the rest of this entry »

During the run up to the Copenhagen climate change conference the blogosphere had been brimming with pro-climate deal news with several countries announcing carbon reduction measures and record size green energy power projects being announced almost every week. The climate change skeptics had taken a backseat, so to say. But after the climategate incident the argument between the skeptics and believers got ignited once again. The stakes are high this time as representatives from about 190 countries meet in Copenhagen to discuss new climate treaty.

But one does not need to believe in climate change to support the potential climate deal which is scheduled to replace the Kyoto Protocol after 2012. The climate deal means much more than just carbon cuts, carbon trading and adaptation fund. A scientifically sound climate deal would bring many other positive changes for the environment, economy and the society. Read the rest of this entry »

In a bold move; well timed to coincide with the US Climate Summit decision at Copenhagen, this week the EPA will declare carbon dioxide a “Public Danger” – - triggering the certainty of regulation for big greenhouse gas emitters such as power stations, cement kilns, crude-oil refineries and chemical plants, according to the Wall Street Journal.

The move essentially guarantees that fossil industries feel either the very sharp stick of this EPA ruling…or they allow some of the Senators they control to cross the aisle for the first time on energy legislation and ratify what President Obama has said he is taking to Copenhagen as the US offer: a carbon cut of 17% below 2005 by 2020.

Senator Inhofe, the recipient of $2,182,631 from the fossil industry, has announced he is heading the delayer contingent in Copenhagen. But he might be better off staying home and ending his boycott of working on the legislation that the Republicans have filibustered for years, that by comparison with the EPA stick; is quite a juicy carrot.
Read the rest of this entry »

Why you can’t solve a problem with the thinking that created it

Many are probably aware of the viral video hit The Story of Stuff created by Annie Leonard. Today the Story of Stuff Project, in partnership with Climate Justice Now!, releases it’s next project, an animated 9-minute video called The Story of Cap and Trade.

Produced by Free Range Studios, The Story of Cap and Trade does what no congressional hearing or lobbyist talking head can do – make a greenhouse gas cap and trade scheme comprehensible. The short video by no means explains the entire scope of the cap and trade schemes proposed here in the US, or in place internationally, but what it does give a thorough grounding on the subject so that you and I can start to make sense of it. Once we do that, we can explore further, ask questions, begin a real dialog, and perhaps see why cap and trade schemes are not the best mechanism to deal with carbon emissions and climate change. Based on that, we can act and urge our leaders to make better choices.

With the world beginning to focus on the start of the COP15 climate conference next week, the timing couldn’t be better.

Read the rest of this entry »

As Copenhagen nears, the companies in the fossil energy industry that will be actually impacted by the climate bill are still not reporting their climate change risks, according to the Environmental Defense Fund and the Center for Energy and Environmental Security.

Climate-related disclosure “continues to be weak or altogether nonexistent in SEC filings of global companies with the most at stake in preparing for a low-carbon global economy.”
Read the rest of this entry »

In an effort to help a major developing country (the 4th largest country in the world) deal with climate change appropriately, the new Prime Minister of Japan reportedly agreed to give Indonesia a $400 million loan for this last weekend.
Read the rest of this entry »

Norway committed to cut their greenhouse gas emissions 40% by 2020 this week. This is the most ambitious goal of any rich nation to date.

Norway’s prime minister Jens Stoltenberg (just re-elected) is meeting the requests of many developing nations and environmental NGOs with this commitment.
Read the rest of this entry »

A new report released today says that if we shift our economy — to a greener, low-carbon economy — we will have more jobs, not fewer.

Earlier this week, Tony Blair (former prime minister of the UK) and the Climate Group reported that if we worked to avoid climate change we’d create 10 million new jobs by 2020 — worldwide. Another recent study by Greenpeace and the European Renewable Energy Council says that such a shift could increase employment in the EU by 2.7 million jobs by 2030.

One more report, released today by the Global Climate Network (an alliance of nine influential think tanks) comes to similar conclusions.
Read the rest of this entry »