the man who holds the future

 

Who is Todd Stern?  And, why should you care?

We are coming upon a time when the global community will be reviewing, reevaluating and rewriting the Kyoto Protocol.  This is the document that each and every country will have to agree to in our win over climate change.

Todd Stern is the man who is representing YOU in those talks.

Hillary Clinton appointed him yesterday to head a larger group of people responsible that will be known as the Global Climate Change Envoy, stating:

“As we take steps at home, we will also vigorously pursue negotiations, those sponsored by the United Nations and those at the sub-global, regional and bilateral level, that can lead to binding international climate agreements,” Clinton said.  “No solution is feasible without all major emitting nations joining together and playing an important part.”

Todd Stern was a senior White House advisor under President Clinton, so maybe it won’t surprise you that Hillary Clinton appointed him to his latest position.  However, please do not assume this is just nepotism.  His credentials do justify this role.

Time Magazine has published some facts about Mr. Sterns:

Law degree from Harvard in 1977 and After completing his law degree, Stern served as an attorney for the Legal Aid Society for two years, followed by more than a decade working for private firms

Under President Clinton, he was the senior White House negotiator at the Kyoto Protocol negotiations, which called for the stabilization of greenhouse gas emissions.

Currently a senior fellow at the think tank Center for American Progress, where he focuses on climate change and environmental issues. He is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and a vice chair of public policy for the law firm Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr.

“Evaporation and rainfall are increasing; glaciers are retreating; sea ice is shrinking; sea level is rising; permafrost is melting; wildfires are increasing; storm and flood damage is soaring. The canary in the coal mine is singing for all she’s worth.” — on reading the signs of climate change (Center for American Progress, May 28, 2004)

how do we save our planet?

The United Kingdom seems to be a leader in environmental reporting. A very interesting piece came out of the Independent this week, asking the world’s leading climate scientists what can be done to save our planet.

The results are very interesting. Getting input from 44 people across the globe, would, obviously result in a wide range of opinions.

Below are a sampling of some of the more compelling, but going to the article, HERE, is recommended.

Professor Chris Rapley, director of the Science Museum, London: I am not enthusiastic about geo-engineering, as to intervene on a massive scale in the Earth’s climate system will certainly have unforeseen consequences, some of which could be as regrettable as the problem the intervention was designed to address in the first place. This is why Jim Lovelock and I have been encouraging thought and exploration of means to “help the Earth help itself”; i.e. by amplifying carbon sequestration processes that the Earth already practises – in the ocean and on land.

Professor John Latham, US National Centre for Atmospheric Research: Since CO2 levels seem certain to rise for a long time, we think it vital to examine geo-engineering schemes for stabilizing Earth’s temperature for long enough to allow alternative, clean forms of energy to be developed.

Professor James Shulmeister, University of Canterbury, New Zealand: There is NO prospect of getting cuts in emissions of the scale needed to have a large impact on the problem. We need all the cuts we can get but we also need to engineer ourselves out of the problem. However, geoengineering on its own is NOT the solution.

Frank Schwing, National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration, US Department of Commerce: I am more optimistic about global reduction efforts because the new Obama Administration in the US is poised to be a world leader in this effort, and because the public groundswell for such an effort is growing rapidly. Regarding geoengineering, we clearly will need some concerted and effective efforts to engineer our way to reduced greenhouse gas levels. However, I am concerned that the public, and governments, will see such efforts as a panacea, thereby eliminating the need for public action to reduce emissions.

Steven Sherwood, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut: At the present time, I do not know of any geoengineering strategy that I feel would ever be worth implementing. For example, the most popular idea (creation of stratospheric aerosols) would render us susceptible to a devastating climate whiplash if the program were ever halted. However, as a matter of principle I believe that such strategies should be carefully studied, their merits and defects weighed and discussed, and better alternatives sought. International agreements on how to decide on geoengineering need to be put in place before such actions are seriously contemplated, rather than after.”

un climate summit

It has been difficult to report on what has been going on with the UN Climate Summit, primarily because it has been a negotiation, with no decisions, and many people looking to the U.S. to lead the way… and, we know how that would go with a Bush Administration representative.

That is why I was so pleased today when Bill McKibben posted an essay on Grist.org. I am a big fan of this man, which you know if you have followed this blog for a while. I admire his work, I think he is extremely well spoken, slightly provocative in his ideas, and definitely innovative.

Please take the time to read the article, which can be found HERE. Below are some excerpts:

In writing about the Ptolemaic Universe:

The Greek astronomers invented all sorts of flourishes to make the orbital calculations work: deferents and epicycles, equants and eccentrics, little wheels within wheels that preserved the theory for a very long time, more than a thousand years — till finally Copernicus came along with some new data and blew the whole thing up….In somewhat the same way, we’ve all agreed to suspend disbelief for a long time and keep pretending that the process to do something about global warming is working.

about the negotiations:

The language of these negotiations is numbers, and so the less obvious but more pragmatically powerful way to state it is: These interminable talks are designed to build a machine that would halt the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide somewhere in the neighborhood of 450 to 550 parts per million. They’re so loaded with loopholes, and the timetables are so slow, that they probably wouldn’t accomplish even that, but that’s the goal. The theory is that the world we need is a 450 world, based on the science from five and 10 and 15 years ago.

and then… the truth:

And then, on the last day of the talks, Al Gore gave his speech, which drew everyone into the main conference hall. It was a good talk, but by far the longest and loudest applause came when he formally announced the new reality. “Even a goal of 450 parts per million, which seems so difficult today, is inadequate,” he said, adding that we “need to toughen that goal to 350 parts per million.” People erupted — probably not the Chinese and American delegations, and definitely not the Saudis and the Russians, but all the people who’d spent the last few years struggling with the idea that their work was getting increasingly off-the-point. It was a way of saying: We’ve been engaged in saving the treaty, not saving the world — and we’d rather save the world

and the conclusion:

They’ve said the world circles the sun. Now we have to proceed on that understanding. It won’t be easy — “political reality” says it’s impossible. But political reality is easier to change than scientific reality. Since we can’t change the laws of physics, we’re going to have to try and change the laws of man.

moving backwards. not good.

The annual report of the United States greenhouse gas emissions was released today, and unfortunately, we seem to be moving in the wrong direction.

The United States emissions were 7,282 million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent in 2007 – an increase of 1.4 percent from the 2006 level, federal government figures show.

Per the Kyoto protocol, we track and monitor six gases.

Total estimated U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2007 consisted of 6,022 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, which represents 82.6 percent of the total greenhouse gases emitted from U.S. sources.

In 2007, the U.S. emitted 700 million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent of methane (9.6 percent of total emissions); 384 million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent of nitrous oxide (5.3 percent of total emissions); and 177 million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent of hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride (2.4 percent of total emissions).

It should also be noted that what is deemed the most dangerous greenhouse gas, nitrogen triflouride, is not required to be measured, yet is increasing. This is a gas released during the process of making plasma televisions and other devices using plasma etching. It was once thought inert, but new data has indicated otherwise. You can go HERE to find out more information.

What is also confirmed in this report is that the United States is still the leader in emissions, with China in a close second at 6,200 million metric tons.

The good news is that, especially now with a new president, we are committed to reducing our levels of emissions by 2030 per the new Kyoto Protocol, expected to be ratified sometime next year.

You can find the report on greenhouse gases HERE.

american in transition, part 2

Barack Obama announced his Security Team, yesterday, which included the appointment of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.

Something that has been buzzing for a while is that idea that climate change, and not enacting sound policy, can be a risk to national security. For example, if we are the only ones that have clean water or food, then another country may try a terrorist attack to get our resources. That is a very simple explanation behind the idea of two things being linked.

So, in my mind, it becomes critical that the people making national security policy have a strong environmental track record and see what we are up against. I feel that Clinton is a strong choice for this reason, alone.

In a past interview, while running for President, with Grist:
“Global warming is a global problem that’s going to require a global solution,” she said. “As president, I will work to involve both China and India. But I think it’s important for the U.S. to provide leadership by taking aggressive steps to reduce our contribution to global-warming pollution.”

Why this is significant is because this is the person who will be representing us in the upcoming rewrite of the Kyoto Protocol and other global issues about climate change. We need someone who supports the science and, more importantly, supports change in our current policy, i.e. we don’t have one.

All in all, I think Clinton is a fantastic representative for the United States for the rest of the world.

domo arigato kyoto

According to reports released yesterday, the world, with no help from the United States, is on track to meet targets set by the Kyoto Protocol.

Interestingly, though, it is not because countries have made an effort in reducing their emissions, but as a result of the economic downturn. The data also shows that countries that have had an economic benefit due to industrialization have increased their emissions. All in all, it has been a net positive for the world, but each country still needs to make the effort to follow what has been outlined in the protocol.

The US is the only developed nation that has not ratified the Kyoto protocol. Its emissions rose by 14% between 1990 and 2006. Japan’s emissions, meanwhile, rose to a record high in the year to March. The world’s fifth-largest carbon dioxide producer now faces the embarrassing prospect of missing its Kyoto target over the next four years.

In the upcoming summit meeting in Poland, representatives from each country are expected to renegotiate terms to the Kyoto protocol and ratify it in early 2009. We shall see what happens.