A distant climate
I was hoping to blog today from the UN climate talks in Poznan, Poland, where I'm due to spend the rest of the week.
I had been intending to spend a few hours sampling the mood, taking the temperature, chewing the cud, and lots of other cliched things that journalists do when they arrive somewhere new and aren't completely sure what's going on, before delivering to you a distillation of the assembled wisdom.
However, the action by climate protestors which closed the runway at London's Stansted Airport this morning meant a cancelled flight, so I am writing this during a few hours back at my house before trying again.
So all I can do is to pick out a few of the themes that emerged during the first week of the meeting, and offer an initial take on what it looks like from a distance of many hundreds of kilometres.
As we all knew beforehand, there isn't going to be a major deal at the Poznan meeting - that's scheduled for the next one in Copenhagen in a year's time.
But several things can be resolved in Poznan, including raising and managing funds to help the poorest countries prepare for potential impacts of climate change, and setting up a process to pay countries with abundant forest to protect that forest.
On the first issue, a long-running dispute between developed and developing countries over how to manage the UN Adaptation Fund, which channels money from the international carbon market into climate protection, appears still to be a live issue.
The developed countries paying the money regard it as theirs; but so do the developing nations, who argue that it is merely what the west owes them for having created the problem of man-made climate change.
So last week saw fresh objections from developing states - and the group of NGOs that acts with them - to having the World Bank involved in its management, or indeed in the management of any UN funds connected with climate change. They say that the bank is in the political pocket of the west, and that some of its development programmes effectively fund deforestation.
The fund contains nothing like the $50bn that development agencies believe is a necessary annual sum, which also grates with developing states.
But especially in straitened times, are developed countries going to cough up more - especially to a fund whose management they are not happy with? One Japanese delegate reportedly said [pdf] that rich governments could not become "the ATM for the world".
Discussions on reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) appear to be throwing up some important ethical and philosophical dilemmas.
A good idea in principle, virtually everyone involved agrees, because deforestation accounts for about 20% of greenhouse gas emissions (considerably more than aviation, incidentally) and is relatively cheap to fix.
But some groups charge that western countries are too keen on it because they can effectively "buy" emission reductions abroad and continue with business as usual at home. Others say that it should be a priority because preserving forests intact has benefits for wildlife as well; the UN Environment Programme, to prove the point, released an "atlas of carbon and biodiversity" last week showing that forest areas important for storing carbon also tend to be important ecologically.
But what about indigenous peoples who live in the forest? There appears to be quite a degree of concern that not enough priority is being given to their needs in the REDD discussions.
The first week's talks have brought fairly predictable condemnations from environment groups that western nations are not doing enough to curb their greenhouse gas emissions, either in the scale of the cuts they are contemplating or in the cuts they are actually implementing.
Perhaps the most significant events are taking place away from Poznan, as EU countries try to finalise their climate and energy package which will include a unilateral commitment to reduce emissions by 20%, or by 30% if a global deal materialises.
Saturday saw a meeting in Gdansk where President Nicholas Sarkozy of France - which currently holds the EU presidency - tried to alleviate the fears of the Poles and others that the package would come with a crippling price tag.
That brought some progress but no final agreement - so we wait for the EU heads of state meeting later in the week in Brussels.
The outcome of that matters in Poznan because Poland - the leading critic of the EU package - is co-chairing the UN talks as host nation and if the EU is seen to be faltering in its commitment to curb greenhouse gas emissions, we can expect the rest of the world to be less enthusiastic.
From tomorrow, I'll do my best to keep you up to date with the substance and the froth of the Poznan talks from a closer vantage-point - assuming there are no further runway closures to contend with.
I'm Richard Black, environment correspondent for the BBC News website. This is my take on what's happening to our shared environment as the human population grows and our use of nature's resources increases.
© MMX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~54~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
> the action by climate protestors [...]
> meant a cancelled flight
schadenfreude, anybody?
Complain about this comment
The Plane Stupids stopping people from flying to the Climate Change Conference is just poetic.
Complain about this comment
This is surely like Al Gore- its apparently O.K for him to fly 1st class to pick up the awards for telling us not to fly because it causes global warming. Ditto Prince Charles and apparently Ditto Richard Black.
Complain about this comment
Poland isn't that far away - why aren't you going by train? Eurostar across the channel, overnight across Germany, easy.
For some trips, especially ones that cross oceans, flying is necessary. But for many others it's just convenient, or worse, just habbit.
Go overland instead. You'll meet far more people, see far more of the place your going to, and anjoy an altogether more civilised way to travel.
Complain about this comment
I was about to comment on the irony of your blog post, but it seems i've been beaten to it.
Why does it take a cancelled flight for you to point out the relatively small amount of 'greenhouse' gas flying emits?
I guess when the lights finally go out in Blighty even the climate nutters will begin to see the merits of having some form of domestic electricity generation.
Complain about this comment
I suggest you go by train next time: Eurostar to Brussels, Thalis to Cologne and then the overnight to Poznan.
We sent Tim to Poland that way: http://poznanclimate.blogspot.com/
Complain about this comment
"President Nicholas Sarkozy... tried to alleviate the fears of the Poles and others that the package would come with a crippling price tag."
Not sure how he can do that. The EU wants to reduce our carbon use by 20% or 30%, and our silly politicians at the provincial parliament at Westminster have recently signed us up to an 80% reduction.
Energy use is price inelastic. To achieve these levels of reduction will inevitably come with a crippling price tag.
Complain about this comment
I'm gobsmacked by the hypocrisy.
You want to punish my family out the cars we use for an essential journey to work, leaving either myself or my wife unemployed.
But you are FLYING in a gas guzzling jet plane to Poland.
* For yet another non-essential 'environment conference'
* Which you could cover without ever leaving your office
* Which you could travel to by train
This just about sums up the 'environment' movement.
Complain about this comment
Thanks for all your transport comments and suggestions. Yes, I agree, Lord_Stormshadow, that rail is an option for this trip, and a number of journalists here have taken that option. Last month I made a day trip from London to San Sebastian, taking sleeper trains both ways, with all the social benefits you suggest.
However, there is a clear difference, jon112uk and Peter_Sym, between activists/campaigners and journalists. I am not a campaigner, I am not a member of “the environment movement”; my job is not to advocate this or that course of action but to report on the subject as best I can. It is appropriate for campaigners to feel an overriding moral imperative to prioritise rail over air travel, but I would question whether that is appropriate for someone in my job.
What I do have a duty to do, as someone whose expenses are met from your licence fee, is to keep costs down – which was the main reason for selecting the Stansted flight. First-class it would not have been - even if it had taken off.
Complain about this comment
I see someone scoffing at 80% lower emissions but I'm sure plenty of people were going to Poznan. If four people went in a minibus that would be an 80% reduction in emissions. It's that simple.
Complain about this comment
#9
I can't believe you're saying it's ok for you to fly everywhere because you're an 'environmental correspondent' not an 'environmental campaigner'
At the end of the day that's still a key part of the globalised 'environment' movement.
I once asked Jonathan Porritt to tell me how many times he has flown to/from New Zealand (that's where his family originate). Apparently one flight to New Zealand emits about as much CO2 as my house does in 7 years - heating, lighting, everything. He wouldn't give an answer.
I might drive to work everyday - pure evil, I know - but I'd love to sit down and compare 'carbon footprints' with some of the high profile 'environmentalists'
Complain about this comment
Why is it so difficult to recognise that flight-related emissions are a tiny percentage of the total, and even in the worst (or best) forecasts, they are bound to become two or three times less tiny, but still pretty inconsequential?
Fighting CO2 emissions by avoiding to fly is like trying to beat the credit crunch by cutting down on popcorns at the movies. A few pounds will definitely be saved, but that's not going to make any difference in one's monthly budget.
The situation is different for the likes of Al Gore and globe-trotting climate change campaigners, because for them it's a matter of leading by example.
Even if we do not agree on several points, I do not think Richard Black has ever attempted to lead anybody anywhere, regarding global warming. And as a UK TV licence payer, I'd have him reach destination and come back quickly, rather than waste his time in transit.
Complain about this comment
12. At 01:50am on 10 Dec 2008, omnologos wrote:
Why is it so difficult to recognise that flight-related emissions are a tiny percentage of the total....
It's not difficult to understand at all - one guy flying is nothing.
But if I compared those flights, tens of thousands of litres of fuel, with my use of fuel to do ESSENTIAL journeys to work it would massively outweigh what I emit in CO2.
So how come it's OK for him to fly to do his work and yet when I drive to do mine the full weight of government, councils etc is brought to bear on me to 'force me out of the car' ?
Complain about this comment
First reaction, what a good idea.
Then I looked at the GCP web (they of 'The Little REDD Book') and this caught my eye:
"We are working with the private sector investment community to design innovative market mechanisms to increase positive incentives for the wise use of forests, and to value the 'living carbon' and ecosystem services they provide"
Oh please, NO!
Wasn't it innovative market mechanisms designed by the private sector investment community that got us in our present mess?
Complain about this comment
omnologos, as currently predicted, growth in air travel in the UK will make it impossible to achieve a 60% GHG emissions reduction by 2050, whatever else we do. Now consider that the rest of the world is aspiring to our lifestyle. What happens when the rest of the world has succeeded in following our fine example and we have 7 or 8 billion people all wanting city mini-breaks, package holidays and air freight? We will not be able to reduce global emissions by 60% even if every coal power station, internal combustion engine and gas or oil boiler is scrapped, and Amazonian and South-East Asian deforestation is completely halted. (How are you going to break that news to China, India, Brazil or Indonesia?) And anyway, 60% is now almost universally regarded as an insufficient cut.
BTW, I have a question for Richard Black (comment 9): do you use the same exemption that you used to justify not taking the train ("I'm not a card-carrying environmentalist, so I only consider the price on the label") to justify buying tropical hardwood furniture from an illegal source, eating processed food containing beef or soya grown on former Amazonian rainforest, or even just employing a fly-tipping building contractor - just because they're cheap? I suspect the answer to all of these is "no", so what's different about flying?
The added irony is that with an average laptop and mobile phone you can now stay connected to your office and the internet from your train seat all the way across Europe, so the extra time is well spent. You save money on accommodation because you sleep on the train. And it is not always more expensive. I travelled by train from Manchester to Nice and back in June for £180 return (cheaper than the plane) simply by booking six weeks ahead. - I assume UN conferences *are* scheduled that far in advance?
Complain about this comment
I wonder how much Richard's flights cost in the end.
One unremarked thing that Plane Stupid did at Stansted was expose the truth about Ryanair's 'budget' flights.
Note that of all the airlines flying out of Stansted that day, only Ryanair cancelled flights. Could it be something to do with the fact that it thereby got to avoid flying all those passengers who had paid pennies for their tickets in the knowledge that most of them would then have to buy full price tickets on other Ryanair flights in order to complete their intended journeys?
I am willing to bet that Ryanair made a healthy windfall profit out of the Plane Stupid protest.
Complain about this comment
Richard Black said:
"my job is not to advocate this or that course of action but to report on the subject as best I can"
So why don't you report on ClimateAudit.org showing that Mann has his data wrong and why don't you report the many FOI requests for John Mitchell to reveal his correspondance with the IPCC that are refused? Further information can be found on the Climate Audit blogsite, if you want to view the details
I'm sorry, Richard, but until you report on these matters impartially, I don't think you can call yourself impartial.
Complain about this comment
Yes Richard,
As I have asked you many times, please give both sides of the CO2 story. Using Scientific Facts not Computer Predictions.
Don't be a BBC lemming........
Complain about this comment
Well ... after reading the comments about the flight issue,,, I will only say this: Carbon savings for the reduction of meat consumption, calculated with respect to the Dutch situation by the Institute for Environmental Studies, Free University Amsterdam : Five days without meat would make the equivalent savings to 32 million return flights Amsterdam-Nice (500 kg CO2 per return flight) you can see the whole table here : [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator] So.. for me .. of course it is important to choose the greenest way of transport possible,.. but .. it doesn´t make a difference as big as to choose the greenest diet, which has been proved to be the vegetarian diet :)
Complain about this comment
Peter Barber, the issue here is the difference between being a journalist and an activist. So in my personal life I can make all kinds of choices, including what transport to use and what floors to buy, and I have to be comfortable personally with those. If you're an activist, it is entirely legitimate to bring your private beliefs into your public life - in fact it's part of the deal. As a journalist - again, not part of the 'environment movement' - I think you have a duty to keep the two things separate.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS