but will remain on board as a special advisor??? More to come.
Category Archives: Chris
“I don’t know if that’s a boycott. That may have just been lunch.”
“Could it be a bigger hoax than the female orgasm???”
“On the other hand, it gets cold in winter and scientists are PAID”
Press briefing by Todd Stern – Special Envoy for Climate Change and Head of the United States Delegation
Comments on the US mitigation commitment:
Reduction proposal submitted around 17% below 2005 levels in 2020, with upgrades to 30% below 2005 in 2025 and 42% by 2030.
–> there is considerable frustration that the US hasn’t been using 1990 levels as a benchmark, but consider that 30% in 2025 and 42% in 2030 are equivalent to 18% and 30%, respectfully, for 1990.
Stern responds to criticism that the US has been outdone by the EU in these commitments: EU 20% reduction against 1990 levels is equivalent to 13% against 2005, so less than what the US is putting down.
Also, a good question from member of press: Q: “China has pledged to reduce its carbon intensity. The US has said that it wants all pledges to be verifiable. Carbon intensity has two components. There’s the carbon emissions – that seems reasonably straightforward, you can count the coal plants. But if you want to measure GDP, how do you do an external audit that people believe of a country’s GDP?
A: … “that nicely encapsulates the reason why we think that there ought to be some measure of international consultation or review or dialogue or whatever the term is, with respect to any transparency report that a country puts in, whether it’s China or anybody else, so that quesitons can be asked. And, how – in the US can you audit? that’s kind of outside my particular range of expertise. But it’s a question that I think underscores the need to be able to ask questions, understand assumptions behind numbers and things like that.
–> anyone else have an answer to this?
On behalf of President Obama, Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced in Copenhagen Monday the launch of a new Renewables and Energy Efficiency Deployment Initiative (Climate REDI) as a “quick start” initiative for the broad technical and financial mechanisms of an international climate agreement. Secretary Chu also welcomed progress under the Major Economies Forum for Climate and Energy (MEF), inviting counterparts in MEF and other countries to a first-ever Clean Energy Ministerial in Washington next year.
Cramped alongside the meeting room with press and other onlookers, I was brushed aside by secret service as Chu and energy ministers from Italy, India, and Australia were hurried into the briefing. In moments like this, the COP15 Climate Conference lives up to its representation in the mainstream press as nothing more than a high-profile shouting match over “factual” science, controversial forebodings and arbitrary commitments.
It is different, however, when you’re close enough to the politics to be pushed out of the way. You see them roll their eyes, wipe their brows, check their blackberries, and begin to question the humanity of entrusting so few individuals with such imperative decisions.
The U.S. presence here is reassuringly strong, and high-profile appearances are expected every day this week by members of Obama’s cabinet. Destabilizing to Copenhagen skeptics is the compelling rhetoric emanating from Chu, a Nobel laureate, who speaks in largely technical and less wistfully emotive terms than Obama, when he must frustratingly tailor climate science to a global audience.
Climate politics is unique in that credible science is unavoidably manipulated towards discursive ends. The U.S. media center at COP15 is particularly geared towards bringing American scientific research to the global forefront. To clear space for Chu’s speech, for instance, a team of staffers hurried to move the elaborate demonstration by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of meteorological modeling, involving an enormous spherical display of real-time global storm patterns. Chu, himself, was speaking a foreign language to probably half his audience of press and politicians as he explained ion-pool energy storage and jet-engine-inspired turbine research. From what I’ve seen, Chu and the Department of Energy are not going to dumb down the scientific realities facing decisionmakers just so that they are more easily discussed over dinner.
But the next day, Secretary Chu was on a plane back to Washington. Tom Vilsack, Secretary of Agriculture, made his own speech on Tuesday afternoon as part of the back-to-back strategy of U.S. delegators in laying the groundwork for Obama’s appearance on Friday. Needless to say, I won’t be standing anywhere nearby for that speech, which will be attended by over a hundred heads of state expected in Copenhagen for the final days of negotiations.
The difficulty for me is in reconciling that a strong American presence encounters a delicate balance of global perspectives, especially significant resentment towards our disproportional contribution to global emissions. With blinders on, one is easily convinced that our scientists will live up to a history of life-changing innovation and provide American homes and businesses with the necessary tools for a carbon neutral future. The reality of conference proceedings, however, is that the most convincing stance, such as that of American scientific consensus, often has limited political voice.
Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.), Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and lead author of the Senate’s comprehensive climate change legislation, will deliver a major address tomorrow highlighting critical steps toward combating the climate crisis as well and outlining America’s commitment to reducing pollution through comprehensive legislation from the Congress soon after the New Year.
He’s an alumni and my senator – might have an interview…
The Africa group walked out of the negotiations this-morning in solidarity as it became increasingly clear that developed countries’ commitment to the Kyoto Protocol was limited. Connie Hedergard, Danish Environment Minister, gave a frank account of expectations for a legally-binding, making such an agreement unlikely. “The outcome of the Copenhagen Process will be a traditional COP decision, as has been the case for the last 14 years,” she said. Since this-morning, the EU has recommitted to Kyoto and we are inside the plenary with expectations that negotiations will resume shortly.
Alice, Snigdha and I are in an EU presentation on “Public Access to Information and Public Participation,” which also involves free food and coffee – what a coincidence.
We managed to check in to the hostel yesterday and organize ourselves a bit before the Yale event for dinner, drinks, etc. and a keynote by Dr. Pachauri, chair of the IPCC and director of the Yale Climate and Energy Institute (YCEI). For me, his address was fairly dry and consistent with the same overarching rhetoric of climate change pressures that have represented ‘consensus’ for years at this point. I would have liked to hear more about linkages, his hopes and expectations for the conference, and commentary on the role of the IPCC in particular, considering its sensitive and controversial hand in both science and policy.
Oh, and the event took place on a SHIP. The COP15 passes allow us free public transportation throughout the metro area, and we took a bus to the waterfront, and walked from there to where Yale had rented out some enormous boat docked along the business district for the 75-or-so delegates from New Haven, as well as ‘friends of Yale’ involved in the conference. Lots of interesting people, PILES of meat and cheese, and a great opportunity to go into the second week of the conference with a sense of what other students and professors are looking to gain from the experience. Look for an update on our meetings today!