Planetary Emergency

I would argue that under the premise of the Geneva Conventions, and with the threat of global heating and climate change, a Planetary Emergency, no Nation State can be bar anyone from entering their country.

Ex-Minister Wayne Panton raises alarm on Environment

CNS): Wayne Panton said he was “disappointed” that Cayman now has an environment minister who appears to be “against the environment rather than for it”, as he raised the alarm about watering down the National Conservation Law. The former Cabinet member, who lost his seat in the May election by just a handful of votes, told CNS he had never seen such an “about-face in politics”. Just a few years ago the historic law had the unanimous backing of members, but now the example of truly “pro-Caymanian legislation” was facing an unwarranted backlash based on “fake facts”.

The former environment minister, one of the first politicians appointed to the post who was knowledgeable about conservation issues and became a true champion for the environment, said he was enormously disappointed with the recent turn of events. He said there has been a complete distortion by politicians of the legislation, which had been through significant consultation and enjoyed wide public support.

Panton said that the Legislative Assembly had voted unanimously for the law, which for the first time put the environment on a par with other considerations, such as social and economic, when it came to development but, he stressed, did not elevate it over them. He said it paved the way for conservation to be given equal weight to other factors and was designed to help balance competing interests and to ensure that the natural resources, which are fundamental to “what makes us Caymanian”, are not ignored in future planning decisions.

“But suddenly, people who voted in favour seem completely intent on repealing it or substantially watering it down,” he said, noting that the arguments to justify this rejection of the law were illogical and based on misinterpretation of the powers of the National Conservation Council and a misunderstanding of the law. https://goo.gl/SzjrVS

At Doha Climate Talks: Failed Ambition and Unfulfilled Promises

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

December 8, 2012

Contact:

Niranjali Amerasinghe, +1-202-288-2204, +974-6646-9833, namerasinghe@ciel.org

Alyssa Johl, +1-510-435-6892, ajohl@ciel.org

AT DOHA CLIMATE TALKS: FAILED AMBITION AND UNFULFILLED PROMISES

DOHA, QATAR—Today, countries again recognized the need for urgent action to respond to climate change, and again failed to take that action, says the Center for International Environmental Law. The last-minute deal lacks meaningful commitments and leaves critical details to be resolved at a later date.

"This outcome represents a failure of ambition and yet another failure of political will—the latest in a long line of pledges to take real action someday, but not today." said CIEL President Carroll Muffett. "Governments have now squandered decades that could have been spent averting climate disaster.

Nations adopted a new commitment period under the existing Kyoto Protocol. However, Canada, Japan, Russia, and New Zealand backed out of the second commitment period, and the remaining emission reduction targets are weak. Countries completed negotiations under the Bali Action Plan, but most of the work is incomplete and will be carried forward over the next two years. They also agreed on a general work plan for the Durban Platform, which is supposed to lead to a legally binding agreement by 2015 and spur more action in the short-term.

"In an effort to close the negotiations, Parties have stripped the substance from the outcome,” said Niranjali Amerasinghe, CIEL's Climate Change Program Director. "This was the moment for developed countries, particularly the United States, to show leadership, to fulfill their obligations to lead the fight against climate change. And they have not.”

Results across the board display a serious lack of ambition to address important issues. The process for increasing mitigation commitments is weak. There is no certainty that developed countries will increase public finance to support mitigation and adaptation in developing countries. Decisions that could have been made on efforts to reduce emissions from deforestation, known as REDD+, were pushed to next year. However, countries did agree to discuss the role that forests play in providing benefits beyond carbon reduction, which is essential for effective forest governance.

After contentious negotiations, action on much-needed loss and damage mechanism was stalled by a handful of developed countries, led by the United States. “The international community has failed to deliver what’s needed to protect the rights of affected people through mitigation and adaptation,” said CIEL’s Alyssa Johl. “Now we’re forced to discuss what’s needed to compensate vulnerable countries for loss of lives, livelihoods, property and culture. Today, this decision has been delayed by those countries unwilling to accept responsibility for their historic contributions to this crisis.”

“In the wake of Doha, interest in climate action outside the UNFCCC will continue to rise,” said Muffett. “While leaders may be willing to wait until 2020 to respond to climate change, their people are not. We are seeing more protests, more opposition to dirty energy and a growing body of climate litigation in countries around the world for the simple reason that climate change is the greatest threat facing humankind. The world can no longer wait for governments to catch up to reality in this process.”

About CIEL

Founded in 1989, the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), www.ciel.org, uses the power of law to protect the environment, promote human rights and ensure a just and sustainable society. With offices in Washington, DC and Geneva, CIEL’s staff of international attorneys and experts work in the areas of human rights and the environment, climate change, law and communities, chemicals, trade and the environment, international environmental governance, biodiversity and international financial institutions by providing legal counsel and advocacy, policy research and capacity building.

 

1350 Connecticut Avenue N.W. Suite 1100 · Washington D.C. 20036-1739

Phone: 202-785-8700 · Fax: 202-785-8701 · Email: info@ciel.org · Internet: http://www.ciel.org

15 rue des Savoises, 1205 Geneva, Switzerland

Phone: 41-22-789-0500 · Fax: 41-22-789-0739 · Email: geneva@ciel.org · Internet: http://www.ciel.org

 

Secret memo warns oilsands damage may be irreversible

Collateral damage from Canada’s booming oilsands sector may be irreversible, posing a “significant environmental and financial risk to the province of Alberta,” says a secret memorandum prepared for the federal government’s top bureaucrat.

The memorandum, released by the Privy Council Office through access to information legislation, also raises doubts about recent industry and government claims that oilsands companies are reducing heat-trapping gases produced by each barrel of oil.

The industry has suggested that a shift in oilsands extraction to use steam to remove synthetic crude oil from natural bitumen deposits on site can reduce land disruption and provide for reductions in energy and emissions. But the memo, prepared for Wayne Wouters, the clerk of the Privy Council Office - the lead department in the federal government’s bureaucracy - said this shift is actually accelerating the industry’s impact on climate change, with emissions growth projected to be greater over the next decade than all other Canadian economic sectors combined.

“While the industry has taken steps to reduce emissions, the shift from mining to in situ production, which is almost three times as emissions intensive as mining, is resulting in a continued acceleration of emissions from this sector,” said the memo.

The memo, marked “secret,” was prepared for Wouters in advance of a discussion that was to be held on March 10, 2011, with representatives from energy companies Suncor, CNRL and Encana, as well as academic stakeholders. It suggested the so-called tailings ponds of toxic waste from oilsands mining could permanently damage Alberta’s landscape. More

 

Check With Climate Scientists for Views on Climate

Do you consult your dentist about your heart condition? In science, as in any area, reputations are based on knowledge and expertise in a field and on published, peer-reviewed work. If you need surgery, you want a highly experienced expert in the field who has done a large number of the proposed operations. 

 

 You published "No Need to Panic About Global Warming" (op-ed, Jan. 27) on climate change by the climate-science equivalent of dentists practicing cardiology. While accomplished in their own fields, most of these authors have no expertise in climate science. The few authors who have such expertise are known to have extreme views that are out of step with nearly every other climate expert. This happens in nearly every field of science. For example, there is a retrovirus expert who does not accept that HIV causes AIDS. And it is instructive to recall that a few scientists continued to state that smoking did not cause cancer, long after that was settled science. 

 Climate experts know that the long-term warming trend has not abated in the past decade. In fact, it was the warmest decade on record. Observations show unequivocally that our planet is getting hotter. And computer models have recently shown that during periods when there is a smaller increase of surface temperatures, warming is occurring elsewhere in the climate system, typically in the deep ocean. Such periods are a relatively common climate phenomenon, are consistent with our physical understanding of how the climate system works, and certainly do not invalidate our understanding of human-induced warming or the models used to simulate that warming.Thus, climate experts also know what one of us, Kevin Trenberth, actually meant by the out-of-context, misrepresented quote used in the op-ed. Mr. Trenberth was lamenting the inadequacy of observing systems to fully monitor warming trends in the deep ocean and other aspects of the short-term variations that always occur, together with the long-term human-induced warming trend. More

 

In fight against global warming, NASA calls for reduction of black carbon Read more: http://www.thestatecolumn.com/science/in-fight-against-global-warming-nasa-scientists-call-for-reduction-of-black-carbon/#ixzz1jZ9pAMJ0

 In the battle against global warming, scientists say they some of the world’s largest emitters should adjust their focus from reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, to curbing the emissions of soot and methane.

NASA scientists, in a study published in Science, say that while carbon dioxide from fossil fuels like coal and oil remain a larger overall cause of global warming, reducing methane and soot may offer short-term solutions that could slow down the impacts of global warming. 

The research, led by Drew Shindell of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, finds that focusing on black carbon and methane measures could slow global mean warming 1 degree Fahrenheit by 2050, preventing between 700,000 and 4.7 million premature deaths each year.

While all regions of the world would benefit, countries in Asia and the Middle East would see the biggest health and agricultural gains from the emissions controls, said NASA officials.

The study, which was conducted under NASA, included an international team, which considered about 400 control measures. The new study focused on 14 measures with the greatest climate benefit. The study concludes that all 14 measures would curb the release of either black carbon or methane, pollutants that exacerbate climate change and damage human or plant health either directly or by leading to ozone formation. The new study builds upon research featured in an assessment report published last year by the United Nations Environment Program and the World Meteorological Organization.

The study also finds that hundreds of thousands of deaths would be prevented with such changes. Between 700,000 and 4.7 million premature deaths could be averted, say scientists. Black carbon, a product of burning fossil fuels or biomass such as wood or dung, is one of the leading causes of respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. The small particles also absorb radiation from the sun causing the atmosphere to warm and rainfall patterns to shift. In addition, they darken ice and snow, reducing their reflectivity and hastening global warming. Ways to cut back include building more efficient cookstoves, installing more filters on diesel vehicles, taking the worst polluting vehicles off the road and banning the practice of burning farmland, the study said.nRead more: http://www.thestatecolumn.com/science/in-fight-against-global-warming-nasa-scientists-call-for-reduction-of-black-carbon/#ixzz1jZAB89fH

 

Success in Durban can not disguise need for climate adaptation

Earlier this month, the world’s heads of state, government, industry and NGOs met in Durban, South Africa, to discuss our common future. These climate negotiations were more successful than many people had feared. 

A new international climate agreement will enter into force in 2020. This agreement makes life more predictable for industry and supports a future based on low-carbon technology. But we cannot rest on our laurels because - irrespective of political processes - climate forces are wreaking havoc everywhere. The authorities are drowning in information but lack knowledge about how to adapt to the climate changes we are already facing.

A number of Native Americans in the town of Kivalina in the wilds of Alaska are currently suing oil and energy companies, accusing them of destroying the basis of Kivalina’s life. The town depends on ice formations which protect it against the massive forces of nature which ravage Alaska’s coast. The problem is that the ice has melted dangerously fast over the past few years. Even in 2006, the US authorities’ research results showed that the little society had to be relocated as a result of global warming. The so-called “climigration” lawsuit that is currently taking place in the USA may be the first of many actions for damages in which companies are made responsible for the negative effect that their operations have on the climate of local communities.

A new UN report shows that man-made climate change has already led to extreme weather in the form of heat waves and flooding. Thailand is a country that has over the past few weeks become painfully aware of how catastrophic amounts of rain can destroy the basis of existence for millions of people. Here in Norway, we were reminded of nature’s inexorable forces when Hurricane Berit struck local communities along the Norwegian coast, leading to major destruction. Norwegian municipalities are now being urged to implement measures to adapt to the extreme weather resulting from climate change.

There is widespread anger, frustration and disappointment about politicians and other decision-makers. The authorities, on the other hand, are drowning in information on climate change but lack knowledge about how to deal with the risks they are facing. More

Failure at Durban - Is There a Crime of Ecocide

There is increasing evidence of dangerous, possibly catastrophic, climate change approaching. The latest science leads to the conclusion that limiting climate change to a 2⁰C increase in average global temperature is now not possible. 

There always was, after all, only a 50% chance. Now it has become a question of which year the threshold will be breached, how high the temperature will rise, over what time period, and what the consequences will be for the planet. Twenty years after Rio – after the legislative framework for effective global coordination to combat climate change was set in place – we arrive at deadlock. The capacity of the global community to solve the over-riding global challenge has proven to be inadequate. The global interest has been torn to shreds by the mindlessly competitive pursuit of excessive national interests. 

The talk will now turn to ‘transition periods’, to ‘preparatory phases’, ‘voluntary targets’, ‘coordinated action’, and ‘bottom-up approaches’. Our national leaders will spin positively into 2012. The ‘realistic expectation’ will focus on the possibility of global agreement by, or after, 2020.

The realistic prescription, from the UN and research institutes, is that global emissions need to peak between 2015 and ’17.

Historians, assuming sufficient social stability for dispassionate analysis a half-century from now, will search for reasons for our collective failure during the critical twenty-year period, 1992 – 2012. They will conclude that human technology outpaced human institutional capacity for rational decision-making. National leaders responded, as constitutionally and politically obliged, to national interest. More