Tag Archives: COP15

The Climate Interactive Scoreboard

Posted on by
Reply

Prior to the recent Conference of the Parties (COP15) in Copenhagen a great many nations announced proposals to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The proposals were varied and covered many different base and target years making for very difficult and complex analysis.

A simulator was created to effectively handle the analysis, add up the proposed greenhouse gas reduction goals for every nation, and calculate the temperature increase expected in 2100. It generates a value for expected temperature rise and a range depending on how strongly temperature responds to emissions. The simulator was built by Sustainability Institute, Ventana Systems, and MIT.

The following live graphic, the Climate Interactive Scoreboard, is a visual representation of the simulator’s results and updates interactively when proposals change.

What are the goals to limit temperature rise?

Although there are no binding commitments in the Copenhagen Accord, the Parties agreed to take action to meet the objective of holding the increase in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius. This is the temperature rise above the pre-industrial level considered the threshold for ‘dangerous climate change’.

The Accord also references strengthening long-term goals “in relation to temperature rises of 1.5 degrees Celsius”, an acknowledgement of the concerns of small island states and other low-lying nations who have been calling for a 1.5°C limit to the rise in global average temperature.

How do the national proposals stack up against the goals?

An analysis of national proposals just prior to COP15 projected a temperature rise of 3.9°C by 2100 which is lower than “business as usual” and indicates progress is being made. But it also shows we have much further to go.

The Copenhagen Accord requires Annex 1 Parties (developed countries) to submit “quantified economy-wide emissions targets for 2020”, and developing country Parties to submit “nationally-appropriate mitigation actions” to the UNFCCC Secretariat by January 31, 2010.

This could result in significant changes to the Climate Interactive Scoreboard.

In short order, the simulator has become an important tool in both the negotiations and for countries setting targets.

The U.S. Department of State is using the simulator to understand the impacts of country proposals and to share their findings with other parties to the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework on Climate Change). Jonathan Pershing, the senior U.S. climate negotiator, demonstrated its capabilities to the Parties meeting in Bonn earlier last year. It was also demonstrated at the U.S. Center at COP15 in Copenhagen.

Without action the global average temperature will rise above pre-industrial levels, and possibly at an accelerated rate. As a Climate Interactive Scoreboard video (click link in upper right corner of graphic) explains, “preventing temperature increase would mean safer coastal cities, more surviving species, increased food security, more access to freshwater, improved public health, and improved security for all.”

Visit our home page (or this post) frequently, especially in the next couple of weeks, to see the changes for yourself.

What will be the January 31st reading? Wouldn’t it be great if the national proposals bring the temperature in 2100 down from today’s reading of 3.9 degrees Celsius.

The precautionary principle must drive action on climate change

Posted on by
Reply

The following is my reply to comments on the post No Kyoto Protocol for the United States:

I can empathize with your frustrations, however I don’t believe that “analysis” of what the other side of the climate debate might be thinking or doing is productive toward a solution in the short term. And the short term has now become critical in terms of limiting the prospects of abrupt climate change.

I wrote specifically about the U.S. position toward the Kyoto Protocol in the context of COP15. But there are many other reasons why the Senate would hold up debate on any climate change treaty, Kyoto Protocol or otherwise, including Senators from the President’s own party.

For example, as The New York Times reported this morning, a group of 10 Democratic Senators wrote to the President two weeks ago. They warned, in effect, that if border carbon tariffs are not imposed on imports from foreign countries that have no requirement for limiting their emissions, a treaty could not be ratified.

They argue that American jobs would be at stake and their case is directed toward Chinese imports in particular. How that plays out at COP15 is anyone’s guess and might come down to an eleventh hour negotiating session between the U.S. and China, the main protagonists.

The point I’m trying to make is that it’s not just the Kyoto Protocol at stake in driving the actions of the Senate.

My position all along is quite different from assigning analysis to the problems of debate about climate change.

My position quite simply is to make the case for application of a precautionary principle. The engineer in me says that if I want to insure against possible losses caused by climate change I don’t have a chance of securing insurance unless I can demonstrate that every precaution has first been taken to protect the investment.

If 80% of the science tells me global warming is happening and 20% tells me it’s not, I have enough common sense to take a precautionary stance on climate change and do everything in my power to stop it. To ignore it given the balance of evidence to the contrary is not only reckless, it’s just plain stupid.

COP15 – Travelogue Part 1

Posted on by
Reply

As we’ve discovered to our chagrin at COP15, we were amazingly naïve to think we’d get time to write a daily post! An entire week has shot past and we have been on the go from morning to night. Part of our day is consumed with transit from the hotel in the north of Copenhagen to the Bella Center in the south, and back again at night. And then there is the Conference itself.

So far we start our days with a hearty breakfast at our hotel along with an apple and a banana to go that get us through until dinner time. We then head out into the winter cold to catch the bus and Metro to the Bella Center and proceed from there.



On the right, the Metro, near the Bella Center. In the foreground you can see the dedicated, curbed bicycle path, common throughout the city.

On the right, the Metro, near the Bella Center. In the foreground you can see the dedicated, curbed bicycle path, common throughout the city.



The days  are long and becoming ever more crowded with people. Seriously.



The crowds are growing larger at COP 15 in the Bella Center

The crowds are growing larger at COP 15 in the Bella Center



Wednesday, December 9th

While the Party delegates negotiate on, or don’t, the main event for us this day was an Energy Tour to Copenhagen’s new Kongens Nytorv District Cooling Project in the city, and to the Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Plant on the coast.

The city is retooling an old power plant in the heart of the medieval downtown area known as Kongens Nytorv to provide district cooling to several major buildings including a large department store, a banking facility, and a newspaper company, among the many end users they have signed up for the project. (Public/private  partnerships.) This area is among the most expensive real estate in Denmark.

Not only will these facilities have “central” air conditioning through district cooling, but they have each reclaimed major commercial square footage (meterage?) which they’re able to now use as income-producing space vs. mechanical facilities housing. For example the bank is using the reclaimed space for more data processing equipment, allowing them to maintain their valuable data in-house. The newspaper company has converted its rooftop from a mechanical jungle into a roof-top café and lounge area for its employees. These are basic no-brainer applications that we should  be using everywhere to maximize our use of every molecule of energy we can, and enjoy the side benefits that come from the reclaimed  space.

From there our bus took us on a 20 or 30 minute ride to the south coast to the Avedøre Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Plant owned by DONG Energy (Danish Oil and Natural Gas - Dansk Olie og Naturgas A/S). After a bitterly cold wait standing in line in the dark (late afternoon) outside the security gates, our tour was finally allowed into the facility after the guards individually typed in our names from our UNFCCC security badges. Believe me, it’s not much fun standing outside with the wind howling in off the sea, so that was a little hitch in the gitalong. However, we appreciate their need for caution (in case any of us get left  behind!), and we carry on…



We don hardhats for the Avedore CHP plant tour.

We don hardhats for the Avedøre CHP plant tour.



We don hardhats, and get a guided tour of the power plants. My Ontario Hydro Dad would have loved it!

Because it was night, we weren’t able to get photos of the facility. The corporate website has a brief video here if you are interested in seeing the power plants.

It is said that this is one of the most energy-efficient power plants in the world because they capture the heat created by the electricity-producing process and distribute it to the homes and businesses of Copenhagen. Both power plants are quite new, one being built in 1990 and the other in 2001 – they are very modern and impressive facilities.

The power plants at this site are able to use a variety of fuels depending on whatever is the most cost-efficient at the time in the energy markets. These include coal, oil, gas, wood pellets and straw. The later is gathered by the farmers and would otherwise lay rotting in the fields until new crops are planted. There are efforts underway to provide subsidies to farmers for their straw to make it more attractive for them to collect the straw for energy use.

From DONG Energy’s own website,  here is a recap on the two power plants:

  • The overall  production capacity of the two Avedøre Power Station units is 810 Megawatts of  electricity and 900 Megawatts of heat.
  • Avedøre Power Station’s Unit 1 primarily uses coal, while Avedøre Power Station’s Unit 2 can  use a wide variety of fuels: natural gas, oil, straw and wood  pellets.
  • Avedøre Power Station’s Unit 2 has facilities consisting of several parts that, when combined, can make record-high use of the energy in the fuels. By simultaneously generating heat and electricity, Avedøre Power Station’s Unit 2 utilises as much as 94% of the energy in the fuels and has an electrical efficiency of 49%. An  achievement that makes the unit one of the most efficient in the  world.

It’s been another long but interesting day in Copenhagen. I’ll continue my travelogue in another post …

Five possible COP15 outcomes

Posted on by
Reply

A recently published COP15 briefing guide from the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), a London-based non-profit research institute, offers five possible outcomes from the COP15 negotiations beginning next week in Copenhagen.

If you know little about the climate change negotiations process, this briefing is a very good place to start.

Beyond the headlines of country emissions targets, and the much less-voiced need for genuine assistance to the developing world, lies the fact that as a community of nations — friend and foe alike — a new international agreement on how we will tackle climate change is in the works. And will be until one is agreed upon.

The 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) , which came into force in 1994 with 192 Parties (nations) including the United States, is an evolutionary process.

On the 15-year road to Copenhagen, the Parties have ushered in the Kyoto Protocol, the first treaty attempt at binding global emissions targets, and today we’re seeking its improved successor.

What will its form take?

This briefing lays out the issues, the players, the hot topics and possible outcomes in concise style, and importantly to Third Planet, comes from the UK-based International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) an independent non-profit research institute working in the field of sustainable development since its launch in 1971 by one of our all-time favorites, Barbara Ward (1914-1981). (Barbara Ward, an economist, wrote Spaceship Earth in 1966, co-authored Only One Earth: The Care and Maintenance of a Small Planet with René Dubos in 1972, and wrote many other books on sustainable development. She was considered a pioneer in sustainable development long before the term came into popular use.)

The following comes directly from the IIED briefing.

Governments gather in Denmark in December 2009 for what is perhaps the most important meeting since the end of the second world war. December is the deadline they have set themselves for agreeing on action to tackle climate change, and the COP15 conference in Copenhagen is where hopes are high that a new global deal can be struck …

Negotiators in each [Ad Hoc Working Group] track must agree [to the] text for parties to the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol to adopt at COP15. Whatever happens, COP15 will have a fundamental impact for years as some of its possible outcomes are legally binding and others are not. – iied Briefing, November 2009

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

These are the five possible outcomes as seen by IIED:

  1. No agreement. COP15 could end without agreement, with the expectation that talks resume in 2010.
  2. A decision or set of decisions. This is the weakest agreed outcome, but could be combined with one of the following stronger outcomes.
  3. A political ‘implementing agreement’ that is not legally binding and through which each state decides its own goals and how to reach them according to domestic laws. This is favoured by the United States, but opponents say that unless the targets are internationally binding, and there is a compliance mechanism to enforce them, such an agreement will be flouted. Developing nations also fear that national approaches could allow developed nations to use domestic laws to discriminate against their exports if their production entails emissions.
  4. A single new legally binding agreement (Copenhagen Protocol) that replaces the Kyoto Protocol and includes additional issues such as adaptation to climate change impacts. Such an agreement could include mitigation commitments for the United States, plus actions for major developing nations.
  5. Two protocols. An amended Kyoto Protocol that improves on what has already been negotiated plus a new legally binding agreement as described above. Most developing nations want this.

LINK

Download the excellent IIED Briefing here:

http://www.iied.org/climate-change/media/cop15-for-journalists-guide-un-climate-change-summit