Environmental Outlook: Durban Climate Talks
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-12-06/environmental-outlook-durban-climate-talks
Earlier today, the head of the United Nations Evironmental Program said, "We are not moving fast enough. We are losing time.” He was addressing the 194 nation U.N. climate summit in durban, south africa. The talks are their second week. As key provisions of the 1997 Kyoto protocol are expiring, one issue is working out a timeline for a new treaty. But volunteer measures would also be needed to keep the earth from warming by 3.6 degrees by the end of the century. For this month's environmental outlook: the struggle to reach consensus on global carbon emissions.
Guests
Joseph Romm
senior fellow, the Center for American Progess; he runs the blog ClimateProgress.org; former acting assistant secretary of Energy under President Clinton.
Juliet Eilperin
environmental reporter, The Washington Post, and author of " Demon Fish: Travels Through the Hidden World of Sharks."
William O'Keefe
Chief Executive Officer of the Marshall Institute, President of Solutions Consulting, Inc.
Günter Hörmandinger
First Counselor on the Environment for the Delegation of the European Union to the U.S.
Program Highlights
As the talks at the Durban Climate Summit are in their second week, many countries are questioning what can really be accomplished at these talks. This skepticism comes at a time when new research shows carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels have increased by as much as 50 percent in the last two decades. Guest host Steve Roberts and panelists talk about the sticking points at the talks and what may be realistic goals.
The Main Goals Of The Meeting
There are two major issues those at Durban are grappling with, Juliet Eilperin said. One is grounded in technical details that have been left over from the previous two conferences, like figuring out how to structure a fund to help developing nations cope with mandatory cuts to emissions, and to figure out some rules for avoiding deforestation. The other is a broader issue about how the world is going to move forward towards the goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions linked to climate change.
A Slowing Down of World Commitment?
Even as the science supporting climate change is getting stronger, there is a perception that the U.S. is "hamstrung," Joseph Romm said. The U.S. failed to pass a climate bill in 2010, which President Obama could have brought to Copenhagen as a starting point. But, Romm said, if the richest country that produces the most cumulative emissions in the world can't reach an agreement, that sends a strong message. "I think a lot of nations are trying to jockey for position to not get blamed for the failure and frankly to pin it on the U.S. and intransigents in the U.S.
The Chinese Strategy
China is building new coal plants at an alarming rate. But at the same time, China is investing a large amount of money in clean energy. Also, China does not want to be blamed on the world stage for the failure to reach an agreement, so, Romm said, they use a lot of vague language that comes with "unknown strings." China also has a big clean water problem it needs to address, Gunter Hormandinger said.
Prospects For Green Jobs
There is a strong market across Europe for new jobs related to green energy, but it's not quite the same in the U.S. in the EU, there is regulatory certainty that drives the job creation, but this is not the case in the U.S., Juliet Eilperin said. There are also a few key subsidies ending in 2012, including a production tax credit for wind. "If that goes away, that's huge problems for the wind industry here in the U.S.," Eilperin said.
You can read the full transcript here.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Many listeners may be afraid to comment because the right wing machine now labels anyone opposing fossil fuel development as "near-terrorists." And with the up-ratchets of Constitutional rights erosions attached to defense appropriations bills, you could wind up in a sack with a concrete block in the river if you mouth-off. Disloyalty to fossil fuels is now treason?
Something new is that China is talking about possibly being part of a greenhouse gas agreement, presumably with the US. If they're serious, could we take "yes" for an answer?
Uhhh, uhhh, ahhh, i mean, uhhh, uhh...
Sorry, I can't stand to listen.
The cost of carbon omissions should also include the cost of new water supplies for those that use glaciers for water as well as those who will be displaced by higher oceans and changing weather patterns.
The science is indisputable. I think that it is inexcusable arrogance for this generation to put all future generations at risk for short term gain for a privileged few. The problem could be solved simply by a carbon tax that would level the playing field between fossil fuels and conservation, green energy and sensible biofuels. The problem is with the politicians who have a time horizon that only extends to the next election.
We can follow CO2 concentration and sources (C isotope measurement) for 800.000 years (antarctic ice cores).
Unfortunately our politicians (most of them rooted in South or rural areas) do not believe in science. We take religion for a fact and science as a form of beliefs.
The science is clear that climate change is happening. My comment is directed at the comments that it is not mankinds fault. A flood may be coming towards your home. It may not be your fault, but you act to protect yourself. We are not taking enough action to protect ourselves. Continuing to give credence to people who want to do nothing despite the overwhelming evidence is a mistake. It is time to stop giving air time to the few people who do not want to take action and who are risking the future for the rest of us. I was so disappointed by todays show. Not only did you allow a major climate denier on the show, you gave him excessive time to spread his denier creed. It is the continued effort to be "fair and balanced" that has allowed this dangerous opinion to spread and be taken up by the Republican party. You allowed Mr. O'Keefe to make inflammatory remarks, but did not allow anyone the opportunity to counter them, so all in all, certainly not fair and balanced. Climate deniers amount to 1% to 2% of the world community. You should only give them that much time in relationship to the 99%. To not do so, does imperil our future and makes you, the journalists, culpable in the damage they continue to do. I love the Diane Rehm show. Today I was aghast and angered to the extreme by it.
To the listeners who commented: thank you for communicating truth (climate change) to power (Diane Rehm).
But shame on you, staffers: inviting another pooh-pooh pundit, paid to pretend he doesn't understand the science. Those comments have become comedic... nearly cartoonish.
At what point will you stop giving such gluttonish fools a voice? When 99.9 of scientists agree? Or 99.999? Or 99.99999?
Seriously: how outlandish must that drivel become before you stop lending credibility to their cruel agenda? Does Diane intend to be the last clown out of that circus car? Shame...
I find William O'Keefe's (no relation) comments citing the 3% of the scientific community who discredit the human impact in climate change bizarre, preposterous, and callous. Is it surprising that a former CEO of the American Petroleum Institute would adopt such a stance? This type of Luddite NIMBY'ism in American politics is a central factor in the US failure to lead in tackling climate change.
As long as there is money to be made from oil and coal there will be those who use trite arguments against renewable energy. It is laughable to consider the subsidy argument against emerging technologies when big oil has been subsidized to the hilt since its inception.
Also a recent study, by Shell Oil no less, acknowledges that by 2050, if a structured political shift away from fossil fuel usage is pursued, up to 50% of electricity will come from clean sources.
There is a lack of political courage in the US to accept the 97% scientific consensus, and then use the country's undoubted ingenuity to drive renewable energy forward.
"DURBIN" is name of city. Not "Durban" - I live there all of last year!
Why was this meeting in South Africa? That country receives a lot of money for climate change while most of its populations hardly speaks English; does not work, lives on its own world and is very divided in many tribes. Starting with the President who visits his tribe, you can see the pictures of the guy on his "tribe outfit" painted face sitting the the Head in fronth of a fire. President had five (5) wives and 20 children last year.
How many does he have now? Do you think he cares a bit about the world climate?
I believe we should care more about real things which can be controlled not the world's climane. Lets be real and not forget no other country is like the U.S.A.
If God wants it warmer it’s going to get warmer.
If He wants more hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, starvation, etc., it’s going to happen.
Don’t pretend we can do much about it.
Thanks for a great show today.
Hopefully we get past this "political problem" in time to avoid catasphrophic and irreversible damages to our planet's fragile ecosystems.
Why does the media insist in having right wing obstructionists like William O'Keefe on every potentially informative show? When the water is up around his knees he will still be denying climate change.
At first I was annoyed that a paid climate denier like O'Keefe was given time on a serious show about climate change. But then I realized it exposed the hollowness of what he was saying. And if anything his response to population growth was even more lacking than what he said about climate. Unfortunately many of our members of Congress are also paid by industries to talk like this.
What I don't understand is why the fossil fuel industries are obstructionist. With their vast profits they could be staking out leading positions in clean energy, while still selling all the fossil fuels that can be mined or pumped, i.e., they could have it both ways.
Drew Kelly wrote: "If God wants it warmer it’s going to get warmer. If He wants more hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, starvation, etc., it’s going to happen. Don’t pretend we can do much about it."
Sure Drew, and if God wants your daughter to take heroin, it's going to happen and don't pretend you can do much about it, right?
......
About 99% of all scientists are on the same page regarding global warming and the emergency we now find ourselves in. A percentage of the other 1%, like your guest Mr. O'Keefe, can be applied to those within the three degrees of separation from the Koch brothers.
The only reason we are still having debates over climate change is that mad money made in the Reagan and post Glass-Steagall generation now has the power to pervert messaging. This eerie minority care for and know little outside its lifelong dedication to winning at monopoly.
Great new book by Jeff Madrick regardingly is: Age of Greed: The Triumph of Finance and the Decline of America, 1970 to the Present.
Also, if you hvaen't already, see the Academy Award winning documentary, Inside Job, by Charles Ferguson.
........
Government needs to regulate the financial industry and to encourage protection of our environment, and counter to the messaging of the well-heeled Koch patrol (Republicans, Think Tanks, Right Wing Media), the Government is the only agency accountable to the people that can create jobs right now.
Thanks John Doe,
I whole-heartedly agree with your response.
I struggle to find a rationale to explain why so many out there are not content to agree with the 97% + of scientists out there that man-influenced global warming exists and that we need to do something about it.
My "God wants" comment is a cynical one, but really about the only sort of reasoning that I can imagine that would justify anyone denying the science (except those like the Kochs with a profit motive) . It's a tragedy that the nation and world hasn't united behind trying to adress this problem before it's too late.
A Quartet on Thinking Globally and Acting Locally:
http://www.7billionactions.org/story/1187-steven-earl-salmony
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KkmFuM77qU
http://www.truth-out.org/marching-cliff/1323195281
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XQIxr4gRQM&%3Bfeature=player_embedded
I listened to your show this morning on the Durbin climate talks. I found it curious that you had another of those silly know-nothings present, Mr. William O'Keefe, to give us another taste of the oil industry's denial-flavor of the week.
I'm curious, if you bring on a panel of astronomers and planetary scientists to discuss the nature of our solar system will you feel compelled to include a spokesperson from the Flat Earth Society so you can feel you're bringing "balance" to the discussion?
I was listening to the Tue. show online yesterday an noticed that there was no mention of how any agreement to cut carbon emissions would impact society: Steve, Dian the guests, listeners to name just a few would need to drive less or switch to public transport or a fuel efficient form of personal transport, at home reducing energy use by switching to energy efficient technology and switching to energy efficient technologies is not cheap, where are the trillions of $ going to come from? or simply use less energy with the accompanying discomfort or face higher energy bills. Let's not forget that consuming less of everything is also recommended, hmm.. that is not what economists and politicians are telling us to do however, the standard recommendation is to boost consumption to get the economy moving, no wonder there is no agreement at any climate convention.
We in the west are comfortable with the status quo, who wants to give up the comforts and convenience that fossil fuels provide? The standard answer is to switch to solar, wind etc.
Switching to solar, wind etc. will take time and all the needed technologies to make it all work nicely are not fully developed, I know, I have been in the solar business since the late 70's, even if world governments launch a massive effort, which they are not doing and will likely not do until the air catches fire or something like that.
It seems to me that barring a miricle or a massive miscalculation regarding the magnitude of global warming we are burnt toast, it is time to look at adaptation seriously.