August 10, 2009

2 Comments

The Three Amigos Promise Low-Carbon Collaboration

by Chris Hatch

A shared “vision for a low carbon North America,” “aggressive action,” momentum behind global negotiations, smart grids, clean energy, staying below 2 degrees, continental emissions reduction strategies, protecting forests….

Problem solved, folks…

First some wordle fun insight and full text below:

North American Leaders’ Declaration on Climate Change and Clean Energy

We, the leaders of North America, reaffirm the urgency and necessity of taking aggressive action on climate change.  We stress that the experience developed during the last 15 years in the North American region on environmental cooperation, sustainable development, and clean energy research, development, and deployment constitutes a valuable platform for climate change action, and we resolve to make use of the opportunities offered by existing bilateral and trilateral institutions.

We recognize the broad scientific view that the increase in global average temperature above pre-industrial levels ought not to exceed 2 degrees C, we support a global goal of reducing global emissions by at least 50% compared to 1990 or more recent years by 2050, with developed countries reducing emissions by at least 80% compared to 1990 or more recent years by 2050.

We share a vision for a low-carbon North America, which we believe will strengthen the political momentum behind a successful outcome at the 15th Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC meeting this December, and support our national and global efforts to combat climate change.  To achieve our low-carbon development goals, and consistent with our respective circumstances and capacities, we agree to the following:

• We will work together as we set and implement our own ambitious mid-term and long-term goals to reduce national and North American emissions;
• We will work together to develop our respective low-carbon growth plans;
• We underscore the importance of developing and strengthening financial instruments to support mitigation and adaptation actions and welcome in this regard the proposal by Mexico of a Green Fund. We will conduct further work on the proposal and will consider other views presented for scaling-up financing from both public and private sources;
• We will cooperate and exchange experiences in climate change adaptation in order to better integrate adaptation into national, sub-national, and sectoral planning to reduce vulnerabilities to climate change;
• We will develop comparable approaches to measuring, reporting, and verifying emissions reductions, including cooperating in implementing facility-level greenhouse gas reporting throughout the region;
• We will build capacity and infrastructure with a view to facilitate future cooperation in emissions trading systems, building on our current respective work in this area; and
• We will collaborate on climate friendly and low-carbon technologies, including building a smart grid in North America for more efficient and reliable electricity inter-connections, as well as regional cooperation on carbon capture and storage.
• Working in key sectors can help accomplish our emission reduction goals.  With this in mind, we will:

Work together under the Montreal Protocol to phase down the use of HFCs and bring about significant reductions of this potent greenhouse gas;

Cooperate in sustainably managing our landscapes for GHG benefits, including protecting and enhancing our forests, wetlands, croplands and other carbon sinks, as well as developing appropriate methodologies to quantify, manage and implement programs for emission reductions in this sector;

Reduce transportation emissions, including by striving to achieve carbon-neutral growth in the North American aviation sector in the context of global action;

Pursue a framework to align energy efficiency standards in the three countries in support of improved national energy efficiency and environmental objectives; and

Work to reduce GHG emissions in the oil and gas sector, and promote best practices in reducing fugitive emissions and the venting and flaring of natural gas.

In order to facilitate these actions, we will work cooperatively to develop and follow up on a Trilateral Working Plan and submit a report of results at our next North American Leaders Summit in 2010.

Email This Post Permalink Share This

2 Responses so far...

1. David_Lewis says:

   August 11, 2009 at 12:14 pm

   Perhaps I’m a bit thick, but I find all this discussion about percentage reductions by this or that group of countries from this or that base date to be just so much more gibberish that I have no easy way to understand.  Every time I hear something like this, I have to bring out my calculator to keep my head from spinning.  

   This year’s G8 announcement was essentially the same commitment that is made in this North American Leaders declaration, i.e. the developed countries will cut by 80% while the rest of the world does whatever it will take to keep total global emissions to less than 50%.   

   What I found after doing some research and doing some calculations was that under this plan, by 2050, each citizen of a G8 country will be able to emit 2.5 tonnes of CO2, while a non-G8 citizen could emit 1.45 tonnes.

   (The fine print:  I took 2009 to be the base date.  I used figures for the G8 to represent “the developed world”.  I took 20% of today’s G8 emissions and divided by the G8 projected 2050 population to get the G8 per capita 2050 figure.  I took today’s global emissions, cut them in half, subtracted the G8 2050 projected emissions, and divided by the projected “rest of the world” 2050 population to get the “non-G8 citizen” per capita).

   The New York Times editorialized right after the G8 negotiations broke down with no commitment from China or India:  “it was not immediately clear why they balked”.

   What is happening is all too clear. 

   Now that the developing countries want to try to get rich, they are not only being told a lot of the planetary capacity has been used up and they can expect no compensation, they are being told they must accept less per capita, permanently.

   The North American Leaders declaration continues on pushing this failed G8 proposal that is not   going to get anywhere. 

   Would Canadians buy into a proposal that committed  each Canadian citizen in 2050  to less of a right to the planetary capacity to absorb wastes, in this case CO2, than each Chinese or Indian citizen had?  Do Canadians really believe that India or China will commit their 2050 citizens to less than we demand for ourselves?

   Here’s what Pradipto Ghosh, former environment secretary of India, explaining India’s position during the leadup to the 2007 G8 meeting:

   “This is our challenge to the West. ‘You do the best you can, and we’ll match it’. If the West thinks that India will subscribe to any long-term solution that is not based on per capita emissions then it is very misguided.”

   And all this discussion assumes there is going to be some planetary capacity to absorb greenhouse gases in 2050.  

   Where do we get the idea that it will prove acceptable to our descendants that we increased the accumulated level of greenhouse gases, i.e. the forces driving global climate disruption, in every year until 2050 and left them still increasing then, which is what this North American Leaders declaration, and the G8 2009 declaration, if lived up to, mean?

   Consider the words of James Hansen, said by the President of the National Academy of Sciences, Ralph Cicerone, to be the best climate scientist there is:

   “There is a profound disconnect between actions that policy circles are considering and what the science demands for preservation of the planet. A stark scientific conclusion, that we must reduce greenhouse gases below present amounts to preserve nature and humanity, has become clear to the relevant experts. The validity of this statement could be verified by the National Academy of Sciences, which can deliver prompt authoritative reports in response to a Presidential requesti. NAS was set up by President Lincoln for just such advisory purposes.”

   People are wandering around promoting limiting the warming to 2 degrees, or limiting the accumulation of CO2 to 450 ppm, saying “science” backs their gibberish, and “science” wouldn’t back whoever they are criticizing.  Its ludicrous, if Hansen’s statement that the NAS backs what he is saying is true. 

   Science has discovered that the planet can’t take any more and still resemble, in the long term, anything like the planet civilization came into existence on. 

   We’re wandering around like Alice in Wonderland, after she took a drink from the bottle marked “Drink Me”, just as the contents are having their effect. 

    
2. pwarwick says:

   August 10, 2009 at 6:55 pm

   I think “compared to 1990 or more recent years” are weasel words … if the “or more recent years” were removed it might mean something but with that phrase there is is like a get out of jail free card.

• Join UP
• Donate
• About
• Privacy Policy
• Disclaimer