news20091219gdn1

[News] from [guardian.co.uk]

[Environment > Copenhagen Climate conference]
Obama emerges from climate talks with slender pact and bruised stature
US president urges decisive action on climate change, but shows no sign that Washington will take such steps itself
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent uardian.co.uk, Saturday 19 December 2009 Article history

Barack Obama emerged from the chaotic final hours of the Copenhagen summit last night having salvaged an agreement for action on global warming – and his own reputation as a politician who can bridge the most challenging of political divides.

After 15 hours of negotiations, an exhausted looking Obama said he managed to secure a deal on climate change incorporating America's three main goals of emissions cuts, financial aid for the poorest countries, and a measure of accountability for emissions pledges from developing countries.

But he acknowledged the skimpy 2.5 page draft produced at the end of his effort was not the comprehensive agreement he had come to Copenhagen for.

"I think it is important that instead of setting up a bunch of goals that just end up not being met, that we get moving," he said. "We just keep moving forward."

Obama's hectic day of negotiations began immediately on his arrival in Copenhagen, when he encountered what he described as a "fundamental deadlock" between rich and developing countries.

Much of that was a product of the deep resentment at America for its emissions reductions target: a 17% reduction over 2005 levels by 2020. That offer too was conditional on Congress passing climate change legislation. In the final days of the summit, a more vexing issue emerged over America's demands that China and other rapidly emerging countries offer an accounting of their actions to curb the growth of greenhouse gas emissions.

Obama emerged last night claiming to have wrung an important concession from China and India to offer a fuller accounting of its emissions reductions.

"The truth is that we can actually monitor a lot of what takes place through satellite imagery and so forth," he said.

The reassurances are crucial for American domestic political consumption, where there is concern about losing economic ground to China and India in the transition to a clean energy economy. It did not seem at first that the president would be capable of breaking down the divide. Obama's eight-minute speech to the summit was viewed as a huge disappointment.

Although he called for bold and decisive action, Obama – who had been skittish at going to Copenhagen in the first place – offered no sign that Washington was willing to take such steps itself.

There were no further commitments on reducing emissions, or on finance for poor countries, beyond Hillary Clinton's announcement that the US would support a $100bn global fund to help developing nations adapt to climate change. He did not press the Senate to move ahead on climate change legislation, which environmental organisations have been urging for months. Obama did say America would follow through on his administration's clean energy agenda, and would live up to its pledges.

But in the absence of any evidence of that commitment the words rang hollow and there was a palpable sense of disappointment in the audience. He warned African and island countries that the alternative – of no agreement – was worse.

Obama's lacklustre speech proved a frustration to a summit that had been looking to him to use his stature on the world stage, and his following among African leaders, to reach an ambitious deal.

But by the end of the day, after Obama spent hours closeted with Chinese, Indian, South African and Brazilian officials, he managed to pull the situation back from the brink.

In his press conference, Obama held up the results of his deal-making as a sign that the era of American isolation under George Bush was over, and that he had returned the country to a position of leadership.

The day of diplomacy also allowed him to reassert the political skills which have not been seen to best advantage in the US during the struggles over health care and Afghanistan. "The time has come for us to get off the sidelines and shape the future that we seek. That is why I came to Copenhagen today," he said. "I believe that what we achieved in Copenhagen is not going to be the end, but rather the beginning."


[Environment > Copenhagen Climate change conference 2009]
Rich and poor countries blame each other for failure of Copenhagen deal
Wealthy nations accused of bullying tactics to get developing countries to sign 'death warrant'
John Vidal in Copenhagen
guardian.co.uk, Saturday 19 December 2009 01.29 GMT Article history

The blame game over the failure of the Copenhagen climate talks started last night with countries accusing each other of a complete lack of willingness to compromise.

The G77 group of 130 developing nations blamed Obama for "locking the poor into permanent poverty by refusing to reduce US emissions further."

"Today's events are the worst development for climate change in history," said a spokesperson.

Pablo Solon, Bolivian ambassador to the UN, blamed the Danish hosts for convening only a small group of countries to prepare a text to put before world leaders. "This is completely unacceptable. How can it be that 25 to 30 nations cook up an agreement that excludes the majority of the 190 nations."

But rich countries said that developing countries had wasted too much time on "process" rather than the substance of the talks. An epic stand-off over whether to ditch the Kyoto protocol's legal distinctions between developed and developing countries and their obligations to cut their emissions caused a huge delay to the negotiations.

But Martin Khor, director of the South Centre, an intergovernmental think tank for developing countries said, "Developing countries are very disappointed because they've invested a lot of time in the documents they're negotiating here."

Politicians from all corners of the world were blamed widely for not setting ambitious enough targets to counter climate change. "They refused to lead and instead sought to bribe and bully developing nations to sign up to the equivalent of a death warrant. The best outcome now is no deal," said Tim Jones, climate policy officer from the World Development Movement.

China's prime minister, Wen Jiabao, blamed a lack of trust between countries: "To meet the climate change challenge, the international community must strengthen confidence, build consensus, make vigorous efforts and enhance co-operation."

But indigenous Bolivian president Evo Morales blamed capitalism and the US. "The meeting has failed. It's unfortunate for the planet. The fault is with the lack of political will by a small group of countries led by the US," he said.

Even veterans of previous environmental negotiations were disappointed. "Given where we started and the expectations for this conference, anything less than a legally binding and agreed outcome falls far short of the mark," said John Ashe, chair of the Kyoto protocol talks.

news20091219gdn2

[News] from [guardian.co.uk]

[Environment > Copenhagen Climate change conference 2009]
What was agreed at Copenhagen – and what was left out
Jonathan Watts
The Guardian, Saturday 19 December 2009 Article history

National leaders and sleep-deprived negotiators thrashed out a text late last night that could determine the balance of power in the world and possibly the future of our species. The list below gives a breakdown of the key points:

Temperature

"The increase in global temperature should be below two degrees."

This will disappoint the 100-plus nations who wanted a lower maximum of 1.5C, including many small island states who fear that even at this level their homes may be submerged.

Peak date for carbon emissions

"We should co-operate in achieving the peaking of global and national emissions as soon as possible, recognising that the time frame for peaking will be longer in developing countries …" This vague phrase is a disappointment to those who want nations to set a date for emissions to fall, but will please developing countries who want to put the economy first.

Emissions cuts

"Parties commit to implement individually or jointly the quantified economy-wide emissions targets for 2020 as listed in appendix 1 before 1 February 2010."

This phrase commits developed nations to start work almost immediately on reaching their mid-term targets. For the US, this is a weak 14-17% reduction on 2005 levels; for the EU, a still-to-be-determined goal of 20-30% on 1990 levels; for Japan, 25% and Russia 15-25% on 1990 levels. The accord makes no mention of 2050 targets, which dropped out of the text over the course of the day.

Forests

"Substantial finance to prevent deforestation; adaptation, technology development and transfer and capacity."

This is crucial because more than 15% of emissions are attributed to the clearing of forests. Conservation groups are concerned that this phrase lacks safeguards.

Money

"The collective commitment by developed countries is to provide new and additional resources amounting to $30bn for 2010-12 … Developed countries set a goal of mobilising jointly $100bn a year by 2020 to address needs of developing countries."

This is the cash that oils the deal. The first section is a quick financial injection from rich nations to support developing countries' efforts. Longer term, a far larger sum of money will be committed to a Copenhagen Green Climate Fund. But the agreement leaves open the questions of where the money will come from, and how it will be used.

Key elements of earlier drafts dropped during yesterday's negotiations:

An attempt to replace Kyoto

"Affirming our firm resolve to adopt one or more legal instruments …"

This preamble, killed off during the day, was the biggest obstacle for negotiators. It left open the question of whether to continue a twin-track process that maintains Kyoto, or whether to adopt a single agreement. Europe, Japan, Australia and Canada are desperate to move to a one-track approach, but developing nations refused to kill off the protocol.

Deadline for a treaty

"… as soon as possible and no later than COP16 …"

This appeared in the morning draft and disappeared during the day; it set a December 2010 date for the conclusion of a legally binding treaty. The final text drops this date, but small print suggests it will still be next year.


[Environment > Copenhagen Climate change conference 2009]
Gordon Brown hails Copenhagen success despite widespread condemnation
Angela Merkel expected to announce a conference in Germany to deal with monitoring emissions targets — a major stumbling block in talks
Allegra Stratton in Copenhagen
guardian.co.uk, Saturday 19 December 2009 01.47 GMT Article history

The UN climate negotiations in Copenhagen broke up last night with Gordon Brown hailing the night a success on five out of six measures but most observers united in damning the meeting a grave disappointment.

Last night, the talks wrapped up with countries agreeing that rather than using Copenhagen to announce how they would curb their carbon emissions, instead over the the "next few weeks" they would publish their targets and another meeting would be convened to discuss the legality of the measures agreed.

Europe's pledge to move from 20% to 30% — trumpeted as likely all week — failed to materialise suggesting that the European leaders believed the outline agreement on offer not sufficient to merit the higher commitment.

"It is not sufficient to combat the threat of climate change, but it's an important first step ... No country is entirely satisfied with each element," said a US official.

The deal said little on the major sticking points of the last few days — whether or not the US or China and other heavy polluters were serious about curbing their emissions.

In a press conference held at 11pm immediately after talks had broken up, Brown himself said the agreement was just a "vital first step" and accepted that there was a lot more work to do to before it could become a legally binding agreement. In questions afterwards he declined to call it an "historic" conference.

He said that one of the outcomes of the day's negotiations was that Angela Merkel would be announcing shortly a conference in Germany to deal with the issue of monitoring emissions targets. This body would be tasked with developing the most effective means of monitoring whether a nation is cutting its emissions without intruding on its sovereignty - a major stumbling block in this week's negotiations.

Brown said: "This is the first step we are taking towards a green and low carbon future for the world, steps we are taking together. But like all first steps, the steps are difficult."

"I know what we rally need is a legally binding treaty as quickly as possible."

However Brown brushed off a suggestion that Europe hadn't gone from 20% to 30% in its carbon emission target because of the paucity of other agreements on the table.

Instead he said it was the first time so many countries had come together to agree a 2C target by 2050.

NGOs gathered in Copenhagen were severely disappointed. Senior climate change advocacy officer at Christian Aid, Nelson Muffuh said: "Already 300,000 people die each year because of the impact of climate change, most of them in the developing world. The lack of ambition shown by rich countries in Copenhagen means that number will grow."

Kate Horner from Friends of the Earth said: "This is the United Nations and the nations here are not united on this secret back-room declaration. The US has lied to the world when they called it a deal and they lied to over a hundred countries when they said would listen to their needs. This toothless declaration, being spun by the US as an historic success, reflects contempt for the multi-lateral process and we expect more from our Nobel prize winning President."

Tim Jones, climate policy officer at the World Development Movement said: "This summit has been in complete disarray from start to finish, culminating in a shameful and monumental failure that has condemned millions of people around the world to untold suffering."

news20091219nn1

[naturenews] from [nature.com]

[naturenews]
Published online 18 December 2009 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2009.1154
News
Enceladus plume is half ice
Geysers not fed by misty water vapour after all.
Richard A. Lovett

{{Researchers have upped their estimates of the proportion of ice in Enceladus's plume.}
NASA/JPL/Space Science Institute}

As much as 50% of the plume shooting out of geysers on Saturn's moon Enceladus could be ice, a researcher revealed yesterday at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco, California.

Previously, scientists had thought that only 10–20% of the plume was made up of ice, with the rest being water vapour.

Some researchers think that the study, led by Andrew Ingersoll, a planetary scientist from California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, backs the idea that the plumes are caused by a sub-surface lake boiling off into space rather than the product of colder processes such as sublimation.

Ingersoll based his estimate on a series of photos of Enceladus taken in 2006 by the Cassini spacecraft. That was a "very special time", he says, when two important events occurred simultaneously. Enceladus was perfectly backlit by the Sun, allowing ice particles in its geyser plumes to be easily observed. And at the same time, Cassini was in Saturn's shadow. "That allowed us to look back toward the Sun without blinding the instruments," Ingersoll says.

The photos showed Enceladus at different points in its orbit in three wavelength bands — ultraviolet, visible and near-infrared. In combination, the images allowed Ingersoll's team to determine the size of the plume's ice particles as well as their concentration.

Feeding the plume

The team then calculated how fast new ice particles had to blast out of the moon's geysers for the plume to contain the amount of ice seen in the images. They found that Enceladus must be emitting at least 200 kilograms of ice per second — almost identical to the amount of water vapour other measurements had determined it to be emitting.

That 1:1 ratio between ice and water vapour is a major constraint on how the geysers must be operating, Ingersoll says. In a paper accepted by the journal Icarus, he examined a scenario in which the geysers are fed by a misty vapour that sublimates from ice in underground chambers. But that doesn't fit the new data, he says. "You [would] get 1% ice, and 99% water vapour."

One way to get more ice, Ingersoll says, is if the geyser chambers contain water. When a crack opens up, the water is exposed to the vacuum of space and starts to boil, he says. But much of the steam immediately freezes, "and you get a large fraction of solids" in the plume.

Liquid water is an exciting idea for those hoping we might one day find life on Enceladus. But not everyone believes that water is needed to produce the plumes.

Susan Kieffer, a planetary scientist from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, for instance, was lead author of the paper that found the plume contained only 10–20% ice.¹ However, she has no problem with Ingersoll's finding. "Andy had access to a whole new bunch of data," she says.

But she's not about to concede that Ingersoll's finding requires water to be present. Rather, she has her own model, in which the geysers are fed by the explosive decompression of materials called clathrates, when cracks in the crust expose them to the vacuum.

Uncaged clathrates

Clathrates are molecular-sized cages of a compound that can contain many other molecules. The ice in Enceladus's plumes could therefore encage the numerous other gases that make up about 10% of the plume. "Clathrates are garbage bins for storing gases," Kieffer says.

When the clathrates break down, Kieffer argues, they would release not just water vapour, but also ice particles into the plume — likely enough to account for Ingersoll's data. "We can make a lot of ice in our model," she says.

Thus, of the three main theories for the formation of Enceladus's geysers — sublimation in cold, misty chambers; liquid water (that might sustain life) boiling into vacuum; and exploding clathrates — only the first seems to be ruled out by Ingersoll's find.

The remaining debate is as alive as ever. "I think it's safe to say that there's years of debate left in it," says Carolyn Porco, head of the Cassini imaging team.

Kieffer concurs. "This argument isn't going to go away as the result of one AGU meeting," she says. "It may hang around until there is another spacecraft, or until there is a definitive observation."

References
1. Kieffer, S. W. et al, Icarus, (2009) doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2009.05.011


[naturenews]
Published online 18 December 2009 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2009.1153
News: Q&A
Shaping US geology
New director Marcia McNutt talks about her goals for the US Geological Survey.
Rex Dalton

Marcia McNutt is the first woman to lead the 130-year-old US Geological Survey (USGS), headquartered in Reston, Virginia, which collects and analyses natural resources information for the federal government. Trained as a geophysicist, McNutt served most recently as president and chief executive for the privately funded Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI) in Moss Landing, California. McNutt talked to Nature this week in San Francisco, where she was in town for the autumn meeting of the American Geophysical Union.

What were your thoughts in the first days of the job?

Wow. I was overwhelmed. But I took solace that I was overwhelmed when I was named to run MBARI. That showed me you have to go through an entire budget cycle to get comfortable with an organization. I expect it will be similar with the USGS.

What has been the biggest adjustment so far?

Things work very differently from in the private sector. For example, the [USGS] deputy director is retiring, so I can hire a new one. I felt I should advertise this key position. But the human-relations department says that will take six months. I can select someone from the senior executive service, who could serve virtually immediately. If I had picked someone without advertising at MBARI, I would have been lynched. Everyone would think it was incredibly imperial.

What is the biggest surprise?

How incredibly hard everyone works, both scientists and managers. These are 24-hour, 7-day-a-week jobs.

What is the biggest problem you face?

Building up the budget to a healthy level. And renewing the workforce, because many people are retiring.

What are your other goals?

I want the agency to reflect the diversity of the American population. It is now largely white males. The diversity statistics haven't appreciably changed since 1970. We have made modest gains in terms of women.

Also, I would like to simplify the bureaucracy, so information and ideas flow more easily. And I want to implement research on climate change, renewable energy, and safer and more-reliable water resources.

What else have you experienced?

Interagency cooperation is the buzzword right now. Everyone has a substantial portfolio, and key issues cross agency boundaries. Energy [research] isn't all in the Department of Energy, nor oceans just in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. If you really want to attack something holistically, it means you have to work across agencies. In the old battle days, there wasn't an incentive to do this.

How long do you want to stay?

I took the job with a commitment for the length of the first [presidential] term. At the USGS, the only politically appointed position is that of the director; it is not like other agencies with layers of political appointees. After four years, I'll either be near dead and happy to go west into the sunset to my family and horses; or maybe I'll still want to stay around.

news20091219nn2

[naturenews] from [nature.com]

[naturenews]
Published online 18 December 2009 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2009.1155
Column
Reaffirming climate science
The conclusion that our planet is warming thanks to human activity must not be forgotten amid discussion of research ethics, say climatologists Hans von Storch and Myles Allen.
Hans von Storch & Myles Allen

The publication of hacked e-mails from prominent scientists at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK, has initiated an intense debate, in particular in the United States, about the credibility of climate science. We welcome debate about the ethics of science prompted by the language of some of these e-mails, which, rightly or not, have created concerns about the scientific process. But, at the same time, it is crucial to point out that no grounds have arisen to doubt the validity of the thermometer-based temperature record since it began in about 1850.

The mainstream media has confused discussions about relatively uncertain climate reconstructions built on tree-ring data, among them the 'hockey-stick' graph of rising temperatures, and the much more secure thermometer record. Whereas proxy-based reconstructions remain a controversial area of active research, the thermometer record shows unequivocally that Earth is warming, and provides the main evidence that this is thanks to human activity. This important record remains essentially unchallenged.

In a recent survey of US citizens conducted by electronic media company Rasmussen Reports, 49% of 1,000 respondents said that they have "very closely or somewhat closely" followed news reports about the CRU e-mail leak, and 59% find it "very likely or somewhat likely" that, in order to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming, some scientists have falsified research data. The Swedish daily newspaper Aftonbladet asked its readers — beginning on 21 November, just after the first publication of the CRU e-mails — if they considered the climate change threat to be oversold, and 51% of the almost 65,000 respondents thought so. After years of communication, researchers have to face the fact that a large body of public opinion still does not trust the evidence presented to them by the scientific community.

Team thinking

Some commentators have suggested that the e-mails disclose a 'team mentality' among a group of prominent climate scientists. Even we — the two authors of this piece — find it impossible to agree whether or not some people went too far to ensure dominance for particular points of view. We do agree, however, that it is absurd to suggest there is some kind of global conspiracy involving all climate scientists. We ourselves have variously worked with the scientists at the centre of this controversy, and have examined, used and at times criticized their data and results just as they, at times, have criticized ours.

What the e-mails do not prove — or even suggest — is that the main product of the CRU, namely the record of global surface air temperature based on thermometer readings, has been compromised. Indeed, the thermometer-based temperature record has been verified by results from other groups.

In spite of some disagreement about technical issues, which is normal in the process of science, we are convinced (insofar as is possible in an empirical science) that anthropogenic climate change is taking place and will emerge more strongly in the future. This conclusion is a result of the science behind both the detection and the attribution of climate change.

Detection and attribution

The detection step reveals that the warming trend extending across the recent few decades is more rapid and sustained than warming or cooling trends that would be expected from internal variability alone (from phenomena such as El Niño, the Pacific decadal oscillation and so on). The statement is not that the present level of warmth is unprecedented, even though it may very well be, but that the speed and pattern of warming, as described by the CRU data and similar products, is remarkable.

Attributing observed temperature variations to specific causes relies more on climate models, because they are needed to discriminate between the response of the climate system to different 'drivers', such as solar activity, greenhouse gases and volcanoes. It turns out that the best, and really the only, satisfactory explanation of the history of surface air temperature change — particularly over the past few decades — is obtained when the warming influence of anthropogenic greenhouse gases is taken into account.

Importantly, both of these conclusions rely on the thermometer-based temperature record compiled by the CRU and other institutions. They do not rely on proxy reconstructions of temperature over the past millennium, which are based on indirect evidence such as tree rings. These reconstructions have been the subject of intense debate over the past few years — including, prominently, between one of us (von Storch) and the lead author of one of the first 'hockey-stick' reconstructions, US climatologist Michael Mann. Because of uncertainty in both these reconstructions and in the drivers of climate change prior to the 20th century, they have contributed less to our understanding of the climate than the thermometer record.

Climate science is clearly a knowledge producer and broker for some of the most important issues of world policy, and therefore cannot be conducted behind closed doors. It is essential that the public at large, including the media, considers climate science a trustworthy effort, honouring the principles of openness, falsification, replicability and fair independent review. Justly or unjustly, this trust has been damaged. The task of the climate-research community, and responsible media reporting on this affair, is to rebuild that trust while ensuring that uncompromised knowledge about ongoing and future anthropogenic climate change continues to be perceived as valid.

Hans von Storch is at the GKSS Institute of Coastal Research in Geesthacht, Germany, and at the KlimaCampus of the University of Hamburg, Germany. Myles Allen is at the Department of Physics at the University of Oxford, UK.

news20091126bbc1

[One-Minute World News] from [BBC NEWS]

[Science & Environment]
[Climate change glossary]
How does adaptation differ from mitigation? And what is REDD? The jargon of climate change can be hard to grasp. Use this glossary to decode it.

[A]
Adaptation: Action that helps cope with the effects of climate change - for example construction of barriers to protect against rising sea levels, or conversion to crops capable of surviving high temperatures and drought.

Annex I countries: The industrialised countries (and countries in transition to a market economy) which took on obligations to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto Protocol. Their combined emissions, averaged out during the 2008-2012 period, should be 5.2% below 1990 levels.

Annex II countries: Countries which have a special obligation under the Kyoto Protocol to provide financial resources and transfer technology to developing countries. This group is a sub-section of the Annex I countries, excluding those that, in 1992, were in transition from centrally planned to a free market economy.

Anthropogenic climate change: Man-made climate change - climate change caused by human activity as opposed to natural processes.

Atmospheric aerosols: Microscopic particles suspended in the lower atmosphere that reflect sunlight back to space. These generally have a cooling affect on the planet and can mask global warming. They play a key role in the formation of clouds, fog, precipitation and ozone depletion in the atmosphere.

[B]
Bali action plan: A plan drawn up at the UN Climate Change Conference in Bali, in December 2007, forming part of the Bali roadmap. The action plan established a working group to define a long-term global goal for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and a "shared vision for long-term co-operative action" in the areas of mitigation, adaptation, finance and technology.

Bali roadmap: A plan drawn up at the UN Climate Change Conference in Bali, in December 2007, to pave the way for an agreement at Copenhagen in 2009 on further efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions after the expiry of the Kyoto Protocol. The roadmap gave deadlines to two working groups, one working on the Bali action plan, and another discussing proposed emission reductions by Annex I countries after 2012.

Baseline for cuts: The year against which countries measure their target decrease of emissions. The Kyoto Protocol uses a baseline year of 1990. Some countries prefer to use later baselines. Climate change legislation in the United States, for example, uses a 2005 baseline.

Black carbon: The soot that results from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels, biofuels, and biomass (wood, animal dung, etc.). It is the most potent climate-warming aerosol. Unlike greenhouse gases, which trap infrared radiation that is already in the Earth's atmosphere, these particles absorb all wavelengths of sunlight and then re-emit this energy as infrared radiation.

Boxer-Kerry bill: The Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, now in the US Senate, also known as Waxman-Markey from 2007-2009 as it passed through the House of Representatives. This bill aims to reduce emissions by about 20% from a 2005 baseline by 2020. The bill would create a US-wide carbon market, which in time would link up with other carbon markets, like the EU Emission Trading Scheme. The bill is not expected to get Senate approval until 2010.

Business as usual: A scenario used for projections of future emissions assuming no action, or no new action, is taken to mitigate the problem. Some countries are pledging not to reduce their emissions but to make reductions compared to a business as usual scenario. Their emissions, therefore, would increase but less than they would have done.

[C]
Cap and trade: An emission trading scheme whereby businesses or countries can buy or sell allowances to emit greenhouse gases via an exchange. The volume of allowances issued adds up to the limit, or cap, imposed by the authorities.

Carbon capture and storage (CCS): The collection and transport of concentrated carbon dioxide gas from large emission sources, such as power plants. The gases are then injected into deep underground reservoirs. Carbon capture is sometimes referred to as geological sequestration.

Carbon dioxide (CO2): Carbon dioxide is a gas in the Earth's atmosphere. It occurs naturally and is also a by-product of human activities such as burning fossil fuels. It is the principal greenhouse gas produced by human activity.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent: Six greenhouse gases are limited by the Kyoto Protocol and each has a different global warming potential. The overall warming effect of this cocktail of gases is often expressed in terms of carbon dioxide equivalent - the amount of CO2 that would cause the same amount of warming.

Carbon intensity: A unit of measure. The amount of carbon emitted by a country per unit of Gross Domestic Product.

Carbon leakage: A term used to refer to the problem whereby industry relocates to countries where emission regimes are weaker, or non-existent.

Carbon neutral: A process where there is no net release of CO2. For example, growing biomass takes CO2 out of the atmosphere, while burning it releases the gas again. The process would be carbon neutral if the amount taken out and the amount released were identical. A company or country can also achieve carbon neutrality by means of carbon offsetting.

Carbon offsetting: A way of compensating for emissions of CO2 by participating in, or funding, efforts to take CO2 out of the atmosphere. Offsetting often involves paying another party, somewhere else, to save emissions equivalent to those produced by your activity.

Carbon sequestration: The process of storing carbon dioxide. This can happen naturally, as growing trees and plants turn CO2 into biomass (wood, leaves, and so on). It can also refer to the capture and storage of CO2 produced by industry. See Carbon capture and storage.

Certified Emission Reduction (CER): A greenhouse gas trading credit, under the UN Clean Development Mechanism programme. A CER may be earned by participating in emission reduction programmes - installing green technology, or planting forests - in developing countries. Each CER is equivalent to one tonne of carbon dioxide.

Clean coal technology: Technology that enables coal to be burned without emitting CO2. Some systems currently being developed remove the CO2 before combustion, others remove it afterwards. Clean coal technology is unlikely to be widely available for at least a decade.

Clean Development Mechanism (CDM): A programme that enables developed countries or companies to earn credits by investing in greenhouse gas emission reduction or removal projects in developing countries. These credits can be used to offset emissions and bring the country or company below its mandatory target.

Climate change: A pattern of change affecting global or regional climate, as measured by yardsticks such as average temperature and rainfall, or an alteration in frequency of extreme weather conditions. This variation may be caused by both natural processes and human activity. Global warming is one aspect of climate change.

CFCs: The short name for chlorofluorocarbons - a family of gases that have contributed to stratospheric ozone depletion, but which are also potent greenhouse gases. Emissions of CFCs around the developed world are being phased out due to an international control agreement, the 1989 Montreal Protocol.

CO2: See carbon dioxide.

COP15: The official title of the Copenhagen conference, which takes place from 7-18 December 2009. Alternatively, it can be called the 15th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

[D]
Dangerous climate change: A term referring to severe climate change that will have a negative effect on societies, economies, and the environment as a whole. The phrase was introduced by the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which aims to prevent "dangerous" human interference with the climate system.

Deforestation: The permanent removal of standing forests that can lead to significant levels of carbon dioxide emissions.

[E]
Emission Trading Scheme (ETS): A scheme set up to allow the trading of emissions permits between business and/or countries as part of a cap and trade approach to limiting greenhouse gas emissions. The best-developed example is the EU's trading scheme, launched in 2005. See Cap and trade.

EU Burden-sharing agreement: A political agreement that was reached to help the EU reach its emission reduction targets under the Kyoto Protocol (a reduction of 8% during the period 2008-2012, on average, compared with 1990 levels). The 1998 agreement divided the burden unequally amongst member states, taking into account national conditions, including greenhouse gas emissions at the time, the opportunity for reducing them, and countries' levels of economic development.

[F]
Fossil fuels: Natural resources, such as coal, oil and natural gas, containing hydrocarbons. These fuels are formed in the Earth over millions of years and produce carbon dioxide when burnt.

CONTINUED TO newsbbc2

news20091126bbc2

[One-Minute World News] from [BBC NEWS]

[Science & Environment]
[Climate change glossary]
How does adaptation differ from mitigation? And what is REDD? The jargon of climate change can be hard to grasp. Use this glossary to decode it.

CONTINUED FROM newsbbc1

[G]
Geological sequestration: The injection of carbon dioxide into underground geological formations. When CO2 is injected into declining oil fields it can help to recover more of the oil.

Global average temperature: The mean surface temperature of the Earth measured from three main sources: satellites, monthly readings from a network of over 3,000 surface temperature observation stations and sea surface temperature measurements taken mainly from the fleet of merchant ships, naval ships and data buoys.

Global energy budget: The balance between the Earth's incoming and outgoing energy. The current global climate system must adjust to rising greenhouse gas levels and, in the very long term, the Earth must get rid of energy at the same rate at which it receives energy from the sun.

Global dimming: An observed widespread reduction in sunlight at the surface of the Earth, which varies significantly between regions. The most likely cause of global dimming is an interaction between sunlight and microscopic aerosol particles from human activities. In some regions, such as Europe, global dimming no longer occurs, thanks to clean air regulations.

Global warming: The steady rise in global average temperature in recent decades, which experts believe is largely caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions. The long-term trend continues upwards, they suggest, even though the warmest year on record, according to the UK's Met Office, is 1998.

Greenhouse gases (GHGs): Natural and industrial gases that trap heat from the Earth and warm the surface. The Kyoto Protocol restricts emissions of six greenhouse gases: natural (carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane) and industrial (perfluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons, and sulphur hexafluoride).

Greenhouse effect: The insulating effect of certain gases in the atmosphere, which allow solar radiation to warm the earth and then prevent some of the heat from escaping. See also Natural greenhouse effect.

[H]
Hockey stick: The name given to a graph published in 1998 plotting the average temperature in the Northern hemisphere over the last 1,000 years. The line remains roughly flat until the last 100 years, when it bends sharply upwards. The graph has been cited as evidence to support the idea that global warming is a man-made phenomenon, but some scientists have challenged the data and methodology used to estimate historical temperatures. (It is also known as MBH98 after its creators, Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley and Malcolm K. Hughes.)

[I]
IPCC: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a scientific body established by the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organization. It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical, and socio-economic work relevant to climate change, but does not carry out its own research. The IPCC was honoured with the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.

[J]
Joint implementation (JI): An agreement between two parties whereby one party struggling to meet its emission reductions under the Kyoto Protocol earns emission reduction units from another party's emission removal project. The JI is a flexible and cost-efficient way of fulfilling Kyoto agreements while also encouraging foreign investment and technology transfer.

[K]
Kyoto Protocol: A protocol attached to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which sets legally binding commitments on greenhouse gas emissions. Industrialised countries agreed to reduce their combined emissions to 5.2% below 1990 levels during the five-year period 2008-2012. It was agreed by governments at a 1997 UN conference in Kyoto, Japan, but did not legally come into force until 2005.

[M]
Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate: A forum established in 2009 by US President Barack Obama to discuss elements of the agreement that will be negotiated at Copenhagen. Its members - Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, South Korea, the UK and the US - account for 80% of greenhouse gas emissions. The forum is a modification of the Major Economies Meeting started by the former President George Bush, which was seen by some countries as an attempt to undermine UN negotiations.

Methane: Methane is the second most important man-made greenhouse gas. Sources include both the natural world (wetlands, termites, wildfires) and human activity (agriculture, waste dumps, leaks from coal mining).

Mitigation: Action that will reduce man-made climate change. This includes action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or absorb greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

[N]
Natural greenhouse effect: The natural level of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, which keeps the planet about 30C warmer than it would otherwise be - essential for life as we know it. Water vapour is the most important component of the natural greenhouse effect.

Non-annex I countries: The group of developing countries that have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol. They do not have binding emission reduction targets.

[P]
Per-capita emissions: The total amount of greenhouse gas emitted by a country per unit of population.

Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide: The levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution. These levels are estimated to be about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv). The current level is around 380 ppmv.

[R]
REDD: Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation, a concept that would provide developing countries with a financial incentive to preserve forests. The Copenhagen conference is expected to finalise an international finance mechanism for the post-2012 global climate change framework.

[S]
Stern review: A report on the economics of climate change led by Lord Nicholas Stern, a former World Bank economist. It was published on 30 October 2006 and argued that the cost of dealing with the consequences of climate change in the future would be higher than taking action to mitigate the problem now.

[T]
Technology transfer: The process whereby technological advances are shared between different countries. Developed countries could, for example, share up-to-date renewable energy technologies with developing countries, in an effort to lower global greenhouse gas emissions.

[U]
UNFCCC: The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is one of a series of international agreements on global environmental issues adopted at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. The UNFCCC aims to prevent "dangerous" human interference with the climate system. It entered into force on 21 March 1994 and has been ratified by 192 countries.

[W]
Waxman-Markey bill: Another name for the Boxer-Kerry bill, which aims to reduce US greenhouse gas emissions. See Boxer-Kerry bill.

Weather: The state of the atmosphere with regard to temperature, cloudiness, rainfall, wind and other meteorological conditions. It is not the same as climate which is the average weather over a much longer period.

news20091219bbc3

[One-Minute World News] from [BBC NEWS]

[Science & Environment]
Page last updated at 13:02 GMT, Saturday, 19 December 2009
UN welcomes climate summit deal
The UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has welcomed a US-backed climate deal in Copenhagen as an "essential beginning".

He was speaking after delegates passed a motion recognising the agreement, which the US reached with key nations including China and Brazil.

But Mr Ban said the agreement must be made legally binding next year.

Earlier, the meeting failed to secure unanimous support, amid opposition from some developing nations.

{{US-LED COPENHAGEN DEAL}
> No reference to legally binding agreement
Recognises the need to limit global temperatures rising no more than 2C above pre-industrial levels
> Developed countries to "set a goal of mobilising jointly $100bn a year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries"
> On transparency: Emerging nations monitor own efforts and report to UN every two years. Some international checks
> No detailed framework on carbon markets - "various approaches" will be pursued
Updated: 13:47 GMT, 19 December}

Several South American countries, such as Nicaragua and Venezuela, were among a group saying the agreement had not been reached through proper process.

The BBC's environment correspondent Richard Black says the deal may disappoint many countries that wanted tougher action on climate change.

He says the Copenhagen Accord looks unlikely to contain temperature rises to within 2C (3.6F).

Not perfect

"The conference decides to take note of the Copenhagen Accord of December 18, 2009," the chairman of the plenary session of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) declared on Saturday morning, swiftly banging down his gavel.

Mr Ban told journalists: "It may not be everything we hoped for, but this decision of the Conference of Parties is an essential beginning."

{{AT THE SCENE}
Richard Black,
BBC News environment correspondent}
When President Obama left Copenhagen last night, he appeared to think he carried a nice, neat deal in his back pocket.
Perhaps he didn't realise that having it formally adopted in the closing plenary session here would mean getting it past a hall full of smart diplomats and lawyers from countries that hate the contents of the deal and the way it was done.
Objections from several countries mean it has not been formally adopted. Delegations are now trying to introduce language making some bits legally binding.
A global deal? That's looking less and less likely… whether it matters, whether the Chinese and US architects care, is another matter.}

But the UN secretary general also said: "We must transform this into a legally binding treaty next year.

"The importance will only be recognised when it's codified into international law."

Delegates at the climate summit had been battling through the night to prevent the talks ending without reaching a final deal.

The Copenhagen Accord is based on a proposal tabled on Friday by a US-led group of five nations - including China, India, Brazil and South Africa - that President Barack Obama called a "meaningful agreement".
The accord includes a recognition to limit temperature rises to less than 2C and promises to deliver $30bn (£18.5bn) of aid for developing nations over the next three years.

It outlines a goal of providing $100bn a year by 2020 to help poor countries cope with the impacts of climate change.

The agreement also includes a method for verifying industrialised nations' reduction of emissions. The US had insisted that China dropped its resistance to this measure.

The UK's Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband said it was very important that the adoption of the accord would allow the flow of money to begin.

But, he said: "We recognise there could have been more ambition in parts of this agreement. Therefore we have got to drive forward as hard as we can towards both a legally binding treaty and that ambition."

Earlier, the proposal had been rejected by a few developing nations which felt that it failed to deliver the actions needed to halt dangerous climate change.

The main opposition to the five-nation accord had come from the ALBA bloc of Latin American countries to which Nicaragua and Venezuela belong, along with Cuba, Ecuador and Bolivia.

Venezuelan delegate Claudia Salerno Caldera said before the motion was passed: "Mr President, I ask whether - under the eye of the UN secretary general - you are going to endorse this coup d'etat against the authority of the United Nations."

Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping, the Sudanese negotiator, had said the draft text asked "Africa to sign a suicide pact".

During the two-week gathering, small island nations and vulnerable coastal countries had been calling for a binding agreement that would limit emissions to a level that would prevent temperatures rising more than 1.5C (2.7F) above pre-industrial levels.


[Science & Environment]
Page last updated at 11:52 GMT, Friday, 18 December 2009
By Victoria Gill
Science reporter, BBC News

The first glimpse of dark matter?
{Dark matter may make up most of the "cosmic web" of the Universe}
US scientists have reported the detection of signals that could indicate the presence of dark matter.

A team announced on Thursday detecting two events with characteristics "consistent with" what physicists believe make up the elusive matter.

The main announcement came from the Department of Energy's Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory near Chicago.

The scientists were keen to stress that they could not confirm that what they had seen was definitely dark matter.

"While this result is consistent with dark matter, it is also consistent with backgrounds," said Fermilab's director, Pier Oddone.

Several US universities and institutes have contributed to the Cryogenic Dark Matter Search (CDMS), an experiment designed to detect the dark matter particles.

The tests are being carried out in an underground laboratory in a defunct mine in northern Minnesota.

"In 2010, the collaboration is installing an upgraded detector at the Soudan mine with three times the mass and lower backgrounds than the present detectors," said Dr Oddone.

"If these two events are indeed a dark matter signal, then the upgraded detector will be able to tell us definitively that we have found a dark matter particle."

{Detectors are designed to pick up heat deposits "left behind" by dark matter}

It seems that ordinary matter - gas, stars, planets and galaxies - makes up less than 5% of the Universe. The remainder is unseen.

Astronomers believe that 70% of this is "dark energy" - a hypothetical phenomenon that affects the rate at which the Universe expands.

The remaining 25% is believed to be dark matter.

Theories suggests that dark matter is made up of subatomic particles called Wimps - Weakly Interacting Massive Particles.

These are thought to have a similar mass to the nuclei that give each atom the majority of its mass, but are predicted to "bounce off" rather than interact with any other matter.

This would make the particles themselves impossible to find. So the detectors in the CDMS experiment are designed to pick up the tiny amount of energy that Wimps leave behind as they scatter - the only clue they might leave behind.

Others hold that the dark substance consists of everyday matter, but that this ordinary matter, referred to as Massive Astrophysical Compact Halo Objects (Machos), happens to radiate little or no light.

The CDMS scientists believe they may have seen evidence of Wimps - heat deposits left in silicon and germanium detectors that had been cooled to very near absolute zero (-273C).

"Layers of shielding materials, as well as the half-mile of rock above the experiment, are used to prevent most of the background particles from reaching the detector," a Fermilab statement explained.

Professor Carlos Frenk is a cosmologist from Durham University in the UK, who develops theories about the structure of the Universe.

He described the results as "deliciously inviting".

"Dark matter is what makes the Universe interesting," he told BBC News. "It is responsible for the bulk of the gravitational forces that give the Universe its shape."

Professor Frenk said that the world of cosmology had been "awash with gossip" about the highly anticipated results for the past week.

Commenting on why he felt the scientists had made the announcement before they could confirm their findings to be dark matter, he said that there was a competition among scientists to be the first to make the discovery.

"This is one of the most important problems in science," he told BBC News.

"We only have a glimpse here, but it's so tantalising that you couldn't go to bed without telling the whole world about it."

news20091219reut

[Top News] from [REUTERS]

[Green Business]
Dominic Evans and Alister Doyle
COPENHAGEN
Sat Dec 19, 2009 6:39am EST

U.N. averts climate collapse by "noting" new deal
COPENHAGEN (Reuters) - U.N. climate talks avoided a total collapse on Saturday by skirting bitter opposition from several nations to a deal championed by the U.S. President Barack Obama and five emerging economies including China

"Finally we sealed a deal," U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said. "The 'Copenhagen Accord' may not be everything everyone had hoped for, but this decision...is an important beginning."

But a decision at marathon 193-nation talks merely took note of the new accord, a non-binding deal for combating global warming led by the United States, China, India, Brazil and South Africa.

The 193 nations stopped far from a full endorsement of the plan, which sets a target of limiting global warming to a maximum 2 degree Celsius rise over pre-industrial times and holds out the prospect of $100 billion in annual aid from 2020 for developing nations.

The plan does not specify greenhouse gas cuts needed to achieve the 2 Celsius goal that is seen as a threshold for dangerous changes such as more floods, droughts, mudslides, sandstorms and rising seas.

In a stormy overnight session, the talks came to the brink of collapse after Sudan, Nicaragua, Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia lined up to denounce the U.S.-led plan after about 120 world leaders left after a summit on Friday.

U.N. talks are meant to be agreed by unanimity. Under a compromise to avoid collapse, the deal would list the countries that were in favor of the deal and those against.

The outcome may yield the initiative in forming world climate policy to the United States and China, the world's top two emitters of greenhouse gases, and underscored shortcomings in the chaotic U.N. process.

An all-night plenary session, chaired by Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen, hit a low point when a Sudanese delegate said the plan in Africa would be like the Holocaust.

DESPICABLE

The document "is a solution based on the same very values, in our opinion, that channelled six million people in Europe into furnaces," said Sudan's Lumumba Stanislaus Di-aping.

"The reference to the Holocaust is, in this context, absolutely despicable," said Anders Turesson, chief negotiator of Sweden.

Other nations including European Union states, Japan, a representative of the African Union and the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) urged delegates to adopt the plan as a U.N. blueprint for action to combat climate change.

"We have a real danger of (U.N. climate) talks going the same way as WTO (trade) talks and other multilateral talks," Maldives President Mohamed Nasheed said, urging delegates to back the plan to prevent the process dragging on for years.

Many nations said the deal fell far short of U.N. ambitions for Copenhagen, meant as a turning point to push the world economy toward renewable energies such as hydro, solar and wind power and away from fossil fuels.

Before leaving, Obama said the deal was a starting point.

"This progress did not come easily and we know this progress alone is not enough," he said after talks with China's Premier Wen Jiabao and leaders of India, South Africa and Brazil.

"We've come a long way but we have much further to go," he said of the deal.

"The meeting has had a positive result, everyone should be happy," said Xie Zhenhua, head of China's climate delegation.

China had resisted international monitoring of its emissions curbs and the final wording took into account Chinese concerns, speaking of the need to protect sovereignty.

European nations were lukewarm to a deal that cut out some goals mentioned previously in draft texts, such as a target of halving world greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

Many European nations want Obama to offer deeper U.S. cuts in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. But Obama was unable to, partly because carbon capping legislation is stalled in the U.S. Senate. Washington backed a plan to raise $100 billion in aid for poor nations from 2020.

The deal sets an end-January 2010 deadline for all nations to submit plans for curbs on emissions to the United Nations. A separate text proposes an end-2010 deadline for reporting back on -- but dropped a plan to insist on a legally binding treaty.

(With reporting by Gerard Wynn, Anna Ringstrom, John Acher, Anna Ringstrom, Richard Cowan, David Fogarty, Pete Harrison, Emma Graham-Harrison and Alister Bull in Washington; Writing by Alister Doyle; editing by Dominic Evans and Janet McBride)


[Green Business]
Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent - Analysis
COPENHAGEN
Sat Dec 19, 2009 5:08am EST

Climate deal won't cap warming, big gaps
COPENHAGEN (Reuters) - A climate deal among world leaders including President Barack Obama puts off many tough decisions until 2010 and sets the planet on track to overshoot goals for limiting global warming.

Obama spoke of "the beginning of a new era of international action" but many other leaders said it was "imperfect," "not sufficient" and at best a "modest success" if it gets formally adopted by all 193 nations in Copenhagen on Saturday.

Problems faced by China and the United States -- the world's top emitters -- stood in the way of a stronger deal for the world's first pact to combat climate change since the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol in 1997.

In big advances, the deal adds a promise of $100 billion a year to help developing nations from 2020 and promotes the use of forests to soak up carbon dioxide. But it is unclear where the cash will come from.

European leaders fell in reluctantly after Obama announced the deal with China, India, South Africa and Brazil. It was drafted by 28 nations ranging from OPEC oil produces to small island states.

A drawback is that the deal is not legally binding -- a key demand of many developing nations. The text instead suggests an end-2010 deadline for transforming it into a legal text that had long been expected in Copenhagen.

The deal sets a goal for limiting a rise in world temperatures to "below" 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial times but does not set out measures for achieving the target, such as firm near-term cuts in emissions.

"It clearly falls well short of what the public around the world was expecting," said Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists. "It's clearly not enough to keep temperatures on a track below 2 degrees."

A U.N. study leaked this week showed that current pledges by all nations would put the world on track for a 3 Celsius warming, beyond what many nations view as a "dangerous" threshold for droughts, floods, sandstorms and rising seas.

Mention in some past drafts of a goal of halving world emissions by 2050 below 1990 levels, for instance, was dropped. China and India insist that rich nations must first set far tougher goals for cutting their own greenhouse gas emissions.

And developed nations failed to give an average number for cuts in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 -- many scientists say they need to cut by between 25 and 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 to avoid the worst of climate change.

Instead, all countries would have to submit plans for fighting global warming by the end of January 2010 to the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat.

The pact sums up pledges by major economies for curbing emissions so far -- the looming deadline of Copenhagen spurred nations including China, the United States, Russia and India to promise targets.

But no nations promised deeper cuts during the December 7-18 conference as part of a drive to shift the world economy away from fossil fuels toward renewable energies such as wind and solar power.

The deal proposes deadlines of the end of 2010 for a new "legally binding" instruments.

Jake Schmidt, of the Natural Resources Defense Council, said that the talks were complicated by China's drive to assert a new, more powerful, role for itself in the world.

"Part of the dysfunction is that China is feeling its way into a new, more powerful role," he said.

Obama pushed through the pact while he faces problems at home. His goal of cutting U.S. emissions by 4 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 is stalled in the U.S. Senate.

And the deal is unclear on many points. It says developed nations should provide $30 billion in aid to help the poor from 2010-12 and then raise aid to $100 billion a year from 2020.

But it does not say where the money will come from, saying it will be a variety of sources, including public and private. That means that developed nations might try to tap carbon markets for almost all the cash and plan little in public funds.