[News] from [guardian.co.uk]
[Environment > Glaciers]
India 'arrogant' to deny global warming link to melting glaciers
IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri accuses Indian environment ministry of 'arrogance' for its report claiming there is no evidence that climate change has shrunk Himalayan glaciers
Randeep Ramesh in Delhi
guardian.co.uk, Monday 9 November 2009 16.17 GMT Article history
A leading climate scientist today accused the Indian environment ministry of "arrogance" after the release of a government report claiming that there is no evidence climate change has caused "abnormal" shrinking of Himalayan glaciers.
Jairam Ramesh, India's environment minister, released the controversial report in Delhi, saying it would "challenge the conventional wisdom" about melting ice in the mountains.
Two years ago, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN agency which evaluates the risk from global warming, warned the glaciers were receding faster than in any other part of the world and could "disappear altogether by 2035 if not sooner".
Today Ramesh denied any such risk existed: "There is no conclusive scientific evidence to link global warming with what is happening in the Himalayan glaciers." The minister added although some glaciers are receding they were doing so at a rate that was not "historically alarming".
However, Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the IPCC, told the Guardian: "We have a very clear idea of what is happening. I don't know why the minister is supporting this unsubstantiated research. It is an extremely arrogant statement."
Ramesh said he was prepared to take on "the doomsday scenarios of Al Gore and the IPCC".
"My concern is that this comes from western scientists … it is high time India makes an investment in understanding what is happening in the Himalayan ecosystem," he added.
The government report, entitled Himalayan glaciers (pdf), looks at 150 years' worth of data gathered from the Geological Survey of India from 25 glaciers. It claims to be the first comprehensive study on the region.
Vijay Kumar Raina, the geologist who authored the report, admitted that some "Himalayan glaciers are retreating. But it is nothing out of the ordinary. Nothing to suggest as some have said that they will disappear."
Pachauri dismissed the report saying it was not "peer reviewed" and had few "scientific citations".
"With the greatest of respect this guy retired years ago and I find it totally baffling that he comes out and throws out everything that has been established years ago."
In a remarkable finding, the report claims the Gangotri glacier, the main source of the River Ganges, actually receded fastest in 1977 – and is today "practically at a stand still".
Some scientists have warned that the river beds of the Gangetic Basin – which feed hundreds of millions in northern India – could run dry once glaciers go. However, such concerns are scotched by the report.
According to Raina, the mistake made by "western scientists" is to apply the rate of glacial loss from other parts of the world to the Himalayas. "In the United States the highest glaciers in Alaska are still below the lowest level of Himalayan glaciers. Our 9,500 glaciers are located at very high altitudes. It is completely different system."
"As long as we have monsoons we will have glaciers. There are many factors to consider when we want to find out how quickly (glaciers melt) … rainfall, debris cover, relief and terrain," said Raina.
In response Pachauri said that such statements were reminiscent of "climate change deniers and school boy science".
"I cannot see what the minister's motives are. We do need more extensive measurement of the Himalayan range but it is clear from satellite pictures what is happening."
Many environmentalists said they were also unconvinced by the minister's arguments. Sunita Narain, a member of the Indian prime minister's climate change council and director of the Centre for Science and Environment, said "the report would create a lot of confusion".
"The PM's council has just received a comprehensive report which presents many studies which show clear fragmentation of the glaciers would lead to faster recession. I am not sure what Jairam (Ramesh) is doing."
[Environment > Copenhagen Climate change conference 2009]
Barack Obama will go to Copenhagen if he can clinch climate deal
Daniel Nasaw in Washington
The Guardian, Tuesday 10 November 2009 Article history
President Barack Obama will travel to the climate summit in Copenhagen next month if the countries involved are on the verge of a deal and he thinks his presence will help to clinch agreement, he said in an interview last night.
It is Obama's strongest assertion yet that he will attend the meeting in Denmark to help secure a binding treaty in the fight against climate change, and comes after weeks of pessimism and a significant downgrading of the summit's goal.
"If I am confident that all the countries involved are bargaining in good faith and we are on the brink of a meaningful agreement and my presence in Copenhagen will make a difference in tipping us over edge, then certainly that's something that I will do," the US president told Reuters.
Obama made clear he considers his talks with Chinese leaders during an Asia tour later this month to be crucial in clearing remaining obstacles to an accord.
"The key now is for the United States and China, the two largest emitters, to come up with a framework that, along with other big emitters like the Europeans and those countries that are projected to be large emitters in the future, like India, can all buy into," he said. "I remain optimistic that between now and Copenhagen that we can arrive at that framework."
He spoke as progress on legislation in the US remains halting, and just days after the last formal international negotiations in Barcelona in the run up to the summit collapsed in acrimony. On Friday, developing countries threatened to walk out of the Copenhagen summit unless wealthier states commit to great cuts in their own emissions, and to more aid. Meanwhile, the UN, EU and some NGOs have accused the US of holding up the talks by refusing to show up at Copenhagen with firm emissions targets.
The US House of Representatives has passed a bill setting a 17% reduction in America's emissions from 2005 levels, and a version currently in the Senate aims for a 20% cut by 2020.
It became clear on Friday that the best hope for Copenhagen is a "politically binding" agreement, which rich countries hope will have all the key elements of the final deal, including specific targets and timetables for greenhouse gas emissions cuts and money for poor countries to cope with climate change.
A British government official said: "It would be substantive. It would set timelines, and provide the figures by which rich countries would reduce emissions, as well as the money that would be made available to developing countries to adapt to climate change." But, she said, a legally binding agreement "could take six months, up to a year, but we would want it to be [signed] as soon as possible."
If Obama shows up next month, he will join more than 40 heads of state, including prime minister Gordon Brown and others from Europe, Africa and South America who have said they will attend the talks.
In Washington, Republicans and some Democrats have resisted emissions legislation, saying it would hinder job growth as the country claws its way out of recession. The White House has said global climate negotiations should continue while the US domestic political debate plays out.
Republicans are little inclined to allow Obama a victory on climate change, which they see as a liberal issue in the US, and the entire Congress is embroiled in a bitter fight over his health care reform plans.
In a dramatic display of intransigence, Republicans on a Senate committee tasked with approving emissions control legislation boycotted a hearing last week on the bill. The bill passed and will now be further shaped by Senate Democratic leaders before a floor vote.
Complicating the situation are next year's congressional and Senate elections, when Democrats will be more concerned with voters' economic woes than with demands from Copenhagen participants.
On Monday, Obama said he was optimistic he could convince American businesses and the public of the "enormous amount of benefits" of emissions control.
"In meeting with world leaders, I've repeatedly explained that America is not a speedboat," he said. "We're a big ocean liner. And you can't reverse course overnight."
[Environment > Glaciers]
India 'arrogant' to deny global warming link to melting glaciers
IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri accuses Indian environment ministry of 'arrogance' for its report claiming there is no evidence that climate change has shrunk Himalayan glaciers
Randeep Ramesh in Delhi
guardian.co.uk, Monday 9 November 2009 16.17 GMT Article history
A leading climate scientist today accused the Indian environment ministry of "arrogance" after the release of a government report claiming that there is no evidence climate change has caused "abnormal" shrinking of Himalayan glaciers.
Jairam Ramesh, India's environment minister, released the controversial report in Delhi, saying it would "challenge the conventional wisdom" about melting ice in the mountains.
Two years ago, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN agency which evaluates the risk from global warming, warned the glaciers were receding faster than in any other part of the world and could "disappear altogether by 2035 if not sooner".
Today Ramesh denied any such risk existed: "There is no conclusive scientific evidence to link global warming with what is happening in the Himalayan glaciers." The minister added although some glaciers are receding they were doing so at a rate that was not "historically alarming".
However, Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the IPCC, told the Guardian: "We have a very clear idea of what is happening. I don't know why the minister is supporting this unsubstantiated research. It is an extremely arrogant statement."
Ramesh said he was prepared to take on "the doomsday scenarios of Al Gore and the IPCC".
"My concern is that this comes from western scientists … it is high time India makes an investment in understanding what is happening in the Himalayan ecosystem," he added.
The government report, entitled Himalayan glaciers (pdf), looks at 150 years' worth of data gathered from the Geological Survey of India from 25 glaciers. It claims to be the first comprehensive study on the region.
Vijay Kumar Raina, the geologist who authored the report, admitted that some "Himalayan glaciers are retreating. But it is nothing out of the ordinary. Nothing to suggest as some have said that they will disappear."
Pachauri dismissed the report saying it was not "peer reviewed" and had few "scientific citations".
"With the greatest of respect this guy retired years ago and I find it totally baffling that he comes out and throws out everything that has been established years ago."
In a remarkable finding, the report claims the Gangotri glacier, the main source of the River Ganges, actually receded fastest in 1977 – and is today "practically at a stand still".
Some scientists have warned that the river beds of the Gangetic Basin – which feed hundreds of millions in northern India – could run dry once glaciers go. However, such concerns are scotched by the report.
According to Raina, the mistake made by "western scientists" is to apply the rate of glacial loss from other parts of the world to the Himalayas. "In the United States the highest glaciers in Alaska are still below the lowest level of Himalayan glaciers. Our 9,500 glaciers are located at very high altitudes. It is completely different system."
"As long as we have monsoons we will have glaciers. There are many factors to consider when we want to find out how quickly (glaciers melt) … rainfall, debris cover, relief and terrain," said Raina.
In response Pachauri said that such statements were reminiscent of "climate change deniers and school boy science".
"I cannot see what the minister's motives are. We do need more extensive measurement of the Himalayan range but it is clear from satellite pictures what is happening."
Many environmentalists said they were also unconvinced by the minister's arguments. Sunita Narain, a member of the Indian prime minister's climate change council and director of the Centre for Science and Environment, said "the report would create a lot of confusion".
"The PM's council has just received a comprehensive report which presents many studies which show clear fragmentation of the glaciers would lead to faster recession. I am not sure what Jairam (Ramesh) is doing."
[Environment > Copenhagen Climate change conference 2009]
Barack Obama will go to Copenhagen if he can clinch climate deal
Daniel Nasaw in Washington
The Guardian, Tuesday 10 November 2009 Article history
President Barack Obama will travel to the climate summit in Copenhagen next month if the countries involved are on the verge of a deal and he thinks his presence will help to clinch agreement, he said in an interview last night.
It is Obama's strongest assertion yet that he will attend the meeting in Denmark to help secure a binding treaty in the fight against climate change, and comes after weeks of pessimism and a significant downgrading of the summit's goal.
"If I am confident that all the countries involved are bargaining in good faith and we are on the brink of a meaningful agreement and my presence in Copenhagen will make a difference in tipping us over edge, then certainly that's something that I will do," the US president told Reuters.
Obama made clear he considers his talks with Chinese leaders during an Asia tour later this month to be crucial in clearing remaining obstacles to an accord.
"The key now is for the United States and China, the two largest emitters, to come up with a framework that, along with other big emitters like the Europeans and those countries that are projected to be large emitters in the future, like India, can all buy into," he said. "I remain optimistic that between now and Copenhagen that we can arrive at that framework."
He spoke as progress on legislation in the US remains halting, and just days after the last formal international negotiations in Barcelona in the run up to the summit collapsed in acrimony. On Friday, developing countries threatened to walk out of the Copenhagen summit unless wealthier states commit to great cuts in their own emissions, and to more aid. Meanwhile, the UN, EU and some NGOs have accused the US of holding up the talks by refusing to show up at Copenhagen with firm emissions targets.
The US House of Representatives has passed a bill setting a 17% reduction in America's emissions from 2005 levels, and a version currently in the Senate aims for a 20% cut by 2020.
It became clear on Friday that the best hope for Copenhagen is a "politically binding" agreement, which rich countries hope will have all the key elements of the final deal, including specific targets and timetables for greenhouse gas emissions cuts and money for poor countries to cope with climate change.
A British government official said: "It would be substantive. It would set timelines, and provide the figures by which rich countries would reduce emissions, as well as the money that would be made available to developing countries to adapt to climate change." But, she said, a legally binding agreement "could take six months, up to a year, but we would want it to be [signed] as soon as possible."
If Obama shows up next month, he will join more than 40 heads of state, including prime minister Gordon Brown and others from Europe, Africa and South America who have said they will attend the talks.
In Washington, Republicans and some Democrats have resisted emissions legislation, saying it would hinder job growth as the country claws its way out of recession. The White House has said global climate negotiations should continue while the US domestic political debate plays out.
Republicans are little inclined to allow Obama a victory on climate change, which they see as a liberal issue in the US, and the entire Congress is embroiled in a bitter fight over his health care reform plans.
In a dramatic display of intransigence, Republicans on a Senate committee tasked with approving emissions control legislation boycotted a hearing last week on the bill. The bill passed and will now be further shaped by Senate Democratic leaders before a floor vote.
Complicating the situation are next year's congressional and Senate elections, when Democrats will be more concerned with voters' economic woes than with demands from Copenhagen participants.
On Monday, Obama said he was optimistic he could convince American businesses and the public of the "enormous amount of benefits" of emissions control.
"In meeting with world leaders, I've repeatedly explained that America is not a speedboat," he said. "We're a big ocean liner. And you can't reverse course overnight."
※コメント投稿者のブログIDはブログ作成者のみに通知されます