A summary of ‘Mitigation of Climate Change’ — the much awaited third report from the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — was issued last night.
According to Michael Casy writing for The Guardian:
International delegates reached an agreement early Friday on the best ways to combat climate change despite efforts by China to water down language on cutting destructive greenhouse gas emissions.
The closed-door debate over everything from nuclear power to the cost of cleaner energy ran into the early morning hours with quibbling over wording. But consensus was eventually reached on a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.N. network of 2,000 scientists and delegates from more than 120 nations.
“It’s all done,” said Peter Lukey, a member of the South Africa delegation. “Everything we wanted to see was there and more. The message is: We have to do something now.”
Read the complete article here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6606763,00.html
Download the IPCC report here: http://www.ipcc.ch/
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
This report shows once again that Trees are the answer. The IPCC must have been looking at Tasmania’s record of sustainable forest management and its land use. Since 1990 (the Kyoto base year) the State has reduced its GHG emissions by 25% to the year 2004, led by its balanced forest policy, and mechanisms such as the Regional Forest Agreements and the Plantations 2020 vision.
Table SPM 3 of this IPCC report states a key mitigation factor is Forestry/forests and advocates: “Afforestation; reforestation; forest management; reduced deforestation; harvested wood product management; use of forestry products for bioenergy to replace fossil fuel use”
Table SPM 7 even advocates financial incentives (national and international) to increase forest area, to reduce deforestation, and to maintain and manage forests
The best financial incentives are investment security and the ability to generate income from the sustainable management of forests for timber and non timber products.
Yes, Cinders, it holds a glimmer of good sense but the extent to which a finely tuned policy can be converted to a blunt instrument wielded by goons at ground level never ceases to amaze me.
The key words are the management of forest products as a storage medium and on-going management of existing forests for carbon purposes. If all this does is produce even more fatuous plantation wanking then it will fail dismally.
The landholders Institute submission on a Carbon Trading System for Australia can be seen at;
http://ianmott.blogspot.com/
This is a really goofy sentence.
After the article mentions a “closed-door debate” regarding “quibbling over wording,” the result was:
“But consensus was eventually reached on a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.N. network of 2,000 scientists and delegates from more than 120 nations.”
So, there were 2,000 scientists and delegates from over 120 nations in a closed-door debate, quibbling over wording?
How do you squish that many scientists into a closed-door debate? Was this in a coliseum or something?
Get real. This was politicians squabbling like crows over a fresh carcass.
This article is a nice try at disguising the fact that it’s a political, not a scientific document. It’s certainly not credible journalism. It’s a biased editorial in the guise of news.
It’s lying to the public.
I received a newsletter today from a dark, dark green NGO,the Rainforestportal, a movement led by Dr . Glen Barry.
He urges people to cancel their memberships in Greenpeace and WWF, as he believes they support ancient forest logging together with the World Bank.
Read this interesting link:
http://www.rainforestportal.org/issues/2007/05/press_release_ecological_inter.asp
He opposes as well FSC-certification.
Well, in my opinion this guy is really extreme and I don’t support him as he has a very utopian and unrealistic view on the world.
Schiller
it’s not the scientists fault it has become a political process, but the countries who feel that the knowledge the IPCC reveals is not something they want to face up to, so they try to water it down. The truth is still in there.
So if it’s watered down it presumably means that the scientists left alone would have offered a more severe version?
Ann,
You are right to be suspicious of one of Glen Barry’s many web sites as he hopes to be an eco activist through the web. His climate Ark site advocates for greater action on global warming.
yet he is opposed to sustainably managed forests being the source of renewable bio fuels to replace some of our fossil fuels as recommended by the IPCC.
Whilst his views might be too extreme for you, there are many self appointed eco activists in my backyard that echo his attitude and beliefs.
SJT, “it’s not the scientists fault it has become a political process”, not really. many scientists are now an “embeded” part of the political process through their own choice. Some advocate a more severe version (thanks Luke) and others advocate a more benign version. Never-the-less it is stil politics and it has been the scientists that have driven the process hand in hand with the politicians and other advocates.
I’m sure that we will all form our own judgements as to wether this is a good or bad thing.
Peter
that is “severe” as opposed to “watered down”. If that is what the science is telling them, it is value neutral. If it is being watered down, then that is not their fault. If the watered down version is not telling the truth, then the real version is necessarily more severe.
That this is a huge political football, through no fault of their own, I’m sure that we will all form our own judgements as to wether this is a good or bad thing.
Peter
I would also note it is not scientists driving the process hand in hand with politicians. It is the politicians who have done all they can in Australia and the USA to stymie the scientists. The Bush administration had a person who’s role was to take the reports by scientists, and doctor them so that they did not appear to be as ‘severe’. Howard only a short time ago was referring to a report by ABARE that discredited the CSIRO research. He has changed his tune in a remarkable short period of time.
If you can demonstrate which Federal Government politicians were working hand in hand with scientists to put forward a politically research, I would love to hear of it.
SJT,
Whilst the Bush and Howard governments may have demanded a higher degree of certainty before they would act in the manner that the major green groups have advocated, ultimately the politics has bypassed them and they are now playing catch up.
Which politicians you ask, how about political parties. Labor has advocated stronger measures be taken on AGW for some time now, of course the greens and democrats have always advocated stronger measures.
Politics is not just about who is in power, it also refers to those in opposition and all lobby/advocacy groups.
It is also naive to believe that politics does not drive science. Just look at the funding models in this country and you will see what I mean.
Peter
Labor was right, Howard and Bush were wrong. Howard admits he was wrong, at least. They did their best to play down global warming, for as long as they could. That is not demanding a higher degree of certainty, that is actively working against the scientists.
SJT,
Have a look at the millions or indeed billions that has been invested over the past 8-10 years by the Australian and US governments on climate science. I’d say that neither Bush nor Howard were working against scientists rather that they were having an each way bet to ensure that if the political winds changed they could claim some kudos.
Peter
“It is also naive to believe that politics does not drive science. Just look at the funding models in this country and you will see what I mean.”
Scientists have to justify every project that is run, and it is all managed using a new model that is very sympathetic to the governments requirements for a lean and mean CSIRO. There is no gravy train by which the scientists just dream up anything they want to give themselves work. Any suggestion that is how it works is just slanderous.
SJT,
I think that if you re-read my comment you will recognise that I was suggesting that politics and science are interwoven, I gave the funding model as an example. Your quote below refers to the same thing…
“Scientists have to justify every project that is run, and it is all managed using a new model that is very sympathetic to the governments requirements for a lean and mean CSIRO.”
I did not now or ever suggest that there is a gravy train for scientists, every piece of evidence points to the contrary and has done for many years now!