NEW DELHI: The Copenhagen Accord was a good outcome but not adequate to fight climate change, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change chief RK
Pachauri said on Wednesday.
"We expected much more from the Copenhagen summit. We need to work very hard and come out with a legally binding commitment. There is a urgency to reach an agreement by the end on 2010 as we are losing valuable time. If delayed further, it will get very difficult and expensive to limit global temperature rise to two degree Celsius," said Pachauri.
Under the accord, by Jan 31, 2010 both developed and developing countries will have to inform of their commitment to mitigate emissions of greenhouse gases that are causing global warming.
"The developed countries will give percentage of emission reduction while developing countries will give nationally appropriate mitigation action. By February next year, we will have fair idea what countries are willing to commit," he said.
Pachauri said action will be taken soon after to use these submissions as a basis for creating a legally binding agreement within a reasonable period of time.
"The Copenhagen Accord does provide a foundation and framework that allows for a binding agreement to be developed incorporating the specific commitments by all countries, particularly industrialised countries," he said.
Source: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/environment/developmental-issues/Copenhagen-outcome-good-but-not-adequate-Pachauri-/articleshow/5370546.cms
Showing posts with label climate change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label climate change. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Oceans becoming nosier thanks to pollution: Report
PARIS: The world's oceans are becoming noisier thanks to pollution, with potentially harmful effects for whales, dolphins and other marine life,
US scientists said in a study published Sunday.
Low-frequency sound in the ocean is produced by natural phenomena such as rain, waves and marine life, and by human activities such as sonar systems, shipping and construction.
The sound is absorbed mainly through the viscosity of the water and the presence of certain dissolved chemicals, said the report published in the science journal Nature.
But the concentration of chemicals that absorb sound in the oceans has declined as a result of ocean acidification, in turn caused by rising concentrations of carbon dioxide.
Rising levels of carbon dioxide come from human activity such as shipping, with the number of ships roughly doubling over the past 40 years, the scientists said.
This was in turn increasing the acidity of the ocean, shown by a lowering of its pH levels, they said.
Using model simulations, the scientists found that increases in acidity could reduce seawater sound absorption by as much as 60 percent by 2100 in high latitude oceans.
Concern about the negative effect of the sea's increased acidity had previously been concentrated on the reduced rate of calcification, such as in coral reefs.
"However, a less anticipated consequence of ocean acidification is its effect on underwater sound absorption," the authors said.
"A decrease in seawater pH lowers sound absorption in the low-frequency range and, as a result, leads to increasing sound transmission."
Future global warming due to an accumulation of greenhouse gases may further decrease the ocean's sound absorption capacity at certain frequencies, the study said.
"High levels of low-frequency sound have a number of behavioural and biological effects on marine life," it added.
This included tissue damage, mass stranding of mammals such as whales and temporary loss of hearing in dolphins associated with military tests using intense mid-frequency sonar, the report said.
Marine species had adapted to varying levels of noise but the consequences of the sea's decreased ability to absorb sound were uncertain and required further research, the scientists said.
Source: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/environment/pollution/Oceans-becoming-nosier-thanks-to-pollution-Report-/articleshow/5360546.cms
US scientists said in a study published Sunday.
Low-frequency sound in the ocean is produced by natural phenomena such as rain, waves and marine life, and by human activities such as sonar systems, shipping and construction.
The sound is absorbed mainly through the viscosity of the water and the presence of certain dissolved chemicals, said the report published in the science journal Nature.
But the concentration of chemicals that absorb sound in the oceans has declined as a result of ocean acidification, in turn caused by rising concentrations of carbon dioxide.
Rising levels of carbon dioxide come from human activity such as shipping, with the number of ships roughly doubling over the past 40 years, the scientists said.
This was in turn increasing the acidity of the ocean, shown by a lowering of its pH levels, they said.
Using model simulations, the scientists found that increases in acidity could reduce seawater sound absorption by as much as 60 percent by 2100 in high latitude oceans.
Concern about the negative effect of the sea's increased acidity had previously been concentrated on the reduced rate of calcification, such as in coral reefs.
"However, a less anticipated consequence of ocean acidification is its effect on underwater sound absorption," the authors said.
"A decrease in seawater pH lowers sound absorption in the low-frequency range and, as a result, leads to increasing sound transmission."
Future global warming due to an accumulation of greenhouse gases may further decrease the ocean's sound absorption capacity at certain frequencies, the study said.
"High levels of low-frequency sound have a number of behavioural and biological effects on marine life," it added.
This included tissue damage, mass stranding of mammals such as whales and temporary loss of hearing in dolphins associated with military tests using intense mid-frequency sonar, the report said.
Marine species had adapted to varying levels of noise but the consequences of the sea's decreased ability to absorb sound were uncertain and required further research, the scientists said.
Source: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/environment/pollution/Oceans-becoming-nosier-thanks-to-pollution-Report-/articleshow/5360546.cms
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
'2010 to be the world's warmest year'
LONDON: 2010 is likely to be the world's warmest year on record, the British Met Office has
predicted.
According to the Met Office, man-made climate change will be a factor and natural weather patterns would contribute less to 2010's temperature than they did in 1998, the current warmest year in the 160-year record.
El Niño effect, the cyclical heating of the Pacific Ocean, is much weaker than it was in 1998, but the Met Office expects the warming effect of greenhouse gas emissions to more than make up the difference, 'The Times' reported.
It predicts that the global average temperature next year to be almost 0.6 C warmer than the 1961 to 1990 average, and forecasts an annual average of 14.58 C.
The Met Office has also said that it expects half the years between 2010 and 2019 to be warmer than 1998. It sounded a note of caution, saying that a record year in 2010 was not a certainty, especially if the current El Niño began to decline earlier than normal or there was a large volcanic eruption.
However, experts are divided on the prediction. Ben Stewart of Greenpeace said: "If 2010 turns out to be the hottest year on record, it might go some way towards exploding the myth, spread by the climate conspiracy theorists that we're experiencing global cooling. In reality the world is getting possibly a lot hotter, and humans are causing it."
But, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, has accused the Met Office of making a "political intervention" in the international negotiations taking place in Copenhagen.
"Suggestions by the Met Office that a warming trend will resume in the next year or two should be treated with reserve in light of the recognised difficulties in making such confident predictions," it said.
predicted.
According to the Met Office, man-made climate change will be a factor and natural weather patterns would contribute less to 2010's temperature than they did in 1998, the current warmest year in the 160-year record.
El Niño effect, the cyclical heating of the Pacific Ocean, is much weaker than it was in 1998, but the Met Office expects the warming effect of greenhouse gas emissions to more than make up the difference, 'The Times' reported.
It predicts that the global average temperature next year to be almost 0.6 C warmer than the 1961 to 1990 average, and forecasts an annual average of 14.58 C.
The Met Office has also said that it expects half the years between 2010 and 2019 to be warmer than 1998. It sounded a note of caution, saying that a record year in 2010 was not a certainty, especially if the current El Niño began to decline earlier than normal or there was a large volcanic eruption.
However, experts are divided on the prediction. Ben Stewart of Greenpeace said: "If 2010 turns out to be the hottest year on record, it might go some way towards exploding the myth, spread by the climate conspiracy theorists that we're experiencing global cooling. In reality the world is getting possibly a lot hotter, and humans are causing it."
But, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, has accused the Met Office of making a "political intervention" in the international negotiations taking place in Copenhagen.
"Suggestions by the Met Office that a warming trend will resume in the next year or two should be treated with reserve in light of the recognised difficulties in making such confident predictions," it said.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Climate: Copenhagen talks set to be a cliff-hanger
Source: The Times of India
COPENHAGEN: Driven by an ever-louder drumbeat of alarm, the world's nations come together on Monday in a bid to lift the curse of climate change
hanging over coming generations.
In the brief history of environmentalism -- and, some would argue, in the longer sweep of human history itself -- the stakes at the 12-day conference in Copenhagen have never been higher.
The goal: to roll back the peril of hunger, disease, drought, flood, storm and rising seas created by mankind's unwitting impact on the weather system.
To achieve this aim, the 192 members of the UN's Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) must show solidarity and sacrifice on an unprecedented scale.
More than 100 leaders are set to attend the finale on December 18. They are under ratcheting pressure to seize the day rather than a photo opportunity, to seal a deal rather than preside over a fiasco.
Trillions of dollars, powerful economic and national interests and the livelihoods of millions underpin the Copenhagen moment.
Countries must agree to curb their use of coal, oil and gas, the fossil fuels hewn from the ground or drilled from beneath the earth that have powered our prosperity -- and helped create the carbon monster.
And they must set up a financial safety net for poor countries least to blame for global warming but most exposed to its wrath, and provide them with technology to avoid becoming big polluters in turn.
"The aim is nothing less than to slice through the Gordian knot intertwining climate change and development," says Jean-Charles Hourcade of the International Centre on Environment and Development (CIRED), a French thinktank.
Some thinkers, like British economist Nicholas Stern, liken the December 7-18 conference in importance to Bretton Woods, the 1944 conference that reshaped the world's monetary system.
Others see it as a do-or-die moment for the United Nations, for it raises core questions about the ability of nation states to cooperate.
"It is a very crucial test of the UN system," Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN panel of climate scientists, told AFP. "It is an extremely important test of the ability of nation states to get together and manage the global commons."
The road to Copenhagen began two years ago, at UNFCCC talks in Bali, Indonesia.
There, after arduous wrangling, countries set their eyes on a global pact that would take effect from 2013, after current pledges expire under the Kyoto Protocol, the world's first emissions-curbing accord.
Bit by bit, hopes that Copenhagen would yield a soup-to-nuts treaty have vanished.
The lesser objective now is a strong outline accord, one that can be fleshed out by further negotiations in 2010.
Yet there is no guarantee that even this skeletal agreement can be reached.
Mistrust is entrenched among -- and within -- the three main negotiation groups.
Poor countries are angry that rich countries, as a bloc, have not come nearly far enough on their emissions and funding proposals.
Developing nations, they say, will not sign up to any targeted, binding emissions of their own, arguing they too have the right to use cheap, plentiful fossil fuels to haul themselves out of poverty.
The European Union (EU), meanwhile, is looking to the United States, the world's No. 2 polluter, to dig deep into its pocket and its carbon pollution.
The US, meanwhile, is turning to the emerging giants -- China, No. 1 emitter, as well as India and Brazil -- for proof that their emissions measures, while voluntary, will be tough, transparent and verifiable.
Even if this negotiation triangle can be smoothed out into a consensus, another problem lurks: what kind of legal form should this agreement take?
Poorer countries are clamouring for a second round of pledges under the Kyoto Protocol, yet this seems out of the question so long as the United States remains outside that treaty.
The negotiations are likely to start low-paced, building to a crescendo in the middle of the second week with the arrival of environment ministers, followed by the heads of state or government, including the leaders of the United States, China, Germany, France and Britain.
The likelihood beckons of frenzied all-night climate poker in the back rooms.
Green activists have scheduled demonstrations on Saturday, December 12, while a hard-left group has threatened to interrupt the talks at Copenhagen's Bella Center on December 16.
COPENHAGEN: Driven by an ever-louder drumbeat of alarm, the world's nations come together on Monday in a bid to lift the curse of climate change
hanging over coming generations.
In the brief history of environmentalism -- and, some would argue, in the longer sweep of human history itself -- the stakes at the 12-day conference in Copenhagen have never been higher.
The goal: to roll back the peril of hunger, disease, drought, flood, storm and rising seas created by mankind's unwitting impact on the weather system.
To achieve this aim, the 192 members of the UN's Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) must show solidarity and sacrifice on an unprecedented scale.
More than 100 leaders are set to attend the finale on December 18. They are under ratcheting pressure to seize the day rather than a photo opportunity, to seal a deal rather than preside over a fiasco.
Trillions of dollars, powerful economic and national interests and the livelihoods of millions underpin the Copenhagen moment.
Countries must agree to curb their use of coal, oil and gas, the fossil fuels hewn from the ground or drilled from beneath the earth that have powered our prosperity -- and helped create the carbon monster.
And they must set up a financial safety net for poor countries least to blame for global warming but most exposed to its wrath, and provide them with technology to avoid becoming big polluters in turn.
"The aim is nothing less than to slice through the Gordian knot intertwining climate change and development," says Jean-Charles Hourcade of the International Centre on Environment and Development (CIRED), a French thinktank.
Some thinkers, like British economist Nicholas Stern, liken the December 7-18 conference in importance to Bretton Woods, the 1944 conference that reshaped the world's monetary system.
Others see it as a do-or-die moment for the United Nations, for it raises core questions about the ability of nation states to cooperate.
"It is a very crucial test of the UN system," Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN panel of climate scientists, told AFP. "It is an extremely important test of the ability of nation states to get together and manage the global commons."
The road to Copenhagen began two years ago, at UNFCCC talks in Bali, Indonesia.
There, after arduous wrangling, countries set their eyes on a global pact that would take effect from 2013, after current pledges expire under the Kyoto Protocol, the world's first emissions-curbing accord.
Bit by bit, hopes that Copenhagen would yield a soup-to-nuts treaty have vanished.
The lesser objective now is a strong outline accord, one that can be fleshed out by further negotiations in 2010.
Yet there is no guarantee that even this skeletal agreement can be reached.
Mistrust is entrenched among -- and within -- the three main negotiation groups.
Poor countries are angry that rich countries, as a bloc, have not come nearly far enough on their emissions and funding proposals.
Developing nations, they say, will not sign up to any targeted, binding emissions of their own, arguing they too have the right to use cheap, plentiful fossil fuels to haul themselves out of poverty.
The European Union (EU), meanwhile, is looking to the United States, the world's No. 2 polluter, to dig deep into its pocket and its carbon pollution.
The US, meanwhile, is turning to the emerging giants -- China, No. 1 emitter, as well as India and Brazil -- for proof that their emissions measures, while voluntary, will be tough, transparent and verifiable.
Even if this negotiation triangle can be smoothed out into a consensus, another problem lurks: what kind of legal form should this agreement take?
Poorer countries are clamouring for a second round of pledges under the Kyoto Protocol, yet this seems out of the question so long as the United States remains outside that treaty.
The negotiations are likely to start low-paced, building to a crescendo in the middle of the second week with the arrival of environment ministers, followed by the heads of state or government, including the leaders of the United States, China, Germany, France and Britain.
The likelihood beckons of frenzied all-night climate poker in the back rooms.
Green activists have scheduled demonstrations on Saturday, December 12, while a hard-left group has threatened to interrupt the talks at Copenhagen's Bella Center on December 16.
Emission cuts: India follows China's footsteps
Published on Thu 3rd Dec 2009 12:39:25
Source: Zopang.com
New Delhi, December 3 :
Following in China's footsteps, India has also decided to slow down the growth of greenhouse gas emissions.
Last week, China had claimed that it would cut carbon emissions up to 45 percent by 2020. India has decided to cut its carbon intensity by 24 percent by 2020.
India is at present under immense pressure to pronounce the details of how it would cut its carbon intensity. New Delhi's position will strengthen at the Copenhagen summit if it is successful in its aim.
Minister of State for Environment and Forests Jairam Ramesh said, "We now have taken on performance targets in energy, building, forestry and various sectors of the economy. We are not going to be taking any legally binding emission cuts. That is simply out of the question, but we can look at various alternatives. Incidentally, our carbon intensity is very low. The Chinese have just announced a carbon intensity decline by 2020 and according to that, they will be in the year 2020 where India was in 2005 as far as carbon intensity is concerned."
With this stand, India is under immense pressure to set emissions targets ahead of the Copenhagen summit. The western countries are imposing their pressure on India to quantify the cuts.
To add to that, the developed countries want India to draw out and state a plan that India will follow to cut its emissions.
Source: Zopang.com
New Delhi, December 3 :
Following in China's footsteps, India has also decided to slow down the growth of greenhouse gas emissions.
Last week, China had claimed that it would cut carbon emissions up to 45 percent by 2020. India has decided to cut its carbon intensity by 24 percent by 2020.
India is at present under immense pressure to pronounce the details of how it would cut its carbon intensity. New Delhi's position will strengthen at the Copenhagen summit if it is successful in its aim.
Minister of State for Environment and Forests Jairam Ramesh said, "We now have taken on performance targets in energy, building, forestry and various sectors of the economy. We are not going to be taking any legally binding emission cuts. That is simply out of the question, but we can look at various alternatives. Incidentally, our carbon intensity is very low. The Chinese have just announced a carbon intensity decline by 2020 and according to that, they will be in the year 2020 where India was in 2005 as far as carbon intensity is concerned."
With this stand, India is under immense pressure to set emissions targets ahead of the Copenhagen summit. The western countries are imposing their pressure on India to quantify the cuts.
To add to that, the developed countries want India to draw out and state a plan that India will follow to cut its emissions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)