Do we need to talk about ‘climate change’ more or less?

Does our communications strategy need to talk about 'climate change' more or less?

Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org, has written an inspiring call to arms over at TomDispatch.com.  He argues that we need to build a much more active movement, and also that we need to change our communications strategy.  It is this latter point that I want to discuss here, as it is so fundamental to our long-term strategy. Bill McKibben wants us to start talking more about climate change, instead of avoiding the issue.

Step one involves actually talking about global warming.  For years now, the accepted wisdom in the best green circles was: talk about anything else — energy independence, oil security, beating the Chinese to renewable technology. I was at a session convened by the White House early in the Obama administration where some polling guru solemnly explained that “green jobs” polled better than “cutting carbon.”

No, really?  In the end, though, all these focus-group favorites are secondary.  The task at hand is keeping the planet from melting. We need everyone — beginning with the president — to start explaining that basic fact at every turn.

In the circles that I move in, people seem to be heading the opposite direction. After Copenhagen and Climate-gate, campaigners started talking about climate change less, not more.  We have The Great Power Race, the Energy Action Coalition, and the 10:10 campaign, which are all great projects, but aren’t built around the concept of talking about climate change.

I think that people have been focusing on changing strategy since Copenhagen, and so for groups that I’m involved in like the UK Youth Climate Coalition and the International Youth Climate Movement who have been talking climate change for a while, this means moving away from ‘climate change’ and towards ‘clean energy futures’.  Is this the right direction to be moving, or should the UKYCC be holding its ground and sticking with climate-related messaging? Could it even be argued that we youth groups are switching to a tried-and-failed tactic that was used before our time?

It’s clear that we need a movement, and that will have to be made up of groups that talk about climate change, and groups that don’t.  It must be made up of groups campaigning for high-speed rail, against road and airport expansion, for energy security, against wars for oil, as well as for cutting carbon emissions and against climate change. We need to make better links with diverse groups and ask not what these groups can do for the climate movement, but rather that the climate movement can do for them.  To do this we don’t need to stop talking about climate change, if anything we need to talk about it more and show how it relates to all of these other issues.

Let’s keep climate change as a common theme through all of our messaging, and make a better effort to reach out to diverse groups and help them out with their campaigns.

Climate Stalemate in L’Aquila

Cross-posted from Climatico. 

“Unless the G8 sign up to cut emissions by at least 40% by 2020, developing countries will not commit to emissions targets” - that’s the major point of discussion between developed and developing nations, which has (as was to be expected) paralysed the outcome of the Major Economies Forum (MEF). Following yesterday’s G8 declaration, the members of the Major Economies Forum (G8, G5, Australia, EU, the Republic of Korea, Indonesia and Denmark) may not have agreed on a specific target for emissions reductions by 2050 but at least agreed to allow no more than a 2 degrees rise in global temperatures. Reading through the communiqué that was just released in l’Aguila we don’t find many surprises, neither positive nor negative. A little bit on forests, a little bit on adaptation. No doors are closed but real commitment should sound different.

A definitely positive development from yesterday’s declaration is a stronger commitment to leverage financing. Where yesterday’s document related financing for adaptation and mitigation to existing development aid, today’s communiqué stresses that: “Financial resources for mitigation and adaptation will need to be scaled up urgently and substantially and should involve mobilizing resources to support developing countries (…..) Climate financing should complement efforts to promote development in accordance with national priorities and may include both program-based and project-based approaches.”

Yet, non-governmental observers are not entirely satisfied. In the words of WWF’s Kim Carstensen “It’s all about money. Rich countries are telling poor nations: oh poor you. But they avoid commiting to pay their fair share” He adds that ["]wealthy nations should show solid financial commitments and not comforting statements and should replace the blame game with responsible and credible commitments”.

But it is not only the non-governmental sector that recognises the difficulties. President Obama who chaired the meeting, acknowledged a good start but conceded that “progress on this issue will not be easy”. He especially cautioned against cynicism, in front of the immensity of the problem. Some others like CAFOD express it more directly “The G8 could be risking the lives of millions the world’s poorest if there is no agreement on climate in December”.

Bottomline: the outcome probably meets realistic expectations: whoever thought the MEF would do anything more than keeping the door open, i.e. whoever hoped that any substantial progress was to be made without the pressure of the last minute in Copenhagen is probably too optimistic. We also have to consider that without China’s presence moving negotiations towards a more definite outcome was next to impossible. No matter which perspective we take, it is pretty obvious that all sides are trying to push out a definite commitment and to keep the game open until the negotiations at the end of the year. The game continues…..

By Niel Bowerman, Ruth Brandt, Radhika Viswanathan and Marie Karaisl

The G8 agrees to avoid cooking the planet…

Cross-posted from Climatico

… but doesn’t agree on when to turn down the heat. This is Oxfam’s resumé on the freshly released G8 climate change communiqué. Leaders could not improve on last year’s commitment of “a 50% reduction of global emissions by 2050”. They did however agree that to reach such a global reduction, developed countries will have to reduce their emissions by 80% by 2050. There was no agreement on a specific year as a baseline, and the final wording - “compared to 1990 or more recent years” - reflects the disagreement between the EU who pushed for a 1990 baseline and the USA and Japan who want future emissions to be compared to a more recent reference year.

As hoped and expected, it was agreed, however, that “the increase in global average temperature above pre-industrial levels ought not to exceed 2°C.” This is the first time that the US has officially agreed to such a target, something that would have been unimaginable under George W. Bush. The Canadians were opposed to this statement earlier this week, but after long negotiations and NGO campaigns from the likes of Avaaz, Canada accepted the language.

Like last year, no interim goal has been agreed on, though the EU’s push for a 2020 goal is reflected in the statement that a 50% reduction by 2050 “implies that global emissions need to peak as soon as possible and decline thereafter”. This lack of an interim target does not sit well with a 2°C target as Kim Carstensen, leader of the WWF Global Climate Initiative, puts it: “What are [world leaders] going to do between now and 2020? If they don’t outline a path to reach the announced goal, the 2 degree statement will just join a long list of broken promises.”

In the short term, they will be working on their economic recovery. The deterioration of the economic climate is noticeable throughout the document. Yet, positively, the trend to “green” individual stimulus packages (at least rhetorically) has been picked up in the communiqué: “We must seize the opportunity to build on synergies between actions to combat climate change and economic recovery initiatives, and encourage growth and sustainable development worldwide.”

For those interested in adaptation and forestry, the document seems to have something on offer.  The document mentions the “possible security implications of the adverse impact of climate change and the potential for increased conflicts over scarcer resources.” It goes on to discuss not only deforestation but also land degradation and the importance of biodiversity.

The bottom line is that apart from the lack of interim targets, most NGOs and other observers agree that the communique is adequate. Or as John Kirton, of the G8 Research Group, put it - “It met my standards.”

The G8 leaders will now take this communique to the Major Economies Forum tomorrow.  There Obama will chair a difficult meeting in which he will attempt to reverse China and India’s longstanding opposition to adopting quantitative emissions targets.

By Ruth Brandt, Niel Bowerman and Marie Karaisl

Landmark US Climate Bill Passes The House

Cross-posted from Climatico.

In a much-anticipated vote on Capitol Hill today, The House of Representatives passed the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill, which lays the foundations for a cap-and-trade system in the US. The vote was narrowly passed with 219 for and 212 against.

In the run up to the vote today some pundits said that the vote would pass, while others said it would fail.  Conventional wisdom, however, suggests that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would not have put it to a floor vote unless she knew she had the votes in the bag.  In a vote this tight, those that fall on the dividing line can have a disproportionally-large influence on the Bill.  This phenomenon was well illustrated by the extra 0.25% of permits that were allocated to refineries at the last minute in order to win over Rep. Harry Teague.

The reception has been mixed in the US, with House Republican leader John Boehner calling it “the biggest job-killing bill that has ever been on the floor of the House of Representatives.”  On the other hand the response internationally has been largely positive.  In a meeting with Obama earlier today, German Chancellor Angela Merkel praised the bill: “This is, indeed, a sea change that I see [...] this really points to the fact that the United States are very serious on climate.”  Although the bill has been widely supported by environmental groups, some say it does not go far enough.

The vote today does not guaruntee the passage of the bill into law, as it must first face the daunting task of passing the Senate.  Nonetheless, Obama’s victory today gives him some important extra cards to play in the run up to the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen this December.

Support the ‘Age of Stupid’ wind farm

UPDATE:  The easiest way to write to the planning officer is here.
___

For those of you who have seen the Age of Stupid (here’s a trailer for those who haven’t), Piers has resubmitted his proposal for Airfield Windfarm in a much scaled-down format (only three wind-turbines now) and could use some letter-writing support.

At this stage, the most positive thing that you could do would be to write a letter of support to the planning officer;

Peter Bull
Planning and Housing Services
Bedford Borough Council
Town Hall
St. Paul’s Square
Bedford
MK40 1SJ

RE: Application No. 08/02692/MAF

If you want to invite as many of your friends/family to do the same this all helps.

Let’s see if we can get this proposal approved at last!