I haven’t been posting here for a while as I’ve been very wrapped up in a new and exciting project, which I can finally reveal is a campaign called 80,000 Hours. I’ve been coordinating a media preview in which we launched our research on the ethics of career choice today.
We made the top spot on BBC online’s education section, and also had the final spot on the BBC’s today programme with Ian Hislop. Our combined reach was between 5% and 10% of the UK population within the first day of our research launch!
We ran a provocative media campaign to get people to start discussing the issues and prompt a conversation in the media. On my Facebook wall alone there are almost 100 comments on the ideas, with some very vigorous debate, and we hope that this discussion will continue into the future. We’ll be launching the organisation properly later this year, but until then check out our brand new website.
Our aim is to get people to pursue the career in which they can help the most people in the world. We hope that this campaign will get people to at least start thinking about this question.
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
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
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.
Tags: American Clean Energy and Security Act, Angela Merkel, Climate Bill, Harry Teague, House of Representatives, John Boehner, Nancy Pelosi, Obama, Waxman-Markey
Climate Change, Climatico, Politics, USA | Niel Bowerman | 
27 June 2009 00:53 | 
Comments (1)
Last week I helped edit Climatico’s first quarterly assessment report. Simon Billett (lead editor) has written a piece on it here. With some help from Derek Pieper, we actually snagged an interview on CBC’s (Canadian Broadcast Company) Newsworld, and also on CBC’s Radio One (on World Report to be precise - scroll down to “vrc Lunn”). Many thanks to everyone that was involved!
Subscribe