2009 Copenhagen Accord

Fantasy Climate Change Policies, Landfill Gases & Water ?!?

2011-07-15:  The recent failure by European Union Environment Ministers to increase, unconditionally, the EU 2020 GHG Emission Reduction Target from 20% below 1990 levels to 30% … and the even more recent vote in the European Parliament against such an unconditional increase … leaves a stench in the nostrils.  Something stinks … and it’s the EU’s Climate Change Policy.  Too many alterations to the European Lifestyle … too many sacrifices … are required to effectively implement a ‘real’ climate change policy !

Taken as a whole … this is also a reliable indicator with regard to what is not happening in a strongly related policy area … the implementation of EU Sustainability Policy.

.

The next BIG United Nations International Climate Change Conference in 2011COP 17 – will take place from 28 November to 9 December, 2011 … in Durban, South Africa.  Let’s not get our hopes up for the long-awaited, very necessary and urgent Global, Legally Binding Consensus Agreement on Climate Change Mitigation to be finalized there … but let’s not be too negative either !

And how are the UNFCCC Annex I Countries doing so far ?   For an answer, please follow the link below to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) WebSite …

Official UNFCCC Map – All Annex I Countries

I wrote ‘an answer’ … as this is not ‘the answer’ … because the Climate Change Numbers produced by each country are not yet sufficiently accurate, precise and reliable.  In fact, there is so much massaging of numbers that it might be better just to imagine this whole process as the Climate Change Red Light District !

BUT … we do know enough to be able to identify the worst offenders:

  • 34 – IRELAND !
  • 35 – Iceland
  • 36 – Greece
  • 37 – Portugal
  • 38 – New Zealand
  • 39 – Spain
  • 40 – Canada
  • 41 – Australia
  • 42 – Malta
  • 43 – Turkey

.

Looking back to when the Climate Change ‘Train’ began to come off the rails … the 2009 Copenhagen Accord was a political agreement between a small number of Heads of State, Heads of Government, Ministers, and Heads of Delegation from Brazil, South Africa, India and China (BASIC) and the USA … who attended the UNFCCC Climate Change Summit in December 2009.  Many countries have made voluntary submissions, i.e. not legally binding, to Appendices I and II of the Accord.

A general overview of the submissions made by the Developed Economies, however, reveals the following about the emissions targets being undertaken …

     –   they are highly conditional on the performance of other countries ;

     –   they are very disappointing … being far below what is required to cap the planetary temperature rise at 1.5 degrees Celsius ;   and

     –   there is no consistent emission base year … varying, for example, from 1990, 1992, 2000 to 2005.

This is very far from being a signal of serious intent from these countries … and is not … in any way, shape or manner … an acceptance of historical responsibilities.  It would be reasonable, therefore, to surmise that the process of achieving a global, legally binding, consensus agreement on greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets will be long and difficult.  The Climate Change Mitigation Agenda is fraught with difficulty … and is going absolutely nowhere at present !

Some Conclusions about Copenhagen and Since:

  1. The Danish Organizers were entirely responsible for the 2009 Climate Change Train Wreck !   And … this incompetent bungling continues to contaminate events since then.
  2. All Sectors of Europe’s Social Environment must now take seriously, i.e. pro-actively engage with, the Climate Change Adaptation Agenda … and prepare for a planetary temperature rise of at least 3-4 degrees Celsius before the end of this century !!

. 

Meanwhile, at national level in Ireland … and further to my post, dated 23 February 2011 … the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued the following Press Release on 4 July 2011 …

‘ Kerdiffstown Landfill Remediation Project – Community Update Number No. 4

Gas flares at the Kerdiffstown Landfill are now installed and fully operational.  The flares burn off odorous gas that is collected by gas wells in two areas at the site – the lined landfill cell, and the North-West corner.

The lined landfill cell has now been fully covered with a heavy plastic membrane that will prevent gas escaping into the air.  This membrane will also stop rainwater getting into the waste and creating ‘leachate’ – the residual liquid that seeps through waste after rainfall.

These temporary gas control measures should result in a reduction in odour coming from the site.  Odour will continue to be encountered on occasion until the full remediation is completed and, in particular, there is a risk of odour during work phases where wastes will be disturbed.

The next major remedial works to occur on site will be the demolition of a number of unsafe buildings. The buildings are scheduled to be demolished in August, and the EPA will communicate the specific dates before the works commence.

On Friday, 1 July 2011, the EPA welcomed a number of TDs, councillors, council officials and members of the local community to the site for a briefing, and tour of the site works done to date.  The EPA would like to thank deputies Emmet Stagg, Anthony Lawlor, and Catherine Murphy, and Councillors Anne Breen, Emer McDaid, and Ger Dunne, for attending.

The EPA then met with members of the Local Community for the first Community Liaison Group meeting.  This group was formed to ensure that those people affected by the site can communicate directly with the people who will clean the site.  The Liaison Group includes EPA staff, Kildare County Council officials, members of CAN (Clean Air Naas), a representative from Kerdiffstown House, and local residents and business people.  The group took a tour of the site to review ongoing remedial works.

The EPA will continue to issue Community Updates as remedial works on the site take place.  For information about works at the site, go to … www.kerdiffstowncleanup.ie .’

.

Please read, again, that first paragraph of the Press Release above … and pinch yourself !

Ireland’s EPA has an onerous legal responsibility with regard to the development and implementation of this country’s National Climate Change Policy.  Furthermore … the EPA, on its own WebSite ( http://www.epa.ie/ ) states the following …

‘ The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) aims to be a leader in the climate change debate in Ireland, and to be the first port of call for information on climate change.  We hope that the information we provide on these WebPages will keep you informed on the latest news, research and events in the climate change area, not only in Ireland but internationally.’

.

I ask: “Why are those Landfill Gases at Kerdiffstown being burned off ???”

Because Ireland’s National Climate Change Policy is a ‘paper’ policy … an ‘Alice in Wonderland’ policy … a policy not intended for ‘real’ implementation.  Surely we have a right to expect that, within the same national organization … somebody, somewhere … is able to think laterally ?

Climate Change Time is running out … and there is an immediate and desperate need for simple, direct and honest talk, consultation, awareness raising, training and education … across all sectors of our Social Environment !

. 

At European level … an example, to follow below, of the continuing weak and feeble Climate Change Language still being used by EU Institutions and Official Organizations … where individual employees, of all ranks, are more fearful of offending national and/or EU politicians than they are in doing their jobs properly and protecting EU Citizens and the Environment …

A recently published European Environment Agency (EEA) Technical Report 7: ‘Safe Water & Healthy Water Services in a Changing Environment’ … summarises existing knowledge of Climate Change Impacts on water services and health; the nature and effectiveness of the policy responses; and the coverage and gaps in existing assessments of these themes.

To download the Full Technical Report, go to the EEA’s WebSite … http://www.eea.europa.eu/ .

.

‘ Climate Change, Water & Health

Millennium Development Goal 7 (MDG7) is to halve the proportion of the global population without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation by 2015.  A World Health Organization (WHO) assessment in 2010 finds that access to improved water sources, sanitation and wastewater treatment has increased over the past two decades.  In many countries in the Eastern European Region, however, progress is slow.  More than 50% of the rural population in ten countries have no access to improved water, giving rise to important health inequalities.

• It is important to understand how Climate Change and Extreme Weather Events will affect the achievement of MDG7.  Drinking water supplies and sanitation systems will have to be made resilient to Climate Change, and drinking water and sanitation must be fully incorporated into integrated water resource management.

Climate Change is projected to cause major changes in yearly and seasonal precipitation and water flow, flooding and coastal erosion risks, water quality, and the distribution of species and ecosystems.

Climate Change will impact all areas of water services – the quality and availability of water sources, infrastructure, and the type of treatment needed to meet quality standards.  We will also see more frequent and severe droughts, flooding and weather events.

• Countries of Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia face the greatest threats to safe water.  The infrastructure in many towns and rural areas is in poor condition, and water provision is erratic and of unsatisfactory quality.

• Heavy rainfall events may also lead to flooding, especially in urban areas, and this can have serious impacts on the performance and efficiency of water supply and wastewater treatment systems, which may potentially lead to health risks.  Waterborne diseases arise predominantly from contamination of water supplies after heavy rainfall and flooding.

• Low river flows and increased temperatures during droughts reduce dilution of wastewater effluent, and drinking water quality could be compromised, increasing the need for extra treatment of both effluent and water supplies.

Water Management Policies & Extreme Weather Events

• Water management policies at European and EU Levels are being made increasingly adaptable to Climate Change, which should help safeguard public health and ecosystem services in the future.

• There are numerous guidelines for the design of water and human health policies across Europe (e.g. WHO Guidelines on drinking water quality, Protocol on Water and Health, and draft guidance on water supply and sanitation in extreme weather).  Recently, such Guidance has focused on how policy design and implementation might be affected by and adapted to Climate Change Events.

The WHO Vision 2030 Study assesses how and where Climate Change will affect drinking water and sanitation in the medium term, and what can be done to maximise the resilience of drinking water and sanitation systems.

• Several existing EU Policies address water management issues (the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive, the Water Framework Directive, Floods Directive and the EU Water Scarcity and Droughts Strategy) and others deal more directly with potential water-related impacts on human health (e.g. the Drinking Water Directive, and Bathing Water Directive).

• There is a clear recognition that Climate Change creates a need for coherent, sustainable, cross-sectoral policy and regulation; sharing of available tools; facilitating mechanisms for partnerships and financing; and readiness to optimise across sectors during implementation.

• The water utility sector faces a unique set of challenges.  A primary challenge will be enhancing its capacity to cope with Climate Change Impacts and Other Human Pressures on water systems, while fostering greater resiliency to extreme hydrological events.

• With more frequent higher-intensity storms projected, utilities face the need to update infrastructure design practices.  This necessitates investments – not necessarily only in larger structures but also smarter (using better process control technologies) or local measures on storm water run-off.

Assessment Knowledge Base

• At international, national and local levels … much information is produced for assessments of the state of water and related health impacts.  Overall, both the current international and national water and health assessments have limited focus on extreme weather events and their effects on water services.

• In national assessments and programmes, countries appear to be aware of the adverse consequences of Climate Change on water and health.  However, sometimes assessments appear to be based on ‘expert knowledge’, largely qualitative in scope, and not going further than identifying likely scenarios.  The evidence‑base is lacking to make reliable estimates of the health effects of Climate Change resulting from impacts on water resources.

• Much effort is now focused on the impact of Climate Change on water and the environment, including health-related impacts.  Many international and European organisations have mapped out future Climate Change Impacts on water-related issues, identifying vulnerable groups and vulnerable sub-regions.

• The vast majority of the assessments of drought and water scarcity have focused on the impact of water scarcity, water use by sectors and strategies for meeting demand.  Very little consideration has been given to the health effects or consequences of future extreme weather events.

• The health effects of flooding do not feature significantly in national assessments.  The main focus is identifying regions most at risk of flooding and preparing plans for responding and mitigating the main consequences.

• Sufficient public health competences exist to cope with the health effects of Climate Change.  However, no (comprehensive) assessment has been undertaken to predict the severity or extent of future health risks related to the impact of Climate Change on water services.

• Irrespective of an assessment of the disease burden, actions being taken on the wider scale to respond to water scarcity, drought and flooding will help to reduce the health effects associated with Climate Change and water.’

.

If you were a Key Decision-Maker … would this language spur you into action … or make you yawn, and put you to sleep ???

.

.

END

Sustainable Climate Adaptation – The Post Copenhagen Priority !

[It was necessary to commence this post … only after visiting India.  See the first post of 2010-01-18.]

Well … we really saw it all at Copenhagen during those two long weeks in December 2009.  Wasn’t it great to watch ?!?   News, gossip, political ’shenanigans’ and spin … along with riots in the streets and walk-outs in the corridors … a veritable circus … an unmitigated farce !!!   A crime against humanity ????

Following the UNFCCC Summit … the PEW Center on Global Climate Change, in the USA (using their own words: an independent, non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to providing credible information, straight answers, and innovative solutions to address climate change), offered this ‘credible information’ …

‘ A new political accord struck by world leaders at the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen provides for explicit emission pledges by all the major economies – including, for the first time, China and other major developing countries – but charts no clear path toward a treaty with binding commitments.

The basic terms of the Copenhagen Accord were brokered directly by President Obama and a handful of key developing country leaders on the final day of the conference, capping two weeks of harsh rhetoric and pitched procedural battles that made the prospect of any agreement highly uncertain.  It then took nearly another full day of tense negotiations to arrive at a procedural compromise allowing the leaders’ deal to be formalized over the bitter objections of a few governments.

… ‘

Now compare this News Article, by Satyen Mohapatra, from the Hindustan Times, New Delhi, India … dated Saturday, 9th January 2010 …

India Brought China Onboard at Copenhagen

New Delhi: Environment & Foreign Minister Jairam Ramesh, on Friday, said India had brought China onboard at Copenhagen.

“India brought China onboard at Copenhagen.  The U.S. actually owes a lot to India”, he said here at an interaction.

Despite taking a leadership role during the negotiations, Ramesh said, the Chinese were not ready to talk directly with the US, but always as part of the BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) Group.

Recounting how the Accord was reached at Copenhagen, Ramesh said it was “floundering on three issues: whether the goal of arresting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2050 should be expressed in terms of temperature or emission reduction or concentration of GHG in the atmosphere; what would be the international monitoring and verification regime for the mitigation actions of the BASIC countries; and whether the Accord would be legally binding”.

“We got 2.5 out of three”, he added.

And then … consider the opening of a statement by Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla, Cuban Minister for Foreign Affairs, at the last session of the Climate Summit on Friday, 18th December 2009 …

Mr. Chairman:

It has been four hours since President Obama announced an agreement that does not exist.  He is disrespecting the international community and behaving as an imperial master.

The document that you, Mr. Chairman, repeatedly claimed that did not exist is showing up now.  We have all seen drafts surreptitiously circulated and discussed in secret meetings, outside the rooms where the international community has been transparently negotiating through its representatives.

As it happens, Mr. Chairman, the non-existent document does exist.  I deeply regret the way you have conducted the works of this conference.

I can anticipate that the delegation from the Republic of Cuba has decided not to accept the declaration you are introducing.  I do not need any additional consultation in any other framework or format; therefore, I declare that at this conference there is no consensus on this document.

I add my voice to that of the representatives of Tuvalu, Venezuela and Bolivia.  Cuba considers the text of this apocryphal draft extremely insufficient and inadmissible.  The unacceptable goal of 2 degrees Centigrade would have incalculable catastrophic consequences, particularly for the small island nations.  It would also have a grave impact on numerous species of the biodiversity.

The document that you are unfortunately introducing contains no commitment whatsoever on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

I am aware of the previous drafts, which again through questionable and clandestine procedures, were negotiated in small groups and which at least made reference to a 50% reduction by 2050.  I have here with me those previous drafts that it would be worthwhile making public in this room and releasing to the media and the representatives of the civil society.

The document that you are introducing now leaves out precisely those already meagre and insufficient key phrases contained in those drafts.  This document does not guarantee, in any way, the adoption of minimal measures conducive to the prevention of an extremely grave catastrophe for the planet and for human beings.

To Cuba, the content of this document is incompatible with the universally recognized scientific criterion which deems it urgent and unavoidable to ensure at least a 45% reduction of emissions by the year 2020, and no less that 80% or 90% by 2050.

This shameful document that you bring to us is also insufficient and ambiguous with regards to the specific commitment of the developed countries to reduce emissions even when they are responsible for the global warming resulting from the historic and current level of their emissions, and it is only fit that they undertake meaningful reductions right away.  This document fails to mention any commitment by the developed nations.

Confused ?   Depressed ??   Frustrated ???

.

Some Observations from the 2009 UNFCCC Copenhagen Climate Summit:

1.  The 2009 Copenhagen Accord is a voluntary political agreement among a small number of countries … an arrangement of convenience.  It has no status within the international framework of the 1992 Convention on Climate Change and the 1997 Kyoto Protocol … it is a non-document.  It does, however, provide political cover for Brazil, South Africa, India and China (BASIC) … along with the USA … whose politicians have no wish to be bound by legally binding, meaningful GHG Emission Reduction Targets benchmarked back to 1990 levels … most especially, GHG Emission Reductions which would be stringently and independently verified by competent external agencies.  The Accord also has the potential, within it, to derail the entire UNFCCC process.

The Accord is not, therefore, being presented on this WebSite.

2.  The Developed Countries (i.e. the 1992 UNFCCC Annex I Countries) demonstrated that they had a small understanding of, but very little sympathy for, the concepts of ‘equity’, ‘fairness’, ‘historical responsibility’ and ‘climate justice’.

3.  It is now clear that the European Union’s Climate Change Targets of (i) a maximum 2 degree Celsius rise in global temperature is too high … a maximum 1.5 degree Celsius rise should be the target, with an essential reference to a ‘safety factor’ in all calculations … and (ii) a 20% Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emission Reduction by 2020 is far too low.  The time for playing games with numbers is over … GHG Emission Reductions by the EU Member States should be open to stringent and independent/external verification … not just by the European Commission (which is insufficient, on its own, in this particular case) … but also by competent indigenous agencies in the BASIC Group of Countries.  To heal the rifts at Copenhagen … greater openness and transparency is required from Europe !!

Spinning of EU GHG Emission Reduction Performance by the European Environment Agency (EEA) … to make it appear that Europeans are doing more, and better, than we actually are … should be firmly knocked on the head, i.e. forbidden !

And in Ireland, to bring this subject closer to home, we urgently need to find another home … one central location, properly managed … for the relevant/related GHG Databases currently held by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Energy Ireland (SEI).  Here … let us recall a pertinent extract from the European Union Treaties … ‘statistics shall conform to impartiality, reliability, objectivity, scientific independence, cost-effectiveness and statistical confidentiality’.  This issue has been discussed in previous posts.  So … say no more !!!!

4.  Developed Countries continue to show a feigned interest in Climate Change Adaptation.  Too much of their energies and resources are still being directed at fully exploiting the ‘flexibilities’ in meeting Kyoto GHG Emission Reduction Targets.  They are wealthy enough … and they believe (mistakenly) that they possess all of the institutional capacities necessary to deal with any adverse impacts caused by Climate Change, including Variability and Extremes.  We have found recently in Ireland, however, during the National Major Flood and Snow Emergencies that we certainly do not have these capacities.  If anything, we now know that the relevant institutions in this country are incompetent, disorganized and dysfunctional.

Bearing in mind that the minimum life cycle for a Sustainable Building (just to take one important component of the Built Environment) is 100 years … the abject failure to reach a legally binding consensus agreement at Copenhagen … means that National Adaptation Strategies must now be planned and formulatedurgentlyon the basis of, at the very least, a 3-4 degree Celsius rise in global temperature.

What is Climate Change Adaptation ?

This encompasses, generally, all actions to reduce the vulnerability and strengthen the resilience of the Human Environment, including ecological and social systems, institutions and economic sectors … to present and future adverse effects of climate change and the impacts of response measure implementation … in order to minimize the threats to life, human health, livelihoods, food security, assets, amenities, ecosystems and sustainable development.

Built Environment Climate Change Adaptation, more specifically, means … reliably implementing policies, practices, projects and institutional reforms in the Built Environment … with the aim of reducing the adverse impacts and/or realizing the benefits directly/indirectly associated with climate change, including variability and extremes … in a manner which is compatible with Sustainable Human and Social Development.

Many opportunities can arise from Adaptation.

Why is a Sustainable Approach to Climate Change Adaptation Necessary ?

As an example and very briefly …

In Ireland, it has been proposed as an Adaptation Project … to divert water from the Shannon, a very large river in the west of the country … to Dublin, the capital city, which is located on the east coast … in order to deal with the expected shortage of water which will be caused by Climate Change in the medium term … among other factors.

“Fine”, you might say … and you may later add: “an interesting civil engineering infrastructural project”, as you visualize, in your mind’s eye, impressive Roman Aqueducts in the south of France or outside Rome.

BUT … if you then consider that there are no residential water charges in Dublin (so the concept of water conservation is almost unknown among householders); water supplied to houses in the Dublin Region are not yet metered (so there is no urgency to locate and deal with water leakage inside the private property boundary); there are enormous unintended losses, i.e. leaks, from the public potable water distribution system (approximately 40% even in the good times, and recently well in excess of 60% following the National Snow Emergency !); there are no requirements in our National Building Regulations to harvest any rainwater in any buildings or on any hard surfaces in the vicinity of those buildings … and, finally, Sustainability Impact Assessment (SIA) is not yet a standard procedure, at any level, within National and Local Authorities Having Jurisdiction.

So … just how ‘sustainable’, in reality, is the Shannon-Dublin Water Diversion Scheme as a Climate Change Adaptation Project ???

.

END