[Here's a guest post by SustainUS delegates to the UNFCCC negotiations in Poznań, Poland this week -- Matthew Maiorana, Dominic MacCormack, Ben Wessel, and Casie Reed.]

SustainUS is a US Youth Network for Sustainable Development, with a delegation of seventeen young people from across the country represented in Poland. They are part of the larger International Youth Delegation present at the UNFCCC Conference of the Parties (COP) in Poznan, Poland. Together, the international youth delegation consists of over 500 young activists representing 54 different countries from six continents (Antarctic youth have not yet surfaced). SustainUS and their international partners are attending the Conference to voice the opinions of the over 50% of the global population under the age of 30, the largest constituency on Earth.

The negotiations taking place in Poznan are progressing much the way you might suspect — developing countries arguing with developed countries about what is needed to protect our future. The process of international negotiations is a slow one, but vital to ensure that necessary commitments are made to protect our collective future. While most of the happenings here are identical to those in years past, there are also a few big policy surprises and important developments to note.

Read more

Human emissions are changing the climate now — and yet planetary warming has been only about 0.8°C in the past century. So we can barely imagine the harsh changes that will come this century, which is poised to see 5°C warming or more if we don’t act soon.

The impact on local climates, agricultural yields, and in general, our societies has recently been mapped at Science Progress, a project of the Center for American Progress.

Science Progress did a soft launch of the map, The Human Toll of Climate Change, in October. Since then, it has built a growing inventory of the scientific data that is putting climate change consequences literally on the map.

The map is interactive, meaning scientists around the world can add their data and findings (entries are moderated, so the research must be credible).

So far, the map of the U.S. shows:

Read more

Sure, everyone knows National Review Online‘s climate blog is a must-not-read (see “Planet Gore, ever wrong, never in doubt, adds libel to denial.”

But now the NRO‘s media critic Kevin D. Williamson has exploded (imploded?) over, of all things, my recent Salon piece, “What will make Obama a great president.” He headlines his post: “Head-Clutching Buffoonery: Salon, Romm, and Kyoto” but then hypocritically criticizes the mild sub-head Salon used:

I hate these headlines:

The U.S. Must Become a Leader in Global Warming Solutions

No argument. No nothing. Just MUST! MUST!

Now remember, this guy is the media critic. So presumably he understands that you can’t actually put your entire argument into your headline. My piece certainly explains why the US must become a leader in global warming solutions. But here is where Williamson completely jumps the shark because at the end of his piece he writes:

I have no bone to pick with the climate science.

Seriously. I know you are asking how somebody who doesn’t dispute climate science got a job at National Review would criticize a sub-head saying that we must become a leader in climate solutions.

Let’s be clear : If you have no bone to pick with the climate science (i.e. the regular reviews and synthesis of the scientific literature by the IPCC), then you presumably must endorse the IPCC’s target of 450 ppm, which means some $40 trillion in cleantech investment is needed by mid-century (see, for instance, “Must read IEA report, Part 1: Act now with clean energy or face 6°C warming. Cost is NOT high“).

So it is transparently obvious that we must become a leader in global warming solutions. Duh! I’d say that the entire piece was mostly “Duh” stuff if you have no bone to pick with the climate science. But not Williamson, who continues his final paragraph:

But the fact that the science is solid does not mean that the political conclusions extracted from it are solid — science isn’t politics, politics isn’t science. And it certainly doesn’t justify this kind of hysterical, end-is-near raving. Romm’s language is the language of religious fundamentalism.

I can understand someone who doesn’t accept the science disagreeing with me, but all I try to do in this blog and elsewhere is extend the inevitable ramifications of climate science to other areas, like politics and energy. Yes, the implications of the science to all aspects of society are staggering, but they all flow naturally from the 2°C target.

Before looking at some other “duh” statements I make that Williamson attacks, I do feel obliged to point out once more what the head of the IPCC said when releasing the final IPCC synthesis report in 2007:

Read more

Yet another damning analysis questions the value of rip-offsets and the Clean Development Mechanism (see “You can call a rip-offset a CDM project, but it’s still a rip-offset“).

The Government Accountability Office — hardly a bastion of progressive eco-analysis — has written a devastating critique of rip-offsets, which concludes:

Key lessons from the CDM include: (1) the resources necessary to obtain project approval may reduce the cost-effectiveness and quality of projects; (2) the need to ensure the credibility of emission reductions presents a significant regulatory challenge; and (3) due to the tradeoffs with offsets, the use of such programs may be, at best, a temporary solution.

In short, what the hell is the point of the CDM?!

The GAO’s recommendations are equally strong, if still understated: Read more