Climate change petition gains thousands of signatures

Started after climate change debate pushed back in school curriculum

A petition started after the debate on climate change was ‘vastly scaled back’ in the school curriculum has gained over 12,000 signatures.

The petition was started by 15 year old Esha Marwaha after she discovered that the draft key stage 3 (the national curriculum for under 14 year olds) geography curriculum for English schools had pushed back discussion on the issue. In a special blog she wrote for the Guardian, she said ‘Climate change is the most pressing and threatening issue to modern-day society. Through lack of understanding from generations before us, we are having to fix it. And how can we do this without education?’

Campaigners have emailed education secretary Michael Gove to reinstate the climate change debate 

(Image source - Telegraph)

‘Our government, part of the generation who bear much of the responsibility for this problem, intends to not only fail to act on climate change themselves but to obscure the truth from children and young people. It is outrageous that Michael Gove can even consider the elimination of climate change education for under-14s. We must keep climate change in the curriculum in order for young people take on this challenge of tackling the threat posed by our changing climate’. Her views echoed the petition to the education secretary, Michael Gove, on the website change.org.

Following the immense support the petition has gained, which at one point was getting 500 signatures an hour, other groups have joined the campaign to get the climate change debate reinstated to the school curriculum. 2000 people from student network group People and Planet have emailed Gove to argue their case for reinstated the subject. Also, students, members of the UK Youth Climate Coalition and others plan to approach academics, universities and schools to take part in the formal consultation around the plans, which closes on 16 April.

Heatwaves in US and EU ‘caused by global warming’

Temperature imbalances due to greenhouse gases affecting air systems

Scientists have stated that events such as the 2011 American drought and the 2003 European heatwave were the result of global warming.

The study found that air systems that bring warm air from the tropics and cold air from the Arctic at certain times are slowing down, meaning warm air is staying in areas for longer, causing extreme heatwaves.

Scenes like this are becoming normal during summertime in America because of the impact of global warming

(Image source - National Geographic)

‘During several recent extreme weather events these planetary waves almost freeze in their tracks for weeks’, said Vladimir Petoukhov, lead author of the study at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany. ‘So instead of bringing in cool air after having brought warm air in before, the heat just stays’.

Global warming has been blamed for disrupting the air flow because the build-up of greenhouse gases is warming the Arctic at a faster rate than other regions, causing the slow-down of air flow as the temperature difference between the Arctic and southern hemisphere areas is what regulates the air flow system.

Whilst this study only focused on the northern hemisphere in the summer time, the scientists believe that a similar study done during winter would find out that extreme cold weather events, such as the one that has affected the UK recently, were caused by the slowing down of air systems, this time trapping cold air over areas instead of warm air.

Obama left with climate headache following another Keystone protest

White House protest led by celebrity environmental campaigners

The fierce debate over the development of an oil pipeline in America has escalated following the arrest of 50 protesters who had handcuffed themselves to the gates of the White House.

The group, which was made up of environmentalists and celebrities including Kill Bill actress Daryl Hannah, staged their demonstration outside the building to directly call on President Barack Obama to oppose the development of the Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry crude oil from tar sands in Canada to refineries in Texas. 

Daryl Hannah has been very vocal about her views regarding climate change

(Image source - New York Times)

Climate campaigners have made their feelings known to Obama for some time, with the President still apparently undecided on the issue. Many politicians believe the pipeline will be beneficial to the country in terms of creating energy and jobs, but campaigners believe the President should be investing more money into renewable energy schemes, sticking to the promises he made to tackle climate change following his re-election.

The protest came the day after Obama made his state of the union speech and, whilst the Keystone XL pipeline wasn’t mentioned during that speech, it has become one of the most contentious issues in America, with climate campaigners seeing it as a defining symbol of Obama’s pledge of deal with climate change. ‘The Keystone pipeline project is the purest test of whether the president is serious about doing something about climate change or not’, Bill McKibben told the few hundred protesters outside the White House. McKibben is the founder of the 350.org group, who have led the protests over the pipeline.

What started as a small protest led by a few students has turned into a mainstream movement within environmental circles. The issue has become a major headache for the President, who it seems will be judged no matter what his final decision over the Keystone XL pipeline will be.

Carbon emissions fall in US

Lowest level since 1994

Carbon dioxide emissions in America fell to their lowest level since 1994 last year.

A report compiled by Bloomberg New Energy Finance for the Business Council for Sustainable Energy (BCSE) shows that emissions fell by 13% over the past five years as a result of investment in new energy-saving technologies and renewable energy.

Despite the widely-held view that Obama is failing in climate change policy, emissions in the US have fallen

(Image source - www.scientificamerican.com)

This fall brings the country more than halfway towards its target of cutting emissions by 17% of 2005 levels over the next decade, despite the fact that many claim that Congress and President Obama have failed to act efficiently on the issue of climate change. Obama can now use these figures to show that America is going in the right direction in terms of dealing with climate change and may improve the country’s standing in global climate negotiations. 

Ethan Zindler, a BCSE analyst said, ‘There have certainly been some solid results on the board in the US as a result of all these changes’. This view is also held by the president of the BCSE, Lisa Jacobsen, who believes the Bloomberg findings prove wrong the Conservative argument that acting on climate change would damage the economy, as GDP continued to rise even as emissions went down.

The report highlighted that the steadily expanding installation of wind, solar, hydro and geothermal energy projects represented the largest single source of new growth last year, reaching $44bn in 2012. The reduction of carbon emissions in America was also helped by 488,000 citizens who opted for a hybrid/plug-in vehicle last year.

What will Obama do about Keystone?

With majority of Senate backing pipeline plans, President faces tough decision

President Barack Obama is facing pressure to go back on his climate change promise as a bipartisan majority in the Senate has called for the controversial Keystone XL pipeline to go ahead.

A letter from 53 senators, a group made up of both Democrats and Republicans, claimed there was no reason to deny approval of the project as it has undergone in-depth environmental review despite protests from campaigners who believe the pipeline, which will pump crude oil from Alberta Tar Sands in Canada to oil refineries in Texas, will lead to higher carbon emissions. 

Whatever Obama decides on the project, the decision will upset a lot of people

(Image source - ABC News)

Keystone leaves Obama in a very difficult position, having pledged to tackle climate change during his second term as President. Denying the project will anger many politicians, who see Keystone as way of providing more energy and creating jobs, but approving it will be seen by environmental campaigners as going back on his word. However, Henry Waxman, a congressman who has set up a taskforce on climate change with senator Sheldon Whitehouse and is against the pipeline, denies that the issue will be ‘make-or-break’ for Obama, saying ‘This is only a small issue compared to the overall objective that the president and we want to achieve," Waxman said. "What would you like me to do? Should I say to the president, 'If you don't agree with me on Keystone, I'm not going to work with you on solving the climate change issue'? That would be a little bit childish and counterproductive’.

Waxman’s views that Keystone is a small issue are held by many others, including the Washington Post, who in an editorial called on the President to ‘ignore the activists who have bizarrely made Keystone XL a line-in-the-sand issue, when there are dozens more of far greater environmental impact’.

White House inaction on climate change is not Obama's fault

Report says environmental groups are to blame

A research paper written by a Harvard academic has suggested that President Barack Obama is not to blame for America’s apparent inaction on tackling the threat of climate change.

Scholar Theda Skocpol, who is due to present her findings at a Harvard forum next month, has instead put the blame for these failings on environmental groups, who she says were blind to extreme Republican opposition to their efforts. These groups failed to consider just how opposed certain groups would be to environmental reform and naively though they could still win them over with ‘insider grand bargaining’.

Obama is unlikely to make climate change an major issue, despite campaigners calling for him to do so

(Image source - CBS)

Skocpol also states that climate change will not be a major issue for Obama in his second term as President, which will come as a blow to campaigners who have appealed for Obama to take action following several high profile events such as Superstorm Sandy that they believe were results of global warming. "Whatever environmentalists may hope, the Obama White House and congressional Democrats are unlikely to make global warming a top issue in 2013 or 2014," she writes.

Skocpol writes that these high profile events are not enough in themselves to get the issue of climate change on the national agenda, and believes that 'fresh strategies will be needed, based on new understandings of political obstacles and opportunities'.

2012 hottest year in American history

Record temperatures are 'a big deal' say NCDC

The United States of America had its hottest year since records began in 2012, with the average temperature being a full degree higher than it was in 1998.

A report released by the National Climatic Data Center shows that the average annual temperature in the country, which this year was hit with heat waves, drought and storms such as Superstorm Sandy, was 55.3F (13C), was 3.2 degrees higher than the 20th century average. The findings of the report should be considered 'a big deal’ according to NCDC scientists, as temperature changes are usually seen as fractions of degrees, but the 2012 is a full degree higher than the previous record of 1998. Nineteen states broke existing temperature records in 2012 and every state had an ‘above normal’ average temperature. The NCDC warned that these figures could lead to a change in what will be considered normal weather conditions in the US in the future.

The majority of states recorded temperatures 'much above normal' in 2012

(Image source - The Guardian)

Climate change campaigners have urged President Obama to fully commit to cutting carbon emissions following the release of the report. "This won't be the last time we break records like this," said Angela Anderson, the director of the Climate and Energy Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. "The longer we delay reducing emissions, the more climate change we're going to lock in. The president has promised to make climate change a priority in his second term, but he needs to turn those words into action."

Shades of purple have been added to temperature charts to show high temperatures

(Image source - Daily Mail)

The NCDC will also release a report for global temperature next week, with the suggestion being that many countries will have experienced temperature rises during 2012. This week in Australia, as extreme wildfires rage through many areas, experts have had to add extra colours to temperature maps to highlight areas with temperatures above 54C.

Backbench rebellion over energy bill?

'Decarbonisation target must be included' say MPs

Fears of a backbench rebellion in Parliament are growing following news that a decarbonisation target will not be included in the energy bill being put forward by the Coalition government.

Despite being seen as a crucial factor for climate change campaigners and supporters of low-carbon energy, any target on decarbonising electricity generation has been left out of the bill on the insistence of both the Chancellor George Osborne and the Prime Minister David Cameron. Tim Yeo, chairman of the energy and climate change select committee, is set to give a speech in the City this morning insisting that an amendment to the bill to include a decarbonisation target be brought forward when the bill reaches the reporting stages early next year.

The lack of a decarbonisation target is splitting Parliament

(Image source - The Guardian)

Yeo believes that a 2030 target to reduce carbon emissions from energy production is essential in encouraging investors to the UK and to give them certainty that the country’s long-term emissions-cutting targets are met. Yeo said that these issues were ‘a constant theme’ in his talks with investors, and believes that a specific decarbonisation target would ‘boost investor confidence’.

The Committee on Climate Change (CCC) has suggested that the target should be no more than 50g of carbon dioxide per kilowatt hour by 2030. Yeo said he would happily compromise with a target of 50 to 100g/kWh. The current figure is around 490g/kWh.

Another row over carbon targets is expected as Ed Davey, the secretary of state for energy and climate change, will announce the same day as Yeo whether the government will accept the advice of the CCC and include emissions from aviation and shipping in the UK's carbon targets. Many within the Conservative Party are opposed to this, but it would be damaging to the Liberal Democrats if Davey was to overrule the committee, the statutory body set up to advise ministers on how to meet long-term carbon targets, on this issue.

Was Doha a success?

Did climate talks in Qatar achieve anything?

The Doha climate talks in Qatar have come to an end; and for some they were a bit of an anti-climax, as no grand, bold deal on dealing with climate change was reached. However, other commentators have stated that this was never the point of the talks, that they were just a stepping stone for the more important talks in 2015. So was Doha a success?

According to environmental organisation World Wildlife Federation, the talks were a complete failure. WWF called the deals made at Doha ‘shamefully weak’ and accused larger nations like the US, Russia and Japan of blocking any real progress. The organisation even went as far to say that many governments of developed countries are ‘out of touch with the reality of climate change’ and that at Doha they failed to deliver even the most minimum expectations of dealing with climate change.

Doha didn't produce a major climate change deal, but did pave the one for one in 2015

(Image source - Yahoo.com)

However, there are others who would disagree. Granted that no major deals on battling climate change were made at Doha, a lot of people didn’t see that as the main goal of the talks. Connie Hedegaard, environment correspondent for the Guardian, believes that Doha was simply ‘setting the stage’ for the main talks in 2015. She states that, although goals on climate change weren’t set, goals on sorting out the way future talks would go were set, and reached.

Before Doha, there were several different working groups based on the vast differences between developed and developing nations. Now, there is one negotiation forum for everyone, the Durban Platform. Before Doha, only developed nations had a legal commitment to reducing carbon emissions. Now, both developed and developing countries will make legal commitments to tackling climate change. And now, following Doha, there is now a schedule of what must be done before 2015.

So Doha may not have been the spectacular definitive moment where climate change was beaten, as some environmental groups seem to have thought it would be. But progress was made. The preparations for the major talks in 2015 were made. Now it is down to the governments to make the most of the progress made at Doha and take it into the talks in three years time. Climate change is a very serious issue, for both developing and developed nations alike, so all nations have to make sure that a proper deal is made in 2015, otherwise all of the progress made in Doha will have been for nothing.

Wales tackling climate change

Talks in Doha highlight Wales as first country to introduce unique climate law

The climate change talks in Doha, Qatar are well underway and have brought up an interesting fact. Wales, out of all the 194 countries with representatives at the talks, is the only  one to be preparing to introduce a new law that requires all public bodies, such as schools and libraries, to take into account the environmental factors of any decision.

This sustainable development bill will be law in just under a year and follows other bold actions to deal with climate change. Wales has a target of reducing carbon emissions in the country by 3% every year (which would mean a 40% reduction by 2020) and is currently leading the UK in renewable energy. The country also has plans to make improve energy efficiency in social housing by fitting homes with energy saving devices. These plans show Wales is ambitious in dealing with the issue of climate change, but one embarrassing fact is that, between 2009 and 2010, greenhouse gas emissions in the country actually increased 8%, compared to just 2% in England, although this has been attributed to economic growth and the cold winter during that period.

Wales has its sights set on becoming leader in renewable energies

(Image source - The Guardian)

John Griffiths, the Welsh assembly member who is representing them at the Doha talks, wants to get Wales utilising more onshore and offshore wind, but accepts the opposition schemes like these have faced, especially in mid-Wales. To deal with this, he wants to find a way to make energy companies benefit the local communities they operate in. "We are in discussions with companies to get more community benefit, and to provide more jobs. We need to paint a positive picture around renewables in Wales. There's a lot of benefit for us if we get it right." 

Griffiths wants more schemes to make homes in Wales energy efficient

(Image source- South Wales Argus)

Griffiths sees the importance of tackling climate change, as he blames it for the recent flooding in many parts of Wales. "We in Britain had the wettest summer for 100 years. Now we are told we will have more extremes [like this] with climate change. It was very much in line with climate change. Floods like that and the one at Talybont bring climate change home to people. It will have a severe impact."

There is potential for Wales to be seen as a small but outward-looking, progressive state, as there are scores of renewable energy companies in the country looking to help reduce the impact of climate change and, in the process, help improve the lives of the Welsh people.

Act on climate change Obama!

Campaigners call on President to commit to promises

Following his election victory last month, Barack Obama has been urged by climate change campaigners to turn his environmental promises into real working policies during his second term as President.

Environmental groups, who admitted they were reluctant to push the President on the issue during his first term, are now determined to hold him to his vague post-election promises and make sure he backs new action on climate change. Ed Markey, the Massachusetts Democrat who is a strong campaigner for climate change supported these views, stating, "He passed historic healthcare legislation, now he needs to work on climate change”. He added that Sandy had changed the political dynamics of climate change. "If you are a Republican above the Mason-Dixon line is it no longer going to be possible for you to start making jokes about climate. That era is gone," he said. "Republicans now have to be more respectful of science."

Obama has talked about the impact of climate change, but will he deliver on his promises to act on it?

(Image source - The New York Times)

Markey, along with other experts at a forum event hosted by Climate Desk, offered up a list of options Obama can take to "flex his executive muscle" and push Congress and government agencies into action. Some of the recommendations on this list included:-

i) The extension of tax credits for wind farms, which are due to expire this year

ii) An adoption of a renewable electricity standard (something that 30 states have already) on a national scale, meaning every state would be required to get a share of its electricity from sources such as solar and wind

iii) A commitment from the President to use the full power of the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate carbon emissions from large industrial sources

So what do you think? Should Obama commit to affirmative action on climate change? Let us know in the comments below.

UN talks on climate change

What will happen in Doha?

The UN climate change talks in Doho, Qatar get underway today, with negotiators from 194 different countries all meeting to discuss measures on how to deal with global warming on a world-wide scale. But many people don’t see anything productive coming from these talks. So why is this? Why is there a feeling of pointlessness to these discussions on climate change?

The general (and widely accepted) consensus is that the richer nations involved in the talks, mainly the US, the UK and most of the European powers, will refuse to commit to any more cuts to emissions and won’t be willing to provide any further money, whilst the poorer nations will try to hold onto the few agreements made during the last few climate talks. The stubbornness of richer countries is seen as the main reason why global climate change policies have yet to be fully implemented and accepted by everyone. 

Climate change talks take place in Doha this week

(Source - The Guardian)

In 2009, rich countries agreed to give $100bn to poorer nations to help them combat and adapt to climate change by 2020, with a minimum of £30bn being given as a down-payment. So far, not even the down-payment has been met, with the total amount of money actually given being less than the total amount of bonuses given out in the City of London. Many nations, especially in Europe, have used the economic crisis and recession of recent years as an excuse not to commit money to climate change proposals, and there are many officials and ministers in office across the world who are still sceptical about global warming. But with events such as Superstorm Sandy hitting the US recently, alongside heatwaves, droughts and wildfires in the country, as well the UK having its wettest summer and driest spring to date and October being the 333rd consecutive month global temperatures were above the 20th century average, it is hard to ignore the reality of climate change. Especially when even the World Bank has issued its own warnings, as they announced that the world is on course for a 4C temperature rise which they believe would ruin economies as well as people’s everyday lives.

However, despite all of the warning signs that global warming is a very real threat, nobody sees any of the richer countries truly committing themselves to taking action, which is why the levels of anticipation in Doha are somewhat muted.

Are new coal plants a backwards move?

Plans for new coal-fired power plants raise questions

New research has revealed that over 1000 new coal plants are being planned in 59 countries, with China and India contributing to three-quarters of them. 

This coal expansion is going ahead despite warnings over the large amount of pollution the new plants will create, with scientists, politicians and climate change campaigners all agreeing that the world needs to move away from fossil fuels as the main energy provider. Many argue that fossil fuel assets will become worthless as action on climate change moves forward.

Coal plants are the most polluting of all types of power plants. The capacity of all 1200 proposed plants across the world will be around 1400GW, which is the same as adding another China to the world in terms of the level of greenhouse gas emissions.

A coal-fired power station in Michigan, USA

(Source - Wikipedia)

The report is said to be the most comprehensive made and was compiled by the World Resources Institute, who state that the proposed coal plants are ‘definitely not in line with a safe climate scenario’. Nick Robins, head of HSBC’s Climate Change Centre, believes it would be easier to ignore coal as an energy source, as several factors including tighter air pollution regulations, the increasing investment and commitment to renewable energies and the scarcity of water (as coal plants need massive amounts of water to operate) make coal energy not worth the hassle.

Despite these warnings however, the coal industry has seen economic rejuvenation in recent years, as global coal trade increased 13% in 2010. The UK, Germany and France are still in biggest importers, but countries like South Korea and Japan are fast-increasing their import levels. These countries, along with developing countries such as Senegal and Uzbekistan, have high numbers of coal plants but produce practically no coal of their own. Ailun Yang, of the WRI, believes that there is an issue of a lack of awareness in these countries that their energy needs can be met from sources ‘other than coal’.

Will the President now commit to climate change action?

Expectations rise as newly re-elected Obama talks about ‘destructive power of a warming planet’

With the celebrations of his supporters still in full swing, President Barack Obama has also fueled excitement among environmental campaigners with his victory speech, in which he seemed to accept the risk that climate change poses to the world by mentioning the ‘destructive power of a warming planet’.

Whilst his Republican rival Mitt Romney turned rising sea-levels into a joke during his acceptance speech in August, and despite both candidates completely ignoring climate change during their televised election debates, campaigners feel confident that Obama will start to take action on the issue during his final term as President.

As was the case during his first term, Obama will have a tough task of pushing through any legislation on climate change due to the Republican’s continued control of the House of Representatives. However, with the impact of Hurricane Sandy still fresh in people’s minds, an endorsement from New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg because of his position on climate change, and the fact that the majority of Democrats elected to the Senate and the House of Representatives owe many of their victories to the votes of environmental campaigners, Obama does have a better chance of making any climate-change based laws over the next four years than he did during the last four.

The existing Keystone pipeline and the routes of the proposed XL addition

(Source - The Guardian)

Obama has the perfect opportunity to please climate change campaigners, following news that a demonstration will be held outside the White House on 18th November protesting against the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, which will carry oil from Canada to be refined in Texas. The pipeline has faced heavy criticism from many people following its announcement, including Kill Bill actress Daryl Hannah, who was arrested for her role in a protest against the pipeline last month.

'What about climate change, Mr President?'

First time global warming isn't mentioned in election debate since 1988

Following the third and final debate between US presidential candidates Barack Obama and Mitt Romney this week, there was a feeling of frustration from climate change campaigners. Despite hours of debates on prime-time US television, not once was the issue of global warming debated or even mentioned; despite being an issue that has actually been described by the Pentagon as a national security threat.

The ‘climate silence’ this election season marks the first time since the issue was first raised in Congress in 1988 that it hasn’t been discussed in presidential debates. This silence has promoted campaigns to start a website urging both candidates to give the threat of climate change the attention it deserves, and has even led to Obama being labelled a ‘climate change denier’ by Jill Stein, the Green Party’s presidential candidate.

The issue sparked even more controversy when debate moderator Candy Crowley admitted there had been questions from the audience regarding climate change, but she had decided that ‘the economy was still the main thing’, despite concerns being raised of the impact extreme storms and the cost of repairing damage after them would have on the economy.

So there may have been an official ‘silence’ on climate change from the candidates, but plenty of people, and voters, are definitely talking about it, meaning their stance on the issue may have a major impact on the presidential aspirations of both Obama and Romney.

For the full story follow this link to The Guardian’s website.