mmm

There's this new search engine, Ecosia.
The ad (on youtube, here) states that the company devolves 80% of the revenues from its sponsored links to a WWF rainforest conservation project in the Amazons. Its servers are only powered by renewable energy (that's an option you have in Germany, where I believe the servers are based). Both obviously good things.

There are a few things I don't understand, though:
- If you go to the home page, it says "each free web search saves about 2m2 of rainforest". Misleading, otherwise after about 2,000,000,000,000 (if the number's wrong on my humanistic high school) clicks on the "search" button the Amazon rainforest would be saved. In fact, it's 2,000,000,000,000 clicks on sponsored links that would eventually save it. By the way, if you perform automatic searches to help them, they block your IP.
- Search results and sponsored links are provided by Yahoo and Bing. They are absolutely normal results (you want a chainsaw? we got it!). Ecosia is not allowed to reveal any information about the revenue shares Yahoo and Bing get - just believe them when they tell they manage to give WWF at least 80% of the total.
- One of the FAQ states that Google does not partner with altruistic search engines like Ecosia, because they would lose users and generate less income. Why shouldn't that apply to Bing and Yahoo, too?

I don't know about you, but I'm quite sure I've never clicked on a sponsored link in my life. They look filthy. Could it be possible that Yahoo and Bing use Ecosia to make people more willing to pick a "special" links over "regular" ones? Wouldn't that contribute to make the two companies much more effective - THE people you want your activity to be advertised by? Ads are not Ecosia-specific, Yahoo and Bing would still get profits from getting more ads. If that's true, I then would also like to know what benefits a search on Ecosia provides to Bing (therefore to Microsoft), that is just another corporation, with its social responsibility, its greenwashing campaigns, and its environmental impacts.
Any idea anyone?

More snow (in Gland)

It's been cold-cold-cold for the last two weeks. Most of the Boreal hemisphere completely covered with snow, and not going to get any warmer for some more time. Aerial pictures (grazie MiKo) show Europe and North America as they probably used to look like during some past ice age.

As unavoidable as the raisins in the panettone, there come the climate change skeptics (like here) with the traditional snowfall-argument: "we are experiencing one of the harshest winter ever recorder, the world just can't be getting any warmer". I don't know if these people are in good faith. For sure, a single, localized meteorological event, even an extended one such as this cold spell, doesn't define global climatic trends. Confusing the two levels is like thinking that every sheep is black just because the only sheep you've ever seen was. Or better, in this case, it's more like forgetting the 457 white sheep you've seen so far to only consider the last one, which was black.

In the meanwhile, the Austral hemisphere has just experienced the hottest year on records, half a °C warmer than the 1950-1980 average.

- The southern hemisphere is mostly covered by water, which has a much less variable temperature than the land (one of the reasons why the weather in Napoli is way lovelier than, say, Ankara), and is a much more reliable indicator of a worldwide trend;

- while during 1998 (the hottest year so far), warming related to El Niño had been especially significant, last year it was been negligible, which probably means that global warming accounted for most of this temperature increase.

One more white sheep. Let's try not to fall asleep.

habemus favam/2

So there's an agreement. But it's not a good one, and, in fact, is not an agreement at all. The COP, for the time being, "takes note" of it as a "draft decision". An elegant way to say that there is no consensus on what has been decided. The bolivarian nations, some island developing states and least developed countries didn't approve it.

What happened is that after 2 years of more or less open negotiations among all countries, the dialogue was stuck. Poor countries wanted industrialized ones to make the first move, reducing their emissions and financing mitigation and adaptation in the rest of the world. Rich countries wanted poor ones to start reducing their emissions as well before they committed to anything else.

Then comes Obama, and has a few hours long meeting with leaders from 4 developing countries who mostly care about being given the opportunity to keep their emissions uncontrolled for some more years, in order to further grow along the usual path, and makes them an offer they can't refuse. He promises US$ 100b per year as of 2020 for mitigation and adaptation in developing countries with the condition that they accept to commit to some form of mitigation actions, verified by some kind of international monitoring system.

To avoid the worst effects of climate change we needed:

- to limit average temperature increase by way less than 2°C (probably 1,5°C)

- to limit CO2 concentration in the atmosphere way below 450ppm (according to some to 350 ppm)

- to peak emissions no later than 2015

- reduce emissions in developed countries by at least 40% by 2020

- reduce emissions in developed countries by at least 80% by 2050

There's no mention of any of these goals as binding. In fact, nothing has been decided in detail at all:

- By February, all countries who have agreed will have to submit their emission reduction commitments, but they won't have to do so in a strong framework built having in mind the aggregate limits. Everyone will do what he can. And what they have showed to be willing to do is way not enough (the current scenario leads to a +3,5°C by 2050).

- There's no real agreement on what the monitoring system will look like - this is yet to be decided.

- There's no way to enforce even the targets the countries have voluntarily committed to.

This "agreement" is a step back if compared with the Kyoto Protocol. The absence of legally binding targets makes it quite useless. And it is a step back because it hasn't been produced through democratic consultations, but in a closed meeting everybody knew was happening. But, at least, it involves China, US and India (who account together for around 55% of the global emissions). EU and other developed ones will jump in as well, which will cover the great majority of the world's emissions. It is a first step and will need further improvements, new commitments, a new series of talks to be completed. US, for example, will be able to come with their new targets, when the internal iter of their Bill will be concluded. It hasn't killed the Kyoto Protocol yet, but could be considered a first decision on the type of model a new climate agreement should have. It will leave space for the discussion of the more general targets, and possibly for the adoption of an ambitious 1,5°C limit.

But it's not really deciding anything. It is a deal that will require a new deal, hopefully in the next 6 to 12 months. And this is the problem. The real losers, with this no-agreement, are the countries that are already suffering the impacts of climate change, that will experience more frequent and more severe problems, and will not really be able to solve them with more mid-term money.

habemus favam

Il Vaticano si impegna ad azzerare le proprie emissioni. Niente di speciale per un paese che produce giusto un po' di fumo bianco ogni morte di papa.

last day?/2

US-China bilateral meetings going on since the last post. Apparently a couple new drafts are out. It looks like the two have almost agreed on a global long-term emission reduction target of 50% by 2050 (80% less for developed countries, 15-30% less for developing ones), on finance, and maybe on MRV (China still wants to perform domestic MRV, but would be ready to open its results to the international community and to give required explanations if needed). They are also thinking of reviewing the agreement in 2016 to consider a 1,5°C limit. But there's no mention of anything legally binding nor a roadmap to obtain it next year.

A draft decision on the mechanism to reduce emissions from deforestation in developing countries (REDD+) is being presented. It basically is a system to pay countries that avoid deforestation, and apparently it will also allow the financing of the conservation, sustainable management, and enhancement of forests.

In addition:

- Since no flight seems to be allowed in a one-hour radius from Air Force One, and since Obama was closed in a room with Wen Jiabao and nobody really knew when he would come out, passengers flying from Copenhagen have been precautionary locked in their airplanes for hours, until somebody graciously pointed out the meetings were going to take the whole afternoon.

- In the meanwhile Obama will meet with Medvedev to discuss nuclear arms control. You know, to take some time off.

- Yesterday the local hot dog seller sold 1100 dogs. (via)

- Enormous success of "the dogs in my life". Tired diplomats come resting on our sofa. All of them give a quick look to the tome (hardcover, glossy paper, 200+ pp). All of them find comfort in the wise words of the Supreme Master's 6 pets.

- People are sleeping in average 3 hours per night. As a consequence, they tend to fall asleep anywhere, doing any kind of activity. Mostly reading or watching the plenary broadcast on the screen. People reading "the dogs in my life" do not fall asleep. Thy grow tired of the book first.

- The Tuvalu delegate always has a papillon. It is kind of appropriate.

last day?/1

Big people speaking. Wen Jiabao, Lula, Obama, Barroso, Morales, Chavez and others. Nothing really new. Every leader pointing out its good will and good deeds, nobody really wanting to move any further. Everybody else getting more depressed with every speech.

- Developing countries insist with the Kyoto Protocol, the Bali Road Map, the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, based on the fact that industrialized countries have had centuries to pollute without constraints, their need to be able to freely pursue economic growth. They will not commit to mitigation measure that could undermine their possibility of pursuing poverty reduction, but have all already announced some kind of voluntary targets, and are in general ready to increase them, should a serious agreement be reached. Brazil even promised to participate in the financing of least developed countries' activities. They still oppose external MRV systems.

- The US think an agreement will be reachable if all major economies take strong actions to reduce their emissions, a credible monitoring system is put in place and sufficient funding is raised to finance developing countries.

- EU stresses the fact that is now up to US and China (who emit together half of the world's greenhouse gases) to do something, EU has already committed to the most significant cut among developed countries.

As of now, it seems that if an agreement will be produced, it will only be a loose political statement, with (maybe) some decision on relatively complementary matters. There are still some important negotiations open, and something could still happen, but it's almost impossible to envisage that a comprehensive deal will be reached.

Highlights:

- Lula: "too many issues are still unsolved and the negotiations look more like the kind of bargaining I used to do when I worked in trade unions than a meeting of Heads of State"

- Lula/2: "although I believe in God, therefore in miracles, there's no way a single man can intervene and fix what has not been built in 2 years of negotiations"

- Obama comes in from a side door just before his speech, delivers it, goes out again immediately after. All other presidents, premiers, ministers sit normally at their delegation desks.

- Chavez/0: Luckily he came last. It's 14:15, he must be hungry, his speech is shorter than usual, but full of real pearls.

- Chavez/1: Obama uses the small door like a yankee emperor. He comes in, he goes out, then he's going to slip a text under that same door.

- Chavez/2: Introducing his driver - Thomas.

- Chavez/3: Obama is the nobel prize for war.

- Chavez/4: the fault lies with the capital.

- Chavez/5: after having delivered his speech, he leaves the conference (together with Morales).

Now it's up to the observers. Such a shame that they are speaking to an empty plenary. Everybody's having lunch.

about us, without us

I'm feeling slightly better today, I decided to try and be at the COP. It's silly to be here for 2 weeks when nothing happens and miss the crucial meetings. The bridge to Copenhagen closed at 7:30 for security reasons, we had our delegation brief at 6:30. It was still snowing in Malmo.

The negotiations have been paralyzed by cross-vetos on mitigation targets and financial matters. The developing countries have also lamented their almost complete exclusion from the drafting of the most significant documents, which have been written by around 50 "most important" countries and then opened for discussion to the whole assembly. Still, in the last hours the situation has evolved a bit:

- US' proposal to finance developing countries every year with US$50b by 2015 and with US$100b by 2020 is at least a first step to fulfill the developing countries' economic requests. It is still significantly less than the estimates for the long-term finance, but is a concrete measure to provide a substantial amount of money in the mid-term. It looks like the other developed countries will agree as well. Criteria and mechanisms of distribution still have to be discussed. Tuvalu has spoken against this proposal. A nation without territory won't be able to do much with more money.

- China has started opening to the possibility of accepting an external MRV system, which had been set as a condition by developed countries to take any financial commitment as well as to accept the developing countries mitigation measures.

- Australia has been trying to put pressure on Tuvalu and AOSIS to agree on the 2°C target. Apparently, nothing's gonna be decided on actual mitigation numbers. A possible compromise could be to go for a 2°C target, with the idea of periodically reviewing it with new scientific evidence. Fact is that scientific evidence proving the high risks which the 2°C target implies already exists.

- OPEC countries look like they were subtly trying to sabotage the talks, using a series of procedural issues to make the debate slower. Their aim is obviously to avoid the cut on fossil fuel use. To sound credible, they are strongly pushing for Carbon Storage and Sequestration technologies. Basically we would keep producing the same amount of CO2, bury it underground, seal the hole, and hope it never comes out again.

- According to Climate Action Tracker, current emission reduction pledges would lead to an average increase of 3,5°C by 2100, with greenhouse gas concentrations close to 800 ppm.

- Obama's arrived in Copenhagen. Everybody's secretly expecting a miracle.

- We are waiting for the last plenary to start.

NGOs have been excluded from the Bella Centre, with the exception of 300 representatives who will be able to attend the plenary. Even the rationale of such a measure is understandable (security, space, silence), even if the delegates are working incredibly hard to agree on something satisfactory, and even if the NGOs have had 2 weeks to advocate for their positions, it is still disappointing not to see that crowd around. The fact that every country be represented by its more or less democratically elected government poses a big problem in terms of how well the civil society is actually represented in the negotiations. I personally feel much closer to the position of the President of a Pacific island State than by those of my own national Government, that has tried in the past years to renegotiate the EU 2020 targets. I don't remember having had any single adequate option at the last elections. Moreover, we are leaving outside organizations such as WWF, which are supported by a network of millions of volunteers, and are all spasmodically waiting for the epiphany of a politician elected by 1/5 of the Americans. It is disappointing, indeed.

my understanding - the big picture

I'm still sick. I'm not going to the delegation brief every morning, and I'm not aware of what is really going on at the conference. Anyway, Malmo outside is white and it looks like nothing is really going to happen anyway. The following is what it looked like few days ago.

- AOSIS (Alliance of Small Island States) wants a new commitment period for the countries that were had to reduce their emissions according to the Kyoto Protocol (basically the developed countries - Annex-1 countries), with new and more incisive commitments (40% less than 1990 emission levels by 2020). AOSIS is also pushing for the definition of a "Copenhagen Agreement" which would define significant and quantifiable mitigation actions for all the other countries. LDCs (Least Developed Countries), and many developing countries are supporting this proposal. 11 "climate-vulnerable" countries have even committed to pursue carbon neutrality.

- The G77 and China (which include most of the developing countries plus, well, China) want to keep the Kyoto Protocol, with a new commitment period for Annex-1 countries, with ambitious targets, without adding a second agreement to set commitments for developing ones. This position is now only fully supported by the BASIC group (Brazil, India, China, South Africa), by most of the OPEC countries, and by those G77 countries who haven't come closer to AOSIS' position.

- USA, Canada and Australia (part of the Umbrella Group - which also includes Norway, Japan, Russia) basically want to kill the Kyoto Protocol and set up a totally new regime based on mitigation actions by all countries (developed and developing), without global predefined targets, but with a strong MRV (Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification) system to ensure that countries actually respect what they have committed to.

- The EU is quite in an ambiguous situation. They didn't seem enthusiastic about the Umbrella Group's proposal but would be ready to support it out of pragmatism, to try to reach an agreement whatsoever. Still, they seem to want to keep the Kyoto Protocol alive, but are also requiring emission reduction measures by major emitters among developing countries.

The global emission reduction targets usually considered are derived by the last IPCC report, where it is stated that by 450 ppm of CO2-equivalent, there is 50% possibility of containing global warming below 2°C above pre-industrial levels (which is meant to be a "safety" threshold). New science has pointed out both that 450 ppm could lead to an increase higher than 2°C, and that 2°C warming could already have catastrophic consequences (for example, sea level would rise by up to 1,5 m, due to thermal expansion only, and coral reefs would completely lose their biodiversity). Despite the new findings, all proposed texts, with the exception of AOSIS' one, are pushing for the 450 ppm and 2°C limits. AOSIS wants 350 ppm and 1,5°C. Evo Morales has apparently called for a 1°C limit.

Today we already are at 385 ppm and 1°C above pre-industrial levels. Global average temperature is increasing by 0,2°C per decade.

- From a "legal" perspective, the G77 and China are right. At the 2007 conference in Bali, the participating nations adopted the Bali Road Map, to set up a process to reach a binding agreement here at COP15, with a second commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol, the definition of long term goals and of some decisions on finance, technology, forests. No mention of legally binding emission reduction targets for non-Annex-1 countries, but no doubt about Kyoto's survival. These countries are ready to commit to mitigation actions, but are not willing to have them monitored by the international community. They either rely heavily on their industrial sector for their development (BASIC) or are completely dependent on the use of fossil fuels (OPEC) - some Arab States have gone so far as to deny climate change, also taking advantage of the East Anglia affaire. By protecting Kyoto and Bali they want the developed countries to take their responsibility, while having the freedom for some more years to grow without constraints.

- AOSIS and LDCs are trying to introduce something completely new. Their proposal is justified by the fact that scientists now doubt that the previously accepted limits are adequate to avoid catastrophic consequences, and that they will pay the highest price of climate change. Some of them could disappear completely, all will have to face enormous risks. They don't have enough resources to cope with the impacts, therefore want all nations to take a share of the responsibilities in keeping climate as stable as possible. And they are willing to proceed. Carbon neutrality is certainly easier to achieve for relatively small, mostly tourism-based economies, still it is an extremely significant target.

- EU and Japan are among the most virtuous developed countries. As a target for 2020, Japan has committed to reducing its emissions by 25% on 1990 levels, EU by 20%, promising to go for a 30% reduction, should an agreement be reached which includes the other developed countries and the big developing economies. Otherwise, they'll stick with what they have already committed to. They fear to lose competitivity on the international market. IPCC scenarios suggest that developed countries should cut emissions by 40% above 1990 levels before 2020, to ensure that CO2 stays below 450 ppm, which means that their targets are still too low to be really effective. Moreover, the EU will only comply with Kyoto because it has been enlarged to include less industrialized countries which have allowed for a reduction of its average emissions.

- The Umbrella Group is probably the "guiltiest". Canada and Australia, who both have ratified Kyoto, are a good 20% above their 2012 targets. The US haven't even ratified it, and are not willing to commit to anything more than 3% (below 1990 levels) by 2020. Their Kyoto target was 7% by 2012. Obama can't do much because the US Senate is still discussing the crucial Clean Energy and Security Act (even if he has showed a few times that he would be ready to pursue emission reductions through the action of administrative authorities - such as the Environmental Protection Agency). The system they are now proposing, while pragmatic, doesn't guarantee that the identified critical threshold are not going to be trespassed, and, according to the developing countries, contradicts the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities", because it requires all the countries to be part of the same emission reduction scheme.

Such was the situation by the end of the first week of COP15, after that the negotiations have basically seen no evolution at all. Even the presence of more ministers hasn't really made a difference. Tomorrow is the last day, all Heads of State have arrived, but it really looks like no agreement will be reached. There could be some decision on other issues. The latest news is a proposal by developed countries to raise US$100b annually by 2020 to finance mitigation (and adaptation) in developing countries, if the latter agree to be monitored by an external and transparent authority. But it really looks like more time will be needed to reach an agreement on the targets, on the principles, and on the form of the new post-Kyoto regime. And it's a shame, because it has already started to be too late.