Toyota's Jim Lentz Predicts Peak Oil by 2020

Jim is president of Toyota USA. Jim says that their plans are based on that assumption. The interviewer asked if it was his personal opinion or it is Toyota's. Jim confirmed that it is Toyota's view. This is indeed news. Presumably GM and other car makers also take this view.

Toyota's Jim Lentz Predicts Peak Oil by 2020

Cap-n-trade battle heats up

New groups join climate lobby fray

An analysis of the latest federal records by the Center for Public Integrity shows that the overall number of businesses and groups lobbying on climate legislation has essentially held steady at about 1,160, thanks in part to a variety of interests that have left the fray. But a close look at the 140 or so interests that jumped into the debate for the first time in the third quarter shows a marked trend: Companies and organizations that feel they’ve been overlooked are fighting for a place at the table.
...
At issue are the free “allowances,” or carbon dioxide pollution permits, that the House-passed climate bill would give to manufacturers that use a lot of energy to produce internationally traded products such as steel and aluminum. Those energy-intensive industries fighting international competitors successfully lobbied for protection from loss of jobs to China and other cheap-energy countries if the United States unilaterally enacted a carbon reduction program that would make coal burning more expensive here. But the House bill’s approach means manufacturers that don’t use as much energy — like Campbell — would have to bid at auction for carbon emission allowances from the federal government.

Johnston argues that Campbell should either be exempt from that process or be provided some freebies, too. “I think it’s clear from our view that we're not being treated as fairly as carbon-intensive industries,” Johnston said. “There needs to be some recognition of the role the food industry plays in our economy.”

The report is based on an investigation by Center for Public Integrity.
They have a number of videos on youtube like this one on carbon markets lobby.

Business leaders unhappy with COP15 deal

They can do more to persuade their colleagues. It is a bit disingenuous. After all, the governments represent the commercial interests in a large part.

Business chiefs hit at climate agreement

Global energy businesses are disappointed and confused by the climate deal agreed in Copenhagen, saying it does not provide enough certainty to justify the huge investments needed to cut carbon emissions.

The deal – agreed by major economies including the US and China on Friday evening but not formally adopted by the United Nations – makes a commitment to limit the rise in global temperatures but does not specify caps on emissions to achieve that objective.

Chief executives and business groups in Europe were particularly critical of the deal. Peter Voser – the chief executive of oil and gas group Royal Dutch Shell, which has supported limiting emissions – said “much more” was needed.

The role of business will be crucial in fighting the threat of global warming, with the private sector expected to provide about 90 per cent of the $500bn a year investment needed.

Was Copenhagen's weak deal predictable?

Bruce Bueno de Mesquita predicted and the outcome is reasonably consistent with his prediction. He has a game-theoretic model built on the assumption that everybody wants to further their interests, and the outcome depends on three factors for each player - announced goal/preference for particular outcomes, power to influence the outcome, and salience/importance of the outcome. He has a model that combines them, and simulates the behavior across multiple decisions. He is still positive. His basic point is that once the big emerging countries grow richer, they will join the rest of the world. They will take the next major steps, he suggests, when the technology is ready - scalable, cheap, low carbon energy.

Recipe for Failure
Why Copenhagen will be a bust, and other prophecies from the foreign-policy world's leading predictioneer.

The trouble is, deals like Bali and Kyoto include just about every country in the world. To get everyone to agree to something potentially costly, the something they actually agree to must be neither very demanding nor very costly. If it is, many will refuse to join because for them the costs are greater than the benefits, or else they will join while free-riding on the costs paid by the few who are willing to bear them.

To get people to sign a universal agreement and not cheat, the deal must not ask them to change their behavior much from whatever they are already doing. It is a race to the bottom, to the lowest common denominator. More demanding agreements weed out prospective members or encourage lies. Kyoto's demands weeded out the United States, ensuring that it could not succeed. Maybe that is what those who signed on -- or at least some of them -- were hoping for. They can look good and then not deliver, because after all it wouldn't be fair for them to cut back when the biggest polluter, the United States, does not. Sacrificing self-interest for the greater good just doesn't happen very often. Governments don't throw themselves on hand grenades.

There is a natural division between the rich countries whose prosperity does not depend so much on toasting our planet and the poor countries that really have no affordable alternative (yet) to fossil fuels and carbon emissions. They have an incentive to do whatever it takes to improve the quality of life of the people they govern. The rich have an incentive to encourage the fast-growing poor to be greener, but the fast-growing poor have little incentive to listen as long as they are still poor. As the Indian government is fond of noting, sure, India is growing rapidly in income and in carbon dioxide emissions, but it is still a pale shadow of what rich countries like the United States have emitted over the centuries when going from poor to rich.

But when the fast-growing poor surpass the rich, the tables will turn. China, India, Brazil, and Mexico will then cry out for environmental change because that will protect their future advantaged position, while the relatively poor of one or two or three hundred years from now will resist policies that hinder their efforts to climb to the top. The rich will even fight wars to keep the rising poor from getting so rich that they threaten the old political order. (The rising poor will win those wars, by the way.)

Business models for low carbon economy

The talk about appropriate business models has started - all around decoupling the GDP/growth from resource consumption.

New Business Models for a Low Carbon Economy

1. The 'clean energy' model: Substitution of existing energy sources 
2. The ecological industry model: Optimize existing processes for lower carbon 
3. The 3rd orientation: Offer service instead of product, e.g., transport service instead of car sale
   
4. Futuristic service: Sell virtualized equivalents that achieve the same function with less resource
   

UPS Carbon neutral shipping

I expect this model to become more common - a carbon-neutral version of every product/service.

UPS carbon neutral shipping

For as little as five cents more per package, gain more control over your climate impact with UPS carbon neutral shipping, a UPS shipping service that offsets the carbon dioxide (CO2) associated with the packages it transports.

... UPS carbon neutral shipping empowers you to take action to offset the impact of carbon emissions that results from your shipping.

Additionally, UPS will match the carbon offsets purchased for the first $1 million through 2010. It's a deeper commitment toward managing our climate impact.

...you can use verified carbon neutral shipping to offset the climate impact.

Want to do more? Check out other ways that UPS helps individuals and businesses become greener, from reducing paper and greening up packaging to making supply chains more efficient.

...you can use verified carbon neutral shipping to offset the climate impact.

Want to do more? Check out other ways that UPS helps individuals and businesses become greener, from reducing paper and greening up packaging to making supply chains more efficient.

...We purchase high quality Gold Standard, Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS), and Climate Action Reserve (CAR) verified offsets, as well as European Union Allowances and Certified Emission Reduction offsets.

When you choose UPS, you are selecting a company that has already made great strides to reduce its own impact. Check out our comprehensive commitment to sustainability.

AP review of CRU emails: Science not faked, but not pretty

It seems that scientific process got a little messy because of the politics and money associated with the results of science. This is not dissimilar to experiences in science associated with cloning and stem cells, breast cancer, nutrition, psychology, genetic engineering etc.

Scientists should be formally trained to handle politics and social dynamics.

AP IMPACT: Science not faked, but not pretty

E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data — but the messages don't support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press.

The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored private doubts, however slight and fleeting, even as they told the world they were certain about climate change. However, the exchanges don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

The scientists were keenly aware of how their work would be viewed and used, and, just like politicians, went to great pains to shape their message. Sometimes, they sounded more like schoolyard taunts than scientific tenets.

The scientists were so convinced by their own science and so driven by a cause "that unless you're with them, you're against them," said Mark Frankel, director of scientific freedom, responsibility and law at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He also reviewed the communications.

Frankel saw "no evidence of falsification or fabrication of data, although concerns could be raised about some instances of very 'generous interpretations.'"
...
"This is normal science politics, but on the extreme end, though still within bounds," said Dan Sarewitz, a science policy professor at Arizona State University. "We talk about science as this pure ideal and the scientific method as if it is something out of a cookbook, but research is a social and human activity full of all the failings of society and humans, and this reality gets totally magnified by the high political stakes here."

Dow jones index for climate change

Ah! Another potential milestone in the journey. We now have a proposal/system for a single digit summary of state of the earth's environment. There would naturally be some differences between this and traditional Dow Jones Index for stock market. We may be care about first and second derivatives more than the actual number. Unlike Dow Jones Index in which "control loop" (Fed/Treasury response) is real time, the "control loop" for the climate change index will be long drawn out, may be even years. The new "control loop" may be in terms of new regulations, carbon pricing etc. Changes in the index may be help set medium and long term investment direction more than short term.

Its value may be primarily psychological in terms of making the climate concerns a norm and a dinner table conversation.

Dow Jones Index for Climate Change

Some people still question whether Earth's climate is changing as rapidly and profoundly as the majority of climate scientists suggest. But, what if the complexity of the Earth's climate were distilled down to one number, in the same way that the Dow Jones Index condenses volumes of data into a single figure? What, then, would be the general trend?

The IGBP Climate-Change Index is a first attempt to do just that. It brings together key indicators of global change: carbon dioxide, temperature, sea level and sea ice. The index gives an annual snapshot of how the planet's complex systems -- the ice, the oceans, the land surface and the atmosphere -- are responding to the changing climate. The index rises steadily from 1980 -- the earliest date the index has been calculated. The change is unequivocal, it is global, and, significantly, it is in one direction. The reason for concern becomes clear: in just 30 years we are witnessing major planetary-scale changes.
...
The idea came about when several IGBP scientists including Steven Running, IGBP executive director Sybil Seitzinger, former IGBP director Kevin Noone, Kathy Hibbard, Mark Stafford Smith, Peter Cox, Suzi Kerr and Pierre Friedlingsten realised that the way various global datasets are reported throughout the year may be confusing. It is uncoordinated, there are a variety of unfamiliar units, and natural variability sometimes masks a trend.

Professor Seitzinger says, "We felt people outside global-change research are not clear about the scale of the changes scientists are witnessing. The index is a response to these concerns."

Inside COP15 video

From WWF

Tonight's live show from Copenhagen with guests Klaus Bondam, Mayor of the Copenhagen Environmental Administration, Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Environmental Scientist and Dawa Stephen Sherpa, Mountaineer.

Cop15 progress

Have been busy last few days. catching up.

There is a detailed report on the progress here from the Earth Negotiations Bulletin:


Fifteenth Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and Fifth Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (COP 15 and COP/MOP 5)

IN THE CORRIDORS
Much of the talk in the corridors on Thursday afternoon and evening was focused on the suspension of both the COP and COP/MOP, pending consultations on whether to establish contact groups to consider proposed new protocols under the Convention and proposed amendments to the Kyoto Protocol. As on Wednesday when the COP was suspended, Tuvalu led a group of African, Latin American and AOSIS parties in urging a formal contact group to consider the proposed Protocol amendments, and resisted proposals to move the procedural question to an informal setting with a review of progress in plenary on Saturday.

Many noted that these disputes were closely related to the question concerning the legal form of the outcome: “We have still not resolved the critical question of the legal outcome of these negotiations,” noted one old hand in the process. “Developing countries want to preserve and strengthen Kyoto, while most Annex I countries are seeking a comprehensive legal framework that also engages the US and developing countries in mitigation efforts.” Differences were also detected among developing countries as to whether the outcome from the AWG-LCA should be legally-binding.

The wisdom of suspending work under COP and COP/MOP and its implications were also being discussed around the Bella Center. Some viewed the request to also suspend the COP/MOP as a good strategic move, while others feared it could delay work on other issues. “It hasn’t slowed the informals under the AWG-LCA,” said one NGO who was supportive of AOSIS’ stand. “I’m just not sure how they’ll break the deadlock,” she added.

Meanwhile, delegates were also reacting to the leak of a proposed outcome document – the “Copenhagen Accord” – by French newspaper Le Monde. The text, which was said to have been developed by China, India, Brazil, and South Africa, had apparently been distributed among G-77/China parties earlier in the week before the leak on Thursday. While the initial response to the text was cautious, some developed country delegates seemed positively surprised by what they characterized as a relatively “realistic” text. For their part, some of those connected with the text were playing down its significance at this stage, with delegates noting that it has “limited status” and is “just a working draft.”

People were also commenting on the increasing number of people at the Bella Center on Thursday, as more ministers arrived and delegations continued to grow. Lines to get into the building were noticeably longer than in previous days, and there was talk of limits on observer numbers next week. “The place is already packed and there’ll be thousands more next week,” noted one insider. Rumors were also circulating about large-scale protests planned for Saturday.

EPA: Greenhouse Gases Threaten Public Health and the Environment

Breaking news...


EPA: Greenhouse Gases Threaten Public Health and the Environment / Science overwhelmingly shows greenhouse gas concentrations at unprecedented levels due to human activity

After a thorough examination of the scientific evidence and careful consideration of public comments, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced today that greenhouse gases (GHGs) threaten the public health and welfare of the American people. EPA also finds that GHG emissions from on-road vehicles contribute to that threat.

The actual finding
Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act

On December 7, 2009, the Administrator signed two distinct findings regarding greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act:

* Endangerment Finding: The Administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases--carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)--in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.
* Cause or Contribute Finding: The Administrator finds that the combined emissions of these well-mixed greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution which threatens public health and welfare.

These findings do not themselves impose any requirements on industry or other entities. However, this action is a prerequisite to finalizing the EPA’s proposed greenhouse gas emission standards for light-duty vehicles, which were jointly proposed by EPA and the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Safety Administration on September 15, 2009.

Cop15 - Day 0 Photos

Coordinated frontpage climate stories across the world

Guardian shows leadership! This is amazing effort that will put climate change in front of millions of people - literally on the front page. They summarize their thinking in a related article (quoted below). Hat tip.

More than 50 papers join in front-page leader article on climate change

The Guardian has teamed up with more 50 papers worldwide to run the same front-page leader article calling for action at the climate summit in Copenhagen, which begins tomorrow.

This unprecedented project is the result of months of negotiations between the papers to agree on a final text, in a process that mirrors the kind of diplomatic wrangling among the world's governments that is likely to precede any potential deal on climate change.

Fifty-six papers in 45 countries published in 20 different languages have joined the initiative, and will feature the leader in some form on their front pages.

How the climate change global editorial project came about

Climate change poses a particular challenge to journalists. It is almost incontrovertibly the biggest story we cover; perhaps the only one with genuinely existential implications. Otherwise measured scientists discuss it in apocalyptic terms. Campaigners and politicians talk about a crossroads in human history. But how do we reflect the scale and urgency of the issue in the normal register of journalism?

How can it make sense to find a story about the disappearance of arctic sea ice on page 17 of a newspaper, sandwiched between an unexceptional murder trial and the latest bickering over MPs expenses? Or even on the front page, when the same slot the previous day was occupied by a story about plans to trim civil service jobs?

At the Guardian, we have tried to answer the challenge by covering the story in ever greater depth, devoting more space and resources – six specialist reporters – as well as a dedicated environment website. But this approach has its dangers too: bombarded with a seemingly endless stream of dire predictions and diplomatic setbacks, which of us has not been tempted to climb back into bed and pull up the duvet over our heads? So intense has been the blizzard of climate change coverage in the months leading up to the Copenhagen summit that at times even the most shocking stories have barely cut through the white noise.

Hence today's Guardian-led initiative in which 56 major newspapers in 45 countries speak with a single voice (albeit in 20 different languages) through a shared editorial. As Guardian editor-in-chief Alan Rusbridger put it: "Newspapers have never done anything like this before - but they have never had to cover a story like this before."

Green tinge at the LA Autoshow (photos)

I went to the LA Autoshow yesterday with the aim of documenting the progress on the electrification of transport. I spoke to a few people as well. Some notes:

1. Fuel efficiency was prominent but the emphasis is on the aesthetics, comfort etc.
2. Every major manufacturer had a hybrid and/or electric on display.
3. Atleast one automaker (Hyundai) thought that talking about Carbon offsets will attract customers. (even though their vehicles themselves were not as green as I expected. They had no PHEV on display that I remember).
4. The Mitsubishi vehicle is designed to act as a generator to feed back energy to home other appliances. Their staff didnt know whether they had done surveys before adding that feature.
5. There were a couple of Natural gas vehicles but they were clearly deemphasized.

I test drove Ford Fusion Hybrid Electric vehicle. It felt as comfortable as other vehicles. It was quiet and smooth. I drove 1.5 miles at 36 mi/gallon efficiency, worked completely from the battery with no consumption of fuel. There was nice animation on the dashboard where you see green leaves increasing as the drive becomes more efficient. One of the staff described it as a "game" where you nudge the user driving behavior in such a way that it reduces CO2.

Obama ups the ante

Just for context, O's Nobel Prize Lecture is on Dec 10.

BREAKING: In last-minute stunner, Obama changes plans to attend final day of Copenhagen talks

A couple of hours ago, the Obama administration announced a startling shift in plans: rather than stop by the Copenhagen climate talks on Dec. 9, Obama will be going on the 18th, the final day of the meeting—a notable increase in commitment (and political exposure) from the administration.

The first week of every COP meeting consists of posturing, speeches, protests, and NGO reports. Everything of significance to the treaty is announced late in the meetings, often on the last day, after a flurry of last-minute negotiations. Coming to Copenhagen at the climax of the talks, specifically to push negotiations “over the top,” as the White House statement says, is a risky move for Obama. He’s got skin in the game now; he’ll look foolish if he rides in at the last minute and fails to broker an agreement.

If he’s willing to stick his neck out like this, Obama must be pretty confident that he can get a deal. There have been signs of momentum for weeks now. The much-discussed deal with China was just one in a raft of commitments from the developing countries, including India and Brazil. Movement from the developing world has undercut one of U.S. conservatives’ principal arguments for inaction. Over 65 world leaders have pledged to attend.

Meanwhile, the U.S. EPA is expected to finalize its endangerment ruling on CO2 on Monday—the kickoff day of Copenhagen—making regulations on CO2 legally mandated and all but inevitable. That’s likely to help motivate the Senate, where Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) are busy working out a compromise bill that can get 60 votes. Kerry released the Foreign Relations Committee’s contribution to the bill today, which would authorize programs, including adaptation funding and technology transfer, that the U.S. is expected to offer as part of a deal in Copenhagen.

Cop15 Links

Official
Cop15.dk
Calendar
Program/Schedule
Side events
Exhibits
Live/On-demand Webcast
Cop15 Climate Thinkers Blog

News (Cop15 Coverage)
Gaurdian (newspaper)
BBC (TV)
Cop15 Post
Google News
AP

Business
Business Week
earth2tech
Vattenfall

Video:
Youtube: Climate Conference
Cop15 Youtube Channel
Youtube search
Metacafe
WWF Video Blog

Facebook:
UNFCCC
Facebook Channel

Blog:
Students Reporting Live
Hugh Barling's Analysis

Twitter
UN Climate Talks
cop15 News
#cop15
#climate
#copenhagen

Flickr
Cop15

Activism
Arts for Cop15
Seal the Deal!

World's highest cabinet meeting

Drama has its place in politics. First we had the cabinet meeting under water, now we have one on a mountain.

Cabinet meeting at Mt. Everest

On Friday, to highlight the danger that global warming poses to glaciers, Nepal's government held a Cabinet meeting at Mt. Everest - a stunt the government billed as the world's highest Cabinet meeting. The ministers posed for pictures, signed a commitment to tighten environmental regulations and expand the nation's protected areas, and then quickly flew away.

"The Everest declaration was a message to the world to minimize the negative impact of climate change on Mount Everest and other Himalayan mountains," Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal later said.

The Prime Minister, his two deputy prime ministers and the 20 Cabinet ministers were examined by doctors before boarding helicopters to Kalapathar, a flat area at an altitude of 17,192 feet (5,250 meters) next to Everest base camp, the jumping point for climbers seeking to scale the peak.

Family planning offsets?

Sir Attenborough may be fine gentlemen but he should to be sensitive to how it appears from the other side of the pond.

I am not sure the rest of the world needs or desires another form or round of 19th and 20th century liberal paternalism and possibly even imperialism, to put it mildly. People do not forget history.

I do believe that family planning is necessary in developing countries for their own reasons and not CO2. And they are working on it. Economist recently had an article on rapidly falling fertility rates in developing countries. It will fall more rapidly as prosperity increases.

As Goerge Monbiot suggests towards the end, the problem is not the number but the level of consumption. With a GDP of 1100$ per-capita GDP, a Kenyan kid is not going to consume a lot of energy or produce CO2. What he needs is education, governance, infrastructure and ofcourse green technology. Kenyan/indian/chinese mothers and fathers are rational enough to make decisions about children. They definitely need partners, but not carbon offsets based on their lives.

I dont expect this idea to go anywhere but it can increase distrust and create hurdles in the negotiations.

Rich nations to offset emissions with birth control

Radical plan to cut CO2 argues that paying for family planning is developing world is the best bet

Consumers in the developed world are to be offered a radical method of offsetting their carbon emissions in an ambitious attempt to tackle climate change - by paying for contraception measures in poorer countries to curb the rapidly growing global population.

The scheme - set up by an organisation backed by Sir David Attenborough, the former diplomat Sir Crispin Tickell and green figureheads such as Jonathon Porritt and James Lovelock - argues that family planning is the most effective way to reduce the likelihood of catastrophic global warming.

Optimum Population Trust (Opt) stresses that birth control will be provided only to those who have no access to it, and only unwanted births would be avoided. Opt estimates that 80 million pregnancies each year are unwanted.

The cost-benefit analysis commissioned by the trust claims that family planning is the cheapest way to reduce carbon emissions. Every £4 spent on contraception, it says, saves one tonne of CO2 being added to global warming, but a similar reduction in emissions would require an £8 investment in tree planting, £15 in wind power, £31 in solar energy and £56 in hybrid vehicle technology.

Calculations based on the trust's figures show the 10 tonnes emitted by a return flight from London to Sydney would be offset by enabling the avoidance of one unwanted birth in a country such as Kenya. Such action not only cuts emissions but reduces the number of people who will fall victim to climate change, it says.

"The scheme, called PopOffsets, understands the connection [between population increase and climate change]," says the trust director Roger Martin. "It offers a practical and sensible response. For the first time ever individuals, companies and organisations will have the opportunity to offset their carbon voluntarily by supporting projects to provide family planning services where there is currently unmet demand."

India commits to 24% reduction in Carbon intensity

India is talking about intensities and not absolute targets compared to BAU. I also hope by carbon sinks, they dont mean the untested carbon sequestration approach. I hope they mean forestry, algae, and such. There was a recent conference in Delhi on second generation bio-fuels and expo.

India to reduce carbon intensity by 24% by 2020
Environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, expected to formally announce the targets in parliament tomorrow

India could reduce its carbon intensity by 24% by 2020 compared with 2005 levels, government sources revealed today.

The leaked figures, which emerged ahead of the Copenhagen climate change summit next Monday, follow Beijing's announcement last week that China would move to cut carbon intensity - the amount of carbon dioxide emitted per unit of economic growth - by more than 40% by 2020.

The EU has already pledged a 20% cut in carbon emissions by 2020 - set to rise to 30% if other developed countries match the European target - while the US last month proposed cuts of 17%.

Sources told the Indian media that the reduction in carbon intensity could go up to 37% by 2030, compared to 2005. India's environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, is expected to make a statement in parliament tomorrow to announce the targets, Reuters reported.

To reduce emissions, India's national action plan on climate change sees increasing solar power generation, improving energy efficiency and enhancing carbon sinks as a route to "greener growth". In August, India laid out an ambitious plan to generate 20GW of solar power by 2020, which could equate to 75% of the world's solar energy.

Aviation Industry at COP15

Posted on twitter by enviroaero

This is similar to the shipping industry's response. I think there is merit to the idea that industries that cross national boundaries should be managed by a neutral third party, possibly a new UN organization or subgroup that works with the Aviation industry.

The global aviation sector:
united behind common goals and a global solution
A global approach for a global industry tackling a global problem

Recommendations for including aviation in a global climate change framework
The global aviation sector believes:
1. Aircraft CO2 emissions should be addressed in any post-Kyoto global framework, through the International Civil
Aviation Organization (ICAO).
2. Emissions from aviation should be addressed through ICAO adopting a global sectoral approach that does not
distort competition amongst airlines, treats aviation as one indivisible sector rather than by country and takes a
global approach to emissions reduction.
3. Aviation emissions should only be accounted for (and paid for) once.
4. The aviation industry can achieve carbon-neutral growth from 2020 and work towards reducing aviation net
carbon emissions by 50% in 2050, compared to 2005 levels. These ambitious targets require assistance from
governments through:
• the necessary investments to modernise air traffic management
• investment in aerodynamic and operations technology research and development through academic and
industry partners
• investment in the development and commercialisation of sustainable, second-generation biofuels for use in
aviation

Munich Re: Ambitious climate targets needed

This is interesting coming from the insurance industry who will see payouts if bad things happen. The fact that payouts will increase does not necessarily mean that insurance industry cares. It could easily mean brisk business. We need to dig a little deeper to understand their economics and response. But at the surface, it makes the right noises.

Ambitious climate protection targets are needed –
or the cost of climate change will keep rising

Munich Re’s NatCatSERVICE database shows that, globally, the average number of major weather-related catastrophes such as windstorms, floods or droughts is now three times as high as at the beginning of the 1980s. Losses have risen even more, with average increases of 11% per year since 1980. To what extent the increased losses are due to climate change is not yet clear. Preliminary analyses suggest that it accounts for a low single-digit percentage of
annual overall losses.

Although this increase appears low, the amounts involved are enormous. This is illustrated by total natural catastrophes losses in the period 1980–2008. According to studies by Munich Re, overall losses due to weather-related events came to around US$ 1.6tn in original values, with insured losses amounting to approximately US$ 465bn. In the period from 2000–2008 alone, overall losses totalled over US$ 750bn, whilst insured losses came to around US$ 280bn.

“Even conservative estimates show that we are talking here about climate change costs already running into billions per year. The insurance industry is able to adapt but, in the end, each individual has to bear the cost”, said Peter Höppe, Head of Munich Re’s Geo Risks Research. “It is therefore very important and makes economic sense to lay cornerstones for a new agreement, with ambitious targets, in Copenhagen. After all, the climate reacts slowly. Even now, climate change can no longer be halted, it can only be attenuated. And it is time this was done.”

According to Höppe, in Copenhagen a binding commitment will have to be defined that limits global warming to 2°C above pre-industrial levels. This can be done only if global carbon emissions are cut to 50% of 1990 levels by 2050. Höppe: “That means the industrial countries will have to achieve 80%, and that globally there will have to be a real fall in emissions within the next few years.” Furthermore, to rapidly find a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, all the principal carbon emitters would have to accept binding reduction targets.