Archive for the ‘Rio+20’ Category

5th Truth about Climate Change: Global Warming is accelerating more than it looks like

25 July 2012

In our last post about the 4th Climate Change truth we defined the anthropocentric causes of Global Warming; in this one we will offer you some facts that will aloud you to understand how climate change is accelerating and why, if nothing is done, temperature could reach an incremental 5ºC by the end of this century and how, this increase in global warming will produce relevant impacts on our planet.

The measurements of increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere show that, if we keep our production and consumption as usual, we will trespass the 450ppm CO2 concentration by 2040. Hawaii’s Mauna Loa observatory, one of the world references in CO2 measurement, registered a concentration as high as 396,78ppm in May2012. The highest ever known in 800.000 years.

The global warming observed between 1960 and 2009 shows that average land surface temperature is already between 1ºC and 2ºC above average in big zones of Canada and Russia. But more worrisome is the Artic area, where land surface temperature has being increase between 4ºC and 4.1ºC. Nobody seems surprised by the fact that the Arctic Ocean is now navigable in summer.

Human activity is accelerating its pressure over Earth system , as reflected by the GEO5, UNEP report; we are reaching thresholds that once surpassed could “generate abrupt and may be irreversible changes in the functions that support life in this planet”; the first cause is increase in population, by 2030 we will be more than 8000 millions, a 20% increase.  The second cause is consumption; purchasing power of middle classes will increase by 172% in the next 18 years. The third cause is our inefficient use and irresponsible waste of our Planet resources, human ecological footprint will increase in 33% and we will have lost 55% more of the Amazon forests. This phenomenon will rocket the net generation of electricity by 84%. 65% of the actual energy mix is based in coal and oil; thus, CO2 emissions from energy production will increase in 20% in the next 20 years.

What we will see, if urgent measures are not put in place, will be an acceleration of the already fast changes in Climate that has taken place in the last 30 years. Media is starting to register each day more frequently this symptoms:

Unabated Global Warming to Accelerate Melting of Greenland Ice Sheet:   Scientists from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and the Universidad Complutense de Madrid warned in their report that the vast Greenland ice sheet could have been thinning at an alarming faster rate and reversing that trend may prove difficult.

The World Meteorological Organization’s (WMO) Annual Statement on the Status of the Global Climate confirms 2011 as 11th warmest on record. Climate change accelerated in 2001-2010, according to preliminary assessment. WMO said that 2011 was the 11th warmest since records began in 1850.

U.S. Sees Hottest 12 Months And Hottest Half Year On Record: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Calls It A One In 1.6 Million Event. During the second half of June led to at least 170 all-time high temperature records broken or tied. The result is one of the worst droughts ever seen in the US.

Pace of Global Warming Accelerating Dramatically in US  A new report published by Climate Central,  The Heat is On, shows that the pace of global warming in the US has accelerated dramatically in the past 40 years.

Just a few days ago, the  Financial Times, non-suspicious for environmental alarmism, published a brief article on: Freak weather linked to global warming. The issue is that it is really uncommon to see articles that link extreme weather events to global warming in the media. Let’s hope for a regain of trust in scientific evidence.

Our next post, coming soon: Sixth truth about Climate Change. It will give you a brief overview about the dramatic effects of global warming.

Tags:, , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Environment, General, Rio+20, sustainability, Truths about Climate Change | Leave a Comment »

Rio+20: Reasons for hope

18 July 2012

The recent UN Conference on Sustainable Development (aka ‘Rio+20’) ended in disappointment. Possibly, the initial expectations were too high; maybe the scale of the event itself, the self-proclaimed “Earth Summit”, bringing together more heads of state and government leaders than any other global meeting (not to mention a long and varied list of companies and organizations), holds the promise of exceptional outcomes, leading, quite reasonably, to frustration when those outcomes fail to appear.

ACCIONA kept very close tabs on the Summit and was at the event to take part in a number of forums, and we believe that it is not too optimistic to say that Rio+20 came up with positive results; they may not be as ambitious as many of us had expected, but at least they make it clear that, 20 years after the milestone event in Rio in 1992, humankind continues to advance inexorably towards a sustainable development model offering a seamless blend of economic growth, social progress and environmental balance.

1. Twenty years is a long time. Unlike the well-known and eponymous tango, it is clear that over the past twenty years we have come a long way in raising awareness on a global scale of the need for sustainable development for the future. The difference between the “Environment and Development” slogan for the 1192 Rio event and the “Sustainable Development” one for Rio+20 is not just about semantics; it is clear that we now take a far broader view of a model of sustainable development which encompasses many aspects of life, such as human rights, universal access to water and energy, biodiversity, climate change and using the green economy to eradicate poverty. The Rio-92 conclusions included 27 articles; the Rio+20 outcome document “The world we want” has 283, which highlights the fact that there is a genuine, and growing, concern and that sustainable development has shifted from a marginal to a central issue on the international agenda.

2. From Romanticism to Pragmatism. The twenty years separating both Earth Summits have enabled us to see the enormous difficulties involved in taking this reality to the amiable swell of well-intentioned Romanticism that impregnated the movement in its early days. When the challenge facing us is no less than to take good care of the planet for the generations to come, it’s easy to understand that hash reality has taken the place of the naivety that crisscrossed the initial thoughts on the subject. Today we know that it is impossible to promote sustainable development taking a Romantic approach and that it calls for a sizeable dose of pragmatism. Our rhythms—political, business or societal—are not necessarily in synch with the planet’s. So, there’s a specific and pressing need to reconcile short-term objectives and the medium-long view which will enable us to act not only on the basis of business results and electoral outcomes, but also with our sights set on the needs of the not too distant future. Harsh though it may seem, this is something we must learn from the lessons of Rio+20 if we are to carry on the process in years to come.

3. Talk is not always a waste of time. The lack of binding commitments is the accusation most-frequently leveled at Rio+20, and quite rightly too. Some observers have even gone to the trouble of counting and comparing the number of times that the expressions “we encourage” (50) and “we will” (5) appear across the 53 pages that make up the summit’s outcome document.
The truth is that, to mention just one of the summit’s more controversial issues, it is very disappointing to see that while the International Energy Agency (IAE) insists repeatedly on the need to do away with subsidies for fossil fuels in an effort to put a brake on climate change, the Rio+20 outcome document limits itself to a simple declaration on its willingness to reaffirm the commitments to this issue undertaken by a number of countries and inviting others do follow suit. Incidentally, some of those subsidies were as high as 409,000 million US dollars in 2010, six times more than the incentives for renewable energies.

Accordingly, press headlines poked at the summit, calling it “a talking shop” (REM), and described the outcome document as 283 pages of “bluff” (The Guardian). However, it is important to understand that there is a lot of diplomacy involved in international summits, and that they call for considerable skill when it comes to meshing opinions and reaching a final consensus, however insubstantial it may seem. But that doesn’t make them a waste of time. Without a doubt mandatory commitments would have made Rio+20 a better summit. But discussing these issues at a global level can never be considered a sterile exercise; the ideas expressed in these events help to serve as a guide and make up the bedrock of future actions, possibly less ambitious though certainly more practical, at other levels of decision-making (national, regional or local).

4. There is life beyond politicians. It’s true that s Barak Obama, Angela Merkel and David Cameron were not among the 88 premiers and heads of state gathered in Rio+20, and that the summit’s level of political representation was negatively skewed as a result. On the other hand, though, there was a strong and very visible presence of business and civil society, which was both encouraging and promising. Although worldwide political consensus is important—and, sadly, it takes a long time to get there—it is no less important to see that sustainability is capable of attracting considerable human and economic capital, a powerful energy which we need to harness in our quest for real formulas for cooperation between the different players involved and to call for greater and more effective political agreement.

5. And don’t forget the small print. Despite being short on major political commitments, Rio+20 has delivered the goods in other aspects in the way of second-tier commitments and agreements which should not be looked down upon. A case in point: it is worth highlighting the important progress made on incorporating sustainability into corporate reporting. Britain’s vice-premier Nick Clegg announced that his country would require UK-listed companies to report not only on financials but also on social and environment indicators; ACCIONA has been doing this for many years with its Triple Bottom Line (economic and financial, social en environment).These measures are in line with the move towards stepping up corporate transparency and leads to a more exhaustive evaluation of companies by highlighting the externalities related to their activities and the latter’s effects on their social and environmental surroundings.

In short, now we’ve got over the Earth Summit’s initial disappointments, we all (governments, business and social organizations) need to learn from the lessons stemming from the summit and make a concerted effort to understand that despite the urgency to solve short term problems, however serious they are, we cannot take our eyes off the essential task of ensuring a sustainable future for one and all. Rio+40 will have a lot to say.

Related articles:

Tags:, ,
Posted in Rio+20 | Leave a Comment »

Riominus20 – Chapter 3: The Legacy

9 July 2012

Two days after the Río+20 summit came to a close, on 24 June, news of the event barely took up four paragraphs in the Santiago de Chile daily “El Mercurio” and failed to make the pages of the International Herald Tribune. Ten days later, media interest in Rio+20 has all but disappeared, apart from an incident involving some crafty Rio de Janeiro villains who made off with money and documents belonging to Niger’s Education delegate. She was prevented from boarding her flight home and she’s still at a loose end in Rio enjoying the hospitality of a local translator. For its part, Rio’s foremost daily and Brazil’s number two in circulation terms, “O Globo”, held on 3 July a seminar on “Rio+20: The Legacy”, with Brazil’s Environment Minister, Ms. Isabella Teixeira, as guest speaker.

But what kind of legacy has Rio+20 left behind? The following five issues might point us in the right direction:
The first part of this Legacy that we need to look at is our own perception of the phenomenon: Rio+20 has come to represent the consecration of a certain type of narrative on sustainability:

Media are neither innocuous nor neutral where climate change is concerned and, possibly influenced by the parallel forum, the so-called “People’s Summit”, held on the other side of Rio and which called into question the role of business as a provider of sustainable development solutions, the media mirrored discontent and ire in statements such as “Rio summit closes among criticism for the weak accord without clear and measurable targets”; “failure for want of ambition”; leaders “did not take on the responsibility to impose actions, targets and schedules”; the result is “an abstract document far-removed from reality”, and so on.

The role of the media is not being taken into account in the perception and the speed required for change. In response to O Globo, Rajendra Pachauri pointed out that “a change in perception, priorities and direction is called for”. This process of change requires a huge communication effort in which media cannot be content to stand in the wings. Basically, some media appear to be more concerned with dishing up controversy than presenting the cold facts, and this favors the climate change negationist fraternity, as pointed out in the recently published “The Inquisition of Climate Science” which deals with the role of the media in the face of climate change.
Legacy number two comes in the shape of the progress made thus far. We can safely say that Rio+20 was definitely not a place for people who like jumping to conclusions, but, nonetheless, conclusions there were, namely:

In the first place, Rio+20 gives us an overall document which, in the words of the WBCSD’s new Chairman, Peter Bakker “confirms that the world still has a platform for seeking out shared solutions”. He goes on to say that “had it not been so, it would have been extremely hard to convey a message underscoring the urgent need for sustainability and the changes required”. We’re making progress but, to paraphrase Bakker, “surmounting a global emergency by means of a multilateral process, which involves getting 193 countries to agree on a text, is something from which we cannot expect miracles”. As UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon said only a few days ago “this agreement is a triumph of multilateralism”.

Thirdly, Rio+20 acknowledges and calls on companies to play a relevant role in achieving Sustainable Development, and highlights three aspects of the contribution that can be made by the business community: innovation, collaboration agreements and advising governments with recommendations on policy decisions, as explained in the Global Compact document “Overview & Outcomes” on the conclusions of the Corporate Sustainability Forum, an event held just days after the official Rio summit. This second legacy, however, turns out to be a double-edged sword: although it recognizes the private sector’s capacities and resources for innovation, collaboration and policy recommendations and puts the onus of responsibility for them on companies, there is no sign of companies’ official capability to influence those policies and regulatory frameworks, without which any recommendation is just a waste of breath.

In the fourth place, the clear overlap of the Rio summit’s three relevant final documents: The Future we Want, the official document signed by heads of state; Overview & Outcomes, the document that emerged from the Global Compact Corporate Sustainability Forum and, undoubtedly representative despite coming out prior to the summit, the WBCSD’s Changing Pace. All three of them, using more or less decorative prose, call for and acknowledge the need for urgent action on climate change and the private sector’s relevant role, and stress the importance of listening to all the parties involved in arriving at policies aimed at implementing measures. This overlap takes the focus off private sector participation and directs it at Sustainable Development. It would be a good thing if these organizations were to work together and coordinate their efforts (they are, after all, the first ones to call for such efforts) and thus gain in efficiency.

Fifth, Rio+20 leaves us with the feeling that the call for collaboration between governments, companies and civil society and the trend among the more forward-thinking companies* to adopt initiatives and not expect too much in the way of major accords, is swelling its ranks and more quickly than appearances would have us believe, with more and more companies and organizations getting directly involved in sustainable development. In recent years, the number of companies with Sustainability strategies in place has grown four-fold. And so we come away from Rio+20 with the feeling that we could be on the verge of a sea-change and that there is hope for a real shift.

*In this case “progressive companies” are those which have committed to and defend a certain way of doing business and are convinced of the need to take into account social and environmental factors when it comes to exercising their responsibility, and which actively and publicly participate in favor of policy changes aimed at fighting climate change, ensuring a carbon-free economy and striving for a planet fit for future generations.

Related articles:

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Rio+20 | Leave a Comment »

Riominus20 – Chapter2

9 July 2012

This chapter concludes this brief look at the salient points of “The Future we Want”, the outcome document adopted at Rio+20:

47. Companies: the original document encouraged mandatory corporate reporting on Sustainability; the outcome document, however, merely acknowledges its importance.

84-85. Creation of a high-level forum: This is a step forward; at the Brazil summit the Sustainable Development Committee was not at the ministerial level. From now on, environment talks will be held at the political level rather than a technical one.

88. On the role of the UNEP: The UNEP will not become an independent agency, as initially requested, but some diplomats say that in the future it will go from the current 52 members to membership of all of the UN member-states, and that, although it is currently financed through donations, it will have its own budget set by the UN.

104: To ensure current commitments stemming from prior Sustainable Development summits, the original document called on countries to reduce the existing gaps regarding implementation; in the end, no specific actions on current sector-targets were decided.

139. Health: Call for steps to ensure universal health coverage. This coverage is referred to in the outcome document but the latter talks of its “importance” and makes no mention to health coverage as a “right”.

158. Oceans: Originally called for protection for the diversity of the high seas and international waters, as well as restrictions on fishing subsidies. The final draft mentions restrictions on subsidies. However, the intended reference to protection of biodiversity was removed at the last minute following pressures from Venezuela, USA, Canada, Japan and Russia.

193. Forests: The document originally referred to the conservation of forests and the fight on deforestation as one of the ways of achieving sustainable development. It was understood that through this recommendation, governments and international organizations would draw up concrete steps for reforestation. The final document recognizes that is important to deal with the issue but fails to list the appropriate forums.

238. Women: The document originally mentioned “women’s reproductive rights”. The final draft of the outcome document omitted the mention that in some countries the reference was to the right of abortion. The chairperson of the Global Fund for Women, Musimbi Kanyoro, spoke out against pressures from The Vatican to omit the expression “women’s reproductive rights”, which was finally left out. We cannot forget that the world population is on the rise and that, consequently, there is an increasingly greater demand for resources. These are two of the main factors behind Climate Change.

And finally, points 130 and 225. Energy: Although we’ve covered this issue previously, it’s worth stressing that perhaps as a result of pressures from OPEC member states, one of the critical issues, namely the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies, warrants no more than a paragraph and is banished to the Consumer section (22) when, by rights and according to logic, it should be included in the Energy section (130).
In the original document, in section 130 it was stated that “we recognize the need for further action to rationalize and phase out subsidies”. In the final document, however, it was replaced by “countries reaffirm the commitments they have made to phase out”. In other words, we go from recognizing the need to take steps, to countries reaffirming the commitments that they have undertaken.

Related articles:

Is it possible to double the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix? Rio+20-June16

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Rio+20 | 2 Comments »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.