tip off

Doha(rd) 2012: in an aircon-loving state, more climate delay

The world is talking in the airconditioned confines of Doha, but nobody expects action that matches the science. Renew Economy’s Giles Parkinson reports from Doha.

The first slogan to greet arrivals at Doha Airport in Qatar are as optimistic as those that greeted delegates to the climate change talks in Copenhagen in 2009. “Welcome to 12 days that could have an everlasting effect,” it pronounced.

Not real catchy, and possibly a direct translation from Arabic. But worthy all the same. Sadly, judging by the lack of ambition, and the lack of progress of these talks, it’s not a likely outcome.

The second thing that attracted my attention on arrival were two payment booths at the exit of the parking lot. Barely big enough for one person to sit inside, they were each equipped with their own 1 kilowatt airconditioning system with a large hose attached, like a deep sea diver with an oxygen supply.

They probably need it. Doha is a city that thrives because of its fossil fuel riches and it has built a western city of stunning shapes and proportions only because it is airconditioned. It has even promised to aircondition the World Cup, which it aims to host in 2022 and will have to do exactly that if the competition is run in the northern summer, where temperatures average 36 degrees from June to August and have peaked at 53 degrees, and could hit good-knows-what in a decade’s time. (Even the seawater reached 37 degrees in 2008).

Qatar is one of a handful of Gulf states that deprives Australia of a most unwanted moniker — the highest emitting state in the world per capita. Australia gets the gong for the category of developed nations, but even it can’t compete with Qatar. The world would need more than two planets if it lived like Australians do. If they lived like the Qataris — the massive buildings, the labyrinth of four-lane highways that seem always often clogged, what must be the highest per capita penetration of Toyota Land Cruisers, and its need to desalinate its water — then the world would need around five planets.

Apart from high emissions per capita, Australia has a lot else in common with Qatar. Both are making efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions — Australia has its carbon price, a 5% emissions reduction target and a 20% renewable energy target by 2020. Qatar has a 20% renewable energy target by 2030, and has plans to build a major polysilicon plant to supply the global solar PV industry.

Both countries are competing — sometimes in football tournaments, but principally to export as many fossil fuels to international markets as they can. Qatar is currently the biggest exporter of LNG, and Australia is trying to knock it off its perch.

And therein lies the problem. Another less prominent slogan at these talks is “Not above 2 degrees”. However, the host country and Australia — the developed nation that some would argue has done the most in the past 12 months to push climate policies — are in a rush to exploit what the science says is unexploitable.

Numerous studies in the past few weeks have reinforced the path in which the world is heading. The International Energy Agency spelled it out in the clearest of terms — if the world wants to match its climate change rhetoric and limit average global warming to a maximum 2 degrees, then it will have to leave two-thirds of the world’s proven reserves of fossil fuels in the ground. The difficulty is that countries like Australia and Qatar — the Gina Rineharts and the Clive Palmers of the world, listed companies worth trillions of dollars — measure a vast part of their wealth by the value of the things they have not yet dug up.

Here in Doha, however, the difference between urgency of the need to act and the inertia of international climate change negotiations has never been so marked, and neither has the gap in expectations between the developed and the developing world, particularly the poorer and more vulnerable nations.

We’ve achieved nothing … and I’m very concerned. We’re fried.”

Surprise has been expressed at the rising tensions in these talks, which the developed world had presumed would be merely procedural, tying up loose ends from the messy negotiations at Durban and Cancun so a path could be cleared to an agreement forged by 2015, for a binding global treaty to come into force by 2020. Or course, this does not come anywhere close to the science. For the most vulnerable countries it threatens to lock in failure, and the developed world appears to have completely misread the mood of their negotiating partner.

Christina Figueres, the head of the UNFCCC (the UN body charged with climate talks), says each nation needs to “assume responsibility” but she doesn’t see much evidence. The US is hamstrung by a hostile Congress, Europe is hobbled by an indolent Poland, China and India are not prepared to make any bold moves until the developed world has acted on its “historic” responsibility, and nations such as Russia, Canada and New Zealand have simply opted out of the process. “I don’t see as much public interest for governments to take on more ambitious and more courageous decisions,” Figueres told journalists over the weekend.

The Qataris seem bemused by the whole thing. Climate change had barely entered the local vocabulary before the talks began — now it appears on the evening news in some depth each night, and the government even tolerated a street march organised by some recently formed local environmental NGOs. The government has a goal of accumulating globally significant events in the same way as it likes erecting spectacular buildings, but is said to have called in panels of experts when it realised the significance of the talks and the role it was expected to play as host and president.

Not that Energy Minister Dr Mohammed bin Saleh Al-Sada has quite seized on the subtleties. Asked at the start of the conference about Qatar’s extraordinarily high emissions per capita, he suggested that wasn’t important because it was the total emissions that counted. Qatar has a population of just 1.8 million. In a speech to the World Climate Summit yesterday afternoon, he said fossil fuels would continue to be the centre of the world’s energy needs and would still provide 80% of its needs in 2040. Gas (of which Qatar has lots) was good because it was cleaner than coal (of which it has none). So why should Qatar produce less?

And he is not alone in thinking that way. Even Scotland’s environment and climate change minister Paul Wheelhouse, who boasted of the fact that it intends to produce enough wind and hydro energy by 2020 to meet all of its energy needs, noted Scotland was also the largest oil and gas producer in the EU.

Wheelhouse told me later in an interview that the oil and gas reserves, which would last for decades, were worth $1.5 trillion. Gosh. So how did he feel about the IEA’s suggestion then, that the Scots should leave a trillion dollars of that under the seabed? His response was the focus on renewables was part of a plan to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels and delay the need for their extraction. But he was sure they would be over time, and they wouldn’t lose their value.

So far, only Norway and Monaco have made pledges that fit the science. “The offer on the table is deeply inadequate,” said Sai Navoti, lead negotiator for the 43 island nations that make up the voting block known as AOSIS. “How many conferences do we have to endure where we go back to our countries and say, ‘next year we will increase ambition to reduce emissions, next year we will see finance, next year we will save the climate?’ No more next years.”

Bolivian delegation chief Rene Orellane told Bloomberg: ”We’ve achieved nothing … and I’m very concerned. We’re fried.”

*Giles Parkinson reports on energy policy and the environment for RenewEconomy

25
  • 1
    Mark Duffett
    Posted Monday, 3 December 2012 at 1:37 pm | Permalink

    The doublethink exhibited by the likes of Wheelhouse is just amazing.

  • 2
    tinman_au
    Posted Monday, 3 December 2012 at 2:46 pm | Permalink

    People only believe in what they can see, and sometimes not even then.

    Then you have the “other lot” who believe in what can’t be seen because writings from thousands of years ago say it’s so.

    Humans are a weird bunch…

  • 3
    Hamis Hill
    Posted Monday, 3 December 2012 at 3:28 pm | Permalink

    Are those “Indolent Poles” like our indolent Pell, on this subject?
    Is there a religious connection worth factoring in here?
    For those who wish to save the planet; do they have to know their enemies and the planet’s enemies.
    If there is a religious dimension how does this indolence match up with the scripture; The Lord will bring ruin to those ruining the earth”>
    Paying attention there,Poles and Pells?

  • 4
    CHRISTOPHER DUNNE
    Posted Monday, 3 December 2012 at 5:04 pm | Permalink

    Short sightedness is never in short supply in human affairs, but the idea that we MUST dig up every bit of coal and extract every litre of gas now, is a classic example of it. Of course the way we’ve allowed the common goods of this planet to be owned by so few for their immediate enrichment is one reason why I can never completely discount the collectivism of Mr Marx.

    Just what is wrong with sequestering a large proportion of the fossil hydrocarbons for the future? They ain’t going anywhere, and god knows, we’ll find plenty of uses for them in the millennia to come. But unfortunately we are locked into extraction and combustion at the fastest rate technologically possible. And why? Because the shareholders and owners must pay back on borrowed capital now.

    It’s a vicious system. One in which we all suffer, and ultimately for the real benefit of so few.

    Meanwhile, renewables and nuclear sit by, unloved, under-capitalised, and we spew out more and more of the deadly stuff.

    Insanity’ is the other word for it.

  • 5
    Warren Joffe
    Posted Monday, 3 December 2012 at 5:12 pm | Permalink

    Having just read a couple of peer-reviewed papers that seem to suggest that the warming of the last century or so could be a cyclical occurrence which happens to have led to most of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere I am wondering which, if any, of the IPCC’s 7 models which can approximate what has happened in the last 60 years or so to varying degrees of accuracy, are supposed to be relied on when we ask governments to enforce heroic and costly measures. All of them, it seems, presume that fossil fuel emissions of CO2 are the main driver of global warming and that there is positive feedback from that warming then resulting in more of the main greenhouse gas, namely water vapour, which makes us warmer and warmer (except for 1998-2008 or thereabouts which worried the worriers). But are any of them more than ad hoc attempts to encapsulate most of the more obvious recent measurable variables in some sort of formula or model? Could any of them explain the major climate changes of the past? In short, have we got any adequate reason for spending money on curbing CO2 emissions rather than on any of the hundered other important ways government could spend money without more than the usual waste?

    Fortunately China seems to want to diversify its sources of energy urgently enough to make it likely to do more than all the worriers combined thanks to its huge numbers of bright engineers and rapidly reducing cost of producing solar panels.

  • 6
    AR
    Posted Monday, 3 December 2012 at 7:47 pm | Permalink

    ChrisD - “we’ll find plenty of uses for them in the millennia to come” reminds me of that great visionary & humanitarian the Shit of Persia who said, after the formation of OPEC, “Oil is a noble product, too valuable to burn” and he had a point; it can be used for dozens of purposes, from medicine to plastic to fertilser to foodstuff. Or it can be burned, once.
    The same applies to the gas we are virtually giving away whilst paying far more to use domestically.
    When it’s all gorrnnnn, it’ll be a fair old wait until more is formed.
    These talks about talks will kinda sorta maybe get into motion by 2015 and should have a rilly, rilly spiffing Magic Lantern show by 2020.
    No wucking forries though,just turn up the A/C.

  • 7
    Hamis Hill
    Posted Monday, 3 December 2012 at 9:02 pm | Permalink

    The drive for profit, as emphasised by Christopher Dunne, in turn drives the competition for borrowed capital.
    So at the base of all this destruction lies the demand that money produce a dividend through interest on debt.
    In short, in order to save the planet,( Warren Joffe’s doubts aside), the biblical injunction against usury must
    be enforced.
    The greatest planet destroying pollution is the expectation of Adam Smith’s “Idle Rich” is that resources and lives must be consumed to give them an unworldly “money for nothing”( and the planet and everything in it for free).
    So far perhaps only”Islamic Banking” enforces that biblical injunction against usury.
    Will Cardinal Pell’s “Christian Banking” save the planet, or is it that, as with the children of his church, no “saviour” is needed?
    The greatest sin of renewable energy, in this religion of mammon, is that consumers might become self-sufficient and so greatly diminish the demand for borrowed money and the unearned income available to the “Idle Rich”; incentive enough for the employment of mercenaries like Abbott and company to keep those interest rates high.
    Howard’s record on high interest rates, four times higher than the rest of the developed world, clinches the case.
    All argued more convincingly in “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations”.
    Why is there never any evidence, in all the various comments, that any of the present generations have ever read Adam Smith?
    Remember the crime of conservatism, like all other crimes, rests on motive and opportunity; how about a judicial inquiry in to the Idle Rich?, not one of them fans of Adam Smith.

  • 8
    fractious
    Posted Monday, 3 December 2012 at 10:24 pm | Permalink

    AR #6
    ‘reminds me of that great visionary & humanitarian the Shit of Persia who said, after the formation of OPEC, “Oil is a noble product, too valuable to burn” and he had a point; it can be used for dozens of purposes, from medicine to plastic to fertilser to foodstuff. Or it can be burned, once.’

    Quite. Most people’s reactions to discussions of ‘peak oil’ are concerns about the availability and price of fuel and impacts on public transport etc. Few remember that many of the “necessities” of modern life depend heavily on oil - without it modern methods of agriculture and medicine and nearly all the innumerable plastics we all take for granted (from cling wrap to carpets to clothing) would never have been invented. Life would be difficult with little or no oil to run transport, but those trials would pale compared to the other impacts.

  • 9
    pat drane
    Posted Tuesday, 4 December 2012 at 12:32 am | Permalink

    The Copenhagen circus was at least well attended by world leaders - who could forget Kevin07 and the drop in Obama??

    This talkfest is rated so highly that not even Combet has gone.

    Predictably there is a huge 4-6 degree warming scare screamed out before the summit to alarm the pulic and try to keep AGW scientists in jobs.

    Unfortunately the public does not trust climate science like that practiced by Flannery and other alarmists and has tuned out.

  • 10
    Liamj
    Posted Tuesday, 4 December 2012 at 7:11 am | Permalink

    The voluntary human extinction movement appears unstoppable.

    As temps rise we should hold ever more elite meetings, will help put us out of our misery quicker.

  • 11
    Person Ordinary
    Posted Tuesday, 4 December 2012 at 7:43 am | Permalink

    Without a global price on emissions, the dollar value of the fossil fuels makes burning them irresistible - regardless of any other measure. But with a global price, say one that rises year by year, the economics will automatically create the transition to lower emissions energy sources. No other policy is needed. No other policy is meaningful.

  • 12
    Person Ordinary
    Posted Tuesday, 4 December 2012 at 8:17 am | Permalink

    The major obstacle to getting a global price is the question of whether developing countries should pay the same price as developed countries. The developing countries argue that having to pay a higher price to reach “developed” status than others did is unfair. This is true. The developed countries argue that having to pay a higher rate now than the developing countries puts them at a competitive disadvantage. This is also true.

    What is the compromise? The magic formula?

    If the US and China could only agree on such a compromise, they could set up a world wide body to enforce it, regardless of the will of all other nations … Together they have the clout to create a WTO/IMF/World Bank style stand-over organisation, and manipulate energy policy just as brutally as those organisations currently manipulate global trade and finance. It is not ideal, and it is not what the Left have tried for a long time to achieve on the back of the climate imperative, but it may be the best hope for real action …

  • 13
    Andybob
    Posted Tuesday, 4 December 2012 at 11:15 am | Permalink

    Isn’t euthanasia supposed to be illegal ? Why should mass suicide be any different ?

  • 14
    Mike Flanagan
    Posted Tuesday, 4 December 2012 at 12:54 pm | Permalink

    Warern J
    Having waded through a considerable number of reports available on the net from universities, Met Departments, NASA, IPCC, USA, British and Aussie defence department etc, that are peered reviewed, I would be interested in the links to the papers you reference.
    Perhaps the COP structure initiated by the UN is not the optimum framework to initiate our collective reactions to what our best brains in the area are telling us. The initial emissions agreements, between twenty odd nations under the EC umbrella, to arrive at Kyoto, were a painful exercise.
    Maybe more emphasis to arrive at a collective decision could be better advanced by the UN, through the fostering of regional, and or, common economic groups of nations to negotiate among themselves.
    Cop 15-20 have, and are, all proving to be about political posturing and positioning for national economic advantages as perceived by groups and individual nations. They have all proved to be failures to create international mechanism to avoid what our scientists have been projecting and have left a good many of the public confused and disappointed by their inactivity.
    About all these COP gatherings offer, is a timeline to complete more studies and reports, all of which have been even more alarming than the last. It must be said these reports are valuable and the gathering number of reports from the economic(IMF World Bank) and accounting (PWC et al) bodies indicate that our financial sector (banks) are reacting in their business programs to these scientific reports. This could be far more significant than even the feeble efforts done by our political masters.
    While, Ms Gillard, Combet and co, should be congratulated for standing up to the vitriolic response of their political opposition it is clear, from the science, they have only dipped their toe in the ocean of dilemmas that climate change will cause, and require changes to both individual and national aspirations and practices.
    It is not just GHG we have to reflect and modify our ways to resolve, we only have to pass cursive eye of the implications of our destruction of the oceans, pesticide application and regulation and we can add innumerable industrial process and modern human practices that need to be reviewed with the long-term bio-implications in mind.

  • 15
    Rohan
    Posted Tuesday, 4 December 2012 at 2:58 pm | Permalink

    Mike Flanagan, why waste the time responding to a denialist brain dump?

    By engaging you implicitly lend them credibility.

  • 16
    Mike Flanagan
    Posted Tuesday, 4 December 2012 at 3:34 pm | Permalink

    In most instances I agree with you Rohan. But I do think that the more eloquent of this group that make assertion, using an undefined or nameless academic treatise to support their assertion, I think should be engaged.

  • 17
    Steve777
    Posted Tuesday, 4 December 2012 at 7:48 pm | Permalink

    It is clear that little or no effective action on mitigating the causes of anthropogenic climate change will be allowed until the effects start to impact on the profits of major corporations. At that time, business interests will start demanding that governments do something about it and that somebody else pays for it.

  • 18
    Person Ordinary
    Posted Tuesday, 4 December 2012 at 8:53 pm | Permalink

    @Steve777

    The way that “the effects start to impact on the profits of major corporations” is a global price on emissions, is it not?

  • 19
    Steve777
    Posted Tuesday, 4 December 2012 at 9:43 pm | Permalink

    Person Ordinary - agreed. A price on carbon and global arrangements to manage it makes perfect sense, as even John Howard and his team seemed to agree just 5 years ago. I was just expressing a view that it was unlikely to happen because of the powerful vested interests, including the Fossil Fuel industry, pushing to block or delay a price on carbon or any other effective action to mitigate climate change. And our Opposition, which will probably be our government next year, have decided to play politics with the issue for short term gain. Once they take government, Australia will resume the ‘spoiler role’ it played in international forums on climate change under Howard.

  • 20
    Person Ordinary
    Posted Wednesday, 5 December 2012 at 9:01 am | Permalink

    … it was unlikely to happen because of the powerful vested interests …” - Agree absolutely.

    So the only real prospect I can imagine is if the two most powerful vested interests that exist, the Chinese government and the American elite, consider that an aggressive compromise serves their common self interest. Unfortunately, this seems unlikely too - we may actually, in all rationality, be doomed.

    The only force that could overcome even those two heavyweights is public opinion, and the political will it could generate, but with the state of the media in both China and the West, we are collectively too deluded to demand any real, adequate action …

    Here, I can’t see the coalition winning government with Abbott at the helm, but if we do swing to the Right, we may effectively be deciding to commit biocide - kidding ourselves that even if we do nothing for a while, we can fix it all later …

  • 21
    Warren Joffe
    Posted Thursday, 6 December 2012 at 5:19 am | Permalink

    Mike Flanagan
    At the beginning of my search for the the sort of references you seemed to be asking for I came across this:
    ENERGY &
    ENVIRONMENT
    VOLUME 21 No. 6 2010
    at P633 “Clearing the Air on Climate” by Chambers et al.
    You may find food for thought there.

    I shall see if I can find what I had in mind when I originally posted.

  • 22
    Warren Joffe
    Posted Thursday, 6 December 2012 at 5:21 am | Permalink

    Also, there is this, which is presumably now published

    Accepted 7 May 2012 for the Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences

    Did the global temperature trend change at the end of the 1990s?
    Tom Quirk

    Still looking…..

  • 23
    Warren Joffe
    Posted Thursday, 6 December 2012 at 5:52 am | Permalink

    While looking for “Sources and Sinks of CO2” in a 2009 Energy and Environment paper I found this which at least has the merit of clarity from someone who is presumably a trained journalist:
    http://joannenova.com.au/2011/08/blockbuster-planetary-temperature-controls-co2-levels-not-humans/

  • 24
    Warren Joffe
    Posted Thursday, 6 December 2012 at 6:02 am | Permalink

    And there appears to be more technical stuff towards the end of http://www.climatechange.gov.au/government/submissions/closed-consultations/~/media/submissions/cfi/21-Fair-Farming-Group.pdf

  • 25
    Warren Joffe
    Posted Thursday, 6 December 2012 at 6:12 am | Permalink

    Before remembering another place to search I came across this http://aefweb.info/media804.html qv

    And if you want to read the first mentioned article you can find it at
    http://www.ipa.org.au/library/publication/1339463007_document_break_paper_apjas_ipa.pdf

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...