Dr. Lowman will be speaking at the Bethlehem United Holy Church in Durham, NC on Martin Luther King Day (1/17/2011).  Details are in the flyer below. (Click to enlarge.)

Reposted from ncf.edu:

Join New Topics New College for a visual tour of the places in the world most affected by climate change, from the poles to mountains and our cities, and some of the actions being taken to combat the warming, presented by Gary Braasch,  an explorer and photojournalist from Portland, Oregon. Braasch is an environmental photojournalist who creates remarkable images and important documentation about nature, environment, biodiversity and global warming. Included will be images from Florida and the Atlantic Coast, underscoring the local effects and dangers of rapid climate change.  Braasch recently reported and photographed from the Copenhagen international climate negotiations last December, and will offer his perspective on the direction being taken by the world’s nations in reacting to and reducing global warming. The talk will take place at the Mildred Sainer Pavilion (5313 Bay Shore Road) on March 9, 2010 at 4:00 pm.  Tickets are $15.  For more information or to make a reservation, please call the New College Events Hotline at (941) 497-4888 or email events@ncf.edu.

Tuesday, March 9 at 4:00 pm

“Climate Change – a Visual World View of Global Warming”
Gary Braasch, explorer and environmental photojournalist
Faculty host:  Meg Lowman, professor of biology and environmental studies, New College of Florida
Underwritten by the TREE Foundation

New Topics New College is a collaboration of the New College Foundation and New College of Florida.  This dynamic community series pairs prominent national speakers with New College faculty for stimulating discussions on relevant topics of our time.  A reception follows each program and provides an opportunity to meet the speakers, students and faculty.

New Flyer

With good intentions, delegates arrived from 192 nations in Copenhagen, Denmark last week for the UNFCCC (United Nationals Framework for Climate Change Convention). Their goal was to meet, talk, draft, edit and finalize a document to limit carbon dioxide emissions into our atmosphere, a resource that every country shares. Although the meetings were primarily political in nature, scientific underpinnings served as drivers to seek an international solution. It was generally assumed that the major powers would dominate the conversation as they usually do, and the rest would meekly tweak the agreement as it was drafted. Following conventional diplomatic wisdom, the expected result was a piece of paper with technical language and many signatures; yet as with previous UNFCCC meetings, a piece of paper can gather dust instead of inspiring political will. Without binding language and enforcement, no agreement on paper can guarantee actions back home. America is an example of a country that not only fell short but has also altered its emissions targets midstream. A major global time-bomb exists – How can countries negotiate a binding agreement that will actually inspire action by all the signatories, and will be quick because poorer nations can not afford adaptation?

Three elephants crowded into the living room at Copenhagen, not only taking center stage but also driving the conversations. These elephants represented emotion, ethics, and ecosystems. COP15 took on a new sense of urgency as small voices told their stories; as citizens around the world become aware of the imminent losses of life posed by rising emissions into our atmosphere and oceans, and as the scientific evident becomes stronger.

1. Emotions ran high early in week 1, when the Tuvalu delegation tearfully explained that their islands are inundated by the sea with every political delay, and that Mother Nature will not wait for paper-pushing exercises. This brought a reality check to the seriousness of COP15, and galvanized many activist groups into action worldwide. The notion of citizens losing a homeland their ancestors had occupied for thousands of generations brought a heightened sense of emotion to COP15. Other small-nation voices joined their outcry, and the AOSIS (association of small island nations) became a large voice at the conference.
2. Ethics has escalated, especially with the understanding of imminent tolls of climate events on poorer nations. African countries, lacking funding and technology face large-scale famines, infectious diseases, droughts and desertification, and ultimate loss of millions of lives. Their continent serves as an early-warning signal to the rest of the world – many extreme impacts of climate change are already apparent, and ironically, they do not have the energy technologies to adapt or mitigate. This gives rise to the ethics of developed countries. Should the United States pay for our long history of polluting the atmosphere? Due to the longevity of carbon in our atmosphere, he carbon emissions that Americans have emitted over the past 50 years will continue to drive up temperatures for the next several hundred years, long before similar impacts will be felt by China’s relatively recent emissions. In short, who should pay? US climate change envoy Todd Sterns, says “ American should not pay for those damaging pollutants released before we know their danger.” Other nations, especially those without economies that can afford R and D for clean energy technologies, disagree.
3. The third elephant in the room is the ecosystem science itself. The IPCC (intergovernmental panel on climate change) has released several reports over the past two decades, representing thousands of scientists, thousands of peer-reviewed technical studies, and thousands of hours of review. These reports indicate that climate change is not only serious, but that current trajectories put all species at great risk over the next 100 years. An interim report, The Copenhagen Diagnosis, claims that the IPCC reports are too conservative and that polar ice melt is occurring more rapidly, ocean and rainforest ecosystems have exceeded tipping points and are in serious decline, and millions of people face imminent death from water shortage, fires, and famine.

Amidst the deliberations and opposing arguments, I propose one creative solution to this stalemate. A large fund is needed to develop clean energy technologies. One thing is clear from the UNFCCC discussions: all the world’s people need and want energy. Energy is the key to rising out of poverty, and rising out of poverty is essential to insure education, health, and quality of life for all people. But, providing clean energy for 6.5 billion people is an enormous challenge. If we continue to rely on coal and fossil fuels, their emissions will destroy the very Earth that we inhabit. As the UK leaders said to the UNFCCC, “we would be like a parasite that destroys its host.” Clean energy such as wind, solar, geothermal, and hydro-power are essential to planetary health. But the challenge is time – the world needs innovative new technologies now, not later.

Perhaps the best hope of “Hopenhagen” is to create a large, international R & D fund to create clean energy, where each country contributes dollars based on its past carbon emissions history. (Hillary Clinton touched on the idea of a climate change fund in her recent speech at UNFCCC.) An expert team of visionary scientists, diplomats, engineers, economists, and innovators should be appointed to allocate funds fairly to qualified innovative energy companies and inventors. The committee should be comprised of at least half women (because history illustrates that they will get the job done)! The development of affordable clean-energy technologies will lead to greater equity between all nations and all people, lower our current emissions, and transition the world into a clean-energy era. Let’s find solutions today, not tomorrow.

How ethics underpins all of the UNFCCC decisions

“If ninety-eight doctors say my son is ill and needs medication, and two say ‘No, he doesn’t he is fine.’ I will go with the ninety-eight. It’s common sense – the same with global warming. We go with the majority, the large majority.” — Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor of California

: : : : :

For a typical mom in a rural village of India or Ethiopia, breakfast does not involve take-away Starbucks, micro-waved oatmeal, frozen waffles, or sparkling tableware extracted from an automatic dishwasher. Instead, it usually consists of leaning over a wood-burning stove for many hours every morning, inhaling pollution while cooking for your family. This scenario exists for millions of moms in India, China, South America, Indonesia, as well as Africa. While traditional cooking has a fairly small energy footprint compared to western cooking, it emits black carbon (otherwise known as soot). Two major ethical, economic, and ecological issues surround these cook-stoves: fire wood (a declining resource for many developing countries), and black carbon (a by-product of cooking with wood linked to health risks and global warming). The outcomes of COP15 may directly impact mothers cooking breakfast around the world, as governments strive to create policies to control carbon emissions on a global scale.

Black carbon, commonly called soot, results from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels or biomass such as wood. Common sources of soot are wild fires, diesel engines, wood stoves (or other bio-fuels), and agricultural burn-off. When soot disperses into the air and settles on surfaces, it accelerates global warming, second only to carbon dioxide emissions. But the good news is that soot disintegrates from the atmosphere after only a few days or weeks, whereas carbon dioxide lasts for centuries. So, the eradication of soot could slow down the planet’s current warming trends, providing more time to develop clean energy technologies such as solar, wind, nuclear, and hydrogen.

Soot has a two-fold effect on climate change – its dark particles not only warm the air but they also melt the ice or snow upon which they land. Scientific evidence indicates that black carbon may cause up to 50% of the Arctic ice melt; when the black particles settle on ice and snow, they reduce surface reflectivity and increase melting rates. Himalayan glaciers may lose up to 75% of their ice by the year 2020, accelerated by wind-dispersed soot throughout southeast Asia and China. In addition, soot causes lung disease in women and children who use wood-burning stoves.

Eradication of soot proves a “quick-fix” or relatively short-term solution to abate rising global temperatures as compared to the challenges of removing carbon dioxide emissions. Yet it poses enormous ethical issues. Should villagers in developing countries who use very little energy during their entire lifetimes (as compared to Americans and other developed countries) give up their stoves to pay for climate change? Nonetheless, the recent discovery of soot’s significance could also lead to win-win solutions. If developed countries take the lead to design technologies for cleaner stoves, developing countries could become the beneficiaries of cleaner cooking. And if people who use large amounts of energy contribute to the purchase and distribution of clean cook-stoves, this effort could buy time to enable new energy technologies to offset the more serious issue of carbon dioxide emissions.

Scientists and policy-makers at COP15 consider the reduction of soot a “low-hanging fruit” which can be plucked quickly to delay the otherwise dire consequences of rising global temperatures. What about a million-dollar prize for designing a clean cook-stove? It must be not only durable, but also produce food that tastes good to the users. Solar-powered stoves would reduce soot by as much as 90%. But replacing hundreds of millions of cook-stoves is no easy task. Still, energy experts believe that changing the cook-stoves of 3 billion people may actually be easier than changing the energy habits of 300 million Americans. What is ethical? Should mothers in India be restricted from their old ways of cooking, while American moms have been belching significantly larger carbon emissions into the atmosphere for 50 years? Who pays for whom, and how can the proverbial energy pie be carved equitably? From an ethical perspective, it does not seem acceptable for 3 billion people to eliminate their small energy footprint, when their counterparts in America have had an enormous energy footprint for several generations. These are some of complex issues under negotiation at the UNFCCC in Copenhagen this month. The outcomes will shape the world’s energy future; but more importantly, they may also foster sensitivity for human ethics as an underpinning of planetary stewardship.

As week number two unfolds, the “big guns” are arriving at the COP15 meetings — to inspire people, to create consensus, and — as everyone hopes — to lead. Featured speakers include Wangari Maathai, heads of all the Amazon Basin states, John Kerry, Arnold Schwarzennegger, Desmond Tutu, Al Gore, Tony Blair and ultimately, Barrack Obama, to name a few attendees that Americans will recognize. Other sightings include Darryl Hannah, Steve Schneider (and other IPCC leaders), Bingbing Li, Tom Friedman, Tom Lovejoy, Jane Lubchenco and countless other notables weighing in on “Hopenhagen.”

A presentation by American state governors featured one American, one South American, and one Canadian. Of note, U.S. state leadership did not play a large public role in the UNFCCC meetings, and very few states had prominent side events, booths or panels to discuss state initiatives. One notable exception was California, who had many state environmental leaders, climate change scientists, and marine experts visible and active throughout COP15.

On Tuesday of week 2, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger from California, Governor Serra of Săo Paulo, and Premier Gordon Campbell of British Columbia addressed a large audience of media, NGO leaders, and UN delegates in the Astra Nielson auditorium (most of the venues are named after notable Scandinavians). He was representing other governors from USA who have implemented actions without waiting for Washington DC. Serra spoke about ‘Friend of the Amazon’ where they do not allow illegal timber to cross their state border, improvements to transportation, additions to urban park systems for carbon storage, and most recently — the adoption of a Săo Paulo State Policy on Climate Change, that mandates a 20% state reduction by 2020 over their 2005 levels. This means a specific reduction of about 25 million tons of carbon emissions per year.

Premier Campbell paid tribute to Governor Schwarzenegger who has not only championed climate change in his own state but reached out to create other partners outside his state by saying, “Governor Schwarzenegger leads by example.” Campbell went on to mention that his province is hosting the winter games in February 2010, and hopes fervently that winters will continue to exist! Schwarzenegger pointed out, with the example of his mother-in-law Eunice Shriver’s creation of Special Olympics, that actions do not always need to be created by the federal government Governor Schwarzenegger made some inspirational comments, highlighted as follows:

“I have been to Denmark before… for weigh training, for movie launches, and for vacations. But I never thought I would get to Copenhagen as the governor of the great state of California, to speak about climate change.”

“The desire, the hope for planetary transformation is what brought all of us together here.”

“How do we make the world itself livable and sustainable?”

“Why do we put so many hopes and eggs into the one international-agreement-basket?”

“History tells us that movements began with the people, not with the government. While national governments are trying to figure out what Kyoto means, local governments and businesses are implementing green economics; citizens are adopting more sustainable lifestyles.”

“I believe in the power of the citizens, the states and the provinces to be the laboratories of new ideas, which the nationals can go and study and adopt.”

“By putting all of our eggs in one basket, we fail to see the eggs in other baskets.”

California is the seventh largest economy in the world, and so the Governor feels strongly that they need to lead in their green progress without waiting for Washington, Kyoto, or Copenhagen. He cited that California is limiting emissions from cars, increasing the state’s clean energy, attracting innovation and green technologies to their state, and serving as a leader in achieving more sustainable living. He feels that the developing nations can now leapfrog into a clean energy generation without relying on fossil fuels. He feels very hopeful that enormous steps are underway at local and regional levels. He does not feel too discouraged if COP15 does not reach a formal agreement – he reminded everyone that the conference is already successful just by bringing the climate change issue under global scrutiny.

He wrapped up by saying, “I would suggest hosting a summit of climate change for citizens, for states, for regional governments – and I would be happy to host such an event in California. The world’s governments alone can not make progress – they need everyone coming together and working together. They need the corporations, the activists, the scientists, the individuals – they need everybody out there. …. Let us regain our hope….That can be the great contribution of Copenhagen.” He closed by thanking everyone for their passion and hard work, closing with “I’ll be back!”

These three state leaders pledged to work together for new green economies.

Arnold Schwarzenegger speaking at COP15

Bellona Foundation, a premier environmental solutions-based organization headquartered in Norway, hosted a boat trip to view the windmills outside of Copenhagen on Sunday, December 13. This day was otherwise a “day off” for media, NGOs, and other conference participants. Heading out to sea with a fleeting view of sunshine and below-freezing winds, we braved the elements for this unique opportunity to see some of Scandanavia’s clean energy technology. On shipboard was Bingbing Li, World Wildlife Fund’s newly-appointed Earth Hour Ambassador for China. Bingbing feels passionate about saving the planet, and despite her acclaim as a film star (most recently in the Forbidden Kingdom), she is perhaps more excited about her new brand, L.O.V.E. with a mission of “responsible life”. Bingbing says, “If one day I ever give up acting, I hope to spend the rest of my life doing charity and environmental work.” Bingbing went on to say, “On behalf of people of this planet, I think everyone has a responsibility to do a little thing – it is not that difficult.”

Bingbing was accompanied by China’s winners of the 2009 Sustainable Innovation Student Competition: Xi Zhang, Da Huo, and Silva Shum. Xi Zhang and Da Huo partnered to develop green credit cards for Chinese banks, using fingerprints instead of toxic plastic materials. Millions of credit cards are produced around the planet, and they hope to eliminate this product. Silva Shum from Hong Kong has pioneered new ideas for reducing the lights of laptops and desktop computers, which use enormous amounts of electricity with no apparent benefit.

Frederick Hauge, Founder and President of the Bellona Foundation, kindly sponsored the boat trip for this international group of clean energy fans. Under Hauge’s leadership, Bellona is launching a new Sahara project as well as continuing their highly acclaimed work with Russia, Europe, and elsewhere working with both clean and dirty industries to help them work more efficiently and sustainably. More on the Bellona Foundation tomorrow, after they present their Sahara report at COP15!

Environmental Solution #3 – Engaging Youth Intellect and Enthusiasm

The youth are in Copenhagen in awesome and enthusiastic forces! Girls scouts, California activists, Midwestern voices, university environmental clubs, and organized youth demonstrators are all in Copenhagen asking for “Planet not Profit.” I caught up with Alec Loorz, Lynne Cherry and Gary Braasch – organizers of the Young Voices for Climate Change project. Lynne is a world-acclaimed children’s author of The Great Kapok Tree and other environmental children’s books. Gary Braasch is an equally notable name but as a nature photographer; his recent book, Earth Under Fire, is credited with galvanizing the American climate change movement among policy-makers. Alec Loorz, a teenager from California, founded Kids vs. Global Warming in his hometown of Ventura, California, bringing climate change to the forefront of local government and citizen science education. Alex gave an animated talk about his experience, and had an earlier public speaking launch at the Rio talks in 1992.

The main message of Young Voices for Climate Change is summarized in a quote by Shannon McComb, “If you adults won’t do something about global climate change, then we kids are going to take the reins.” Shannon is a Sierra Club environmental hero awardee who raised public awareness about a liquefied natural gas project in California. On film, Cherry and Braasch interview kids around the world who are working to educate about and ameliorate climate change. Their Youth program encourages kids to get their families, schools and communities involved in projects to reduce our energy footprints.

Their message is clear: If a million kids stop drinking bottled water and other drinks from plastic bottles, it saves 15,000 tons of carbon dioxide/year. If a million families drive 15 fewer miles each week, this prevents 450,000 tons of carbon dioxide/year. If a million kids plant one tree, after maturity these trees will absorb 180,000 tons of carbon dioxide/year. Their web site is: www.youngvoicesonclimatechange.com.
Check it out! Age is no limit on working to save the planet for future generations!

“We will restore science to its rightful place.” — President Barack Obama, 2009

: : : : :

In 2007, the National Academy of Sciences identified six critical environmental science issues that will drive twenty-first century America. These topics impact local and national economy as well as ecology, and their solutions will significantly enhance our quality of life. The six issues are: biodiversity, climate change, biogeochemistry (meaning the biological, geological and chemical cycles regulating our ecosystems which includes water), land use, infectious diseases, and invasive species. The last issue alone (invasive species) is estimated to cost Americans more than $160 billion per year, and most current control efforts are akin to the proverbial needle in a haystack. All of these issues relate directly to climate change, and our priorities for keeping the planet healthy directly link to the COP15 outcomes.

The state of Florida has the dubious distinction of boasting all six of the National Academy’s grand science challenges. In Florida — with our subtropical climate, location in hurricane alley, and high density of coastal populations, our landscape comprises a crossroads for these ecological bottlenecks. North Dakota, for example, does not suffer such critical threats from urban sprawl, invasive species, or biodiversity loss; and subsequently, their regional governments do not face the financial burden of paying for their solutions. Predictions indicate that issues such as tropical infectious diseases will hit Florida before they threaten North Dakota. So does that mean we should move to North Dakota? With all due respect to North Dakota, the answer is “no.” But it certainly means that Floridians need to be vigilant about environmental issues, and prioritize them for long-range planning and policy solutions.

he importance of investing in research and of integrating ecological science with policy-making can not be understated for Florida in the next few decades. It is sometimes easy to overlook the direct links between quality of environment and human health. A short-list of science “hot-topics” for Florida’s future include:

• Sea level rise
• Carbon storage
• Salt water intrusion
• Cap and trade
• Water conservation
• Biological field station
• Mass transit
• Pollen
• Adaptation
• Soil nutrition
• Mitigation
• Agricultural practices
• Climate change
• Mangrove conservation
• Air quality
• Locavory
• Noise pollution
• Science education
• Invasive species
• Fisheries
• Infectious diseases
• Aquaculture
• Land use
• Toxins
• Biodiversity
• Hurricane-proof construction
• Off-shore drilling
• Hurricane predictions
• Energy
• Weather forecasting
• Coral reef decline
• Endangered species
• Ocean acidification
• Home insurance
• Tourism
• Fire ecology
• Urban sprawl
• 2050 growth planning
• Storm water runoff
• Fertilizer applications
• Health and nutrition
• Allergies
• Urban heat islands
• Ecosystem restoration
• Beach re-nourishment
• Health

This list is just a beginning! While these scientific challenges put Florida at risk under ordinary circumstances, they also provide opportunities for research initiatives and solutions in our state: to pilot new clean energy, to find new ways to eradicate invasive species, and other projects leading to an updated economy grounded in sound science and technology. Most important, the outcomes of COP15 and the international agreements about carbon emissions will drive Florida’s economic future. A veritable testing grounds lies outside our door, if we have the vision to initiate new economic opportunities that seek solutions using science-based technologies. No other state boasts these six hot environmental science topics operating synergistically in its own back yards. As the old adage says, if you get lemons, make lemonade!

Dr. Thomas Lovejoy, biodiversity chair for the Heinz Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment (and honorary directory of the TREE Foundation headquartered in Sarasota, Florida) recently wrote about his scientific views of climate change in relation to the Copenhagen climate change meetings. This clear and concise editorial encapsulates the salient points about Planet Earth and how our biophysical machinery is under threat with predicted climate changes.

Dr. Lovejoy’s editorial:

The Earth Is Crying Out for Help
By THOMAS LOVEJOY

As national leaders and others assemble in Copenhagen for the climate change negotiations, the whole subject must seem a mystifying cloud of acronyms, numbers and data. But as important as all these are in crafting an action plan, they completely obscure the fact that the planet works as a biological as well as a physical system.

That biophysical system (the biosphere and atmosphere together) is the key to understanding the urgency of climate change as well as crafting a truly meaningful response.

Everywhere one looks on the planet, nature is on the move in ways never seen before by natural science. Species are changing the timing of their life cycles, and some are already moving and changing where they occur. We are beginning to see a decoupling of tight links in nature in which one element is cued by day length and the other by temperature. With the earlier arrival of spring, for example, snowshoe hares are now no longer camouflaged by their brilliant white winter coats because they are in snowless landscapes — completely obvious to predators.

Of greater consequence, ecosystem failure has begun to take place. Five percent of humanity depends on and lives within 100 meters of tropical coral reefs. A temperature increase causes the reef’s basic partnership between coral animals and algae to break down. With temperature stress, the coral animal ejects the alga and the ecosystem undergoes “bleaching events”: The brilliantly colorful reef essentially goes black and white as attendant diversity and productivity crash.

Similar ecosystem failure is occurring in the coniferous forests of North America as milder winters and longer summers tip the balance in favor of native bark beetles. In the United States, approximately 22 million acres are currently projected to be affected. It is an enormous forest and fire management problem. It is hard to project what the future of these forests will be.

The implications for agricultural ecosystems is equally worrisome. Australia has had to abandon rice as a major export crop because of persistent drought (an early manifestation of climate change). Dwindling glaciers and glacial melt threaten agricultural productivity in many parts of the world. Lester Brown, founder of the Earth Policy Institute, projects considerable difficulty in maintaining current agricultural practice and production in the face of rising global temperatures.

Vast as it may be, the Amazon seems perilously close to a tipping point. For some time a dieback of the forest in the southern and southeastern Amazon has been projected by one of the climate models, first at 2.5 degrees global temperature increase but more recently at 2.0. Recent studies that include the effects of deforestation and fire as well as climate change show the initiation of dieback perilously close — just years away.

Were that to happen, the loss of biodiversity, the carbon added to the atmosphere and the impact on people in the region would be horrific. The good news is that aggressive reforestation could add a safety margin and reduce the imminence of the tipping point.

The oceans, so important to us for seafood, have become 30 percent more acid because of higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. This ultimately will affect all the tens of thousands of marine species that build skeletons or shells of calcium carbonate. Effects are already being noticed at the base of some ocean food chains.

The living planet is signaling very clearly that current greenhouse gas concentrations are already too high.

So the challenge becomes not only to find ways to reduce emissions from deforestation (“REDD”) and other land-use change, but also to identify ways to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere.

Because all living things are built of carbon, restoring ecosystems on a planetary scale can contribute in a meaningful way. Actions that can capture carbon include reforestation, restoring degraded grasslands and grazing lands and managing agriculture to return carbon into the soils.

There is no single reliable number for the carbon capture potential of ecosystem restoration globally, but an ambitious program might reduce planetary CO2 concentrations by as much as 40 parts per million. That is the difference between current level (roughly 390 p.p.m.) and the 350 p.p.m. that is the upper limit for dangerous interference with ecosystems.

As important as such a reduction would be, it is insufficient. The chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Rajendra Pachauri, has called for a major effort to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere. A major research effort to examine additional ways to remove CO2 without environmental side effects must be a global priority.

This is generically different than most geoengineering schemes. Most of these only address temperature (the symptom) rather than CO2 (the cause) and hence are not a real fix. Further, the risk of unintended detrimental effects is inherently high because most geoengineering proposals are planetary in scale.

It is clear that the targets and timetables most nations are bringing to the table at Copenhagen are insufficient to safeguard the living planet and the biological underpinnings of sustainability.

The United States, entering late in the game, is proposing a goal that is but a 5.5 percent reduction below 1990 levels. The equivalent number for China is an increase of 253 percent and for India, 229 percent. Brazil’s emissions (without land use change) would increase 15 percent.

They can be a basis for meaningful discussions and initial lines of action, but only in a context that respects this planet for the biosphere it is.

Thomas Lovejoy holds the Biodiversity Chair at the Heinz Center and heads the Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel for the Global Environment Facility.

Saturday, December 12 marks the halfway point for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change meetings (UNFCCC) in Copenhagen, Denmark. At the COP working meetings this morning, the representative from Tuvalu tearfully commented to the President of COP, “Our future is in your hands, Madame President.” He was referring to the fact that his island nation is only a maximum of two meters (approximately six feet) above sea level, and will be one of the first nations required to re-locate in the next few decades with rising sea level. He reflected on the fact that deliberations of a few United States senators were postponing the fate of his citizens, and pleaded for a commitment of action by COP15 by the end of next week.

The COP15 meeting resonates with strong divisional voices — the LDCs (least developed countries), AOSIS (association of small island states), eu (the European Union), the emerging BRIC group (Brazil, Russian, India, China), and the most influential voice which is that of developed countries. Many of these divisional groups hold closed sessions, with the goal of developing one draft proposal representing a united voice. In addition to these governmental groups, there are myriad NGOs (non-governmental groups) that have created lose ties based on common issues: REDD (reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation), sea level rise, food security, youth for climate change, and other diverse issues represented by groups linked through on a common cause.

One of the emerging challenges appears to be the United States versus China, each advocating different metrics and pledges for carbon emissions reductions and each essentially hoping the other country will “go first.” This apparent impasse is the subject of many discussions among developing and emerging countries, who recognize the need for these super-powers to align themselves before an agreement will be meaningful. Consequently, despite the aura of optimism, there is a sense of frustration and hand-wringing at this mid-way juncture. It is hoped that draft documentation is getting closer to a serious compromise, and it is also hoped that different voices will align more closely with a shared pledge of reducing carbon emissions. All of this hopefulness has led to the slogan for the UNFCCC meetings, “Hopenhagen.”

Approximately six undercurrents that give rise to different points of view with regard to solutions for climate change at the Copenhagen meetings. First, rich versus poor nations are grappling with who should pay whom for what — an ultimately ethical issue about who has eaten more of the proverbial energy pie. Second, developed versus developing economies such as USA versus China have different perspectives that require resolution. Third, island and coastal nations are battling the timeline and lobbying for immediate action. Fourth oil-producing nations have different priorities from proponents of clean technologies. Fifth, carbon tax versus carbon trade all face trade-offs in their advocacy roles. And finally, there is the less defined role of emergency actions versus the “wait for political will” anxiety that pervades different groups present at COP15.

As the meetings enter their last week of talks, drafts, and data, the tension and excitement is building. The conference venue holds approximately 15,000 people and registrants have already exceeded 30,000 — hence, the morning commute for many NGO and media personnel involves waiting outside for careful scrutiny of credentials and head-counts. This morning, the line moved fairly quickly, with approximately a half-hour wait to gain entry to the conference center. In addition, the lines for the COP working group meetings are also long — NGOs waited for up to an hour to gain admission, while the Media did not have any wait for entry. So, the population dynamics of the meetings itself are nearly as complex as the climate change diplomacy itself, with predictions that the arrival of leaders from many countries next Thursday and Friday will truly stress the organizers and require extreme measures to retain order and efficiency. President Obama and other American delegates are scheduled to arrive on December 17. It is hoped that there will be a final draft of a climate change agreement for him to discuss by this date.