The Global Climate Summit In NYC: The Divide Between Rich And Poor Countries

Per capita CO2 emission statistics

***

"As they seek to build momentum for a new global deal on climate change by 2015, the 126 heads of state in attendance are likely to find themselves plagued by an old divide....If history is any guide, the rich countries of the world will say how concerned they are about the damage their emissions of heat-trapping gases are causing. The poor countries — whose people have done little to contribute to global warming but stand to suffer the most from it...will point out that this professed concern never seems to translate into sufficient action." Justin Gillis and Coral Davenport in The New York Times.

Poor nations' climate-change spending needs will crowd out health, education funds. "Poor countries have had to divert large chunks of their budget to adapt to climate change and run the risk of crowding out spending on health and education....according to the report by the Overseas Development Institute (ODI)....The three countries featured...are heavily dependent on rain-fed agriculture and have all experienced higher temperatures and reductions of water sources consistent with climate change. All have invested heavily to adapt their farming and cities in the absence of promised international aid....The study exposes large funding gaps between each country’s proposals to address climate change and what is available." John Vidal in The Guardian.

Forget the national debt. The new budget threat is climate change, White House argues. "The White House is not just blowing smoke. The independent, nonpartisan General Accounting Office — which exists to monitor government spending — last year added climate change to its high-risk list....In the next few days, a host of administration officials are scheduled to hammer that point and to tout Obama's efforts to slow greenhouse gas emissions....To bolster the boss, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew on Monday will visit the Brookings Institution to argue that the nation can fight climate change and grow the economy, echoing a recent report from an international commission on climate change." Lori Montgomery in The Washington Post.

Video: New Obama budget chief Shaun Donovan's first speech focused on climate change's potential threat to U.S. finances. Center for American Progress.

Climate realities. "It is true that, in theory, we can avoid the worst consequences of climate change with an intensive global effort over the next several decades. But given real-world economic and, in particular, political realities, that seems unlikely....Despite these obstacles, a developing convergence of interests of the two key emitting countries — China and the United States — offers hope for progress....Both countries are moving forward with regional, market-based programs to reduce emissions....The linkage of such systems both within countries and across international borders holds promise as an environmentally effective and cost-effective approach to reducing emissions in coming years." Robert N. Stavins in The New York Times.

McKIBBEN: Breaking 25 years of stalemate on climate change. "The collapse of the Copenhagen climate conference in 2009 was a signal event in diplomatic history, calling into question the ability of our societies to act cooperatively in the face of clear scientific warnings. There is no prospect of anything much happening next week at the climate summit, either....But we've learned a few good things too. In the handful of countries that have taken the threat seriously, technical progress has been unimaginably swift....It shows that political will, not engineering prowess, is the limiting factor to our progress....The good news is that political will is something we can create. But only if we march." Bill McKibben in Foreign Policy.

KOONIN: The hardest questions to answer about the climate. "The crucial scientific question for policy isn't whether the climate is changing. That is a settled matter....Nor is the crucial question whether humans are influencing the climate. That is no hoax....Rather, the crucial, unsettled scientific question for policy is, 'How will the climate change over the next century under both natural and human influences?' Answers to that question at the global and regional levels, as well as to equally complex questions of how ecosystems and human activities will be affected, should inform our choices about energy and infrastructure. But — here's the catch — those questions are the hardest ones to answer." Steven E. Koonin in The Wall Street Journal.

ETSY: A bottom-up approach. "I believe we need to shift gears and try something new. Relying on national governments alone to deliver results is not enough, as the last two decades have shown. The real action on climate change around the world is coming from governors, mayors, corporate chief executives and community leaders. They are the ones best positioned to make change happen on the ground. Accordingly, we need to move from a top-down strategy to a bottom-up approach." Daniel Etsy in The New York Times.

ELLIS AND ELLIS: Trees offer a way to delay the consequences of climate change... "When a tree is cut down, it releases carbon into the atmosphere; when it is allowed to grow, however, it continues to absorb carbon. The environmental impact of forest conservation is double-barreled. The more we cut, the more we compound our problem, but conversely, the more that forests regrow, the stronger our potential for recovery. If we stopped deforestation tomorrow, the total power of forests would offset a third of our human-caused carbon emissions. Until we are prepared to wean ourselves from fossil fuels, forests are a stopgap that allow us to minimize the damage and save us from ourselves." Joseph J. Ellis and Peter Ellis in The Washington Post.

UNGER: ...or maybe not. "The cycling of carbon, energy and water between the land and the atmosphere is much more complex. Considering all the interactions, large-scale increases in forest cover can actually make global warming worse....Besides the amount of greenhouse gases in the air, another important switch on the planetary thermostat is how much of the sun’s energy is taken up by the earth’s surface, compared to how much is reflected back to space. The dark color of trees means that they absorb more of the sun’s energy and raise the planet’s surface temperature. Climate scientists have calculated the effect of increasing forest cover....Their conclusion is that planting trees in the tropics would lead to cooling, but in colder regions, it would cause warming." Nadine Unger in The New York Times.

Natural gas alone isn't the magic answer. Hal Bernton in The Seattle Times.