Not the way to do it:

Lies, damn lies, and statistics...

Generally a fair way of looking at the cursed things. However, sometimes you just cannot ignore them, when the source is reliable and the results are backed up independently.

According to the Global Carbon Project, emissions that were - up until the year 2000 - rising by less than 1% per year, are now rising by 2.5% per year.

From the CSIRO website:

According to the co-Chair of the Global Carbon Project, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research scientist Dr Mike Raupach, 7.9 billion tonnes of carbon were emitted into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide in 2005 and the rate of increase is accelerating.

The finding backed up the bulletin (#762) released by the World Meteorological Organization on 3rd November 2006, indicating that "In 2005, globally averaged concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere reached their highest levels ever recorded" and that the rate of increase was rising.

“Recent emissions seem to be near the high end of the fossil fuel use scenarios used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). On our current path, it will be difficult to rein-in carbon emissions enough to stabilise the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration at 450 ppm.”
Dr Mike Raupach

And this is on the back of the warnings in the Stern report. Whichever way I look at it, the word "doomed" springs to mind.

Trying not to be too skeptical:

I'm not a great admirer of the UK Conservative party, having seen the damage caused to the country by Thatcher's overly long rein.

The artificially green current leader, David Cameron, ranks bearly higher - cycles to work but has a car following him carrying his suit.

However, there was this on the BBC site:

Tory plan for business carbon tax

The Conservatives are planning a carbon tax on British businesses to persuade them to reduce their emissions, shadow chancellor George Osborne has said.

The Tories say the proposal would raise more money than the existing climate change levy (CCL).

Any extra money would be returned to businesses through other tax cuts.

This has the potential of being quite useful or total guff. Having not found any real details about the plan, I'm assuming that :

a) Businesses that pollute pay an extra tax depending upon how much they pollute
b) Businesses that don't pollute get some of this money back as a tax cut

However, the Any extra money line is a little perplexing. Does this mean all businesses get money back or just the cleaner ones? Also, what do they mean by extra? This all seems remarkably vague, yet they claim it will raise more than the existing levy.

Hero of the week:

Hats off to China.

Not only are they involved in the ITER fusion research project thing... to use its technical description... but they've also decided to build the world's largest solar power station in the poor but sunny northwestern province of Gansu.

And, in the end...:

The Nairobi Climate meeting has come to an end. I'm currently reading through the 5th article, trying to establish what they've actually agreed to do... apart from arrange another little get-together in Bali in 2007. Perhaps they'll go for Disneyland in 2008. It's a tough life being an environment minister afterall.

So, what have they agreed to do?

Well, hold onto your hats, the 70-odd environment ministers have agreed to talk about making further Kyoto Protocol emission cuts...

... But not until 2008.

... With no target date for actually making to a decision.

... Despite admitting that emissions need to fall by 50%. Now.

... And bear in mind that the world's biggest polluter, the good ol' US of A, has yet to sign up to the first Kyoto Protocol.

There were a few other decisions that appear to be even less helpful than the above. Which, in itself, is quite an achievement. Doesn't it just fill you with a warm glow? Well, eventually it will when we all get incinerated by spiralling temperatures.

Signs of leadership?

From the BBC:

Climate bill sets carbon target

A climate change bill will make the government's long-term goal of a 60% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050 a legally binding target.

The bill, outlined in the Queen's Speech, will also establish a "Carbon Committee" to ensure the target is met.

But it makes no reference to annual CO2 reductions targets, which opposition parties and environmentalists deem necessary to tackle global warming.

However, ministers said that they would "consider appropriate interim targets".

The legislation will also create new powers to ensure the target of cutting CO2 by 60% from 1990 levels by 2050 is acheived.

Nairobi welcomes the big boys:

Yes. The UN Climate Conference in Nairobi really gets into full swing today with the arrival of the World's environmental ministers for the snappily titled Dialogue on long-term cooperative action to address climate change by enhancing implementation of the Convention - or Workshop 2. This is when things will really start to not happen.

In theory, one of the main purposes of this conference was to discuss ways of reducing the emission targets proposed in the Kyoto agreement even further - which would be excellent. However, according to the BBC:

...delegates have failed even to agree a timetable for the completion of discussions on cuts beyond the existing Kyoto Protocol targets

Optimism is not running high.

Climate change is not just an environmental issue, as too many people still believe. It is an all-encompassing threat.
Kofi Annan

In the opening address to the delegates, the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan drew attention to the lack of progress - noting that Kyoto was a start but was not enough. Although not specifically mentioning any countries, when asked about the US, he said "I think it would be preferable if they signed the Kyoto agreement."

Tackling climate change is not a matter of choice, it is an imperative that must be addressed if we are to ensure the continued survival of life on our planet.
Kenyan President, Mwai Kibaki

Catching up:

While Blogger has been acting up, I've let slip a few articles. So, shamelessly ripping out the HTML from earlier articles, I'll attempt to assemble a reasonable looking summary of the recent comings and goings...

IEA Report:

The International Energy Agency (IEA) has published a report about future energy sources. The World Energy Outlook (2006) shows that the demand for power will increase by 53% by 2030. Assuming no change in the energy policies of the leading producers of CO2, we're looking at 83% of this increase being fossil fuel based. The alternative scenario, based on the concept that governments follow the environmental policies they are considering, we're only looking at reducing that enormous increase by 16%.

See the BBC Article.

UNDP (yes, another one) Human Development Report:

The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) has also published a report, generally pointing an accusatory finger at the western world. The gist is that developing countries are being left to face the consequences of climate change by, well, those largely responsible for changing the climate - us. The question is, is anyone in the least bit surprised?

See the BBC Article.

UNFCCC: Climate Change Conference in Nairobi:

Another month, another conference...

This gathering of the Kyoto enrolees will involve the discussion of new emission targets. This will undoubtedly amount to nothing if the US are involved in any way, shape, or form.

However, after looking at the less-than-informative coverage on the UNFCCC web-site, I did find a link to yet another UN group - The UN Environmental Programme (UNEP).

Now, much as I'm not a great believer in the abilities of the UN - any assembly comprised largely of politicians for that matter - to do anything constructive, the billion tree idea does rather appeal. The plan is to encourage individuals and companies to plant or sponsor the planting of trees - the aim being to plant a billion trees worldwide in 2007.

The official website is here. And you can pledge your intention to plant by going here.

Future transport:

Somewhat tenuous connection with the subject matter of this blog; in that, although it is predicted to use 35% less fuel than current airliners, it's a design study - even if actively pursued, it wouldn't be seeing a passenger before 2030 at the earliest.

However, as I rather like futuristic aircraft...

For a larger article, see the BBC article.

More UN agencies than stars in the sky:

The World Metrological Organisation (WMO) had this piece of good news:

WMO Greenhouse Gas Bulletin 2005: CO₂ levels highest ever recorded
(posted on 3 November)

In 2005, globally averaged concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO₂) in the atmosphere reached their highest levels ever recorded. The World Meteorological Organization’s (WMO) 2005 Greenhouse Gas Bulletin, published today, says quantities of CO₂ were measured at 379.1 parts per million (ppm), up 0.53 per cent from 377.1 ppm in 2004.

According to the BBC coverage of this press release:

"There is no sign that N2O (nitrous oxide) and CO2 are starting to level off," Geir Braathen, a senior scientist at the WMO, told reporters. It looks like it will just continue like this for the foreseeable future."