How to finance a global shift away from toxic greenhouse gases caused by burning fossil fuels was one of the key talking points during the first week of the annual United Nations climate change conference held this year in Lima, Peru.

The conference, which began Monday and is scheduled to end next Friday, started with a statement by Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), who said negotiators must draft a new, universal climate change agreement that will hopefully be endorsed next year at COP21 in Paris.

Figueres also said negotiators “must enhance the delivery of finance, in particular to the most vulnerable” as well as stimulating “ever-increasing action on the part of all stakeholders to scale up the scope and accelerate the solutions that move us all forward, faster.”

In terms of finance, the UNFCCC published a media release saying the amount of money earmarked for climate change action globally was at least $340 billion for the period 2011-2012, but possibly $650 billion or higher.

Support from developed countries to developing countries amounted to between $35 and $50 billion annually, the media release said, adding dedicated multilateral climate funds are set to rise with the recent pledges to the Green Climate Fund
 amounting to nearly $10 billion.

According to Bloomberg, however, Figueres said at a press conference that much more money needs to be raised to effectively fight climate change.

“Although these numbers are encouraging and give us a sense of hope, the fact is that climate finance needs to be in the trillions if we’re going to get to where we need to be,” she said.

Figueres added finance will be a crucial key for achieving the internationally-agreed goal of keeping a global temperature rise under 2 degrees C and sparing people and the planet from dangerous climate change.

Another major talking point at the conference was the release of a statement by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) saying that 2014 is on track to be one of the hottest, if not the hottest, years on record.

An accompanying WMO media release said the record high temperatures are largely due to record high global sea surface temperatures, which will very likely remain above normal until the end of the year.

January to October 2014 average air temperatures. Source: WMO Report

Those high sea temperatures, the WMO said, and other factors contributed to exceptionally heavy rainfall and floods in many countries and extreme drought in others.

“The provisional information for 2014 means that fourteen of the fifteen warmest years on record have all occurred in the 21st century,” said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud.

“What we saw in 2014 is consistent with what we expect from a changing climate. Record-breaking heat combined with torrential rainfall and floods destroyed livelihoods and ruined lives. What is particularly unusual and alarming this year are the high temperatures of vast areas of the ocean surface, including in the northern hemisphere,” Jarraud said.

“Record-high greenhouse gas emissions and associated atmospheric concentrations are committing the planet to a much more uncertain and inhospitable future.”

Other developments related to the climate change issue continued to occur outside of the negotiations in Lima.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon told CBC that Canada needs to become “ambitious and visionary” and quit stalling on setting climate change goals.

"It’s only natural that Canada as one of the G7 countries should take a leadership role,” Ban said.

“There are ways to make a transformative change from a fossil fuel-based economy to a climate-resilient economy by investing wisely in renewable energy choices.”

Earlier in the week efforts in Canada to harness the power of renewables became a prominent news story, as reported by DeSmog Canada, showing that clean energy provided more jobs in the nation last year than the oilsands.

Canada’s rapidly developing green energy industry has seen investments of more than $24 billion in the past five years while employment in the sector increased by 37 per cent during the same period, according to the report by Clean Energy Canada.

The 34-page Tracking the Energy Revolution — Canada report noted that there were 23,700 total direct jobs in the green energy sector in 2013, compared to 22,340 jobs in the oilsands.

Germany’s largest energy company, E.ON, on the first day of the Lima conference, created global headlines with an announcement that it was splitting the company into two with the largest share of employees, about 40,000, getting out of the coal and gas business and focusing entirely on renewables.

“We have seen the emergence of a new energy world,” Chief Executive Johannes Teyssen said. “E.ON’s existing broad business model can no longer properly address these new challenges.”

In the U.S., 223 companies announced their support for the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed carbon standard for electric power plants, including industry giants such as IKEA, Mars Inc., VF Corporation, and Nestlé.

“As businesses concerned about the immediate and long-term implications of climate change, we strongly support the principles behind the draft Carbon Pollution Standard for existing power plants,” states the letter, which was sent to the EPA, the Obama Administration, and Senate and House majority and minority leaders.

“The proposed Carbon Pollution Standard represents a critical step in moving our country towards a clean energy economy,” said the letter.

Also spurring headlines was the release of a Munich Re poll that showed 83 per cent of Americans now believe the climate is changing, and 63 per cent are concerned about changes in the frequency and intensity of natural disasters, such as floods, hurricanes, and tornadoes.

“Our survey findings indicate that national sentiment over whether or not climatic changes are occurring has finally reached a tipping point,” said Tony Kuczinski, President and CEO of Munich Re America.

The Associated Press also contributed to the pressing global conversation on climate change, saying that in the more than two decades since world leaders first got together to try to solve global warming, life on Earth has changed, not just the climate.

“It’s gotten hotter, more polluted with heat-trapping gases, more crowded and just downright wilder,” the AP reported.

“The numbers are stark. Carbon dioxide emissions: up 60 per cent. Global temperature: up six-tenths of a degree. Population: up 1.7 billion people. Sea level: up 3 inches. U.S. extreme weather: up 30 per cent. Ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica: down 4.9 trillion tons of ice.”

Negotiators in Lima will no doubt be discussing these developments, and more, next week as they work towards — as they have said repeatedly in the past — an ambitious legally-binding greenhouse gas emissions agreement next year in Paris.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Climate change is already negatively affecting every region in the United States and the future looks even more dismal if coordinated mitigation and adaptation efforts are not immediately aggressively pursued, according to the third U.S. National Climate Assessment report released Tuesday.

“Climate change, once considered an issue for a distant future, has moved firmly into the present,” notes the massive NCA report.

“Corn producers in Iowa, oyster growers in Washington State, and maple syrup producers in Vermont are all observing climate-related changes that are outside of recent experience. So, too, are coastal planners in Florida, water managers in the arid Southwest, city dwellers from Phoenix to New York, and Native Peoples on tribal lands from Louisiana to Alaska.”

The report adds evidence of human-induced climate change continues to strengthen and that impacts are increasing across the nation. The report says Americans are already noticing the results of climate change, from longer and hotter summers to shorter and warmer winters. Rain falls in heavier downpours, there is more flooding, earlier snow melt, more severe wildfires and less summer sea ice in the Arctic.

“Scientists who study climate change confirm that these observations are consistent with significant changes in Earth’s climatic trends,” says the report that was prepared by hundreds of scientists for the U.S. government.

“Precipitation patterns are changing, sea level is rising, the oceans are becoming more acidic, and the frequency and intensity of some extreme weather events are increasing.”

The climatic changes are triggering wide-ranging impacts in every region of the U.S. and throughout the nation’s economy, the report says, adding that while some of the changes can be positive over the short run, most are detrimental since American society and its infrastructure was not designed for the rapidly-changing climate now being experienced.

The report analyses impacts on human health, water, energy, transportation, agriculture, forests, and ecosystems. It also assesses impacts on the country’s eight major regions.

“What is new over the last decade is that we know with increasing certainty that climate change is happening now,” the report says. “While scientists continue to refine projections of the future, observations unequivocally show that climate is changing and that the warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. These emissions come mainly from burning coal, oil, and gas, with additional contributions from forest clearing and some agricultural practices.”

Noting that the climate is projected to continue to change over this century and beyond, the report says there is still time to act to limit the amount of change and its damaging impacts.

The report says U.S. average temperature has increased by 1.3°F to 1.9°F since 1895, with the most recent decade being the nation’s and the world’s hottest on record.

Temperatures are projected to rise another 2°F to 4°F in most areas of the U.S. over the next few decades. The report says by the end of this century, a roughly 3°F to 5°F rise is projected under a lower emissions scenario, which would require substantial reductions in emissions, while a higher emissions scenario assuming continued increases in emissions, predominantly from fossil fuel combustion, would result in a 5°F to 10°F rise.

Many scientists suggest that the safe and manageable level of global temperature rise due to climate change should not exceed 3.6 °F (2°C) above pre-industrial levels.

“Climate change poses a major challenge to U.S. agriculture because of the critical dependence of agricultural systems on climate,” the report says.

“The United States produces nearly $330 billion per year in agricultural commodities. This productivity is vulnerable to direct impacts on crops and livestock from changing climate conditions and extreme weather events and indirect impacts through increasing pressures from pests and pathogens.”

“Climate change will also alter the stability of food supplies and create new food security challenges for the United States as the world seeks to feed nine billion people by 2050.”

Water quality and quantity are already being affected by climate change, the report says, adding changes in precipitation and runoff, combined with changes in consumption and withdrawal, have reduced surface and groundwater supplies and increasing the likelihood of water shortages for many uses.

The report adds that climate change affects human health in many ways.

“Increasingly frequent and intense heat events lead to more heat-related illnesses and deaths and, over time, worsen drought and wildfire risks, and intensify air pollution,” the report says.

“Increasingly frequent extreme precipitation and associated flooding can lead to injuries and increases in waterborne disease. Rising sea surface temperatures have been linked with increasing levels and ranges of diseases. Rising sea levels intensify coastal flooding and storm surge, and thus exacerbate threats to public safety during storms.”

The report says that Americans face choices as the impacts of climate change are becoming more prevalent. It adds that some additional climate change impacts are now unavoidable because of past emissions of long-lived heat-trapping gases.

“The amount of future climate change, however, will still largely be determined by choices society makes about emissions. Lower emissions of heat-trapping gases and particles mean less future warming and less-severe impacts; higher emissions mean more warming and more severe impacts.”

The report may give President Barack Obama more power to deal with climate change, the environment and energy issues through administrative amendments during his last 2.5 years in office. On Tuesday, the White House issued a media release saying the report underscores “the need for urgent action to combat the threats from climate change, protect American citizens and communities today, and build a sustainable future for our kids and grandkids.”

Lou Leonard, the World Wildlife Fund’s vice president for climate change, said the report provides a pathway for Americans to choose a more beneficial future.

“We need to use this practical report as a guidebook for preparing local communities for extreme weather and other climate impacts,” Leonard said. “At the same time, we need to transform the way we produce and use energy, leaving dirty coal, oil and gas behind. There is no time to lose.”

Sierra Club executive director Michael Brune applauded the report and urged the Obama administration to promote clean energy solutions like wind and solar power. “We can create good American jobs and power homes and businesses nationwide without polluting our air, water, or climate,” Brune said.

Image Credit: Map showing consecutive dry days from NCA report website

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

With Enbridge’s Northern Gateway Pipeline project still in the assessment phase and the Keystone XL pipeline proposal awaiting approval from down south, the government of Alberta is considering the possibility of sending its tar sands bitumen north via a pipeline through the Northwest Territories.

With a view to exporting the estimated $30 billion worth of oil left in the ground every year due to the transportation bottleneck, Alberta has hired Calgary consulting firm Canatec Associates International to determine the feasibility of transporting tar sands crude to the Arctic before sending it on tankers to Asian and European markets. The province has already invested $50,000 in the process.

This northern pipeline would move oil through the Mackenzie River Valley to Tuktoyaktuk, a town off the coast of the Northwest Territories.

A pipeline north through the Arctic Sea could prove more dangerous than any of the pipeline projects currently proposed to travel across Canada or down to the American Gulf coast. Shallow waters off the Alaskan coast would pose significant challenges, requiring either dredging of the waters or extending the pipeline offshore so tankers could load up.

With no deepwater port in the Arctic and little in the way of spill response infrastructure, an accident would be even more devastating to the fragile northern ecosystem.

The history of industrial disasters in the region—most infamous among them the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill—paints a clear picture of what’s at stake.

Royal Dutch Shell demonstrated earlier this year the risks associated with drilling in the Arctic when its Kulluk rig, working out in the Beaufort Sea, came loose from its escort tugboat on route to Seattle and ran aground on Sitkalidak Island in the Gulf of Alaska. The company also suffered embarrassment when a routine spill response test failed after an underwater spill containment dome was inexplicably 'crushed like a beer can' during the exercise.  

The US Environmental Protection Agency also deemed that both the Kulluk and a second drill ship, the Noble Discoverer, were in violation of air pollutant permits during the 2012 summer drilling season. Both vessels allowed the release of excess nitrogen oxides into the air.

After conducting an emergency review of Shell’s operations, the US Interior Department demanded the company demonstrate to both government and an independent third party that repairs had been made and adequate safety measures were in place. A spokesperson for Shell indicated the company would work to renegotiate the terms of its permits rather than work to meet the standards the EPA has set for it.

The Interior Department also placed blame on government agencies such as the Coast Guard for failing to anticipate problems, an assessment that has left some to question Canada's preparedness as the Alberta government looks northward.

At the moment, no rigorous spill-response legislation is in place to protect the Arctic waters. However, in February, Greenpeace obtained a leaked copy of the Arctic Council’s long-awaited spill response plan, set to be adopted at the Arctic nations meeting this month.

Ben Ayliffe, head of the Arctic Oil campaign for Greenpeace International, says the document requires so little of the countries who share the Arctic waters—Denmark, Greenland, the Faroe Islands, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, the United States and Canada—as to be all but meaningless in terms of policy.

“No oil company has ever proven it can clean up an oil spill in ice. The agreement offers nothing whatsoever in terms of identifying how a company would stop and clean up a Deepwater Horizon-style disaster,” Ayliffe said in a press release. The document also failed to address how oil companies would be liable for damages should an oil spill occur. According to Ayliffe "serious questions" remain concerning how much input oil companies had in drafting the agreement.

The oil industry, long criticized for its disproportionate contribution to climate change, is now ironically reaping the benefits of new arctic drilling and oil transport opportunities emerging in the wake of unprecedented ice melt. With global temperatures steadily rising, routes in the far north that were once frozen year-round will soon be open during peak season.

A study by climate scientists at UCLA titled “New Trans-Arctic shipping routes navigable by mid-century” suggests rapid sea ice melt is causing major changes to Arctic geography. The two scientists combined multiple climate projection models and climate change scenarios and compared them to shipping routes.

The results predict new routes through the Northwest Passage, the Northern Sea Route and straight across the North Pole will be available between 2040 and 2049.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

What a difference a decade makes – especially when it comes to government-directed communications policies regarding science, and especially when you're in Canada. 

In 2003 a Canadian-American research collaboration, involving scientists from US universities and Canada's Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), began in the Eastern Arctic to track oceanic conditions and ice flow in the Nares Strait.

During its early stages, government rules regarding communication and publication about the project were meant to encourage scientific and academic freedom: "Data and any other project-related information shall be freely available to all Parties to this Agreement and may be used, disseminated or published, at any time," the agreement reads.

Now, under new restrictions imposed by DFO officials, scientists are prevented from sharing any information with a third party without the explicit consent of a high-ranking bureaucrat. According to the 2013 agreement, all technology and information related to DFO research, even if conducted in collaboration with outside parties, is "deemed to be confidential and neither party may release such information to others in any way whatsoever without prior written authorization of the other party."

For one American academic currently collaborating with DFO in the Arctic, this type of policy suppresses the free flow of scientific information and is a "potential muzzle." Andreas Muenchow of the University of Delaware is the avid blogger behind "Icy Seas: Scientific Musings of a Sailor in a Changing Climate" and fears the strict new policy will prevent him and other scientists from publishing about their project.

Under the new guidelines DFO managers decide how scientists like Muenchow use the scientific information they gather in their work, leaving the fate of scientific communication regarding the project in the hands of bureaucrats and not scientists.

After the January 29 memo outlining the new communications protocol was highlighted yesterday by Postmedia's Margaret Munro scientists like Muenchow were informed their work – if conducted in partnership with DFO scientists – is also subject to the new guidelines.

Any material prepared for publication must be approved by a DFO Division Manager before being submitted to an external source like a journal.

This document, released by an anonymous DFO insider on the blog Unmuzzled Science, details the new publication procedure:

DFO Communications Advisor Melanie Carkner originally denied any changes had been made to the department's publication policy after journalist Michael Harris originally reported on the story. Yesterday Postmedia's Munro reported Frank Stanek, manager of media relations for DFO, said the department was not prepared to comment on the rules.

Muenchow, in the meantime told Postmedia's Munro he will not be signing the new agreement that threatens his "freedom to speak, publish, educate, learn and share." He is currently working with the University of Delaware and DFO to renegotiate the agreement and today gave this statement to DeSmog Canada: 

"This is a very delicate situation for me to be in at the moment, because the proposed Confidentiality Rules as reported by Margaret Munro in the Ottawa Citizen, Vancouver Sun, and other Canadian papers are being negotiated between the University of Delaware and the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans as part of a Collaborative Agreement.

As such, for now, I would not want to inject myself any further into a public debate over policy, even if these policies have the potential to impact my work. I think it is in my best (scientific) interest to let the negotiations process play itself out."

Muenchow, like so many other scientists in his shoes will have to be extra cautious from now on in, to ensure his academic freedom escapes Canada intact. 

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

By David Suzuki

The Arctic may seem like a distant place, just as the most extreme consequences of our wasteful use of fossil fuels may appear to be in some distant future. Both are closer than most of us realize.

The Arctic is a focal point for some of the most profound impacts of climate change. One of the world’s top ice experts, Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University, calls the situation a “global disaster,” suggesting ice is disappearing faster than predicted and could be gone within as few as four years.

“The main cause is simply global warming: as the climate has warmed there has been less ice growth during the winter and more ice melt during the summer,” he told the U.K.’s Guardian.

Over the past 30 years, permanent Arctic sea ice has shrunk to half its previous area and thickness. As it diminishes, global warming accelerates. This is due to a number of factors, including release of the potent greenhouse gas methane trapped under nearby permafrost, and because ice reflects the sun’s energy whereas oceans absorb it.

With all we know about climate change and what’s happening in the Arctic, you’d think our leaders would be marshalling resources to at least slow it down. Instead, industry and governments are eyeing new opportunities to mine Arctic fossil fuels. Factoring in threats to the numerous species of Arctic creatures – including fish, seabirds, marine mammals such as whales and seals, and polar bears – makes such an approach even more incomprehensible.

Royal Dutch Shell has been preparing to drill in the Arctic, spending $4.5 billion on operations and lease purchases. But its record shows how risky this is. First, a spill containment dome failed a routine safety test and was crushed by underwater pressure. More recently, a drilling rig, which was being towed to Seattle so Shell could avoid paying some Alaskan taxes, broke free during a storm and ran aground on an island in the Gulf of Alaska. The disastrous BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 showed how dangerous ocean drilling can be even in relatively calm waters and how bogus the claims of the industry are that it can contain or even clean up a spill.

Responding to climate change and vanishing Arctic ice by gearing up to drill for the stuff at the root of the problem is insane. Unfortunately, many fossil fuel companies and governments are engaged in a mad rush to get as much oil and gas out of the ground – no matter how difficult – while there’s still a market. The ever-increasing devastation of climate change means we will eventually have to leave much of it where it is – or at the very least, substantially slow the pace of extraction and use the resource more wisely – if we want to survive and be healthy as a species.

In Ecuador, knowing that exploiting the country’s massive oil reserves will fuel climate change and cause massive environmental destruction in one of the world’s most biologically diverse rainforests, leaders are taking a different approach. The government plans to leave oil fields in Yasuni National Park untouched if other countries help compensate for some of the lost revenue. So far only about $300 million has been raised toward the $3.6 billion over 13 years that the government believes would make up for half the oil’s value, but the idea is gaining momentum.

The Guardian notes the money won’t go to government but will be “held in trust funds and administered by the UN Development Programme working with a board made up of indigenous peoples, local communities, academics and others.”

Ivonne Baki, head of the negotiating committee of the Yasuní-Ishpingo-Tambococha-Tiputini, told the Guardian Ecuador does not want to become overly dependent on oil. “Oil countries are cursed,” she said. “Developing countries depend on it so much that they do not develop anything else. It breeds corruption and the poor pay the price.”

With Arctic ice melting, Australia on fire and increasing droughts, floods and extreme weather throughout the world, it’s past time to get serious about global warming. It remains to be seen if a plan like Ecuador’s will work, but surely a developed country like Canada can at least learn that wastefully exploiting precious resources as quickly as possible isn’t the only option.

Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Communications Manager Ian Hanington.

Learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.