By John Vidal, Jonathan Watts and Suzanne Goldenberg

http://www.guardian.co.uk

Hopes for a strong deal on climate change appeared slim last night with countries so far failing to agree on fundamental issues and blaming each other for the descent towards a humiliating end.

Last-ditch efforts by the UN to get the 120 world leaders to at least commit to targets on temperature rises, emissions cuts and deadlines to finalise the treaty appeared gloomy, barring a late-night change in positions. With the talks stretching into the evening, some delegates held out the prospect of a weak, political agreement emerging, but on that would fall far short of expectations at the start of the two-week meeting.

The day saw successive versions of a draft agreement circulated with each version becoming less ambitious, until the evening when a slight increase in ambition was detected. Only weak, long-term aspirations for an overall global emissions cut of 50% by 2050 and an 80% cut by 2050 for rich countries appeared to be agreed by all. These commitments, and a pledge to keep temperature rises below 2C, were assumed to be givens at the start of the summit.

Officials suggested Gordon Brown would convene a smaller group of countries and ask them to sign up to a “plan B”. This might include the proposals for a $100bn fund for climate protection which the prime minister had first proposed. There was a “good deal of agreement surrounding it” he said.

An official said a plan B was possible because “there are not thousands of variables in this [negotiation], there are a handful. It is only the 2050 target and the issue of how to verify [emission cuts countries pledge].”

The two most serious stumbling blocks were demands from rich countries that developing countries should peak their emissions within a few years, and that the legally binding Kyoto protocol should be abandoned before a new legal treaty was in place.

By evening, no commitments were being sought for any of the major areas of dispute, such as a mid-term 2020 target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The European Union’s plan to raise its pledge from a 20% cut to 30% cut in emissions by 2020 was being blocked, dashing hopes of prompting a series on increased offers from other nations. One version of the text even dropped a deadline for reaching a legally binding treaty by the end of 2010. At the start of the week Gordon Brown was insisting that six months was the maximum acceptable delay.

A financial package intended to raise billions of dollars to help poor countries to adapt to climate change and develop green technology was also in doubt as rich countries declined to guarantee the money, simply affirming that they “supported a goal of mobilising $100bn by 2020″.

The lack of ambition and near total absence of commitment from the leaders is a bitter disappointment for the British prime minister, Gordon Brown, and the UK government which has led worldwide efforts to forge an ambitious, legally binding global agreement to stop the rise in carbon emissions by 2020 and reduce them dramatically in the following 30 years.

Negotiators will now continue to work on individual agreements like deforestation, technology, finance but without strong political leadership it could take years to complete.

Hopes that Barack Obama would deploy his authority as the leader of the world’s largest economy — and his political charisma — to try to broker a last-minute deal were also frustrated. A visibly angry Obama told world leaders that it was past time for them to come to an agreement. “The time for talk is over,” he said.

But Obama did not offer any new pledges of action — either in increased emissions cuts or clarity on America’s contributions to a climate fund for poor countries. He also held the line against China, saying America would not yield on the vexed issue of measuring and verifying emissions cuts promised by developing countries.

“I don’t know how you have an international agreement where you don’t share information and ensure we are meeting our commitments,” he said. “That doesn’t make sense. That would be a hollow victory.”

Chinese premier Wen Jiabao was said to be very offended by Obama’s speech, in which the president made a point of reminding the delegates that America was the only second largest polluter – after China.

Wen told the summit that developed nations had failed to live up to their Kyoto protocol promises and have now set new emissions targets that fall considerably short of the expectations of the international community.

“It is important to honour the commitments already made and take real action,” he said in a defiant speech. “One action is more useful than a dozen programmes. We should give people hope by taking credible actions.” However, late in the evening Obama and Wen were expected to talk again.

The dismal mood inside the conference centre reflected the failure to deliver the strong political deal promised by leaders. Yesterday was originally the deadline for a legally binding treaty. Hopes of that vanished months ago, but reaching political agreement in all the major areas in Copenhagen was seen as essential.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/18/copenhagen-treaty-failure

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8412483.stm

By Richard Black

http://news.bbc.co.uk

Negotiations at the UN climate summit have been suspended after developing countries withdrew their co-operation. Delegations were angry at what they saw as moves by the Danish host government to sideline talks on more emission cuts under the Kyoto Protocol.

As news spread around the conference centre, activists chanted “We stand with Africa – Kyoto targets now”.

But talks between the parties were expected to resume in the afternoon and informal discussions continue.

The countries that have suspended co-operation are those which make up the G77-China bloc of 130 nations. These range from wealthy countries such as South Korea, to some of the poorest states in the world.

The G77-China bloc speaks for developing countries in the climate change negotiation process.

Blocs representing poor countries vulnerable to climate change have been adamant that rich nations must commit to emission cuts beyond 2012 under the Kyoto Protocol.

But the EU and the developed world in general has promoted the idea of an entirely new agreement, replacing the protocol.

Developing countries fear they would lose many of the gains they made when the Kyoto agreement was signed in 1997.

They point out that the Kyoto Protocol is the only international legally binding instrument that has curbed carbon emissions, and also that it contains functioning mechanisms for bringing development benefits to poor countries such as money for investment in clean energy projects.

Previously during this meeting – formally called the Conference of the Parties (COP) 15 – developing countries have accused the Danish chairs of ignoring their concerns.

G77-China chief negotiator Lumumba Di-Aping explained why the bloc had taken the decision to withdraw its co-operation.

“It has become clear that the Danish presidency – in the most undemocratic fashion – is advancing the interests of the developed countries at the expense of the balance of obligations between developed and developing countries,” he told BBC Radio 4’s The World at One programme.

“The mistake they are doing now has reached levels that cannot be acceptable from a president who is supposed to be acting and shepherding the process on behalf of all parties.”

Last week, the Pacific island nation of Tuvalu forced a suspension after insisting that proposals to amend the UN climate convention and Kyoto Protocol be debated in full.

‘Losing time’

At a news conference earlier in the day, UK Climate Secretary Ed Miliband said that for the developed world to commit to further cuts under the Kyoto Protocol would be “irresponsible for the climate”.

He said it would leave some of the world’s biggest emitters without targets for cutting emissions.

Many developing countries have been arguing for a “twin track” approach, whereby countries with existing targets under the Kyoto Protocol (all developed nations except the US) stay under that umbrella, with the US and major developing economies making their carbon pledges under a new protocol.

Kim Carstensen, director of the global climate initiative with environment group WWF, said that much more movement was needed on the Kyoto Protocol negotiations here.

“The point is being made very loudly that African countries and the wider G77 bloc will not accept non-action on the Kyoto Protocol, and they’re really afraid that a deal has been stitched up behind their backs,” he told BBC News.

While understanding the G77 position, he said the suspension could affect progress towards a deal.

“We’re losing time, and that’s a serious matter; because for every minute we lose on one issue, the chances of getting to the bottom of the next issue diminish.”

The Danish government has yet to make any formal response; but Australian Climate Minister Penny Wong described the suspension as “regrettable”.

Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the UN climate change convention, predicted that the negotiations would get back on track in the early afternoon.

“The vast majority of countries here want to see the continuation of the Kyoto Protocol,” he said.

“I’m not aware that any countries are trying to block anything.”

An African bloc walkout during prepatory talks in Barcelona in November proved unpopular with other developing countries, in particular some small island nations.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8411898.stm

by Leo Hickman

http://www.guardian.co.uk

Scaring kids might not be the best approach, but we shouldn’t avoid talking about ’scary’ subjects with children altogether.

During the four decades since its inception, Sesame Street has introduced some pretty challenging subjects to its young audience – death, AIDS, adoption. It has even recently talked about the impact of the ongoing recession on family life.

But there’s one topic that will not be raised, according to Rosemarie Truglio, vice president of research and education at Sesame Workshop, the New York-based charity that produces Sesame Street – and that’s global warming. It’s just “too scary” for kids, apparently.

At a press conference earlier this week to announce the launch of a two-year, environmental “curriculum” on the show called My World is Green and Growing, Truglio said:

“Global warming and deforestation – those are really adult concepts, and it’s just too scary for children … The place we’re coming from is, ‘Let’s love and care for the Earth, because it’s so beautiful, and we appreciate its awe and wonder, and we’re going to respect it … When you love something, you want to take care of it.”

As I wrote earlier this year, I’ve long been intrigued to know what the right age is to start introducing the difficult subject of climate change to children. Sesame Street is aimed at three- to five-year-olds and, personally, I think Truglio has got it about right. With children at such a tender age, it’s probably best to start off by getting them interested in the natural world around them and to elicit a basic sense of respect, rather than wade in straight away with the heavy stuff about greenhouse gases and the like.

But I also think we need to be wary about believing that some subjects are just “too scary” to tell children about. My reasoning for not introducing climate change to children is more based on the fact that it is conceptually quite a complex subject to take in – for most adults, let alone three-year-olds.

And as Frank Carson says: “It’s the way you tell ‘em!”

Last month, more than 200 complaints were filed with the Advertising Standards Authority after the Department of Energy and Climate Change produced an Act on C02 advert which suggested that pets might drown as a result of climate change. Scaring people might not always be the best way to convince people of your argument – as many environmentalists are belatedly now recognising – but that shouldn’t mean, therefore, that we avoid talking about “scary” subjects with children altogether.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/green-living-blog/2009/nov/11/global-warming-seame-street

by David Shukman

http://news.bbc.co.uk

The Arctic Ocean could be largely ice-free and open to shipping during the summer in as little as ten years’ time, a top polar specialist has said.

“It’s like man is taking the lid off the northern part of the planet,” said Professor Peter Wadhams, from the University of Cambridge.

Professor Wadhams has been studying the Arctic ice since the 1960s.

He was speaking in central London at the launch of the findings of the Catlin Arctic Survey.

The expedition trekked across 435km of ice earlier this year.

Led by explorer Pen Hadow, the team’s measurements found that the ice-floes were on average 1.8m thick – typical of so-called “first year” ice formed during the past winter and most vulnerable to melting.

The survey route – to the north of Canada – had been expected to cross areas of older “multi-year” ice which is thicker and more resilient.

When the ridges of ice between floes are included, the expedition found an average thickness of 4.8m.

Professor Wadhams said: “The Catlin Arctic Survey data supports the new consensus view – based on seasonal variation of ice extent and thickness, changes in temperatures, winds and especially ice composition – that the Arctic will be ice-free in summer within about 20 years, and that much of the decrease will be happening within 10 years.

“That means you’ll be able to treat the Arctic as if it were essentially an open sea in the summer and have transport across the Arctic Ocean.”

According to Professor Wadhams, faster shipping and easier access to oil and gas reserves were among short-term benefits of the melting.

But in the longer-term, losing a permanent feature of the planet risked accelerated warming, changing patterns of circulation in the oceans and atmosphere, and having unknown effects on ecosystems through the acidification of waters.

Pen Hadow and his companions Ann Daniels and Martin Hartley endured ferocious weather – including a wind chill of minus 70 – delayed resupply flights and starvation rations during the expedition from 1 March to 7 May.

When I met them on the ice, as part of a BBC team that joined the pick-up flight, all three had lost weight and were evidently tired from the ordeal.

The expedition had been blighted by equipment failures. A pioneering radar system, designed to measure the ice while being dragged over the ice, broke down within days. Another device to measure the water beneath the ice never functioned at all.

A planet transformed

The technical breakdowns forced the team to rely on hand-drilling through the ice which slowed progress and meant the team’s planned destination of the North Pole had to be abandoned.

Pen Hadow admitted that the expedition had not led to “a giant leap forward in understanding” but had been useful as an incremental step in the science of answering the key questions about the Arctic.

His view was backed by Professor Wadhams who said the expedition had provided information about the ice that was not available from satellites and that no submarines had been available to science at that time either.

Pen Hadow said he was shocked by the image of how “in my lifetime we’re looking at changing how the planet looks from space.”

He also described how polar explorers were having to change their methods from the days when sledges could be pulled by dogs over the ice.

“Dogs can swim but they can’t tow a sledge through water which is what’s needed now.”

“Now we have to wear immersion suits and swim and we need sledges that can float. I can foresee needing sledges that are more like canoes that you also pull over the ice.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8307272.stm