Technologies in a changing climate
Climate change for a long time now has stopped being a question of ‘if…’ and more a matter of ‘how much’ (and the answer to that currently isn’t very nice).
To deal with this, enter technologies. They fall into three categories:
1) Mitigation – reducing emission from human activities, from home efficiency devices to renewables and nuclear energy;
2) Adaptation – ways of dealing with the impacts of varying rainfall, temperature, sea level rise and increased frequency and magnitude of disaster events. Most urgent for the poorest groups and those in low lying states where the most vulnerability lies, but planning is also under way for London, Durban, and other developed cities.
3) Geo-engineering – large and unproven projects to remove carbon from the atmosphere or reflect the solar radiation. Includes; ocean iron fertilization projects; mirrors in space; pipes; dreams.
Arguably, the most iconic climate change related technology is the wind turbine, used for clean energy generation. Less is known about the possibility of mirrors in space, and probably for the best. But adaptation technologies are equally mysterious for many people in developed countries. This is springs from a lack of awareness that people in developing countries feel climate change most acutely – “first and worst”.
Nevertheless, adaptation is happening spontaneously as people respond to the altered conditions they find in their area. Technologies, whether used to diversify livelihoods or protect assets, can make this easier, but people will also have to adapt their technologies in order to keep them appropriate.
Enter climate uncertainty – not knowing precisely how climate change will manifest in a specific area over the next two-three decades – and you have a problem that requires new ways of thinking about technology and a new way of doing development.
Today’s Geek Club (Practical Action’s online discussion forum) from 10am to 4pm will discuss the issues of technology for adaptation. This is set against the back drop of the current round of climate negotiations in Durban, South Africa, where countries are discussing proposals for ‘technology transfer’ to developing countries to support adaptation. Come and join us as we consider the how, what, and why not of adapting to climate change.
No Comments » | Add your commentNeotiating on adaptation, and discussing on agriculture here in Durban
I am feeling more positive than I expected to feel, about progress here, at least on adaptation. Discussions are still continuing on what should be written into the decision text on national adaptation planning. A decision on the Adaptation Committee, a new body that will have a significant role in overseeing adaptation at the national level in developing countries, is likely to be left for ministers to decide in terms of who will be on the committee – whether mainly experts in adaptation, and whether a majority from developing countries, and whether to have representatives from civil socieity as well. To keep positive I keep my head down, focusing on adaptation, as the discussions on addressing the desperate need to cut emissions are STILL not progressing much.
Meanwhile, I have also had a lot of opportunities to discuss how we need to change our global food production system towards one focused on an ecological approach – to strengthen resilience of small farmers, to strengthen ecosystems eroded by industrial agriculture, and to reduce the emissions created by intensive monocultures fed by chemical fertilisers. Yesterday I gave a presentation which will be put onto the web, and today I facilitated a wide ranging discussion between around 35 people from many organisations, including the World Food Programme – and we were all of a similar mind on the need for agriculture change, and the need to be vigilant, and mount a counter attach on teh strong lobbies of the agriculture industry and the rhetoric of teh World Bank, on what they call Climate Smart Agriculture. The rhetoric sounds quite good – but the money is not going to support the smallholders as they imply, but the opportunities for developing carbon markets in agriculture.
It’s great to find so many organisations who think along the same lines as Practical Action, both in the north and in the south, and to be able to work with them here to campaign for change.
No Comments » | Add your commentUN climate talks – UK – 60 by 30?
Yesterday though, I felt relatively proud to be a ‘Brit’.
- Firstly, the UK Committee on Climate Change called for the UK to raise the global bar – by setting the target of reducing UK emissions by 60% by 2030. It’s bold and ambitious but let’s hope our government listens to the advice from the Committee set up to … advise them on climate targets.
- Secondly, having attended a session with the UK’s Sir Nicholas Stern – an inspiring tour de force in the field – I’m more clear than ever that the neccessity to cut carbon emissions is also hugely desirable.
In his words,’ … we are talking about a new industrial revolution, transforming the way we see and do things. It’s time we started looking at the opportunities rather than the costs’.
The task is huge – essentially to almost halve the carbon emissions of each person in the next decade (from 7 tonnes to 4) - but it’s this change of spirit, focusing on the positives, which will be the power behind the new industrial revolution.
UN Climate talks – ‘if you can’t be with the one you love, love the one you’re with’?
I’m a romantic and an optimist.
I don’t believe you should settle for second best and I hold the same principle for the UN climate talks.
We all desperately want Cancun to be a success – it’s in the best interests of every one of the 6 billion of us on the planet.
So, Practical Action, with over 200 other NGOs is pushing to ensure that, at the very least, a fair ‘Global Climate Fund’ is launched during the negotiations. A tangible sign of progress.
However, in the rush to see the Fund established it’s crucial that it delivers in the best way possible for poor communities. The spirit of ‘if you can’t be with the one you love, love the one you’re with’ cannot apply here.
The Fund has to be fair and should therefore cover the following:
1) The Fund needs to be managed under the UN process
2) It should be the ‘one stop shop’ for the vast majority of funds for climate change
3) 50% of all money through the Fund must be for climate adaptation
4) Its Board cannot be donor dominated – developing country voices must be heard
A fair Fund is overdue. Now is the time to deliver for the world’s poorest people.
Helen
Campaigns
No Comments » | Add your commentUN Climate talks – … and the survey says …
Yes, that’s right, I’m alluding to the popular Saturday night gameshow, ‘Family MISfortunes’.
Communications giant, Ogilvy, commissioned a survey on the attitudes of attendees at the UN Climate talks in Cancun. The results made for interesting reading so I thought I’d share a few with you:
- 56% of people interviewed believe that irreversible climate harm has now been caused
- The majority of people interviewed believe that efforts to limit human influence on climate change are at a standstill
- 83% of those questioned agree that climate change will only be addressed once countries are suffering real consequences
It’s the last statistic which startled me most.
Countries are suffering real consequences, right now.
Farmers in Sri Lankan paddy fields, Alpaca herders in the high Andes and fisherfolk in Bangladesh (to name just a few) are feeling the effects of our changing climate and have done for a number of years.
In fact, Practical Action only started focusing on climate change because the communities we work with made us take notice and challenged us to help them to adapt.
So it’s time for us to get real and start recognising that the time to act on climate change is now. Sod the survey results – the women, men and children across developing countries cannot wait …
Helen
Campaigns
3 Comments » | Add your commentFrustrations in Cancun
Cancun is a pretty depressing place to be if you want to save the planet from humanity’s destructive tendencies. More than 100 hotels stand cheek by jowl along a dual carriageway; the white sands and blue sea are beautiful – but have been created by destruction of the mangroves, which were valuable ecosystems protecting the coast and fisheries. The climate is warm but not too hot, yet the conference centre is so air-conditioned that some of us have developed chills, coming without clothes warm enough to cope with the change of temperature from outside to inside.
In the conference centre, the tasteless food is heavily packaged, with concessions to the environment only in the biodegradability of the plastic and cardboard. Recycling bins request ‘concern for the environment’ while in the negotiations, this concern is far from uppermost in the minds of most of the delegates. Not only have we flown across the world to get here, but the logistics mean that we have to travel around 20 km to get to the security gateway for the conference, and a further 18km return (by special bus) to reach the grotesquely extravagant hotel where the actual negotiations take place. Up until last year, it seemed there was real space for NGOs to influence what happened, by talking to delegates, and writing articles and talking points. Now, it seems countries’ positions are determined by political considerations only, not technical concerns, and willingness to negotiate, which surely means making concessions to others in return for an outcome, is in short supply. In the fringes, I am having useful discussions on practical ways forward for implementing adaptation.
On a positive note – we had a very successful side event on Wednesday with up to 160 people in the room, and excellent presentations about valuable work. However, everyone in the room seemed to be on our side – about the need to change international agricultural policy away from intensive, environmentally destructive systems towards ones supporting small scale diverse production. Those we need to engage with to change minds and policy stayed away.
No Comments » | Add your commentUN Climate talks – Bolivia bites back …
So, I hear it’s snowing in the UK.
Well, there’s a chill in the air here too.
Outside, the Mexican sun is pushing temperatures to a heady 28c but inside, around the negotiating tables, it must be feeling a bit frosty.
Yesterday we heard that Bolivia (the poorest country in Latin America, one of the lowest global CO2 emitters yet hard hit by climate change) is taking a tough stance.
In many senses this is nothing new – Bolivia stood firm at the climate negotiations in Copenhagen and are pushing for the most dramatic ceiling on the global temperature rise.
The Bolivian delegation feels that the Copenhagen accord (the non-binding ‘statement of intent’ from last year’s climate talks) is so weak that it’s not worth them supporting.
Developing countries have failed to uphold their pledges so many times that the Bolivians are holding out for THE ‘fair and binding’ deal.
Having visited Bolivia earlier this year, and seeing for myself the harshness of the climatic changes and communities’ determination to maintain and adapt their culture – for the sake of their survival – I personally can’t condemn the Bolivians for their position.
Why shouldn’t we hold out and demand for the international deal that will make the difference needed?
Helen
No Comments » | Add your commentUN climate talks – don’t write the obituary just yet …
So the world’s journalists have descended upon Cancun in search of stories. Right now, the most prevalent seems to be the death of the UN climate talks and its sibling the Kyoto Protocol.
But it’s all a little premature …
It’s true that nobody is expecting to see the ‘fair and binding’ deal agreed in Cancun. The emphasis is more on pragmatism this year: identifying and focusing on the areas where we can see real change and commitment through the UN process.
For example, establishing a ‘climate fund’ through which the majority of all long-term funding will be channelled and an ‘adaptation framework’ which ensures that the most vulnerable communities are put first.
World leaders cannot afford to approach the process without ambition, they cannot afford to simply write-off Cancun before the negotiations begin – they need to prove that the UN process isn’t dead or dying by delivering.
You can help to make sure that they recognise the cost of inaction on climate change by joining our campaign: face up to four degrees.
We are showing the decision-makers, the press (and anyone else listening!) that we care about climate change because the lives of the world’s poorest people depend on action right now.
What’s that noise? It’s certainly not the last rites of the UN Convention …
Helen
Campaigns
No Comments » | Add your commentUN climate talks Cancun – matrimonial bliss?
For many, Cancun is the ultimate honeymoon destination.
Well, for the next two weeks, Cancun will be home to the UN climate change negotiations – 192 member states, the world’s journalists and the NGO community – but the prospect of a honeymoon period seems slim.
That’s because the ‘wedding day’, where binding and solemn vows are made, has never taken place. The world’s poorest women and men have been jilted and are still waiting at the aisle.
Copenhagen, the home of last year’s climate talks, promised to deliver the ‘fair and binding’ global deal on climate change. But we all know that it never materialised. The job in Cancan is in many ways harder – whilst expectations are lower (much lower), these negotiations have to rebuild faith that the multi-lateral process can deliver for the world’s poorest people.
Practical Action will be focusing specifically on ‘adaptation’ throughout the talks – more funding, more fairly delivered, more focused on the most vulnerable.
Why? Because our work on the ground, from the pastoralist lands of Kenya to the floodplains of Bangladesh, makes a compelling case for adaptation (providing people with the skills, tools and opportunity to adapt to their changing climate).
In fact, the future of whole communities depends on the exchange of meaningful and lasting commitments, right now.
Helen
Campaigns
P.s Keep up-to-date with the progress of the negotiations by following my daily blog …
2 Comments » | Add your commentWhistle away the emissions
This morning I walked through the conference centre to the tune of ‘Time to say good-bye’, originally sung by Andrea Bocelli, but now being whistled by the man in front of me. What had spurred his operatic outburst? The Poznan conference doesn’t finish until Saturday; surely he couldn’t be embarking on the road to Copenhagen just yet? Perhaps he was just sad to leave the plenary, or, perhaps he had a more pragmatic reason.
There is a small chance he was reflecting on the continued loss caused by climate change if countries such as Canada, Japan, Australia, and Russia don’t commit to emissions reduction targets anytime soon. These countries don’t seem to want to say goodbye their carbon but are happy to see Kenya lose its fertile land, Peru lose its water supplies, and Bangladesh lose homes and livelihoods every time a flood hits.
Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the UN’s climate change convention, stated today at a press conference that precise and adequate figures for near-term reductions are essential requirements from developed countries next year in Copenhagen. But if these countries could give an indication as to their intentions here in Poznan it would go a long way to building trust with the less developed countries that are already complying with what is required of them. The path to Copenhagen will be much smoother for this.
It shouldn’t have to take a catastrophic loss to jolt the non-committal countries to deviate from their emissions paths, but if Australia needs inspiration it should look to the three-year water drought it is only just recovering from that sent food prices across the world sky high. To avoid this, these countries could just check the recent science compiled by the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This states that we need reductions in the range of 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020.
But if these countries still find it hard to let go then perhaps they should reflect that soon the communities they are turning their back on will start running out of time to say goodbye. Perhaps I will follow the same chap in Copenhagen whistling ‘Sorry seems to be the hardest word’.
No Comments » | Add your commentCan't find what you're looking for?
Tell us who you are
Let us know which of the options below best describes you and we'll direct you to the most relevant content.
What we do
Practical Action uses technology to challenge poverty, working with poor women and men around the world.
Explore our work by Country
Explore our work by Technology
Practical Action,The Schumacher Centre,
Bourton on Dunsmore,
Rugby, CV23 9QZ, UK
Reg Charity No 247257
+44 (0)1926 634400 practicalaction@practicalaction.org.uk
© Practical Action