Over a period of the last million years, CO2 never exceeded 280 ppm (based on actual readings of atmospheric chemistry from Antarctic ice-core data.) The last time greenhouse gases reached 400 ppm was three million years ago. Put simply, humanity has now changed the chemistry of our atmosphere to replicate pre-historic levels—a time when no humans existed.

Related: Sign a petition for a National Cimate Strategy

Concentrations of GHG are a very different measurement than emission rates. Concentrations have a very long lag-time and will not be able to be decreased except over centuries, while emission rates can go down overnight. It is critical to start reducing emissions, because existing concentrations mean that we will see warming over the next 100 years from today’s emissions.

CO2 levels are monitored daily at Mauna Loa Observatory on the island of Hawaii. When the monitoring station was set up in 1958, CO2 levels were at 317ppm. The rise to 400ppm was not expected so soon. Meanwhile, the Canadian government has joined in a global commitment to hold concentrations of greenhouse gases to levels that would avoid allowing global average temperatures to rise by 2ºC. Scientists have marked that wide red hazard line in a band between 425-450 ppm.

Avoiding 2ºC is critical because it represents a danger zone. Some refer to it as a point of no return—or a ‘tipping point to self-accelerating global warming, the so-called ‘runaway greenhouse effect.’ The actual tipping point might be 2.5º, or it could be 1.5º. Two degrees represents a consensus of scientists, but no scientist I know is sanguine about 2 degrees. It is certainly not a safe zone.

The most recent International Energy Agency (IEA) World Energy Outlook includes some number crunching. If all the world’s known reserves of fossil fuels were to be used, the climate would move the world to a non-habitable state.

In fact, the IEA has said that to avoid an increase of 2ºC, at least two-thirds of known fossil-fuel reserves must stay in the ground until at least 2050.

The Over-rated Fossil Fuel Economy

This finding has led to a new and potentially powerful financial calculation. A major new report from the UK, Unburnable Carbon 2013: Wasted Capital And Stranded Assets, engaged the talents and expertise of Sir Nicholas Stern through a collaborative research project involving Carbon Tracker and the London School of Economics and Political Science’s Grantham Research Institute for Climate Change and Environment.

The result is a new concept—the ‘carbon bubble.’ The essence of their work is this: a great deal of the stated value of stock exchanges around the world is in unburnable fossil fuels. The level of capital expenditure in developing those reserves over the next decade would amount to $6.74 trillion in wasted capital—developing reserves that simply cannot be burned.

The report calls for ratings agencies to update their approach to verifying the financial health of stock markets and individual companies. If assets being used to offset liabilities are assets that can never be used, then large parts of the economy—now seen as credit-worthy—are over-valued.

The consequence for financial markets is obvious. Meanwhile, the report notes that the carbon intensity of the New York and London stock markets is actually increasing; New York by 37% over 2 years and London by 7% over 2 years.

The creative notion that Moody’s and other credit raters might be able to do through financial valuations what governments have so far failed to do–bring Big Oil to its senses–is certainly tantalizing. What is encouraging is the extent to which the notion of a ‘carbon bubble’ as financial risk is catching on.

Perhaps that’s what we need—a clear financial consequence our brains can comprehend. Maybe we should keep the focus on the financial threat, while acknowleding the irony that it may be easier to provoke change through large multinationals and stock exchanges than through thoughts of our children’s dismal future.

The post 400 ppm appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Over the last million years, CO2 never exceeded 280 ppm (based on actual readings of atmospheric chemistry from Antarctic ice core data.) Concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHG) are a very different measurement than emission rates. Concentrations have a very long lag time and will not be able to be decreased except over centuries, while emission rates can go down overnight. It is critical to start reducing emissions, because existing concentrations mean that we will see warming over the next 100 years from today’s emissions.

Green Party of Canada leader Elizabeth May and Dr. Andrew Weaver, a BC Green Party candidate running in the upcoming provincial election, believe that this unwanted milestone in the climate saga could be a turning point towards clean technology to reverse this trend.

“We are in a danger zone as we hit 400 ppm.  We must move to immediate reductions in GHG, and shift to new clean technologies,” said Green Leader Elizabeth May, Member of Parliament for Saanich-Gulf Islands.

May recently tabled a private member’s bill to cap the carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired plants.

“It’s clear that emissions from these plants are some of the most dangerous for the planet. Using clean technologies that exist today can help us move into the 21st century,” said May.

There is a consensus in the scientific community that greenhouse gases should be limited to levels that would avoid allowing global average temperatures to rise by 2 degrees Celsius.  Scientists have marked that wide red line in a band from 425-450 ppm.

Climate scientist and Deputy Green Party Leader of British Columbia, Dr. Andrew Weaver, says this moment can bring a new economic reality to BC.

The post 400 ppm: A Dangerous Pollution Milestone Has Been Passed appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Here’s the text of the motion:

That this House:

1. agree with many Canadians and the International Energy Agency that there is grave concern with the impacts of a 2 degree rise in global average temperatures;
2. condemn the lack of effective action by successive federal governments since 1998 to address emissions and meet our Kyoto commitments; and
3. call on the government to immediately table its federal climate change adaptation plan.

There are three clauses and I have trouble with each one of them. Before parsing the motion to explain the difficulties with all three clauses, let me point out the overwhelming problem: the motion does not call on Stephen Harper’s administration to do anything about the threat of rising greenhouse gases.

The action part of the motion calls for the government to “immediately” (that sounds good!) “table its federal climate change adaptation plan.”  (whoops, where did the action go?)

An “adaptation plan” is all about how to adapt to climate change.  I have long called, as has the Green Party, for a climate adaptation plan.  But I would never call for an adaptation plan with no parallel effort to reduce the climate change impacts to which we will have to adapt.  To do so is to announce we are throwing in the towel. We are abandoning efforts to reduce carbon pollution and will only do what we can to hold back rising seas, adjust to dropping water levels in the Great Lakes and Georgian Bay, plant drought resistant crops, brace ourselves for increased forest fires, loss of Arctic ice, permafrost melt, etc.

It is mind-boggling that the NDP motion failed to call for action.  Did they forget that part?  Were they worried a call for real action to fight global warming would create space for a public policy discussion about carbon pricing and a carbon tax?  Or did they think “adaptation plan” meant some kind of GHG reduction plan? If so, they are out of touch with the key concepts of climate policy in place since the 1992 U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Back to the top.  The first clause is so sloppily worded it minimizes, rather than underscores, why 2 degrees global average temperature increase really matters.  Why start the sentence with something as weak as “agree with many Canadians and the International Energy Agency?” Why not mention “consensus of the world’s climate scientists, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the International Energy Agency, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the commitment to avoid a global average temperature increase of 2 degrees C that Canada made in the Copenhagen Accord.”

Weak drafting is one thing, but the next part is much worse: “there is grave concern with the impacts of a 2 degrees rise in global average temperatures.”   There is grave concern? With the impacts?? That’s it?  How about an accurate statement, like this:

“Scientists have concluded that for human civilization to have reasonable odds of avoiding collapse due to the catastrophic impacts of runaway global warming, concentrations of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere must be held below those levels associated with a 2 degrees rise in global average temperature increase, as compared to pre-Industrialized levels.  In fact, in order to preserve Arctic ice, we should strive to keep global average temperature increases below a 1.5 degree rise.”

The way the NDP motion is worded it seems to assume we are going to have a 2 degree rise, and that there are grave concerns with impacts.  It fails to connect 2 degrees with the triggering of runaway global warming, which is a much bigger problem than the immediate impacts of 2 degrees on its own.

Then there’s the second clause.  This is a transparent attempt to wedge the Liberals on the issue.  That’s politics and I guess I should be used to it by now.  But when an issue is as important as whether our children have a liveable world, I am sick and tired of this petty garbage.  The Liberals have a lousy record on climate.  Chretien ratified Kyoto, full marks for that, but he did not put forward a plan. As Executive Director of Sierra Club of Canada, I spent years demanding action and criticizing the failure of the Liberals to act.  Then Paul Martin did act and his environment minister, Stephane Dion, put forward a credible plan in 2005.  And in 2006, Harper killed that plan.  That one phrase would not have caused me to vote against the motion, if there had been a call for real action to reduce GHG.  But predictably and tragically it reveals the real goal of the NDP opposition day motion: to make the Liberals look bad by writing a motion in a way the NDP knew the Liberals would vote against.

Why does that matter?  Well, it’s like this.  If you care about climate, you draft a motion in order to create the maximum possible opportunity for it to pass.  You don’t play stupid games.

The NDP did the same thing last week with the Canada-China Investment Treaty motion.  It rejected Liberal attempts to amend the motion such that the Liberals could vote with the NDP.  At least then, the motion was clear and I had no problem voting with the NDP, but I was furious that an issue as important as blocking ratification of the FIPA with China was sabotaged for the shortest term possible partisan gain. (And I was furious that the Liberals voted with the Conservatives… I was in a very “plague on both your Houses” mood.)

The climate crisis is a threat to our very survival.  It sickens me to see petty partisanship trump climate. For God’s sake, put forward motions that have a chance of passing and then twist arms in the Conservative caucus to get a motion that matters.

So that about covers why I couldn’t vote with the NDP.  I would have loved to have seen a unified group of MPs from all the Opposition Parties rise on principle and (hoping against hope) some of the Conservatives who understand the need for climate action might have voted with us to give the Parliamentary call for reductions in GHG a chance of passing.  But since tonight’s motion forgot to call for climate action, maybe we could take a run at a properly worded motion another day.

The post Why I voted against the NDP climate motion appeared first on Elizabeth May.

“The Minister hopes to distract us from 2011 total emissions which have gone up. According to international reporting published in the prestigious journal Nature Climate Change, Canada’s emissions hit an all time high of 600 million tons in 2011”, said Elizabeth May, Green Party Leader and Member of Parliament for Saanich-Gulf Islands.

“In 1990, Canada emitted 457 million tons. This is a 24% increase since 1990. Canada had committed in Kyoto to reduce its total emissions by 6% between 1990 and 2012. It is a national shame,” added May.

“To talk in terms of per capita numbers is another attempt by Harper’s Conservative to fool Canadians in believing we are on the right track. Total emissions GHG numbers are alarming. Under Stephen Harper as Prime Minister, Canada has cancelled its climate change programmes, continually weakened our targets, repudiated our international obligations, cancelled support for climate science and gagged the scientists who remain. No wonder we are a pariah at international negotiations,” concluded May.

The post Kent’s Claim that Canada’s Emissions are “Historically Low” is Bogus appeared first on Elizabeth May.

By some lights it was a breakthrough to have China and India and Brazil talking about targets — even though they have only agreed to start getting there.  It is an enormous relief to have a second commitment period under Kyoto, starting immediately at the end of the first. But Canada is, of course, refusing to take part, plus Japan and Russia.  The USA remains perpetually hobbled by domestic politics and somehow year after year and COP after COP, the US ducks its responsibilities.

Canada’s role, Fossil of the Year for the 5th consecutive year is no surprise. Canada’s interventions and actions have the effect of weakening texts and hardening positions. As I head home I am so worried about the reports that the Prime Minister wants to legally withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol. For all the damage we have done thus far, such an action would hurt the new agreements from Durban before the ink is dry.  We need to stay on top of this threat, reportedly to be executed on December 23.

The frustrating, maddening, even terrifying aspect of climate talks is that GHG levels keep rising while multilateral negotiations try to determine the time table by which they will be reduced. – eventually. It reminds me of the unacceptable negotiations with forest companies. We used to call it “talk and log.” The climate equivalent, climate negotiators talk while profligate use of fossil fuels ramps up year on year.

We need the equivalent of a cease fire.  No new GHG added, no new tar sands projects approved.  We cannot afford to keep adding an ever increasing volume of warming gases into the atmosphere, while negotiating when we plan to begin to slow it down.

And that is why we have to find a way to pick up the pace. We are risking putting the atmosphere on an irreversible trajectory to runaway global warming. We need to stop the rise in GHG — everywhere on Earth by 2015.  On current levels of political will, we are not yet close to the actions we need. Still, thank goodness Durban gave us something in the right direction. Now we need to get back to public mobilizations to improve the agreements and really reduce GHG.

The post Last thoughts on the Durban package appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Mr. Cameron will address Members of Parliament and Senators on Thursday.

This spring, the United Kingdom set a binding target to cut their greenhouse gas emissions 50% below 1990 levels by 2027. They are strongly committed to a second commitment phase for Kyoto and are showing leadership by having a legally binding target beyond 2020.  As part of the European Union, the UK Kyoto target was a reduction in greenhouse gases of 8% below 1990 levels by 2012. They are now 27% below. Canada’s original Kyoto target was 6% below 1990 levels by 2012; however, that target was later changed by the Conservative government to 3% above 1990 levels by 2020 (17% below 2005 levels by 2020).  Right now, Canada’s emissions are almost 30% above 1990 levels.

Under Kyoto, the collective of 41 industrialized Annex 1 countries committed to an overall reduction of 5% below 1990 levels.  This target has now been met, despite Canada’s failure.

“Other countries are doing the heavy lifting with regard to meeting Kyoto targets while Canada’s emissions continue to rise,” said May. “We are not pulling our weight and we need to get on board fast and in a serious way.”

“Europe and the United Kingdom have shown real leadership on the climate crisis and I sincerely hope that Mr. Cameron’s visit provides our government with some inspiration to take action,” said May.  “The United Kingdom has realized that a genuine plan to reduce greenhouse gases can spur economic innovation and in future will see their country be more competitive and more resilient.  We hope Canada will join the UK in calling for a second commitment period under Kyoto.”

The post Canada should follow lead of UK on GHG reduction appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The current round of negotiations saw Canada for the first time formally declare an unwillingness to negotiate a second phase of Kyoto.  “It is beyond embarrassing and frustrating,” said May. “Canada is now a pariah on the international stage.  This is seen by other countries as a huge step backward in terms of dealing with the climate crisis.”

Along with Canada, Japan and the Russian Federation are also remaining outside of the second round of Kyoto negotiations, prompting a call from some of the small island states that these countries be expelled from the negotiations.

Other countries have now started a discussion about how to punish countries that violate Kyoto and UNFCCC. The current Kyoto Protocol extends to 2012; Canada has so far utterly failed to meet its promised emissions targets.

“Global carbon emissions continue to rise at an alarming rate.  Our government is not recognizing the incredible devastation that will result if we don’t get this under control,” said May.  According to the International Energy Agency, greenhouse gas emissions in 2010 were the highest on record.

The post Canada failing Kyoto Protocol commitments and the planet appeared first on Elizabeth May.

In those days, Canada was in the lead. We had hosted the first international scientific meeting on the threat of climate change. As Senior Policy Advisor to Canada’s Environment Minister, I was privileged to help organize that meeting, held the last week of June, 1988, and called ‘Our Changing Atmosphere: Implications for Global Security.’

The opening sentence of the scientists’ statement from the Toronto conference was memorable: ‘Humanity is conducting an unintended, uncontrolled globally pervasive experiment whose ultimate consequences could be second only to a global nuclear war.’

The consensus statement went on to call for an immediate, first step to protect the atmosphere was to cut greenhouse gas (GHG) 20% below 1988 levels by 2005.

For those who really remember their climate trivia, you may recall that target was a commitment in the 1993 election and Chretien’s first ‘Red Book’. Once in power, the Liberals ignored it and we saw emissions rise to 26% above 1990 levels by 2006.

Under Mulroney, we were the first industrialized country to both sign and ratify the UNFCCC, which committed over 180 countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions such that their levels would be stabilized before becoming ‘dangerous.’ That framework treaty led to the Kyoto Protocol, which was sabotaged once George W Bush became president in the US and Stephen Harper became prime minister in Canada.

With the first phase for Kyoto’s reduction targets being 2008-2012, negotiations for a replacement treaty began in Montreal in 2005 (technically called the 11th Conference of the Parties, or COP). That conference launched negotiations for the next phase of actions starting January 1, 2013. At the Montreal meeting, the deadline for a successor agreement was identified as the 15th COP to be held in 2009.

No wonder the world media (with less attention in Canada) is now focused on the likelihood of success in December in Copenhagen. That looming deadline led to the global citizen mobilization on October 24, International Day of Climate Action. For a dose of hope and inspiration, go to www.350.org for photos from the 181 countries around the world that held over 5,200 demonstrations calling for action. There you can find a glorious photo of Salt Spring Islanders with the imaginative snorkel protest (see page 1); as well as photos of thousands on Parliament Hill (where I spoke at the ‘Fill the Hill’ rally); Vancouver; Whitehorse; the pyramids of Giza; jungles of Amazonia; and even underwater shots from the Great Barrier Reef.

Despite the fact that Canada had more October 24 events than any other country, climate action day was largely ignored by the Canadian media. Likewise, the Canadian media fail to report the delay of the Climate Accountability Act, Bill C-311. That bill, first introduced in the last session of Parliament by NDP leader Jack Layton, received strong non-partisan support from the Dion Liberals and the Bloc. Sadly, when re-introduced into the House as C-311, Liberal support eroded.

The bill sets targets for GHG reductions along the lines demanded by science. It would allow Canadians in Copenhagen to tell the world that the majority of Canadians and majority of MPs favoured meaningful cuts to hard targets. Tragically, it was delayed by a Conservative motion supported by the majority of Liberals, including Michael Ignatieff. Full marks, by the way, to Dr Keith Martin, Liberal MP from Esquimalt Juan de Fuca, for voting to get the bill back in the House for a vote before Copenhagen.

The vote to delay the climate bill would have received no media notice if not for a quite spontaneous development on the Monday following the October 24 Day of Action. About 120 young people who had been in Ottawa for the ‘Fill the Hill’ rally attended Question Period that day. I was in my usual spot in the Diplomatic Gallery sitting with Pender Island writer Bill Deverell, directly facing the public gallery where the youth were seated. While the unruly lot in Question Period below us, occupied with far less significant issues, bellowed their typical jabs and hoots of derision, one young man in the gallery stood and shouted out ‘C-311, sign it!’ As he was led out by security, another young person called out for the climate bill to be passed. Ultimately, all the youth were cleared from the gallery.

Environment minister Jim Prentice called it an ‘NDP publicity stunt,’ but there was nothing partisan about those young people. They were expressing what we all should be feeling. They are fighting for their future.

As Copenhagen approaches, the negotiations are deadlocked. The head of the UN negotiations said last week that full success in Copenhagen is now ‘impossible.’

‘It is physically impossible under any scenario to complete every detail of a treaty in Copenhagen,’ said Yvo de Boer, executive director of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, ‘but Copenhagen can and must agree to the political essentials that will make a long-term response to climate change clear, possible, realistic and well defined.’

To our collective shame, Canada has been part of the problem, demanding special treatment and expansion of the tar sands. The warnings of the scientific community are clear. GHG levels must stop rising and level off by 2016. They must begin to fall from there. If not, we could well be locking the atmosphere and climate system into a rapid accelerating process called ‘runaway global warming’ in which case nothing we do in 2020 or 2030 can reverse catastrophic trends.

Is it any wonder our children cry out?

Elizabeth E. May is the leader of the Green Party of Canada, candidate in Saanich–Gulf Islands and Officer of the Order of Canada. She will be writing a regular column for Island Tides.

The post Countdown to Copenhagen appeared first on Elizabeth May.

British Columbia is committed to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 33% by 2020 against 2007 levels. (I have mentioned before in these pages the problem of constantly shifting ‘base years,’ see box this page.) I attended sessions in Central Saanich and for the Town of Sidney, where I live, designed to gauge public support for various reduction measures. One inevitable conclusion of these sessions is that there is a limited amount any one municipality can do by itself. The best, and only, way to substantially reduce emissions is to develop regional solutions.

The bulk of greenhouse gas emissions in our region is from transportation. While the average contribution from transportation to GHG across Canada is 30%, in the CRD the figure is (depending on sources) 52-60%—excluding emissions from the air travel and ferries. For the Town of Sidney, on road transportation contributes 71% of total emissions.

The reasons for this figure are both due to the good news that there are few emissions from other sources (making transportation figures a higher percentage of the whole) and to the bad news of car dependence. There is no coal-fired, electric power station looming over town as in the community where I used to live. Here, cars and trucks are the main emitters. Other reasons relate to the lack of affordable local housing forcing many who work in Sidney, particularly in health care and other services, to live elsewhere and commute into town.

Looking At The Regional Picture

On the evening of April 6, the Saanich and Gulf Island Greens sponsored a public forum on greening transportation. The range of smart options and local energy devoted to this issue is encouraging.

At the level of the largest geographical spread, Vancouver Island, Judith Sayers, Chair of the Island Corridor Foundation, UVic Law professor, and former Chief of the Hupacasath First Nation, presented what would be possible with an investment in expanding options on the existing rail line corridor. Thanks to Island Corridor Foundation’s enormous effort the entire 290km of rail line, covering 650 hectares of land base, including railway stations and other equipment was transferred from CP Rail and Rail America to the Island Corridor Foundation.

With a reasonable and, in public infrastructure terms, small investment an enhanced rail-line and passenger service from Langford to Victoria could take 280,000 passenger vehicles off the road every year. The Island Corridor Foundation is also working to move more goods from truck and onto the rails. The federal government failed to use the Economic Stimulus Package to invest in rail, but the Island Corridor Foundation is hoping for provincial funds, potentially future federal money and local fundraising. (Donations to the Island Corridor Foundation are tax deductible.)

Light rail is the next level of transit service. Irwin Henderson, President of the Island Transformations Organization (www.islandtransformations.org), former chair of Victoria’s Advisory Planning Commission, presented a compelling argument for light rail in the CRD. Erwin presented a comprehensive vision of an electric rapid light rail system serving the Capital Regional District, with lines to Sooke and Langford and up to the ferries and Sidney. The investment in light rail has been shown in city and town alike to pay for itself.

The densification of cities is enhanced as shop-owners and condo developers actually strive to locate alongside light rail, in direct and inverse proportion to how hard they strive to avoid multiple lanes of roadway. Pedestrian friendly, the presence of light rail improves quality of life. The same little light railcar that moves people through city blocks can pick up speed and serve the longer hauls to airport and ferry. All on a far smaller footprint (in carbon and acreage) than the highway option.

The light rail option is also compatible with bus service. Buses in this vision operate along feeder routes, bringing people to their light rail station.

What brings people to their buses? Well, of course improved pedestrian and bicycling options. John Luton, Victoria City Councillor, long time community activist for enhancements to cycling and walking infrastructure, ensured that bicycling was an indispensible part of this vision. Victoria is already the No1 municipality in Canada for bike ridership, but much more could be accomplished with more secure bike lanes, better access to bike parking (especially in Sidney!) and intermodal connections, allowing bikes to be carried easily by bus, train and on future light rail. At the forum, Guy Dauncey, President of the BC Sustainable Energy Association (www.earthfuture.com), brought it all together in the vision of fossil fuel-free transit. He lamented the poor choice in putting $24 million into the unnecessary McTavish Road overpass when so much needs to be done in improving sustainable transit choices.

As in so many areas of greening the economy, the options before us provide jobs, better quality of life, healthier lifestyles, cleaner air and greater efficiency. Clearly citizens in this region ‘get it!’ We need political leadership. We need to have representation that knows that it is not a question of whether we can afford these transit options. We must recognize that we cannot afford not to invest in green transit!

Elizabeth E May, OC is co-author of Global Warming for Dummies and leader of the Green Party of Canada. www.greenparty.ca.

The post Green transit: the local movement appeared first on Elizabeth May.

There is always a certain amount of last minute media coverage about such events, but very little context setting. The fact is that Canada and virtually every other nation on earth signed and ratified the Framework Convention in 1992. It committed the world to reductions in greenhouse gases such that their build up in the atmosphere would be halted before they could become ‘dangerous.’ After seventeen years of further meetings and negotiations (including the 1997 meeting in Kyoto and the protocol produced there) we are rapidly approaching the danger zone. We are already experiencing the loss of millions of square kilometres of Arctic ice, the retreat of glaciers around the world, persistent drought in much of the world, unprecedented shifts in rainfall patterns and sea level rise.

There are many excuses and reasons for the failure to act over the last two decades. Some nations, mostly within the European Union, have achieved serious reductions. They have done so with improvements in their economy.

Germany is rapidly taking over the world market as provider of solar, wind and other green economy technologies, creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs. China is catching up, this year investing $600 billion in green technologies. Sweden has de-coupled carbon reductions from economic growth, growing its economy while cutting greenhouse gases. Yet, globally we have only taken baby steps toward the goal of avoiding dangerous levels of greenhouse gases.

The prospects for Copenhagen look better now than they did one month ago. We may owe Stephen Harper and his government a debt of gratitude. Harper’s pronouncement after the APEC summit that the negotiations were doomed to failure may have been the catalyst for a number of significant rescue attempts.

Significantly, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Brazilian President Lula teamed up to make a compelling appeal to industrialized and developing nations to take on meaningful targets. Brazil committed to over 30% reductions in GHG below 1990 levels by 2020 through arresting deforestation. Lula noted, however, that to make this target, Brazil needed financial assistance from the industrialized world.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon took the unusual step of attending the Commonwealth summit to plead for movement, singling out Canada as an impediment to progress. So too did low-lying island Commonwealth nations target Canada, with some suggesting we should be expelled from the Commonwealth. Even Her Majesty the Queen took aim at Canada. With the news that both President Obama and President Hu of China would attend the climate talks, our Prime Minister finally caved and agreed to join the over 100 leaders already committed to attend. The commitment of Obama and Hu increased hope that an agreement was possible.

However, these first few days have not gone well. Day 2 saw the revelation of a secret draft text from the US, UK and Denmark, proposing to sideline the concerns of the developing world, scrap the Kyoto Framework and move forward in a fashion that breaks faith with the poorest on the planet. This leaked text has led to a mood of distrust and anger within the negotiations. I am going to share a fragment of an email from a colleague already in Copenhagen. I am keeping his identity confidential, only noting that he is on a government delegation.

The issues on the table are very complicated—technically, economically, equitably and morally and politically. The Parties are far apart on the text—mitigation, adaptation, finance, tech transfer—all are part of the package and depend on each other—this is more like the Doha round and the WTO than climate! But unlike the trade talks there is a disaster clock ticking…

The mood is ugly, distrustful. The Danish police and security service are scared stiff. They raided some NGO residences today and confiscated lots of stuff they said could be used for civil disobedience.

I am normally a calm guy and not prone to anxiety but this place has me jumping. Next Thursday and Friday will be wild and unpredictable with over 100 heads of government speaking. There are 40,000 people on the attendees list. There are 5,000 journalists here. The Bela Centre capacity where the COP is being held is 15,000. The COP is chaired by the Danish Environment Minister. She and the Prime Minister cannot stand each other and do not talk (so it is widely twittered). The responsibility for bringing all this together rests with the Danes. Some optimists say that the G2 will come next week (Obama and Hu) and strike a deal that everybody can take it or leave it. But this is not a Yes or No deal; it is endlessly nuanced. Even if they embrace each other and everybody cheers all the critical details will remain to be worked out…let alone ratified and implemented. I cannot believe there is anything like this on earth—it is heroic in a way but mostly it is frightening!

So as I leave for Copenhagen, we have a clear description. The moment is perilous. We stand between heroism and disaster. You need not sit back and wait. Please continue to keep up the pressure. Post comments on news media comment websites and blogs, write to the newspapers and phone the Prime Minister’s Office (613-992-4211). To stay up to date on the negotiations, sign up for daily reports from the Earth Negotiations Bulletin, www.iisd.ca/climate/cop15/. These are pithy, no-nonsense reports prepared through a non- government ENB team of graduate students working within the International Institute for Sustainable Development. For activist news check out the www.350.org site or international Friends of the Earth. To keep abreast of the science Salt Spring Island’s own Dorothy Cutting maintains a great site, www.westcoastclimateequity.org. And I will be reporting daily on the www.elizabethmay.ca site.

Realistically, what are the options for the outcome in Copenhagen? A successful agreement will mean that the world stops the growth in greenhouse gases so that they peak no later than 2015 and begin their decline from there. Overshooting 2015 could commit the world to a catastrophic runaway climate crisis.

Failure in Copenhagen could look like two things: the decision of all leaders to call it a failure and admit they fell short. This is less likely than the more dangerous form of failure: a happy photo op of world leaders smiling and calling their failure a ‘good first step.’ We are now seventeen years past ‘good first steps.’ The citizens of this world, our children and grandchildren will thank us only for embracing real success.

Elizabeth E. May is the leader of the Green Party of Canada, candidate in Saanich Gulf Islands and Officer of the Order of Canada.

The post Tracking Copenhagen appeared first on Elizabeth May.