1. Call it Tom Friedman’s Worst Nightmare: Asia’s already outpacing the United States in clean technology investment by hundreds of billions of dollars — which will mean the U.S. will be importing trillions of dollars in green tech down the road, says a new report. (Hat tip: CleanTechnica.)
2. Call it a Whale’s Worst Nightmare: Japan’s whaling fleet is off to the Southern Ocean for its annual hunt. Dot Earth quotes ocean explorer Sylvia Earle on why eating whale isn’t at all like eating a farm-raised cow, which is what Japanese whaling interests claim.
3. Call it Todd Stern’s Worst Nightmare: Pledges by individual countries to limit their greenhouse gas emissions are multiplying like tribbles, reports The New York Times — and UN climate czar Yvo deBoer is now putting pressure on the Obama administration to release its own proposal.
4. Call it a Gearhead’s Worst Nightmare: Star driver Jeff Gordon has joined with the EPA to warn the public that auto painting causes air pollution and degrades human health, reports Ecopolitology.
5. Call it Ungreen Companies’ Worst Nightmare: GoodGuide releases an iPhone app that scans product barcodes and gives you ratings on the product’s healthy, environmental, and social impacts. (62,000 products in the database so far, says CNET’s Health Tech.)

Here’s an all-too-frequent out-of-office autoreply from conservationists these days:

I am currently away from the office attending a UNDP meeting. Following this I am participating in a CBD working group, an IUCN advisory committee, an NGO roundtable, then presenting at a Millennium Declaration follow-up, and attending a regional conservation forum convened by aid agencies as part of a global initiative. I expect to be back in the office towards the middle of next year.

During this time I may be able to answer emails occasionally, but will definitely not be engaging in any local conservation action or helping implement recommendations arising from these meetings.

Apologies for the delay.

Kind regards,

[Signed] Director of Conservation, Conservation Project Manager and Global Conservation Focal Point

Republic of Forty Thousand Feet

OK, so I’m being facetious, but it’s really not that far from the truth.

There are simply so many global conservation initiatives and associated meetings that, for small developing nations with only a handful of government conservation staff, you can expect to get “out of office” replies from those staff for a substantial part of each year – which is all time these people are not in their countries, getting conservation done.

So what does this “out of office” status mean for real, on-the-ground conservation?

The problem is, this condition is something of a blameless crime. Every group organizing these meetings has only the best intentions of advancing conservation and being as inclusive as possible.

We want to include representatives from small and developing nations in global conservation initiatives because we believe their voices and experiences should be heard, they are guardians of much of the world’s biodiversity, and we often perceive that they have more to gain from participation than people from large, developed countries.

The more enthusiastic and engaged in conservation someone becomes in their own country, the more we desire their participation on global agreements, initiatives, working groups and forums.

To add to the perversity of this situation, an enormous proportion of the global conservation budget is spent transporting these motivated people away from where they are working — in effect, stripping both capacity and funds from actual, on-the-ground conservation action.

The problem is also exacerbated by short funding deadlines that require holding meetings annually, if not more frequently, and by pressure within global initiatives for rapid and easily reported outcomes – workshops are a safe bet for both. Unfortunately, the reporting often stops with the meeting. Too infrequently do we try and document if and how these global meetings are an effective way of advancing on-the-ground conservation success.

Taken as a whole, the global conservation community might be doing itself a great disservice by pursuing international meetings as the modus operandi.

So what are the solutions?

Erh, perhaps we need a meeting to find out…

(Image: Qantas Airways A380 taking off from LAX. Credit: Joits/Flickr through a Creative Commons license.)

1. What’s more important than reaching a global agreement in Copenhagen?  Scientific American thinks a U.S.-China deal on energy and climate could be just as big.
2. America’s oil capital is trying to green up its image, says Green Inc.  The city of Houston, home to densely packed highways and headquarters of a number of oil companies, plans to roll out an effort to convert 10 city Priuses (Prii?) into plug-in hybrids, and install vehicle charging stations around the metropolitan area.
3. Coca-Cola, the most recognized consumer brand on the planet, will soon start distributing plastic bottles made with up to 30% plant-based material, reports Triple Pundit.  I’m feeling a little less terrible about my Diet Coke addiction today.
4. At this point, the U.S. climate bill could probably use some divine intervention.  Maybe the Scientists and Evangelicals Initiative, a partnership between evangelical leaders and environmental scientists, can convince the Senate to get moving on climate legislation, says the Guardian’s Environment Blog.
5. If that doesn’t work, maybe this new study will change a few minds– the findings indicate that a “robust” climate bill could boost the U.S. economy by about $111 billion by 2020 and could create nearly two million jobs, according to GreenBiz.

1. The Daily Green asks, Is everything you know about being green wrong? Here’s the scoop: it’s not about what car you drive or whether you eat meat, but the stuff you buy.
2. Marine sponges are getting a better image, no thanks to that Sponge Bob Square Pants guy. A new study shows that sponges gulp huge quantities of ocean carbon and transform it into food for corals, making them integral to the survival of reefs in these warming times.
3. Is an apple that won’t rot for 4 months somehow better for the planet than traditional apples? The Australian scientists behind the new RS103-130 think so. Only in Oz.
4. On the other side of the equator, the Dutch have cooked up their own crazy scheme: a driving tax designed to cut traffic and transportation emissions. The tax would be imposed on a per-mile basis, although steeper fees apply to driving during rush hour and driving a big car.
5. Rising seas, warmer temperatures, increased rainfall… now here’s a new effect of climate change: more wind. Scientists have observed increased wind over Lake Superior as a result of changing water and air temperatures caused by less winter ice.

What will a successful global climate change agreement look like? That question is only more important to ask in the wake of this weekend’s agreement by President Obama to a plan that will ask world leaders to reach a political agreement at this December’s UN climate talks in Copenhagen, ahead of a more binding agreement some time in 2010.

From a purely scientific perspective, the solution to climate change is straightforward. Burning fossil fuels and clearing forests over the last century have sharply increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, leading to climate change. So, burn less fossil fuel and protect more forests in order to cap and eventually reduce greenhouse gas concentrations to a safer level.

The politics of that solution are much more complicated. Developed countries like the United States need to cut emissions dramatically, since their high emissions are responsible for getting us to this point. Developing countries like India and China need to take some responsibility for the future as their emissions rise and their forests continue to be cleared. For the former, that means breaking bad carbon-intensive habits. For the latter, it means establishing good low-carbon habits from the start.

A successful climate treaty will hinge on agreeing to how much developed and developing countries will reduce their respective greenhouse gas emissions, and also on agreeing how rich countries will help poor countries finance it all. At the same time, those emissions reduction commitments need to add up to enough global reductions to actually keep temperature change under 2 degrees C, the level beyond which impacts are likely to be irreversible and potentially catastrophic.

One reason countries are struggling to agree on emissions reductions going forward is that they have each had very different emission histories and so think they should have different responsibilities for containing future emissions. According to an interactive feature in the Washington Post, the United States has always been and remains a giant emitter of greenhouse gases. China’s surging coal-fired economy is now the single biggest emitter of all.

But China also has a population more than three times that of the United States, meaning that its per capita emissions are still a fraction of those from gluttonous Americans. Meanwhile, some European countries like Germany have already begun a steady but shallow decline in their total and per capita emissions. Missing from these statistics, though, are emissions from deforestation that catapult Indonesia and Brazil into the third and fourth ranks globally.

At the same time that negotiators work to agree on differential emissions commitments and the associated financing, they also need to make sure the emissions reductions add up to successfully stop climate change. According to Climate Interactive’s scoreboard, global greenhouse gas emissions need to be reduced by more than 80% by the end of the century to keep temperature change under 2 degrees C. Current pledges would reduce annual global greenhouse gas emissions by about 33%. Additional reductions being suggested could save another 33%. But more will be needed to turn the world onto a safer climate trajectory.

So what could a successful climate change agreement look like? What mix of emissions reductions would be fair for developed and developing countries, and will it be enough to stop climate change? Reductions of 25%-40% by 2020 are frequently suggested, but likely insufficient. Negotiators headed to Copenhagen have a hard job to do. But it is still possible for them to succeed.

You can explore some of these challenges and possibilities for a successful global climate change agreement using Climate Interactive’s C-Learn simulator. It lets you set emissions reduction targets for developed countries like the United States, fast-growing developing countries like China and India, and small developing countries like many in Africa. You can also set goals for reducing emissions from deforestation and sequestering emissions through reforestation. The simulator will then tell you how those targets add up in terms of overall emissions and predicted temperature change.

It may look and feel a bit complicated, but that’s how the real-world challenge is. Give it a try and see what ideas you come up with for how a successful global agreement could keep climate change under 2 degrees C. And then share your ideas here and at Planet Change.

(Image: Traffic at a stoplight in Bangkok. Credit: seasidebear/Flickr through a Creative Commons license.)

Good news about cow poop. Good news (?) about Copenhagen. Good news for those of you who’ve always dreamed of a dress made of LED lights. Happiness is the smell of a new Cool Green Morning, to paraphrase Don Draper…

1. The rehabilitation of poop continues: The Netherlands has opened its second cow-dung power plant, reports CleanTechnica — to make biogas that will heat more than 1,000 homes.
2. In case you missed it yesterday, President Obama has endorsed a plan to push an ultimate climate change agreement sometime beyond December’s UN meeting in Copenhagen, reports The New York Times. Grist’s Dave Roberts says that’s not necessarily a bad thing.
3. Charlie the Tuna muzzled? Dot Earth says last week’s meeting among fishing countries to reach an agreement on restoring depleted numbers of tuna, shark, turtles and other marine life was missing one thing — a basis in science.
4. Count on Inhabitat to render us speechless — with a dress made of 24,000 LED lights (plus “4,000 hand-applied Swarovski crystals and 40-layers of pleated silk organza crinoline.” When’s it going to hit the shelves at Target?!)
5. Always like to end on good news — this time from the Brazilian Amazon, where deforestation dropped nearly 46 percent from August 2008 to July 2009, says AP. But the “why” is a chicken and egg problem — is it because of the Brazilian government’s promotion of sustainable livelihoods in the region (coupled with enforcement of laws against deforestation), or just a drop in ag commodity prices worldwide?

Feeling unlucky this Friday the 13th? Fortify yourself with the latest in green news — recycled diapers, undersea gliders, a historic comeback and a new way to shut up those global warming skeptics close to you (speaking of superstitious…)

1. So you’re at a family gathering, arguing with Uncle Climate Denier over the reality of climate change — what’s your trump card? How about the huge increase in the ratio of record high temps to record low temps across the United States in the last six decades? Andrew Revkin at Dot Earth says the findings are accepted by scientists across the political spectrum. (I bet Uncle Climate Denier remembers those frozen winter mornings just fine…)
2. Also from Dot Earth — two U.S. senators have proposed giving a prize to anybody with a way to extract CO2 from the atmosphere and sequester it permanently. (Isn’t that called “a forest”? Just asking…)
3. Martha Stewart, eat your heart out — two UK companies are building a plant to recycle diapers into, among other things, wallpaper — and the plant will run on the organic matter in the diapers themselves. Eeewww… (Hat tip: Triple Pundit.)
4. Cool Green Science Alert! A new undersea glider (huh?) is tracking the rare beaked whale off the coast of Hawaii…using only a listening device. (It’s the best way, because the whales are shy and live far off shore. Hat tip: Wired Science.)
5. Score one for the good guys — the brown pelican, once on the endangered species list because DDT weakened its eggs, has been declared “fully recovered” by the U.S. Department of the Interior, reports the LA Times. (Hat tip: Yale Environment 360.)

(Image: Brown pelicans off Morro Bay, California. Credit: mikebaird/Flickr through a Creative Commons license.)

1. The Daily Green weighs in on the “real vs. artificial” Christmas tree debate. Is it really that time of the year already?
2. There’s a green building boom underway in post-Katrina New Orleans, reports Bright Green Blog.  Within the next few years, the city will welcome LEED-certified schools, community centers and homes, as well as America’s first LEED platinum certified apartment building, which will be reserved for low-income residents.
3. Do we all need to become vegetarians to battle climate change? According to this Science Channel post, it would probably help, but it doesn’t sound like we’ll be collectively giving up our steaks and cheeseburgers anytime soon.
4. Want a job in 10 years? (I know I do!)  Then we all better get on board with climate legislation right now, says The Daily Green.
5. The U.K. wastes about $20 billion worth of food every year, reports Treehugger.  As if the price tag wasn’t scary enough, that wasted food also equals 22 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions.

It was a very busy week last week in the world of climate change, with lots of activity on both the domestic and international fronts. UN negotiators wrapped up talks in Barcelona, the last before the big event in December in Copenhagen. And climate and energy legislation moved in various ways in the U.S. Senate.

Here is the view of where things stand from The Nature Conservancy’s climate change policy gurus: Eric Haxthausen, director of U.S. climate policy, and Duncan Marsh, director of international climate policy.

Q: At this point, what should we be looking for in Copenhagen?

Duncan Marsh: Time is short. Real progress needs to be made in the coming weeks at the highest government levels in order to put together a meaningful agreement in Copenhagen.

Negotiators in Copenhagen must consolidate their efforts over the past two years into a framework that:

• Contains the principles for actions by key countries to reduce emissions,
• Establishes a significant financial commitment to help developing countries adapt to climate change and move toward clean energy economies, and
• Commits to a comprehensive, legally-binding agreement.

Such an agreement must be finalized in legally-binding form within months, not years.

Q: There has been much attention on what the United States is doing or not doing on climate change. What about the rest of the world?

Duncan Marsh: There is growing evidence that governmental leaders from around the world are engaged behind the scenes at unprecedented levels, and are moving to take serious action on climate change. China, India, Brazil, Japan, Australia, Indonesia and others have made recent pledges to significantly limit their carbon emissions, promote clean energy or reduce deforestation.

The European Union proposed guidance on the level of funding developed countries will need to provide to effectively combat and adapt to climate change. Governments now need to make the commitments to provide that funding.

And, in the United States, the Senate took steps last week to clear a path forward on climate and energy legislation that would cap US emissions – an essential step in reaching a comprehensive global agreement.

Q: Why does getting legislation in the Senate and a global climate agreement matter?

Eric Haxthausen: Climate change is about the future of our country, and the world we leave for the next generation. But it is also about the present: We are already seeing changes, and addressing climate change now can begin to transform our economy as we put America back to work.

Duncan Marsh: We are seeing devastating droughts, floods and changing weather patterns that are displacing populations, causing food shortages and sparking social unrest that threatens each and every one of us. Scientific data tells us that the impacts of climate change – both current and future– are accelerating faster than previously predicted. All countries need to move quickly and join the global effort to reduce emissions and help people and nature adapt to this threat.

Q. Is climate and energy legislation in the Senate dependent on securing enough votes from Democrats, or will it involve bipartisan support?

Eric Haxthausen: Final passage of climate and energy legislation in the Senate will – and should – require bipartisan support. Enacting solutions to climate change is not a partisan issue. Leaders from both parties have clearly stated the urgent need to take action.

Along with the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (S. 1733) coming out of committee last week, Senators John Kerry, Lindsey Graham and Joseph Lieberman – a Democrat, a Republican and an independent – announced this week they will work together and with others in their parties to ensure a solution is developed that can receive bipartisan support.

Q. How do last week’s actions in the U.S. Senate bode for an agreement in Copenhagen?

Eric Haxthausen: The last few days have shown real progress toward passage of a climate bill. We are hopeful that these actions, coupled with continued efforts over the next weeks by the Senate and the Obama administration, will help enable a strong outcome in Copenhagen.

Duncan Marsh: The U.S. Congress and administration must now act swiftly to fulfill the full promise of these initial actions. The coming weeks offer President Obama the opportunity to clearly demonstrate his commitment to acting seriously on climate change — and the world’s opportunity to re-embrace U.S. engagement. It will require extraordinary leadership and political will to reach the firm commitment needed in Copenhagen to safeguard our planet for future generations.

(Image credit: fatboyke/Flickr through a Creative Commons license.)

1. Now here’s a question that’s been keeping millions up at night! Which is greener: Going into the refrigerator for a bottle of cold water or using the water dispenser on the fridge door? (Do those still exist?) Treehugger’s Ask Pablo says…um, why are you refrigerating your water?
2. What’s a ton of emitted carbon actually worth? The Institute for Policy Integrity consulted 144 leading economists and got…wildly disparate estimates from the pointyheads. (But 98% of them favored putting a price on the stuff to incentivize energy efficiency and innovation. Hat tip: CleanTechnica.)
3. How can you change a climate change denier’s mind? “The Psychology of Climate Change Communication,” a new report from Columbia University researchers, gives tips for advocates — don’t pile on the anxiety, and be honest about uncertainties. (The report also says people wonder why we can’t just reopen the ozone hole to release the build-up of greenhouse gases. Hat tip: Bright Green Blog.)
4. How many species have been listed as endangered by the Obama administration? Would you believe just one? That’s a much slower rate than that under President George W. Bush, reports Jeremy Hance at Mongabay.
5. 31 days to Copenhagen…what will happen? Today, the BBC’s Richard Black takes his best guess…and says get ready for some late night pizza deliveries and last-second deals. (There is good pizza in Copenhagen, isn’t there?)