An ardent attempt is afoot on Capitol Hill to prevent states from requiring the labeling of genetically engineered foods – made especially urgent by the fact that Vermont’s labeling bill is set to take effect July 1st.

Although proponents of these foods scored a major victory in July when they induced the House of Representatives to pass a bill (HR 1599) that would ban such state-enacted legislation, a version of that bill has not yet been introduced in the Senate.

And because of the intense focus on crafting and passing crucial legislation that will provide necessary funding to keep the federal government functioning, none is likely to be during this session.

Accordingly, biotech advocates are endeavoring to get key provisions of HR 1599 attached as a rider to the must-pass appropriations bill – and sneak them into law without meaningful scrutiny and debate.

But this attempt could be quickly foiled by one simple occurrence: the dissemination of a few essential facts. Moreover, if these facts had been widely known in July, HR 1599 could not have even made it through the House.

That’s because the bill has always relied on disinformation – and could not survive an open airing of the truth.

The DARK Act’s survival depends on keeping people in the dark

HR 1599 was artfully titled the ‘Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015.’ But because it would actually restrict the labeling of GE foods, public interest groups dubbed it the ‘DARK Act’ – Denying Americans the Right to Know Act.

Moreover, not only would that proposed legislation keep consumers in the dark, the legislators were significantly operating in the dark themselves. Indeed, it’s safe to say that virtually every member of the House who voted on that bill – whether for or against – was mistaken about at least one of the key salient facts.

Some of the greatest confusion involves food safety. For instance, the bill’s sponsor, Congressman Pompeo, declared that consumer demands for labeling of GE foods have nothing to do with health or safety, and its other supporters have backed that assertion and proclaimed that no legitimate food safety concerns exist.

Even the main witness who testified against the bill before a congressional committee in 2014 declared that there aren’t any. But this is flat-out false. For example, science-based concerns about the dangers to human health were repeatedly raised in memos written by the technical experts at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) when they analyzed the risks of genetic engineering in 1991.

The pervasiveness of the concerns within the scientific staff is attested by a memo from an FDA official who asserted: “The processes of genetic engineering and traditional breeding are different, and according to the technical experts in the agency, they lead to different risks.” [1]

Such concerns have been expressed in subsequent years by numerous other scientists and scientific institutions as well, including the British Medical Association, the Public Health Association of Australia, and the respected medical journal The Lancet.

Serious scientific concerns on GMO safety

One of the strongest set of cautions appeared within an extensive report issued by the Royal Society of Canada, which declared (a) that it is “scientifically unjustifiable” to presume that GE foods are safe and (b) that the “default presumption” for every one of them should be that the genetic alteration has induced unintended and potentially harmful side effects [2].

Laboratory testing has confirmed the legitimacy of the concerns, and a number of well-conducted research studies on GE foods published in peer-reviewed scientific journals have detected statistically significant instances of harm to the laboratory animals that were consigned to consume them.

Moreover, a review of the scientific literature on GE foods (itself published in a peer-reviewed journal in 2009) concluded that “most” of the safety assessments have not only indicated problems, but indicated that “many GM [genetically modified] foods have some common toxic effects.” [3]

Confusion also reigns regarding the adequacy of federal regulation, and it’s widely believed that the FDA is assiduously following the law and subjecting GE foods to rigorous scientific review.

But in reality (and as will be seen), that agency has not conducted a genuinely scientific review for any GE food on the market, and far from following the law, it’s been deliberately violating the law’s express mandates in order to enable these products to be marketed without the kinds of testing that the law requires.

Accounting for the confusion: the decisive role of deception

The widespread misconceptions about GE foods have been created and sustained through the systematic spreading of disinformation by a large number of their proponents. Deplorably, one of the chief spreaders has been the FDA; and if that agency had not routinely distorted the facts – and instead told the truth – the GE food venture would almost surely have collapsed.

For instance, when the FDA issued its policy statement on GE foods in 1992, it claimed it was “not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way.” [4]

This was despite the fact its files contained multiple memos from its own scientists explaining how GE foods do indeed differ, why they pose greater risks, and why none should be presumed safe unless its safety has been demonstrated through rigorous testing.

Moreover, the FDA compounded the fraud by claiming that GE foods were “Generally Recognized as Safe” among experts and could be marketed without the requirement of any safety testing at all, even though its files reveal that it knew there was no expert consensus – and even though the law mandates that foods containing novel substances must be established safe through solid technical evidence. [5]

Furthermore, to create the illusion that responsible regulation was being exercised, the agency set up a voluntary consultation process that it claims affords “rigorous” review. But the process is not a genuine scientific review, and the FDA’s Biotechnology Strategic Manager has acknowledged that fact – while admitting that the agency does not even request or receive any original test data. [6]

The delusions cannot last much longer

The agency’s shameful behavior continues, and although by now it is well aware of much more information showing that GE foods significantly differ from others, it persists in its bogus claim that it is “not aware” of any; and this blatant falsehood was repeated by an FDA official on October 21st at a hearing of the Senate Agriculture Committee.

She also asserted that the consultation process is so rigorous that it resolves “all safety issues”, which is not only misleading but ridiculous, because the process is far too superficial to achieve such certitude. [7]

Because the facts weigh so heavily against the GE food venture, and because it has relied on distorting them in order to survive, it cannot long endure. When enough people in general, or even a small number on Capitol Hill, finally learn the truth – and realize the extent to which the truth has been consistently twisted – there will be dramatic change.

And if a sufficient dose of enlightenment were to soon suffuse The Hill, the DARK Act would be dead.

Action: call your US Senator and inform them of the dangers of GMOs and the DARK Bill. Demand that they refuse the DARK rider in any spending bills. Tell them to contact Ag Committee Chairman, Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, and Ag Committee Ranking Member, Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, to prevent them from adding the DARK Act rider to this month’s spending bill.

Steven M. Druker is Executive Director of the Alliance for Bio-Integrity.

This article was originally published on Independent Science News under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 License.

References

1. Document 1 at http://biointegrity.org/24-fda-documents The FDA covered up the memos from its scientists, and they only came to light because a lawsuit initiated by the Alliance for Bio-Integrity compelled the agency to release its files on GE foods.

2. ‘Elements of Precaution: Recommendations for the Regulation of Food Biotechnology in Canada; An Expert Panel Report on the Future of Food Biotechnology‘ prepared by The Royal Society of Canada at the request of Health Canada Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Environment Canada, The Royal Society of Canada, January 2001

3. Dona, A., and I. S. Arvanitouannis (2009) ‘Health Risks of Genetically Modified Foods‘. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 49: 164-75.

4. Statement of Policy: Foods Derived From New Plant Varieties, May 29, 1992, Federal Register vol. 57, No. 104 at 22991

5. The legal requirements are delineated at 21 CFR Sec. 170.30 (a-b). For a fuller explanation of what the law requires for GRAS status and how the FDA has been violating the requirements, see Chapter 5 of my book, Altered Genes, Twisted Truth, or my article, ‘Why the FDA’s Policy on Genetically Engineered Foods is Unscientific, Irresponsible, and Illegal.‘

6. Maryanski, J., ‘Safety Assurance of Foods Derived by Modern Biotechnology in the United States’, July 1996.

7. Statement of Susan Mayne, PhD, Director, FDA Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, before the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, US Senate, October 21, 2015.

The end of the fossil fuel era is being signalled loud and clear here at the Paris climate conference as ministers enter the final hours of negotiations.

It’s crunch time and everyone is saying the elements needed for an ambitious deal are still on the table. An essential part of this includes establishing a clear long-term goal to guide investor confidence toward a low-carbon society.

And with a 1.5C target option currently alive in the text, along with words such as ‘decarbonisation’ and ‘carbon neutral’, the signal couldn’t be clearer.

“The message that we expect this conference to send investors in the fossil fuel industry is get out now”, said Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club. “There is no future in fossil fuels.”

Pointing to the 1.5C target, Kasia Kosonen from Greenpeace added: “We are now for the first time really having a serious debate around strengthening the temperature target to 1.5C and recognising that 2C is already too much. This de facto means that we are talking about moving away from fossil fuels in a short period of time.”

Sending a clear signal to investors – go clean!

And it’s not just those inside the negotiations that are looking for clarity. Businesses have also been calling for a clear long term goal, stressing its importance for investors.

As Michael Jacobs, senior advisor at the New Climate Economy project, explained: “Emissions will be cut through the application of investment and technology in a whole series of infrastructure projects… that’s how you actually do this. And the piece of paper that will be signed is a push to those processes but it doesn’t guarantee them.”

“The way it pushes them is it requires government to respond to goals by putting in place policies which will then help drive investment, and demand creation, and technological innovation.”

Alden Meyer, strategy director at the Union of Concerned Scientists, agreed – and he’s been to virtually all the major climate talks since 1995. He explained that a Paris deal must send a clear signal to the global industry that investments can shift from high-polluting industries towards clean energy – a trend he said we were already witnessing.

“That will affect their decisions on trillions of dollars of asset investments”, Meyer told The Guardian. “If they think that governments are serious about going where the science says we need to go, then they will respond in kind. If they think that governments are wishy-washy, and are wobbling or uncertain, then they will hedge their bets.”

It seems the oil and gas industry is at the very least hearing what’s being said. But will it listen?

A ‘reshaped, reframed political and policy context’ emerges

We’re already seeing dramatic shifts in the energy market signalling the end of coal. According to estimates by commercial intelligence company Wood Mackenzie more than 65% of the world’s coal production is unprofitable as prices decline for the fifth year in a row.

Last Friday at a side-event inside the COP21 delegates’ space, oil executives from Shell, Total, and Statoil, along with industry trade bodies, sat down to discuss the future of their industry. While there was little talk of renewables, the industry figures recognised that there was strong global pressure to cut fossil fuel emissions.

Elliot Diringer, executive vice president of Virginia-based non-profit C2ES – and who was described as being close to negotiators – explained: “Paris has already sent many signals … The [pledges], the presence of world leaders, the agreement itself … [and] the debate on long term goals such as the decarbonisation of the economy.”

“If all of that comes together what we’ll have is a reshaped, reframed political and policy context. The question for all stakeholders is how do we engage coming out of Paris to achieve the transformation we keep talking about?”

Jean-Francois Gagne, head of technology policy division at the International Energy Agency, told industry figures in the room: “We have to realise the rate at which we decarbonise is going to have to increase, so we need to think about [what we invest in] in the future.”

Solutions which “would give credibility” to the industry, he said, included energy efficiency and renewables, as well as ending coal and reducing methane emissions from gas.

As Margaret Mistry, sustainability communications leader at Statoil, added: “We need to relate to the climate goals that people are talking about outside of our industry. Whether it’s two degrees or net zero emissions. It’s important to speak the same language.”

“From our point of view, the stronger the agreement the better. What we’re seeking is predictability and investment signals. The more certainty … the better it is for us to plan our business.”

Kyla Mandel is Deputy Editor of DeSmog UK. She tweets @kylamandel.

This article was originally published on DeSmog.uk.

The end of the fossil fuel era is being signalled loud and clear here at the Paris climate conference as ministers enter the final hours of negotiations.

It’s crunch time and everyone is saying the elements needed for an ambitious deal are still on the table. An essential part of this includes establishing a clear long-term goal to guide investor confidence toward a low-carbon society.

And with a 1.5C target option currently alive in the text, along with words such as ‘decarbonisation’ and ‘carbon neutral’, the signal couldn’t be clearer.

“The message that we expect this conference to send investors in the fossil fuel industry is get out now”, said Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club. “There is no future in fossil fuels.”

Pointing to the 1.5C target, Kasia Kosonen from Greenpeace added: “We are now for the first time really having a serious debate around strengthening the temperature target to 1.5C and recognising that 2C is already too much. This de facto means that we are talking about moving away from fossil fuels in a short period of time.”

Sending a clear signal to investors – go clean!

And it’s not just those inside the negotiations that are looking for clarity. Businesses have also been calling for a clear long term goal, stressing its importance for investors.

As Michael Jacobs, senior advisor at the New Climate Economy project, explained: “Emissions will be cut through the application of investment and technology in a whole series of infrastructure projects… that’s how you actually do this. And the piece of paper that will be signed is a push to those processes but it doesn’t guarantee them.”

“The way it pushes them is it requires government to respond to goals by putting in place policies which will then help drive investment, and demand creation, and technological innovation.”

Alden Meyer, strategy director at the Union of Concerned Scientists, agreed – and he’s been to virtually all the major climate talks since 1995. He explained that a Paris deal must send a clear signal to the global industry that investments can shift from high-polluting industries towards clean energy – a trend he said we were already witnessing.

“That will affect their decisions on trillions of dollars of asset investments”, Meyer told The Guardian. “If they think that governments are serious about going where the science says we need to go, then they will respond in kind. If they think that governments are wishy-washy, and are wobbling or uncertain, then they will hedge their bets.”

It seems the oil and gas industry is at the very least hearing what’s being said. But will it listen?

A ‘reshaped, reframed political and policy context’ emerges

We’re already seeing dramatic shifts in the energy market signalling the end of coal. According to estimates by commercial intelligence company Wood Mackenzie more than 65% of the world’s coal production is unprofitable as prices decline for the fifth year in a row.

Last Friday at a side-event inside the COP21 delegates’ space, oil executives from Shell, Total, and Statoil, along with industry trade bodies, sat down to discuss the future of their industry. While there was little talk of renewables, the industry figures recognised that there was strong global pressure to cut fossil fuel emissions.

Elliot Diringer, executive vice president of Virginia-based non-profit C2ES – and who was described as being close to negotiators – explained: “Paris has already sent many signals … The [pledges], the presence of world leaders, the agreement itself … [and] the debate on long term goals such as the decarbonisation of the economy.”

“If all of that comes together what we’ll have is a reshaped, reframed political and policy context. The question for all stakeholders is how do we engage coming out of Paris to achieve the transformation we keep talking about?”

Jean-Francois Gagne, head of technology policy division at the International Energy Agency, told industry figures in the room: “We have to realise the rate at which we decarbonise is going to have to increase, so we need to think about [what we invest in] in the future.”

Solutions which “would give credibility” to the industry, he said, included energy efficiency and renewables, as well as ending coal and reducing methane emissions from gas.

As Margaret Mistry, sustainability communications leader at Statoil, added: “We need to relate to the climate goals that people are talking about outside of our industry. Whether it’s two degrees or net zero emissions. It’s important to speak the same language.”

“From our point of view, the stronger the agreement the better. What we’re seeking is predictability and investment signals. The more certainty … the better it is for us to plan our business.”

Kyla Mandel is Deputy Editor of DeSmog UK. She tweets @kylamandel.

This article was originally published on DeSmog.uk.

The end of the fossil fuel era is being signalled loud and clear here at the Paris climate conference as ministers enter the final hours of negotiations.

It’s crunch time and everyone is saying the elements needed for an ambitious deal are still on the table. An essential part of this includes establishing a clear long-term goal to guide investor confidence toward a low-carbon society.

And with a 1.5C target option currently alive in the text, along with words such as ‘decarbonisation’ and ‘carbon neutral’, the signal couldn’t be clearer.

“The message that we expect this conference to send investors in the fossil fuel industry is get out now”, said Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club. “There is no future in fossil fuels.”

Pointing to the 1.5C target, Kasia Kosonen from Greenpeace added: “We are now for the first time really having a serious debate around strengthening the temperature target to 1.5C and recognising that 2C is already too much. This de facto means that we are talking about moving away from fossil fuels in a short period of time.”

Sending a clear signal to investors – go clean!

And it’s not just those inside the negotiations that are looking for clarity. Businesses have also been calling for a clear long term goal, stressing its importance for investors.

As Michael Jacobs, senior advisor at the New Climate Economy project, explained: “Emissions will be cut through the application of investment and technology in a whole series of infrastructure projects… that’s how you actually do this. And the piece of paper that will be signed is a push to those processes but it doesn’t guarantee them.”

“The way it pushes them is it requires government to respond to goals by putting in place policies which will then help drive investment, and demand creation, and technological innovation.”

Alden Meyer, strategy director at the Union of Concerned Scientists, agreed – and he’s been to virtually all the major climate talks since 1995. He explained that a Paris deal must send a clear signal to the global industry that investments can shift from high-polluting industries towards clean energy – a trend he said we were already witnessing.

“That will affect their decisions on trillions of dollars of asset investments”, Meyer told The Guardian. “If they think that governments are serious about going where the science says we need to go, then they will respond in kind. If they think that governments are wishy-washy, and are wobbling or uncertain, then they will hedge their bets.”

It seems the oil and gas industry is at the very least hearing what’s being said. But will it listen?

A ‘reshaped, reframed political and policy context’ emerges

We’re already seeing dramatic shifts in the energy market signalling the end of coal. According to estimates by commercial intelligence company Wood Mackenzie more than 65% of the world’s coal production is unprofitable as prices decline for the fifth year in a row.

Last Friday at a side-event inside the COP21 delegates’ space, oil executives from Shell, Total, and Statoil, along with industry trade bodies, sat down to discuss the future of their industry. While there was little talk of renewables, the industry figures recognised that there was strong global pressure to cut fossil fuel emissions.

Elliot Diringer, executive vice president of Virginia-based non-profit C2ES – and who was described as being close to negotiators – explained: “Paris has already sent many signals … The [pledges], the presence of world leaders, the agreement itself … [and] the debate on long term goals such as the decarbonisation of the economy.”

“If all of that comes together what we’ll have is a reshaped, reframed political and policy context. The question for all stakeholders is how do we engage coming out of Paris to achieve the transformation we keep talking about?”

Jean-Francois Gagne, head of technology policy division at the International Energy Agency, told industry figures in the room: “We have to realise the rate at which we decarbonise is going to have to increase, so we need to think about [what we invest in] in the future.”

Solutions which “would give credibility” to the industry, he said, included energy efficiency and renewables, as well as ending coal and reducing methane emissions from gas.

As Margaret Mistry, sustainability communications leader at Statoil, added: “We need to relate to the climate goals that people are talking about outside of our industry. Whether it’s two degrees or net zero emissions. It’s important to speak the same language.”

“From our point of view, the stronger the agreement the better. What we’re seeking is predictability and investment signals. The more certainty … the better it is for us to plan our business.”

Kyla Mandel is Deputy Editor of DeSmog UK. She tweets @kylamandel.

This article was originally published on DeSmog.uk.

The end of the fossil fuel era is being signalled loud and clear here at the Paris climate conference as ministers enter the final hours of negotiations.

It’s crunch time and everyone is saying the elements needed for an ambitious deal are still on the table. An essential part of this includes establishing a clear long-term goal to guide investor confidence toward a low-carbon society.

And with a 1.5C target option currently alive in the text, along with words such as ‘decarbonisation’ and ‘carbon neutral’, the signal couldn’t be clearer.

“The message that we expect this conference to send investors in the fossil fuel industry is get out now”, said Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club. “There is no future in fossil fuels.”

Pointing to the 1.5C target, Kasia Kosonen from Greenpeace added: “We are now for the first time really having a serious debate around strengthening the temperature target to 1.5C and recognising that 2C is already too much. This de facto means that we are talking about moving away from fossil fuels in a short period of time.”

Sending a clear signal to investors – go clean!

And it’s not just those inside the negotiations that are looking for clarity. Businesses have also been calling for a clear long term goal, stressing its importance for investors.

As Michael Jacobs, senior advisor at the New Climate Economy project, explained: “Emissions will be cut through the application of investment and technology in a whole series of infrastructure projects… that’s how you actually do this. And the piece of paper that will be signed is a push to those processes but it doesn’t guarantee them.”

“The way it pushes them is it requires government to respond to goals by putting in place policies which will then help drive investment, and demand creation, and technological innovation.”

Alden Meyer, strategy director at the Union of Concerned Scientists, agreed – and he’s been to virtually all the major climate talks since 1995. He explained that a Paris deal must send a clear signal to the global industry that investments can shift from high-polluting industries towards clean energy – a trend he said we were already witnessing.

“That will affect their decisions on trillions of dollars of asset investments”, Meyer told The Guardian. “If they think that governments are serious about going where the science says we need to go, then they will respond in kind. If they think that governments are wishy-washy, and are wobbling or uncertain, then they will hedge their bets.”

It seems the oil and gas industry is at the very least hearing what’s being said. But will it listen?

A ‘reshaped, reframed political and policy context’ emerges

We’re already seeing dramatic shifts in the energy market signalling the end of coal. According to estimates by commercial intelligence company Wood Mackenzie more than 65% of the world’s coal production is unprofitable as prices decline for the fifth year in a row.

Last Friday at a side-event inside the COP21 delegates’ space, oil executives from Shell, Total, and Statoil, along with industry trade bodies, sat down to discuss the future of their industry. While there was little talk of renewables, the industry figures recognised that there was strong global pressure to cut fossil fuel emissions.

Elliot Diringer, executive vice president of Virginia-based non-profit C2ES – and who was described as being close to negotiators – explained: “Paris has already sent many signals … The [pledges], the presence of world leaders, the agreement itself … [and] the debate on long term goals such as the decarbonisation of the economy.”

“If all of that comes together what we’ll have is a reshaped, reframed political and policy context. The question for all stakeholders is how do we engage coming out of Paris to achieve the transformation we keep talking about?”

Jean-Francois Gagne, head of technology policy division at the International Energy Agency, told industry figures in the room: “We have to realise the rate at which we decarbonise is going to have to increase, so we need to think about [what we invest in] in the future.”

Solutions which “would give credibility” to the industry, he said, included energy efficiency and renewables, as well as ending coal and reducing methane emissions from gas.

As Margaret Mistry, sustainability communications leader at Statoil, added: “We need to relate to the climate goals that people are talking about outside of our industry. Whether it’s two degrees or net zero emissions. It’s important to speak the same language.”

“From our point of view, the stronger the agreement the better. What we’re seeking is predictability and investment signals. The more certainty … the better it is for us to plan our business.”

Kyla Mandel is Deputy Editor of DeSmog UK. She tweets @kylamandel.

This article was originally published on DeSmog.uk.

Government negotiators currently meeting in Paris are trying to lay out a course of action to avoid a global average temperature increase of more than two degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels.

For a chance to meet this objective, we know that emissions must peak soon and fall steeply by 2050 at the latest.

One of the thorniest challenges negotiators face is developing a system for monitoring, reporting and verifying each countries’ pledges to cut their own emissions.

Many have already criticized the existing national commitments as schemes to make countries look good to the public. As currently proposed, they are not going to lead us in a pathway to hold global warming below 2C; instead, the pledges would take us into a +2.7C warming.

Also, enforcement of the Paris pledges will most likely be voluntary, despite the EU, the 53-nation Commonwealth, and many developing countries pushing for a binding deal.

Absent legal enforcement mechanisms, then, more than one nation will fail to adhere to their obligations. This happened with the Kyoto Protocol from 1992 and is happening now with the unfulfilled billions of dollars pledged to help poor countries adapt to climate change.

However, climate negotiators in Paris – especially those from the most vulnerable countries, such as mine, the Philippines – do have options. They can pursue a robust agenda, as a developing country bloc or an alliance of vulnerable states, to hold countries to their promises of keeping warming below a rise of 2C and to help poor countries adapt and reduce emissions.

Developing countries must demand unconditional surrender

In this regard, the military alliances forged through the 1943 Casablanca Agreement during World War II – best known for developing the Allies’ policy of ‘unconditional surrender’ – provide a useful model.

At the height of the war, the Allies met at Casablanca in then French Morocco between January 14 and 24 1943. Key players in attendance were British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, US President Franklin D Roosevelt, joint chiefs of staff, US Field Marshall Eisenhower, and British Field Marshall Alexander. Joseph Stalin had been invited, but he was needed on home ground as the Soviet Red Army was, at the time, battling to hold Stalingrad.

Analogous to what negotiators in Paris face – and will remain relevant post-Paris – the Casablanca Conference aimed to decide a common future strategy. High on the agenda was an attack against the Germans in France, one that would materialize in the Invasion of Normandy.

On their final day at Casablanca, Roosevelt announced he and Churchill decided that the only way to ensure postwar peace was to adopt a policy of unconditional surrender by the Axis states.

The policy was made to avoid the situation following World War I, when large segments of German society had not expected to be defeated militarily and resented the Treaty of Versailles that was supposed to bring lasting peace in the region. This resentment helped fuel German rearmament during the interwar years – a clear violation of the treaty.

Nothing less will do!

We do not want to have another Treaty of Versailles-like infraction happening post-Paris. The new climate agreement should specify a policy tantamount to the policy of ‘unconditional surrender’ made in Casablanca. Developing countries should demand:

• clear enforcement of mandatory and legally binding national pledges subject to regular review;
• unconditional support to developing countries through regularly replenished financial assistance for climate adaptation and mitigation;
• a systematic and transparent emissions reduction and climate finance audit mechanism;
• and strong sanctions for nonparticipation or cessation from internationally agreed climate action.

This is not a new set of proposals, but only cements the original aims of the current negotiations: to require climate polluters to undertake deep emissions cuts, and to make sure that rich countries provide the resources for poor countries to adapt to the changing climate.

Following the Casablanca model, these aims can be met through:

• Establishing mandatory emissions cuts that ensure peaking by 2025 and close-to-zero emissions by 2050. The Paris talks are currently confined with voluntarily defined targets known as the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), which are not enough to stay below the two degree threshold. That doesn’t mean, however, that they are not important. They are key signs that countries recognize the need for action. INDCs can, therefore, serve as starting points to establish future national targets that are mandatory and legally binding.

• Establishing an assessed contributions approach to a multilateral fund for mitigation and adaptation. The universally ratified Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer provides an illustration of a relatively successful application of the concept of common but differentiated responsibilities, the idea that is enshrined in the original climate convention and took note of historical emission contributions. It also demonstrates how assessed contributions to the Multilateral Fund for its implementation according to the UN scale of assessment can be used as a template for climate finance funds collection and disbursements, which is currently a critical juncture in the Paris talks.

• Establishing a global monitoring mechanism to periodically review mitigation pledges and would allow countries to upgrade their targets. The mechanism should also facilitate proper accounting of climate adaptation and mitigation assistance to poor countries to avoid double-counting, which prevents transparent, fair, and just determination of whether the interventions are new and additional or not.

• Establishing penalties to deter countries from free riding. Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz has long been suggesting trade sanctions to prevent countries “which refuse to agree or to implement emission reductions from inflicting harm on the rest of the world.” Yale University’s William Nordhaus suggests uniform percentage tariffs on the imports of nonadherents. Diplomatic sanctions and reduced foreign aid could also be invoked, as well as strong censures in international bodies such as at the United Nations.

COP21 does not end in Paris

Climate change is unquestionably the greatest collective challenge facing us as a species, but our collective response does not add up to what is required to keep warming below 2C. This decade, therefore, remains a critical decade for action.

Clearly, the climate issue has been prioritized, with many people now recognizing the scientific basis of anthropogenic – or man-made – climate change and the importance of effective and timely climate action. But, there are still t’s that need crossing and i’s that need dotting.

This can be done with an agreement that echoes the principle of unconditional surrender in Casablanca in 1943 – an agreement that is not only robust, ambitious and binding, but also outlines measures that would lock in countries within their pledged 2C target and their promise of international cooperation.

Laurence Delina is Postdoctoral Associate at the Frederick S Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future, Boston University.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The glaciers of Greenland are retreating two to three times faster now than at any time since the last Ice Age ended 9,500 years ago, according to new research.

The news comes as indigenous peoples from the northern polar region staged an Arctic Day at the COP21 climate change summit in Paris.

Leaders of Greenland peoples, the Nunavut region of Canada and the Inuit Circumpolar Council appealed to the governments of the world to unite to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions and keep global warming to between 1.5C and 2C.

That is because the Arctic is now warming faster than almost anywhere else on Earth, and both human settlements and natural ecosystems are vulnerable.

That the Greenland glaciers are in retreat is itself not news. Satellite data and measurements on the ground have repeatedly confirmed the retreat of the glaciers, the loss of ice and the acceleration of flow. The Jakobshavn Isbrae glacier has even reached a speed of 17 kilometres a year.

Sediment cores

But US scientists report in Climate of the Past journal that the present rate of loss is without precedent.

They analysed sediment cores from a lake bed fed by two Greenland glaciers and built up a record reaching back nearly 10,000 years, charting the advance and retreat of the ice in response to natural cycles. And they found evidence of climate change triggered by the human combustion of fossil fuels imposed upon the natural pattern.

“Two things are happening”, says one of the report’s authors, William D’Andrea, a paleoclimatologist at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory.

“One is you have a very gradual decrease in the amount of sunlight hitting high latitudes in the summer. If that were the only thing happening, we would expect these glaciers to very slowly be creeping forward, forward, forward.

“But then we come along and start burning fossil fuels and adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, and glaciers that would still be growing start to melt back because summer temperatures are warmer.”

The evidence lies in the erosion rates revealed by the lake silts. Colder climates mean more ice, which means heavier glaciers, which then grind and erode more rock. Cores of sediment preserve the annual record of seasonal change, and radiocarbon dating techniques can provide a calendar of melting and freezing periods.

The record reveals that erosion decreased 8,500 years ago, increased again, and then around 8,000 years ago the glaciers began almost to waste away. There was very little evidence of erosion, and the lake silt incorporated evidence that plants once bloomed around the lake.

Around 4,000 years ago, the glaciers grew again, and – with intervals of retreat – continued to grow until 100 years ago.

Pattern of retreat

Although the evidence comes from a small area confined to the southeastern part of Greenland, it remains a guide to the bigger picture. The same pattern of advance and retreat is matched by evidence from ocean sediments and cores of ice from Greenland and Baffin Island.

“This shows that there are internal responses within the climate system that can make glaciers grow and shrink on very short timescales”, Dr D’Andrea says. “They’re really dynamic systems, which we have not had much evidence for prior to this.”

Greenland’s minister of industry, labour, trade and foreign affairs, Vittus Qujaukitsoq, one the Arctic voices appealing for strong and effective action in Paris, said: “Greenland has an important responsibility in promoting international climate research.

“Greenlandic climate research combines international cutting-edge research with an Arctic human dimension. Our joint Inuit voice and our traditional know-how from across the Arctic should be heard and included in international policy-making.”

Tim Radford writes for Climate News Network.

There have been some pretty radioactive climate change ideas making the rounds at the COP21 talks in Paris. Team Hansen’s wildly unrealistic notion of switching on 61 new nuclear reactors a year was taking the cake until an even fruitier one reared its familiar head: the nuclear chimera known as ITER.

ITER was originally called the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, with ‘experimental’ being the operative word in that lofty title. Which is perhaps why today they refer to it only by acronym (apparently the word ‘thermonuclear’ also had some rather explosive connotations.) The official website equates ITER with its coincidental Latin meaning, ‘The Way’.

ITER was initiated in 1985 by then presidents Reagan and Gorbachev. The multi-nation project included not only the United States and the already crumbling Soviet Union, but the European Union and Japan. Today there are 35 countries in the partnership.

If it ever gets completed and actually works, ITER will be a fusion reactor known as a Tokomak. Fusion is the physicists’ wet dream, and they’ve been hallucinating about ITER for precisely three decades and Tokomaks and fusion itself for even longer.

ITER itself isn’t even the final step to electricity-producing fusion power plants. Its purpose is in “preparing the way for the fusion power plants of tomorrow.” A tomorrow that is heralded as ten years away, decade after decade.

Wrestling with plasma

Indeed, ITER has been such a perpetually longstanding aspiration that I can delve for information into my father Mike Pentz’s 1994 memoirs without risk of being much out of date. A physicist and founder of Scientists Against Nuclear Arms, here’s how he assessed the challenge of fusion, something he began wrestling with back in 1948.

“The problem of containing a deuterium-tritium plasma at high enough temperatures for long enough to get more power out of the reactor than has gone into it is still not solved, in spite of the expenditure of billions of pounds, dollars, roubles and yen over more than forty years of effort.”

The world’s cleverest scientists have been working on the problem for decades, trying to contain very multi-million degree plasma in magnetic fields, but constantly being flummoxed by the unpredictable pressure and temperature surges that plasma throws up, frustrating their finest efforts.

Yet cracking fusion holds scientists in thrall. The elusive promise of limitless energy that would instantly solve climate change has Nobel prize written all over it. But the confounding nature of the science is what makes the process so slow and complex. Even, potentially, impossible.

Writing in the November 6, 2014 edition of the New Statesman, Michael Brooks, who holds a PhD in quantum physics, said: “Many experts say overcoming such technical difficulties is still decades, if not centuries, beyond our capabilities.”

This does not mean that physicists in the laboratory should not be able to experiment with fusion. The thrill of intellectual exploration is understandable, as is the search for the Higgs Bosun or dark matter.

However, this cannot justify the misrepresentation of multi-billion dollar fusion experiments as some sort of relevant climate change solution. Talk of fusion has no place at COP21.

Too expensive, too slow and completely impracticable

The challenges that make fusion potentially permanently decades away have been identified as threefold. The first is for the reactor to generate more energy than it takes to produce it. The second is for the reactor to produce more energy than the facility as a whole uses to make it. And the third is to actually make electricity in this fashion without going completely broke.

The expense could be the ultimate showstopper even if we achieve the fusion dream within someone’s lifetime. The official price tag to date just for ITER’s preliminary 500-MW fusion plant is $14 billion. But with so many countries sharing the cost, along with the endless construction delays, an accurate figure is difficult to calculate.

Technical progress has been slow, too. Pentz noted that in November 1991, scientists at the Joint European Torus project “achieved a temperature of about 200 million degrees Celsius (about 10 times the temperature in the centre of the sun) for a period of two seconds.” It was hailed as “a major step forward.”

My father demurred, calling the claim an overstatement, and not only because of the likely decades of scientific work still ahead. More important was the question of fusion’s applicability to our now present and then still future energy needs, if and when it worked.

“Ironically, by the time that point is reached (if ever) – some time well into the 21st century – thermonuclear power will be irrelevant to the world’s energy needs”, he wrote.

“By then about 90% of the world’s energy will be needed by the people living in the countries now somewhat euphemistically called ‘developing.’ Extremely advanced, high-technology and high cost energy sources like controlled fusion will be entirely inappropriate for meeting their needs.”

Consigning fusion and fission to the past tense

Only slightly into the 21st century, there is now actually an ITER construction site to show for all the billions spent. It is in Cadarache in the South of France, where it is more likely to abruptly be reduced to a pile of rubble than to solve the climate crisis.

Cadarache is built on a fault line that is the most seismically active in France and close to another that registered the highest level of seismic activity the country ever recorded (in 1909).

The International Atomic Energy Agency, however, gave ITER a green light, saying the severe earthquake risks were low and not likely to happen for another 10,000 years. Which is possibly how long it might be before nuclear fusion power plants light up the Earth.

But even if ITER arrives this century, it will be pretty much irrelevant, given our survival will depend upon moving away from large centralized sources of energy, like coal, oil, gas or uranium, towards much smaller, decentralized sources.

This will, as my father wrote back in 1994, “make controlled fusion reactors as impracticable and inappropriate as nuclear reactors based upon fission. If any historians survive to write them, the history books of the 22nd century will write of nuclear energy, whether from fission or fusion, essentially in the past tense.”

Which is precisely where the wasteful ITER needs to be consigned.

Linda Pentz Gunter is the international specialist at Beyond Nuclear, a Takoma Park, MD environmental advocacy group.

Climate change is a human rights issue. Already today many people around the world have their rights to life, water, food, health, housing and other rights impacted by climate impacts.

It is in our hands to stop making this situation worse. Governments must speed up this change here in Paris to phase-out of fossil fuels by 2050 through a just transition towards 100% renewable energy, as well as the protection and restoration of forests and other ecosystems.

So far, however, States are still failing to take sufficient action on climate change. The national commitments to reduce emissions presented so far can, at best, keep the global average temperature rise to 2.7C above pre-industrial levels. [1]

This is far higher than the 1.5C most vulnerable countries see as the maximum, if they are to survive and which the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has called upon States to treat as the maximum rise.

If this failure continues it will result in the destruction of ecosystems and deny millions of people their human rights. No accountability mechanism has been put in place in the climate regime with a specific mandate to ensure that these commitments are kept.

The unacceptable consequences of failure

The human rights consequences of failure are stark. Up to an additional 600 million people could face hunger by 2080 due to climate change. [2] Even if the global temperature rises no more than 2°C, one in seven people in the world will face a severe reduction in water resources. [3]

The adverse effects are likely to be disproportionately experienced by those living in poverty, particularly women and girls, Indigenous Peoples and others disadvantaged due to discrimination.

157.8 million people were forced from their homes in the past seven years as a result of extreme weather. In 2015 we are at a 60 percent greater risk of being displaced than we were in 1975. [4]

With the impacts of climate change rapidly enfolding, the risk of displacement may soon reach catastrophic proportions – storms, floods, sea level rise, droughts, will impact an even large number of people, all around the world. Furthermore, between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250,000 additional deaths per year, from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress. [5]

All States have obligations under international human rights law to prevent harm to human rights, including the rights to life, to housing, food, water, sanitation and to a healthy environment. The obligations to protect human rights from harm caused by environmental pollution have been recognised by courts and international human rights monitoring bodies around the world. And these obligations apply irrespective of what States commit to in Paris.

Fossil fuel phase-out essential to preserve human rights

This means States must take all reasonable steps within their power to reduce carbon emissions from their countries within the shortest possible time-frame nationally, and through international agreement.

On current scenarios, the world’s carbon budget – the amount of carbon emissions that can be emitted without causing dangerous levels of climate change – will be exhausted by 2040. Human rights therefore cannot be protected unless governments phase out fossil fuels.

In Paris, States must explicitly recognize their obligations to human rights in the context of climate change, clearly commit to end the fossil fuel era, and accelerate the transition to 100% renewable energy by 2050. The timeline must be mid-century – the end of the century is far too late.

States must commit to review and further deepen their emission reduction commitments every five years, commencing right after Paris with a view to improving on the commitments for 2020-2025.

Emission reduction commitments must be legally binding, and include common accounting rules for mitigation and for provision of sufficient finance to poor and vulnerable countries to ensure that renewable energy is the most affordable option.

Only with human rights and renewable energy can we beat climate change

The shift to 100% renewable energy by mid century can and must be carried out in a manner that is just and complies with human rights standards. It should protect the rights of workers, such as by taking steps to ensure access to alternative livelihoods for those working in or whose livelihoods are currently dependent on fossil fuels sectors.

The rights of everyone to an adequate standard of living and housing, in particular those living in poverty, are respected, protected and fulfilled in the course of this transition.

In order to comply with their obligations under international human rights law, states must take actions to prevent harm and also assist those negatively affected, helping them to build their resilience to already occurring climate change, such as by safeguarding their access to water.

They must put in place mechanisms to provide remedy to those whose rights have been denied as a result of climate change. States must abide by their human rights obligations in all aspects related to climate change.

They must end all forms of discrimination and guarantee gender equality; guarantee the right to information; ensure the right to participation of affected people; and ensure the right to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly.

Amnesty International and Greenpeace International call on governments at COP21 to protect human rights by including an explicit reference to human rights in Article 2 (Purpose) as well as agreeing to phase out fossil fuels and deliver 100% renewables for all by 2050.

This joint statement by Greenpeace & Amnesty International was released yesterday at COP21 in Paris.

References

1. Climate Action Tracker, 2015.

2. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Human Development Report 2007/2008. Fighting climate change: Human solidarity in a divided world, New York, 2007, p. 90.

3. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), Working Group II Report, p.250.

4. IDMC report, 2015.

5. WHO, Climate Change and Health factsheet.

Notes

Greenpeace’s 2015 Energy [R]evolution scenario proposes a pathway to a 100% sustainable energy supply based on renewable energy by showing how it is possible to drastically reduce CO2 emissions as climate science demands, and make redundant new oil exploration in the Arctic and deep sea waters such as off the coast of Brazil. It also demonstrates that this transformation would increase employment in the energy sector. It shows that within the next 15 years, renewable energy’s share of electricity could treble from 21% today to 64%.