UNEP B4E party’s over … Did Chatham House rule?

As I wrote yesterday (well I began writing yesterday and posted early today) the UNEP’s “Business for the Environment” (aka B4E) “8th annual B4E Global Summit” was scheduled to take place in Delhi, April 15-16.

Just in case you’ve forgotten, the theme was “EMERGING MARKET LEADERSHIP FOR GLOBAL GREEN GROWTH”.

So I was hoping that by now I’d be able to update you on the visions of “innovative”, “inclusive” whatevers that might have danced through the participants’ heads. And I know you’ll be as disappointed as I am to realize that it is now approx. 3:30 a.m. April 17 in Delhi, and – as far as I’ve been able to determine from the B4E website – radio silence seems to have descended approx. 18 hours ago, the time of their last tweet:

B4ESummit #B4E Day 2 – Insightful discussion panels on innovative #BizPractices, emerging markets’ #GreenGrowth, #CleanEnergy

I did, however, find the “draft” Agenda (which did not indicate whether or not any changes might have been made since its [undated] appearance).

According to this Agenda, the “facilitator” was a Charles Emmerson, “Independent Advisor and Senior Fellow, Chatham House”.

Emmerson was scheduled to be the Moderator of a Day 2 Session:

Report and proposals from Day One working group Chairs and dialogue on outcomes
Solutions for inclusive, green and sustainable urban development

He was also scheduled along with:

Ranjit Barthakur, Secretary-General / Chairman, Club of Rome India / Globally Managed Services (GMS)

to deliver “Closing Remarks”.

In case you were wondering, here’s some background on Chatham House:

Chatham House Rule

The Chatham House Rule originated at Chatham House with the aim of providing anonymity to speakers and to encourage openness and the sharing of information. It is now used throughout the world as an aid to free discussion. Meetings do not have to take place at Chatham House, or be organized by Chatham House, to be held under the Rule.

Meetings, events and discussions held at Chatham House are normally conducted ‘on the record’ with the Rule occasionally invoked at the speaker’s request. In cases where the Rule is not considered sufficiently strict, an event may be held ‘off the record’.

But the bottom-line “spirit” of the Rule, according to their FAQ, is:

Q. Can participants in a meeting be named as long as what is said is not attributed?

A. It is important to think about the spirit of the Rule. For example, sometimes speakers need to be named when publicizing the meeting. The Rule is more about the dissemination of the information after the event – nothing should be done to identify, either explicitly or implicitly, who said what.

Emmerson is evidently one of their “Experts” whose Expertise lies in:

• Global risk, foresight and strategy
• Security, geopolitics, natural resources and climate
• Arctic geopolitics and geo-economics
• Soft power and foreign policy
• Global governance

Oh, my … there they go again, talking about “global governance”. I wonder if this has been any better defined than TEEB’s “green economy”. And I also wonder why the UNEP’s media machine – always very quick to spin a UNEP sponsored meeting into the greatest thing since sliced bread – seems to be maintaining radio silence on the outcome of this “global summit”.

UNEP now pushing nature onto business balance sheets

A few years ago, I wrote about the birth of a new kid on the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP)’s alarmist block: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s younger “sibling”, the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).

They were singing their favourite tune (i.e. the money song) even then (all emphases in quoted text throughout this post are mine -hro):

Developing nations say more funding is needed from developed countries to share the effort in saving nature. Much of the world’s remaining biological diversity is in developing nations such as Brazil, Indonesia and in central Africa.

So I can’t say I was entirely at all surprised to read in the latest and greatest UNEP Press Release (complete with requisite picture of doom and gloom):

OMG, it must be worse than we thought

New Study Shows Multi-Trillion Dollar Natural Capital Risk Underlining Urgency of Green Economy Transition

Mon, Apr 15, 2013

The report shows that the scale and variation in impacts provide opportunities for companies and their investors to differentiate themselves by optimizing their supply chains and investment strategies

[...]

Dr. Dorothy Maxwell, Director of the TEEB for Business Coalition states, “Understanding natural capital risk and opportunities is essential for businesses to position themselves in an increasingly resource constrained world.”

The report shows that the scale and variation in impacts provide opportunities for companies and their investors to differentiate themselves by optimizing their supply chains and investment strategies. Some recommendations for companies include implementing processes to measure and manage natural capital used; strengthening business models to mitigate exposure to global risks such as water scarcity, volatile energy and agricultural prices, rising GHG emissions and climate change impacts.

Pavan Sukhdev, Chair of the Advisory Board of TEEB for Business Coalition states, “We need undoubtedly to change how we do business, but we cannot manage what we do not measure – and at present only a handful of businesses measure their externalities. Resolving this is at the heart of the green economy and sustainability itself.”

Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary General and Executive Director, UN Environment Programme (UNEP) states, “Forward-looking companies are already recognizing that the key to competitiveness in an increasingly resource-constrained world will hinge in large part on escalating natural resource efficiencies and cutting pollution footprints-the numbers in this report underline the urgency but also the opportunities for of all economies in transitioning to a Green Economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication.”

Now, according to Steiner, we need to add a “pollution footprint” to our “carbon footprint”; although I’m not sure if our “pollution footprint” supercedes or subsumes what Sukhdev had previously called our contributions to the “global ecological footprint”.

There are “opportunities” in this particular “urgency”. What’s not to like, eh?! Mind you I’m fairly certain that I’ve heard this line (or a facsimile thereof) before. Yes, I remember now! It was a quote from the IPCC’s Chair, Rajendra Pachauri when he was talking to the NZ Herald in 2008:

Business should be thinking about the response to climate change not as a threat but as an opportunity.

Never let it be said that the UN does not encourage “recycling” – at least of slogans and buzz-phrases!

TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity, in case you were wondering what this acronym stands for; tagline, btw, is “making nature’s values visible”) is the “new testament” of the Climate Bible – and was evidently “inspired by” Nicholas Stern, a member of the TEEB advisory board, whose infamous and discredited Stern Review has contributed to landing the U.K. into the mess in which it now finds itself. But I digress …

Do you suppose there is any any difference between Sukhdev’s “green economy” and Steiner’s “Green Economy”? Or perhaps more to the point, I suppose, would be whether or not the powers that be at the UNEP have finally succeeded in defining what they actually mean by this slogan term.

They certainly didn’t seem to have a … hmmm … consensus … during the run-up to Rio+20. As the Secretary-General of the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) had observed during the course of a “High Level” meeting (the minutes of which UNEP’s Steiner had decided should not be for public consumption):

there was as yet no common agreement on a definition of the green economy.

This assertion did not come out of the blue, and could well have derived from another participant’s observation that:

reaching a common understanding on the meaning, scope and implications of the green economy had been generating considerable debate. Many agreed that the [Rio+20] Conference should first clarify what the green economy was not, in order to help define what it could be.

Sukhdev had coined his brilliant mantra (his word, not mine), “we cannot manage what we do not measure” some years ago. And no doubt he’s been flogging it far and wide – including, I suspect, during Stewart Elgie‘s so-called ‘charitable initiative’, Sustainable Prosperity (SP) generously hosted 2010 “three city speaking tour” by Sukhdev here in Canada.

SP’s Elgie showed remarkable forethought when he set up shop in Ottawa. As I had noted last June:

What kinds of changes does Sustainable Prosperity want?

We are seeking changes in policy – federally, provincially, and locally – to implement EPR across Canada. EPR means a change in the rules of the game, and a levelling of the playing field, so that cleaner goods and services become cheaper. EPR policies, also known as “market based instruments” (MBI) or “economic instruments,” include tax shifting, cap-and-trade emissions reductions, and developing markets for ecological services.

Fits right in with Sukhdev’s thinking, just like a dirty old shirt, eh?! And whatever SP wants, Elgie (as we have seen) mistakenly seems to think SP should get!

But wait … there’s more. I’m not sure what might have happened to IPBES – which is supposed to be assessing the “science” behind these new-fangled money-making-mechanisms opportunities. But according to the UNEP’s “Notes to Editors” in this Press Release of April 15 (here comes the scary stuff):

Background

Planetary boundaries are being approached at a reckless pace, and some argue that global biodiversity, nitrogen and climate thresholds have already been breached. Global economic direction and resource use is the underlying cause of this.

Corporations today account for two-thirds of our economy and resource use, and most of the global stressors of planetary boundaries (emissions, freshwater use, land-use change, chemical pollutants, etc) are in reality the negative externalities of “business as usual”.

These externalities have grown too large to ignore, and are estimated at close to US$2.1 trillion for the top-3,000 listed corporations (UN Principles for Responsible Investment, 2010).

To mainstream the measurement and management of externalities in business, the “TEEB for Business Coalition”, a global coalition of pioneering organizations on natural capital, was formed in 2012. It aims to create awareness of this issue amongst decision makers in business and support scaling ‘best-of-breed’ solutions from leading corporations to value, manage and report their externalities.

About the TEEB for Business Coalition – http://www.teebforbusiness.org

Launched in November 2012, The TEEB for Business Coalition is a global, multi stakeholder platform formed to develop and support the uptake of natural capital accounting in business decision-making. The vision of the TEEB for Business Coalition is to support a transformative shift in corporate behaviour to preserve and enhance rather than deplete natural capital.

Everything is just sooooooo “transformative” in UN-speak, these days! And isn’t it amazing that this group should have produced an 86 page report (pdf) in such a short period of time. Well … actually, this group did not produce the report. It was evidently contracted out to an organization called TruCost. When I did a brief scan of the report, my eye stopped at “Munich Re”:

Reinsurance company Munich Re reported that crop losses have been US$20 billion.¹¹

So I followed the link to the reference:

Munich Re press release, Natural catastrophe statistics for 2012 dominated by weather extremes in the USA, 3 January 2013: http://www.munichre.com/en/media_relations/press_releases/2013/2013_01_03_press_release.aspx, accessed 13 March 2013

Now I wonder why this rings a bell … Sounds remarkably like an episode of “science” by press release that Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. recently deconstructed. His conclusion:

Misleading public claims. An over-hyped press release. A paper which neglects to include materially relevant and contradictory information central to its core argument. All in all, just a normal day in climate science!

I also found one reference to the “Stern Review” and two to the “Stern Report” – although I believe the “Report” and the “Review” [pls. see above] are one and the same. These findings do not augur well for the validity of TruCost’s report. My layperson’s “elevator speech” (well tweet, actually, to Dr. Richard Tol and Pielke both of whom know far more about this kind of stuff than I do) on TruCost’s report:

I saw apples, oranges. assumptions and bafflegab amidst lots of uncertainties. wd appreciate yr “translation”

Incidentally, my scan of the 90+ references strongly suggests that this report is far from being rife with citations from “peer-reviewed” literature.

But the important thing, I’m sure, is that this report is just in time for:

The 8th annual B4E Global Summit in Delhi, 15-16 April is co-organised with the Confederation of Indian Industry and The Club of Rome in partnership with CNN, The Climate Group, Carbon Disclosure Project, World Agroforestry Centre, and other partners.

According to the B4E (how catchy is that, eh?!) website:

Under the theme ‘Emerging Market Leadership for Global Green Growth’, the 7th annual B4E Global Summit in Delhi will look at the role of emerging markets in driving the world’s transition to a global green economy, one of the greatest economic opportunities of our time.

Leaders from business, government and the NGO community will gather to explore inclusive green business models, innovation in finance and technology and propose industry commitments to action.

Two ingredients one can invariably count on in any UNEP sponsored meeting: the presence of NGOs and calls for “innovation in finance”. And who knows, perhaps scheduled speaker Ashok Khosla, President Emeritus, The Club of Rome will be able to come up with a definition of “green economy” (or “Green Economy”).

Stay tuned, folks ;-)

UPDATE: The U.K. Guardian is (predictably) onside, via their “Sustainable Business” blog:

Putting environmental impact on the balance sheet

Until now, “environmental externalities” have never made it onto the balance sheet, doing so would reveal many industries are generating huge net losses
[...]
Until now, these so-called “environmental externalities” have never made it onto the balance sheet. But what if that were to change? That’s the question raised in a new report released today by the TEEB Coalition for Business. The answers make for alarming reading.

[...]

The calculations represent one of the most comprehensive and geographically wide-ranging attempts at monetising natural capital to date.

[...]

The results are illuminating. For one, the numbers are colossal

[...]

Sceptics will no doubt be quick to question the maths. Alastair MacGregor, chief operating officer of Trucost, admits that there are methodological and data shortfalls. [...]

Yet MacGregor insists that the numbers are as robust as can be expected for what is still a very new accounting science. Trucost’s conclusions are based on 12 years’ of data on quantitative environmental disclosures from thousands of companies. “There’s still a need for more primary research around environmental valuations so that we can build up models that can be applied globally“, he concedes, expressing his hope that today’s report will act as a “catalyst” for just that.

Apart from the world’s nascent carbon markets, monetising non-financial externalities still remains a largely fictitious pursuit. Ecosystem services need to take on a fungible, tradable form if they are to have financial value in real, cash-in-hand monetary terms. Until then, it’s Monopoly money we’re talking about.

Just because natural capital costs are unpriced doesn’t mean they go away. The impacts of erratic weather provide a good example.

And of course, business has never had to deal with the “impacts of erratic weather” before, right?!

Sustainable what?!

A few days ago, I heard an item on CBC news which reminded listeners that British Columbia’s infamous “carbon tax” (thank you so much, Andrew Weaver) will be increased again on Canada Day (July 1). This supposedly “revenue neutral” tax was introduced some years ago – and has succeeded in making me wish I could have brought my car along to fill-up the tank each time I visit my family in Ontario! But I digress …

This news item also indicated that this increase will be the last – and that BC’s premier had announced that there will be a review of this tax which will be completed (if my memory serves me correctly) by August 31. When I went off in search of further details of this review, the first article I came across was from the Globe and Mail (which, in the now distant past, used to be a reputable newspaper.) Here’s what I found:

B.C. to raise carbon tax, price of gasoline July 1

British Columbia is set to boost its controversial carbon tax by $5 a tonne on July 1, further driving up the price of gasoline and other petroleum products as the province attempts to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 33 per cent below 2007 levels by 2020.

Environment groups have applauded the province’s carbon levy, which was offset by cuts to personal and corporate income taxes when it was introduced four years ago. The carbon tax has contributed to a 15 per cent drop in British Columbians’ use of petroleum-based fuels since it was introduced in 2008, said an Ottawa-based think tank, Sustainable Prosperity, in a report issued Wednesday.

B.C. motorists grumble that the tax has given the province some of the highest gasoline pump prices in the country. This week, the average pump price in Vancouver was $1.365 per litre, compared to a national average of $1.237. And as of Sunday, the province will increase the tax by 1 cent a litre.

But in its report on the levy, Sustainable Prosperity says it has led to substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that are linked to climate change, but has had no negative impact on economic growth, as some critics feared.
[...] [emphasis added -hro]

Sustainable Prosperity (SP) is a group that I’d never heard of before, so I went off in search of some background info on this evidently new kid on the green-growther block.

Their FAQ page tells us that:

Sustainable Prosperity is a charitable, non-partisan, multi-stakeholder initiative working to protect Canada’s environment and enhance our prosperity. Sustainable Prosperity provides credible research, robust policy proposals, and educational information on environmental pricing reform.

Have you ever known one of these think-tanks not to claim that they provide “credible research” or that they are “partisan”?! No? Me neither! And SP may be a “charitable … initiative” but – not unlike many “initiatives” which are beneficiaries of Tides Canada – SP is not a registered Canadian charity.

This suspiciously amazingly timely “Research Report” – “British Columbia’s Carbon Tax Shift: The first four years” – is available as a nice glossy 17 page pdf. The preface indicates that:

Sustainable Prosperity is a national policy and research network aimed at building a healthy environment and economy, by making markets work for the environment. Based at the University of Ottawa, it is a non-partisan, multi-stakeholder research and policy initiative that aims to build a greener and more prosperous economy for all Canadians.

© is University of Ottawa, which just happens to be the base of the:

Lead author and researcher, Professor Stewart Elgie, University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law and Institute of the Environment.

Evidently, “research assistance” was provided by two students at the U of O Faculty of Law and

Review and comment were provided by Nic Rivers (University of Ottawa), Nancy Olewiler (Simon Fraser University), and Alex Wood (Sustainable Prosperity).

For reasons perhaps best known only to the Lead Author, there was no mention made of the fact that Elgie is the founder and chair of SP (and also serves on the Research Network Committee, along with Olewiler, as “Co-Chair, Economy-Wide and Emerging Issues”). Rivers is also on this Research Network Committee where he serves as “Co-Chair, Low Carbon Economy”. And guess what, folks, Rivers’:

research involves the evaluation and analysis of environmental and energy policies … conducted using a variety of methods, including simulation models and econometric analysis [emphasis added -hro]

Their Press Release on this “Research Report” also indicates – by strange coincidence, I’m sure – that:

A study released this week by the Pembina Institute and Energy and Materials Research Group at Simon Fraser University, based on 39 interviews with B.C. businesses, non-governmental organizations, academics and community leaders, shows the majority of those surveyed think the carbon tax policy has been positive for the province. [emphasis added -hro]

It may or (may not) be worth noting that one of SP’s “Steering Committee” members is also on the Advisory Committee of the Pembina Institute. Quite convenient, eh?! But that aside …

I’m no statistician, but the sample in this “study” strikes me as being considerably less than, well, representative of the population of the province! A skeptical person might even suspect that the 39 who were interviewed might have been cherry-picked from their respective groups.

Here are some other interesting background details on Elgie:

Stewart Elgie is a professor of law and economics at the University of Ottawa, and director of the University’s interdisciplinary Environment Institute. He received his Masters of Law from Harvard, and his doctorate (J.S.D.) from Yale (thesis on forest carbon markets). He is also the founder and chair of Sustainable Prosperity, Canada’s major green economy think tank and policy-research network. His research involves many aspects of environmental and economic sustainability, with a particular focus in recent years on market-based approaches.

Elgie started his career as an environmental lawyer in Alaska, litigating over the Valdez oil spill. He returned to Canada and founded Ecojustice, now Canada’s largest non-profit environmental law organization. He was later hired by Pew Trusts as founding executive director of the multi-stakeholder Canadian Boreal Initiative. [...] He has served on or chaired many advisory bodies in the environment/sustainability area.

The Canadian Boreal Initiative connection is, well, interesting! One of their “Leadership Council” members is ForestEthics – which, of course, is a US organization of which ForestEthics Canada (the entity which so nobly decided to give up a status it never had, as I had posted in April) is administered by Tides Canada – an organization which, as Terence Corcoran observed a few days ago, has recently embarked on a rebranding exercise. But I digress …

SP does have an Annual Report (2010/2011) available for perusal.

There are (or at least there were at the time this Annual Report was written) 19 “Collaborating Academic Institutions”

University of Ottawa
University of Calgary
Simon Fraser University
Wilfrid Laurier University
University of Toronto
University of Western Ontario
University of Alberta
York University
University of British Columbia
Trent University
Carleton University
Queen’s University
Yale University
University College London
University of Waterloo
Lakehead University
University of Victoria
University of Guelph

I wonder how Yale University got into this (otherwise) all Canadian lineup?! Oh, well …

Included in this Annual Report is an unaudited Financial Statement for the year ended Mar. 31/2011. Of $1,444,434 in revenues, by far the lion’s share ($817,810) was generously granted by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. The University of Ottawa was very generous, too: they contributed $510,000 worth of “in kind contributions” – including $340,000 worth of “Office renovations”.

That must be some office, eh?!

One other interesting highlight I noticed in this Annual Report, is that in May 2010, SP “hosted” a three-city speaking tour by Pavan Sukhdev to:

meet with policy-makers, academics and experts in the lead up to the release of the global study – The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) – the largest, most comprehensive study on the economic importance of the world’s natural assets.

Sukhdev popped up more recently during the course of “Dialogue Days” – along with Maurice Strong and others – on the “innovative bridge” at Rio+20.

So it should come as no surprise that SP’s FAQ page also includes:

What is Environmental Pricing Reform (EPR)?

Environmental pricing reform (EPR), or “getting the prices right” is the process of adjusting market prices to include environmental costs and benefits. Where market prices omit environmental costs and benefits, rational economic decisions lead to environmental harm, as well as to economic distortions and inefficiencies. Getting the prices right can help to protect the environment and boost Canada’s prosperity.

And:

What kinds of changes does Sustainable Prosperity want?

We are seeking changes in policy – federally, provincially, and locally – to implement EPR across Canada. EPR means a change in the rules of the game, and a levelling of the playing field, so that cleaner goods and services become cheaper. EPR policies, also known as “market based instruments” (MBI) or “economic instruments,” include tax shifting, cap-and-trade emissions reductions, and developing markets for ecological services.

In light of all of the above, some might be inclined to conclude from the green-tinted findings in Sustainable Prosperity’s “Research Report” on BC’s carbon tax that “well, they would say that, wouldn’t they?”.

In fact, when one considers the following from their Annual Report:

Media relations – which is critical to our short and long term goals – has been successful over the last year. Media coverage of SP research, events and activities increased substantially. A growing number of SP staff and network members have established themselves as “go-to” experts on greening the economy, urban sustainability, and environmental pricing reform.

one might be forgiven for wondering if this “Research Report” – far from being the product of “credible research” – is yet another well-co-ordinated propaganda exercise from academic-advocates dedicated to a “cause”.

Maurice Strong redux via “innovative bridge” at Rio

Remember the “invitation” that you and I did not receive to participate in the “Rio+20 Dialogues”?

Well, it seems that Maurice Strong was invited. Strong, who has been keeping a rather low profile in recent years, has tentacles a history which includes the United Nations (UN)’s disgraceful Oil for Food scandal. And let us not forget his greatest gifts to the world. He was the Godfather of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP, promulgator of scary stories since 1972) and Secretary-General ( i.e. head honcho) of the original Rio conference (which gave birth to Agenda 21).

As reported yesterday, Reason‘s Ronald Bailey had observed:

Canadian oilman Maurice Strong warned in 1992 that humanity’s deleterious current path “could lead to the end of civilization” and that “this planet could soon become uninhabitable for people.”

Mind you, Strong’s invitation/participation in controlling, sorry … shepherding these “Dialogues” does not appear [PDF] to have been “advertised” in advance, in contrast to that of:

Dr. Pavan Sukhdev (India) – Founder and CEO, Gist Advisory Private Ltd.
Ms. Severn Cullis-Suzuki (Canada) – Board of Directors, David Suzuki Foundation

Sukhdev was the “Lead Author” of TEEB – the New Testament version of the Climate Bible. His “mantra”, in his own words:

“What you do not measure, you cannot manage”

Sukhdev’s other contributions, as I had noted in October 2010, include other inspiring gems such as “putting nature on the balance sheet” (his “mantra” will no doubt come in handy for this!). To refresh your memory, here’s an excerpt from his description of TEEB:

The study is drawing on expertise from around the world to evaluate the costs of the loss of biodiversity and the associated decline in ecosystem services worldwide, and to compare them with the costs of effective conservation and sustainable use. The intent of the study is to sharpen awareness of the value of biodiversity and ecosystem services and facilitate the development of effective policy, as well as engaged business and citizen responses.

But back to the Dialogues in which we were not invited to participate … According to the UN site, they were “organized” by the Government of Brazil, “with the support of the United Nations”:

In the four days prior to the High Level Segment, representatives from civil society, including private sector, NGOs, scientific community, among other major groups, will convene at the same venue of the Rio+20 Conference. They are expected to engage in an open and action-oriented debate on key topics related to sustainable development. There will be no participation of Governments or UN agencies. Three recommendations emanating from each of the Dialogues will be conveyed directly to the Heads of State and Government present at the Summit.

Ten topics will be debated, based on their relevance to the furthering of sustainable development. [...]

This innovative bridge between civil society and Heads of State and Government is expected to contribute to the incorporation and engagement of stakeholders, based on the understanding that public participation is essential for the consolidation of sustainable development as the paradigm for action in both the public and the private sectors. [emphasis added -hro]

But I suppose some public participation (i.e. that of Strong, Cullis-Suzuki and Sukhdev) is more essential than that of others (i.e. yours and mine!)

Needless to say, the “panel” participants in this “no participation of Governments or UN agencies” were selected:

by the Brazilian government from a wide consultation with UN agencies, major NGOs and think tanks. The panelists were finalized by taking consideration of the geographic balance and gender balance. The moderators for the onsite events are from major media groups, such as CNN and the Economist. [And, evidently, the U.K. Guardian -hro]

Yesterday, June 16, the “Dialogues” agenda included discussion of:

Unemployment, decent work and migrations
Sustainable development as an answer to the economic and financial crises
Sustainable development for fighting poverty

For the record, here are the contributions of Strong, Sukhdev and Cullis-Suzuki, as recorded by the IISD in their Highlights from day one of “Sustainable Development Dialogue Days” in Rio. First IISD’s intro:

The format for the sessions was a panel presentation and discussion, followed by a question and answer session. The sessions focused on ten recommendations emanating from a public online vote, and also provided a platform for refining and proposing additional recommendations, with the objective of the sessions to produce three final recommendations to be delivered to the Heads of State and government: one derived from the top online vote; one from the top in-session vote from the audience; and one reflecting panellists preferred recommendation. [emphasis added -hro]

I might have missed it, but I don’t recall seeing who would be responsible for deriving the “top online vote” although I do recall seeing mention of un-named Facilitators somewhere in my travels; so perhaps this was their job in building this “innovative bridge”! But I digress … here are the words of wisdom from Strong, Cullis-Suzuki and Sukhdev [all emphases mine -hro]:

Maurice Strong [on Unemployment, Decent Work and Migration]
Described as: Secretary-General, Stockholm Conference and Rio Conference	Maurice Strong, Secretary General, Stockholm Conference and Rio Conference, highlighted the “false premise” that all people will be able to earn a living by working, which he said is not feasible within a knowledge economy. He expressed hope for a revolutionary economy where citizens are shareholders with equal ownership and access to resources. (Presumably, whether they “earn a living by working” or not -hro)
Severn Cullis-Suzuki [on Sustainable Development for Fighting Poverty]
Severn Cullis-Suzuki, David Suzuki Foundation, Canada, explained that she continues to help transform society and fight for intergenerational justice. She considered the impact of measuring poverty in terms of money in societies that do not rely on fiscal exchange. (Yet another word-salad from a true-blue Suzuki -hro)	Described as: David Suzuki Foundation
Pavan Sukhdev [on Sustainable Development for Fighting Poverty]
Described as: Special Advisor, Green Economy Initiative, UNEP	Pavan Sukhdev, Green Economy Initiative, UNEP, said small farmers play a critical role in food production, particularly those living off subsistence farming, and that small farms and farmers tend to sell at the bottom of the market due to lack of investment. He called for policies and subsidies for small farms as means to fight poverty.** (Sounds like the seeds of yet another “innovative” funding mechanism to my ears -hro)

** Elsewhere in this report, it was noted that:

Responding to comments on the behavior of corporations, Sukhdev agreed on the lack of responsibility of today’s corporations, where the focus was entirely on profit and externalizing costs, calling for the audience to add externalities and unaccountable and irresponsible advertising to the recommendations.

Considering all of the above – not to mention that which other panelists “contributed” – YMMV, but it seems to me that this may well be an “innovative bridge” that is far too far-out for the Future I Want ;-)

Almost forgot to tell you that … “Climate change” received only two mentions from this “innovative bridge; the second of which was a reference to the:

UN Secretary-General’s High-level Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing, suggesting that US$ 100 billion could be raised annually by 2020 for climate finance and that limited public financing could be used more imaginatively.

So much for “climate change” being the “greatest threat to the future of the planet, eh?!

Of hypocrites, high-level panels and … sherpas and silos

As Donna Laframboise noted in a post, yesterday, from Feb. 2-4, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Chair, Rajendra K. Pachauri, will be donning yet another of his many hats, as he engineers a bridge from “climate change” to “sustainability” (en route to Rio+20).

TERI, another of Pachauri’s enterprises, will be hosting the “12th Delhi Sustainable Development Summit”, the theme of which is “Protecting the Global Commons 20 Years Post Rio”. Will this Summit be a demonstration of Pachauri and his fellow summitteers practicising what they preach? Not a chance, as Donna’s post confirms. As Director General of TERI, Pachauri will have a starring role in the proceedings (he is listed as appearing, in one role or another, no less than five times – but always with his TERI hat, never with his IPCC hat).

The agenda for this Summit is, well, interesting! From a strictly Canadian perspective, there will be two participants, one, Stéphane Dion, is included in the list of “Government” speakers and the other, Dr. Yves Bolduc, is listed among the participating “Ministers”.

But here’s the thing … Dion is shown as being “M.P., House of Commons Canada”, which he is; however, given the current status of the political party he once led, he isn’t even a member of the Official Opposition – let alone of “government”. He may well have been invited due to his (disastrous, and resoundingly rejected) “Green Shift” (carbon tax) plan – or perhaps because he and his wife had decided to name their dog “Kyoto”.

Bolduc is listed as “Minister of Health & Social Services Quebec”, which he is; however, while all the other “Ministers” on this tab appear to be representatives of countries, last time I checked, Quebec was still a province, not a country! I also wonder how he got his invite as a speaker; he seems like a nice enough fellow, I suppose; and it could be “His desire to continually find ways to improve the lives of his fellow man [...]” that earned him such a prestigious invitation. Or perhaps it was his “degree in bioethics”. But enough about the small fry Canadian content …

The agenda is quite full. On the first day, following a 15 minute “Tea with the Prime Minister” (who will then conduct a 45 minute “Inauguration”) and a subsequent 45 minute “Leadership Panel I”, there will be a 50 minute session of “Keynote Addresses”, chaired by Yvo de Boer who, you may recall, jumped ship as Executive-Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) following the Copenhagen débacle in December 2009. de Boer has moved on to greener pastures, as the “Special Global Advisor, Climate Change and Sustainability, KPMG International, UK”. There will be three “Keynote Addresses”:

• Protecting Our Common Future through Multilateralism
• Asian Actions to Improve Prosperity while Protecting the Global Commons
• Thinking About Climate Change: What Can We All Do?

The last of these three will be delivered by “Nobel Laureate, Dr Elinor Ostrom“

Among other speakers/participants (as “Heads of State/Government”) is Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland “Former Prime Minister of Norway”. Brundlandt definitely has “form” (as the Brits would say) when it comes to matters sustainable:

Throughout her political career, Dr Brundtland has developed a growing concern for issues of global significance. In 1983 the then United Nations Secretary-General invited her to establish and chair the World Commission on Environment and Development. The Commission, which is best known for developing the broad political concept of sustainable development, published its report Our Common Future in April 1987.

The Commission’s recommendations led to the Earth Summit – the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.

And in case you’re wondering what this “broad political concept of sustainable development” might be, allow Ask Earth Trends (which seems to be a somewhat dormant offshoot of the World Resources Institute [WRI]) to enlighten you:

‘Sustainable Development’ is an official term, coined in a 1987 report produced by the World Commission on Environment and Development. Entitled Our Common Future or the Brundtland Report (after the Chairman of the commission, former Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland), the report defines ‘sustainable development’ as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”; this includes economic growth, environmental protection, and social equity [which, if I'm not mistaken, are known as the "three pillars" of sustainable development -hro].

After Lunch on Day 1, Brundtland will be one of four speakers at “Leadership Panel II” (these two “Leadership Panels” will both address the topic “Leading to Preserve the Global Commons”). Brundtland’s billing for this agenda item includes an additional detail: she is a “Member of the UN Secretary General’s Global Sustainability Panel, Norway”. And, by happy coincidence, a few hours later, there will be a 15 minute “Launch of the Report of UN Secretary General’s High-Level Panel on Global Sustainability”.

It may (or may not) be reasonable to assume that the “UN Secretary General’s Global Sustainability Panel” is the same as the “UN Secretary General’s High-Level Panel on Global Sustainability”. Whether they are the same or not, Brundtland is a member of the latter, and an “Overview” of this Panel’s (full) report contains 56 recommendations. Some excerpts from the Overview (all emphases are mine -hro):

United Nations Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel on Global Sustainability (2012). Resilient people, resilient planet: A future worth choosing, Overview. New York: United Nations.

[p. 2]:

The Report of the High-level Panel on Global Sustainability, entitled Resilient People, Resilient Planet: A Future Worth Choosing, contains six sections in its entirety: Section I – The Panel’s vision; Section II – Progress towards sustainable development; Section III – Empowering people to make sustainable choices, Section IV – Working towards a sustainable economy, Section V – Strengthening institutions; and Section VI – Conclusion: A call for action. This overview reproduces Section I from the Panel’s report. The Summary of Sections and the Call for Action are taken from the report’s Executive Summary. The Panel’s recommendations are reproduced in full.

Disclaimer: The members of the Panel endorse the report and generally agree with its findings. The members think that the message of this report is very important. The recommendations and the vision represent the consensus the Panel members reached, but not every view expressed in this report reflects the views of all individual Panel members. Panel members naturally have different perspectives on some issues. If each Panel member had individually attempted to write this report, she or he might have used different terms to express similar points. The Panel members look forward to the report stimulating wide public dialogue and strengthening the common endeavour to promote global sustainable development.

Hmmm … seems like it’s a “consensus”, but perhaps not quite!

[pp. 3-6 The Panel's Vision]:

5. The truth is that sustainable development is fundamentally a question of people’s opportunities to influence their future, claim their rights and voice their concerns. Democratic governance and full respect for human rights are key prerequisites for empowering people to make sustainable choices. The peoples of the world will simply not tolerate continued environmental devastation or the persistent inequality which offends deeply held universal principles of social justice. Citizens will no longer accept governments and corporations breaching their compact with them as custodians of a sustainable future for all. More generally, international, national and local governance across the world must fully embrace the requirements of a sustainable development future, as must civil society and the private sector. At the same time, local communities must be encouraged to participate actively and consistently in conceptualizing, planning and executing sustainability policies. Central to this is including young people in society, in politics and in the economy.

6. Therefore, the long-term vision of the High-level Panel on Global Sustainability is to eradicate poverty, reduce inequality and make growth inclusive, and production and consumption more sustainable, while combating climate change and respecting a range of other planetary boundaries.

7. [...] We must recognize that the drivers of that challenge include unsustainable lifestyles, production and consumption patterns and the impact of population growth. As the global population grows from 7 billion to almost 9 billion by 2040, and the number of middle-class consumers increases by 3 billion over the next 20 years, the demand for resources will rise exponentially. By 2030, the world will need at least 50 per cent more food, 45 per cent more energy and 30 per cent more water — all at a time when environmental boundaries are throwing up new limits to supply. This is true not least for climate change, which affects all aspects of human and planetary health.

Oh, my … that does sound scary, doesn’t it?! Well, you get the flavour of their “vision”. In case you were wondering “civil society” is UN-speak for Non-governmental organizations (NGOs), such as Greenpeace, WWF etc. But I haven’t yet come across a definition for “planetary boundaries” or “environmental boundaries”. Perhaps they are the new, improved “tipping points”. Oh, wait … here they are:

17. b. It is time for bold global efforts, including launching a major global scientific initiative, to strengthen the interface between science and policy. We must define, through science, what scientists refer to as “planetary boundaries”, “environmental thresholds” and “tipping points”. Priority should be given to challenges now facing the marine environment and the “blue economy”;

c. Most goods and services sold today fail to bear the full environmental and social cost of production and consumption. Based on the science, we need to reach consensus, over time, on methodologies to price them properly. Costing environmental externalities could open new opportunities for green growth and green jobs;

Well, looks like they haven’t “defined” these terms yet, either; and they are looking to “science” to define that which “science” has named.

But, just a minute! The “blue economy”?! Will the “green growth and green jobs” take care of the “blue economy”?! Stay tuned, folks! And <sigh> it looks like we might be in for yet another “major global scientific initiative”.

[p. 9 Moving Towards a Sustainable Economy]:

Achieving sustainability requires us to transform the global economy. Tinkering on the margins will not do the job. The current global economic crisis, which has led many to question the performance of existing global economic governance, offers an opportunity for significant reforms. It gives us a chance to shift more decisively towards green growth — not just in the financial system, but in the real economy. Policy action is needed in a number of key areas, including:

• Incorporating social and environmental costs in regulating and pricing of goods and services, as well as addressing market failures
• Creating an incentive road map that increasingly values long-term sustainable development in investment and financial transactions
• Increasing finance for sustainable development, including public and private funding and partnerships to mobilize large volumes of new financing
• Expanding how we measure progress in sustainable development by creating a sustainable development index or set of indicators

I don’t know where they think this “large volume of new financing” is going to come from, but brace yourself for yet another call to “put nature on the balance sheet” [as per IPBES and the "new testament" of the climate bible, TEEB]

[p. 14-16 Recommendations for a Sustainable Economy]:

27. Governments should establish price signals that value sustainability to guide the consumption and investment decisions of households, businesses and the public sector. In particular, Governments could:

a. Establish natural resource and externality pricing instruments, including carbon pricing, through mechanisms such as taxation, regulation or emissions trading systems, by 2020;

37. Governments should seek to incentivize investment in sustainable development by shaping investor calculations about the future through, in particular, the greater use of risk-sharing mechanisms and the enhancement of certainty about the long-term regulatory and policy environment. Measures could include targets for renewable energy or conservation, waste reduction, water conservation, access to carbon markets through the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol or sustained prospects for public financing.

Didn’t anyone tell this Panel that “carbon pricing” and “carbon markets” (not to mention Kyoto) are kinda dead in the water?!

Ooops … I almost forgot the “silos” …

[p. 9 Strengthening Institutional Governance]:

To achieve sustainable development, we need to build an effective framework of institutions and decision-making processes at the local, national, regional and global levels. We must overcome the legacy of fragmented institutions established around single-issue “silos” [...]

This High-Level Panel evidently held six meetings between September 19, 2010 and January 12, 2012; although only the final reports and reports of the first three meetings appear to be publicly available – unless you happen to land on the right part of the new, improved Panel site which indicates that reports of the first four meetings are available. If your mouse should take you to the latter, you will see that the Panel appeared to have the assistance of (anonymous) Sherpas – who held eleven meetings of various lengths in various locations. But you’ll need to go back to the original site to find the reports of the Sherpa meetings, well, at least the first four such meetings.

And while you’re there, you might want to take a look at the “Related Documentation” – the first item of which is the “NGLS Summary Report: Civil Society Consultation Conducted for the Global Sustainability Panel”, because of course, no UN report would be complete without input from “civil society” aka NGOs. This “Summary Report” is a convenient 27 page “compilation” derived from 38 “submissions from a diverse array of organizations and networks. Many [...] were from international networks representing several hundred to over one thousand organizations each.” Should you choose to peruse the pages of this “compilation” (as I did), I doubt you will find many surprises!

Other “related” documents include a Background Paper (“Sustainable Development: From Brundtland to Rio” prepared for the first meeting of the Panel by two people from the International Institute on Sustainable Development (IISD) the good folks who produce the Earth Negotiations Bulletins (reports of the multitude of meetings pertaining thereto – including those of the IPCC). But I digress (although I did so for a reason!)

Recommendation 47 is interesting:

[p. 17]:

As international sustainable development policy is fragmented and, in particular, the environmental pillar is weak, [the United Nations Environmental Program, parent of the IPCC, IPBES, and a host of other acronymic offspring purveyor of increasingly scary stories since 1972 -hro] UNEP should be strengthened.

Seems to me, that – based on the inability of the Panel Secretariat to even get its web-act together (as noted in my above digression) – a way must be found to overcome the “fragmented institutions established around single-issue ‘silos’” of the UNEP. Perhaps the UNEP could benefit from the assistance of some … Sherpas.

Spreading the joy of climate change economic alarmism

On the eve of the first anniversary of the U.K. launch of the infamous No Pressure video, Canada’s taxpayer-funded national broadcaster, the CBC announces:

Climate change could cost billions a year by 2020

Click image above to see video

Climate change could cost Canada billions a year as early as 2020, depending on how severe it is and how well the country adapts, says a report released Thursday morning.

The National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy [NRTEE] looked at the cost of climate change on Canada’s prosperity, public health and in coastal areas affected by weather events.

The government-funded think-tank estimates the cost of climate change for Canada could start at roughly $5 billion per year in 2020 and increase to between $21 billion and $43 billion per year by 2050.
[...]

Notice how neatly this think-tank conflates “climate change” with “weather events”?! Oh, well, I suppose it would be too much to expect a CBC reporter to look beyond the news release and media-backgrounder – conveniently prepared for instant media consumption by NRTEE.

But I must give credit where credit is due: at least the CBC provided a link to the actual report (a 168 page 9.67 MB.pdf). It seems that this opus from the NRTEE is the fourth in a series of six with the rather curious (if not Orwellian) over-arching title of “Climate Prosperity”.

Not surprisingly, this report contains a number of graphics that look remarkably like (you guessed it!) a hockey-stick (some of which were cleverly found by the CBC to use as illustrative graphics in their article).

These model(ler) prophets of “Climate Prosperity” appear to be blissfully unaware of the increasingly shaky foundations of their underlying assumptions. Their spiffy website notes:

Unless global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are brought down and Canada invests in adaptation, the economic impacts of climate change on Canada could climb to billions of dollars per year.

Paying the Price: the Economic Impacts of Climate Change for Canada – the fourth report in the NRT’s Climate Prosperity series – is the first national study to show what the economic consequences to Canada could be as a result of climate change, under four separate scenarios involving two factors: global GHG emissions and Canadian economic and population growth.

Although Canada contributes approximately 1.5% of global emissions, the report concludes that climate change impacts brought about by increased world-wide emissions have a real and growing economic cost to Canada. It also shows that adaptation – our capacity to manage the impacts to come – while not cost-free, is a cost-effective way to alleviate some of those impacts.

Based on NRT original economic modelling, the report finds that the economic impact on Canada could reach:

•2020: $5 billion per year
•2050: Between $21 and $43 billion per year

[...]

Canadians can and should use economic information to decide how to best prepare for, and respond to, the impacts of climate change.

[...]

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
Paying the Price highlights areas where additional research and analysis on climate change impacts and adaptation are needed for Canada. Having clearly identified economic risks associated with a changing climate, we need to turn our attention to exploring the economic opportunities of adaptation — to both cope and prosper through inevitable degrees of climate change. [emphases added -hro]

Lest there be any doubt, this report boldly claims (p. 2):

THIS IS NOT JUST ABOUT COPING WITH CLIMATE CHANGE, BUT PROSPERING THROUGH IT.

And here’s what they’re all about (p. 6):

Emerging from the famous Brundtland Report, Our Common Future, the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE or Round Table) has become a model for convening diverse and competing interests around one table to create consensus ideas and viable suggestions for sustainable development. The NRTEE focuses on sustaining Canada’s prosperity without borrowing resources from future generations or compromising their ability to live securely.

The NRTEE is in the unique position of being an independent policy advisory agency that advises the federal government on sustainable development solutions. We raise awareness among Canadians and their governments about the challenges of sustainable development. We advocate for positive change. We strive to promote credible and impartial policy solutions that are in the best interest of all Canadians. We accomplish that mission by fostering sound, well-researched reports on priority issues and by offering advice to governments on how best to reconcile and integrate the often divergent challenges of economic prosperity and environmental conservation.

The NRTEE brings together a group of distinguished sustainability leaders active in businesses, universities, environmentalism, labour, public policy, and community life from across Canada. Our members are appointed by the federal government for a mandate of up to three years. They meet in a round table format that offers a safe haven for discussion and encourages the unfettered exchange of ideas leading to consensus.

We also reach out to expert organizations, industries, and individuals to assist us in conducting our work on behalf of Canadians.

The NRTEE Act underlines the independent nature of the Round Table and its work. The NRTEE reports, at this time, to the Government of Canada and Parliament through the Minister of the Environment. The NRTEE maintains a secretariat, which commissions and analyzes the research required by its members in their work. [emphases added -hro]

Needless to say, I was not in the least surprised to find (p. 27):

// EXTENT OF CLIMATE CHANGE Our assumptions about global GHG emissions trajectories relied on well-established scenarios of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), representing possible climate futures in the absence of climate mitigation policy.

Nor was I surprised to find that their bibliography and endnotes were liberally sprinkled with references to TEEB (the latest kid on the United Nations Environment Program’s acronymic block which I had reported on almost a year ago here, here and here)

And, of course, this opus is all “peer-reviewed”. According to p. 145 there were 60 “experts who provided peer review and other advice throughout the research process”. In keeping with the “transparency” standards of the IPCC, this document provides no indication of the “expertise” or affiliations of these 60 “experts”.

But speaking of expertise … rather conspicuous by its absence is any mention of Dr. Ross McKitrick or his work. Is it possible that this glaring omission was by design in order to preserve the sanctity of the NRTEE’s “original economic modelling“? Nah … must be just a purely coincidental oversight!

Of COPs, MOPs and a global battle of duelling doomsayers

First an amendment/update to an earlier post in which I had observed:

“No sooner had the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) picked itself up after (predictably flopping in) Tianjin, China, than it was onwards and upwards to Pachauri’s ‘hell no, I won’t go show’ at Busan, Korea, aka the “Thirty-Second Session of the IPCC”. Then they took a breather (although I’m not sure where) before heading to Nagoya, Japan for yet another UNEP sponsored meeting.” [COP 10 of the CBD. Please see below for definitions -hro]

On further investigation, it seems that while the IPCC meeting was underway (Oct. 11-14), there was a (competing?!) pre-COP10 COP-MOP5: “The fifth meeting of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties” (Oct. 11-15)

So, the UNFCCC’s 5-day Tianjin flop (Oct 4-9) was followed by IPCC’s 3-day meeting for a total of 8 days on “climate change”. And “biodiversity loss” MOP gets a 4-day meeting, prior to an 11-day COP (Oct. 18-29) for a total of 15 days. All under the auspices of the UNEP, of course. But I digress …

It seems that the latest and greatest of the UNEP‘s scaremongering acronymic offspring, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), a body that has been carefully nurtured from “concept note” to “history making … gold standard science policy body“, as I had noted a few days ago, has encountered a rather serious stumbling block.

Alas, there’s a lack of consensus amongst the delegates to the 10th Conference of the Parties (COP 10) to the UN’s Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Consequently, the IPBES “side event” may well be sidelined (en route to full UN General Assembly blessing), and the Busan green light given in June might be changing to orange during the current Nagoya confab.

The BBC’s Richard Black reports from the scene of the turmoil:

Nature panel under threat as nations wrangle
Political wrangling threatens to derail plans to establish a global science panel to assess the loss of nature.

Governments agreed earlier this to set up (sic) the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.

But moves being made at the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) meeting here threaten to block ratification by the UN General Assembly.

Conservation groups believe IPBES could prove essential in persuading leaders to ramp up measures to protect nature.

Proponents, including many governments, believe it can play the same role for biodiversity as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has played in that field – taking authoritative analyses of relevant science directly to policymakers.
[...]
“The CBD meeting does not have a say over the fate of IPBES formally, because that’s the responsibility of the UN General Assembly,” said Anne Larigauderie, executive director of the biodiversity policy organisation Diversitas, who has been closely involved in discussions on setting up IPBES.

“But it’s extremely important, of course, that the meeting comes to an agreement in support of IPBES, because IPBES is precisely to improve the functioning of this convention by making it more science-based,” she told BBC News.
[...]

Hmmm …. Diversitas? Anne Lariguaderie? Considering her involvement, she’s certainly more diplomatic than some of the leading lights in Big Green. But it is worth noting that Diversitas appears to be a sponsor of (or quite closely aligned with) a video project called Crisis of Life. One of “the scientists” is none other than (drumroll please) … Anne Lariguaderie. A few enlightening excerpts from this video project’s poster:

“ecologists and activists talk about ways to stop the ongoing biodiversity crisis to ensure the survival of all living beings, including ourselves.”

“Extinction of species is forever. Ecosystem collapse threatens human welfare on a global basis.”

“Most consequences are irreversible, leaving future generations to live on a greatly impoverished planet.”

“This video project is a wake-up call to us all to inform ourselves and then take action”

“The biodiversity crisis may be an even bigger threat to us than the climate crisis”

Who would have thought that there could be anything on God’s green earth that could be an “even bigger threat … than the climate crisis“? Certainly not Michael Mann* or the honourable members of the CRU crew.

* “Overloading the atmosphere with carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels is heating the planet, shrinking the Arctic ice cap, melting glaciers and raising sea levels. It is leading to more widespread drought, more frequent heat waves and more powerful hurricanes.
[...]
“Burying our heads in the sand would leave future generations at the mercy of potentially dangerous changes in our climate. The only sure way to mitigate these threats is to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions dramatically over the next few decades” [Michael Mann, OpEd in the Washington Post, circa Oct. 7/10]

Pure unadulterated speculations <alert>

Could it be that underlying the political wrangling noted by Black, above, there might be some turf wars afoot amongst the scientists/advocates/activists who are advising the official (i.e. voting) delegates?

Consider the following excerpts from a document, which presumably at some point will be (or may already have been) received/reviewed as part of the COP 10 CBD deliberations:

Annex
HIGH-LEVEL MEETING OF THE UNITED NATIONS
GENERAL ASSEMBLY ON BIODIVERSITY

22 September 2010, New York

PRESIDENT’S SUMMARY

Today, as a contribution to the International Year of Biodiversity, world leaders met for the first time for the High-level Meeting of the General Assembly on Biodiversity and reaffirmed the political will to reverse the alarming loss of biodiversity occurring throughout our planet.
[...]
The true economic values of biodiversity and the ecosystem services it underpins are now being identified to their full extent. Member States and other participants considered it important that such investigation continue as a matter of priority. They called for strengthening the biodiversity and economy nexus by incorporating the true values of biodiversity into economic theory, financial planning and investments in all sectors, as well as in policy and planning processes at all levels. Green economy, The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) and payments for ecosystem services were mentioned as important concepts and initiatives.

Member states and other participants also recognised that biodiversity and healthy ecosystems are an essential part of solution to the challenges of climate change. They noted that there are substantial benefits to be gained from the coherent implementation of the three Rio conventions as well as other biodiversity-related conventions. For example, initiatives for reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) could provide co-benefits for biodiversity and local livelihoods. The upcoming Nagoya and Cancun meetings later this year and the Rio+20 Conference in 2012 provide timely opportunities to ensure that measures taken under the related Conventions are mutually supportive.
[...]
COP10 presents an important opportunity to adopt a post-2010 strategic plan that contains ambitious, measurable and time-bound biodiversity targets for 2020. This plan would provide a common framework for action on biodiversity at the international, regional, national and local levels, and across various issues, from terrestrial and marine protected areas to combating of ocean acidification.[...]
[...]
Furthermore, noting the important linkage between scientific knowledge to effective policy-making, Member States and other participants stressed the importance of establishing an Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)
[...]
Finally, noting the Geneva Call for Action issued by the past and future presidencies of the Conference of the Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Member States and participants noted that if current rates of biodiversity loss are not reversed, there will be drastic consequences for human societies.

They recognized the need for coordinated and urgent action across all sectors of government and society to address the underlying drivers of biodiversity loss. There is a need to reform our means of production, consumption and economic growth to ensure that we live within the ecological limits. Together, we can find ways to protect the “Mother Earth” and live in harmony with nature. [emphases added -hro]

Consider also that during the past year we have heard repeatedly that “nothing undermines the ‘science’ of “climate change” (notwitstanding the fact that no one has looked at the “science”).

Reading between the lines of the above ‘high level’ meeting summary, climate change gets an honourable mention (because that science is “settled”?!) while biodiversity loss is definitely ascendant.

It’s also worth noting that the first book of the “new testament” (TEEB for Policiymakers) of the Climate Bible contains the following mentions:

Climate change	34
Global warming	2
Carbon dioxide	0

Hmmmm … Is this a “scientific” coup d’état I see before me?!

Achim Steiner (the UNEP’s head honcho, who might reasonably be dubbed “Mr. Conservation”) is also a member of TEEB’s Advisory Board. I’m sure he wouldn’t want to see the TEEB team’s 2 years of work sit on the shelf. Not to mention that Team TEEB has a very catchy mantra (courtesy of Team leader, Pavan Sukhdev): “What you do not measure, you cannot manage”. (Hidden message: Send us your measurements, and we shall manage!)

If I were in Steiner’s shoes, and had to favour one child (IPCC and its star-studded cast of “thousands”) over another (IPBES and its smaller stable of relative unknowns), I would want to weigh their respective assets and liabilities.

Assuming that he’s a pragmatist, Steiner would see that the IPCC has a lot of liabilities – not the least of which is the headaches caused by its poor performance over the past year, and its failure to fix the carbon conundrum (resulting in the imminent demise of the popularity of carbon credits/trading, solar power and wind turbines). Add to this several very public suggestions that perhaps the IPCC has outlived its usefulness.

IPCC Assets? Not so many. AR5? Very early days … not likely to be too many tears if the UNEP were to say, “Thank you so much for settling the science, IPCC. You’ve done a Nobel award-winning wonderful job … but money’s getting tight and we have to cut back. So here’s your pink slip”.

Worst case scenario from Steiner’s perspective? IPBES will let the “climate scientists” fight over a bone by incorporating a token chapter on “global climate disruption” into TEEB2.

I could be wrong (it has been known to happen!) and I did give you a “speculation alert” … but, at this point in time … that’s the view from here ;-)

Biodiversity loss … TEEB on the march

As I wrote yesterday, there’s a new kid on the UNEP generated alarmist block: “unprecedented loss of biodiversity seriously compounded by global warming”.

Looks like the Guardian was first to jump on the biodiversity bandwagon with an editorial:

Biodiversity: Variety as the spice of life Conservation is quite literally vital. This is a challenge that calls for serious science, serious action – and serious money

This has been the International Year of Biodiversity and a UN gathering in Nagoya, Japan, is getting under way, charged with launching a 10-year strategy to avert the collapse of fisheries, conserve the Amazon rainforest and check the spread of invasive species.

The auguries are not good. [...]

Quelle surprise.

On this side of the pond, it was no surprise to see that the CBC (which has been studiously keeping its eyes wide shut to anything and everything that does not favour the alarmist cause) trumpetting:

Report puts price tag on environment
“The economic cost of ignoring environmental degradation is far greater than the costs needed to fix it in the long run, a groundbreaking report published with the support of the United Nations said Tuesday.

The report, entitled “Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature” was written by Pavan Sukhdev, a banker who heads the UN’s green economy initiative.

It found that nature provides trillions of dollars in “free” services to the global economy every year, and having to account for all of those services being removed would significantly reduce the world’s economic output and cost far more.[...]

Frankly, I’m surprised that the CBC hasn’t run this Official Video of the International Year of Biodiversity:

Then again, AFAIK, CBC didn’t run Franny Armstrong’s “No Pressure” video, either. But I digress …

So, the new kid on the UNEP alarmist block is the Intergovernmental Science Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Quite a mouthful, eh? Let’s go with the “official” acronym: IPBES. Or you could use their less bureaucratic, logo-friendly, ipBes

In case you were wondering how this new kid came into being … needless to say, it did not spring out of the blue; there were many meetings before it acquired a Propercase Name, but it seems to have begun as a “concept note” via a process called “E-Peer Review“:

In March 2008, a concept note was prepared by UNEP detailing the needs and rationale for an intergovernmental multi-stakeholder platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services, based on a request from the international science committee of the International Mechanism of Scientific Expertise on Biodiversity process and the partners of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment follow up strategy. The document was made available as an information document to the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity at its ninth meeting, held in May 2008. Subsequently, an open peer review process was undertaken electronically for six weeks. In total, 588 comments were received from 30 countries and 27 organizations. The concept note was revised accordingly for consideration at the first ad hoc intergovernmental and multi-stakeholder meeting on an intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services, held in Putrajaya, Malaysia from 10 to 12 November 2008.

The revised concept underwent another E-Peer Review … and somewhere during the gestation period, there were some “intergovernmental and multi stakeholder meetings”, and on June 11, 2010 (in celebration of what would have been my parents’ 66th wedding anniversary) IPBES graduated from lowercase to Propercase.

What I’m not certain about is whether or not there is a difference in UN-speak between a “Panel” (as in IPCC) and a “Platform” (as in IPBES). But you’ll never guess who’s been chairing the IPBES meetings (I believe there have been 3, so far) … Robert Watson (predecessor of IPCC Chair, Rajendra ‘hell no, I won’t go’ Pachauri) What an amazing coincidence, eh?!

Which brings us to TEEB In the words of Study Leader, Pavan Sukhdev:

“By some recent yardsticks of sustainability, our global ecological footprint has doubled over the last 40 years to the point that, if the whole human population consumed at this rate, we would need 4-5 planet Earths just to keep up, just to sustain us.
[...]
“[O]ur study on The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity is compiling, building and making a compelling economics case for the conservation of ecosystems and biodiversity. The study is drawing on expertise from around the world to evaluate the costs of the loss of biodiversity and the associated decline in ecosystem services worldwide, and to compare them with the costs of effective conservation and sustainable use. The intent of the study is to sharpen awareness of the value of biodiversity and ecosystem services and facilitate the development of effective policy, as well as engaged business and citizen responses.

“We have the opportunity to reframe economics and policy for the 21st Century” [emphasis added-hro]

Good news, folks: Maybe we won’t have to worry about our carbon footprints anymore – unlesss they roll ‘em into our “ecological footprint”. But, wait … there’s more. At an August lecture in Sydney, Sukhdev indicated that what the world needs now is to put “nature on the balance sheet” He has a charming mantra: “What you do not measure, you cannot manage“. I have a hunch that we’ll be hearing this mantra (his word, btw, not mine!) quite often. It fits right in with TEEB’s “biodiversity offsets or other schemes to mitigate and/or compensate…”.

Amongst the luminaries on the Advisory Board of TEEB, one finds (inter alia) Lord Stern, “IG Patel Professor of Economics & Government and Chairman of LSE’s new Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment” and Ms. Yolanda Kakabadse, “Trustee of the Ford Foundation and President of Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) International”.

What a perfect marriage of faulty economics and zealous ecology.