What direction on climate?

The talks starting in Doha are looking like they're going to stumble . To me, that's not surprising. There is more recognition now than at Kyoto that aggressive measures to curb carbon emissions are also likely to curb economies--and this might not be the best time for that. Also, some energy moves are happening independent of Kyoto, like a big shift to natural gas . Two things to know about natural gas: (1) it's actually economical, unlike renewables, and (2) for the same energy output, there's 60% less CO2 emitted--not perfect but a big improvement.

It's worth pondering this quote from MIT Technology Review:

"UCSD's David ­Victor, for one, estimates that a modern gas-fired power plant emits roughly two-fifths as much carbon as even a new coal plant. According to his calculations, the United States is saving about 400 million metric tons of carbon emissions annually in the recent switch to natural gas from coal. That's roughly twice as much progress as the European Union has made in complying with the Kyoto Protocol through policy efforts. 'There is no single event that has had as large and sustained an impact on carbon emissions as the gas revolution,' he says."

So climate negotiators need to get their heads around these things. They need to figure out how to support technologies that are ready for prime time. And carbon control measures need to support economies, not hamstring them.

Doing more with no more

One of the challenges of providing adequate food in the 21st century will be the development of new agricultural land. A ten-year-old publication of UN FAO estimated that 120 million hectares of new farmland would be required. It is hard to see how that could be achieved without an increase in the destruction of ecosystems such as rainforests.

One of the challenges of combatting hunger is preventing malnutrition caused by insufficient micronutrients in the diet. This letter in Science magazine suggests that the micronutrient problem could be addressed using available croplands. It is critical that its recommendations are implemented fully.

Creating some momentum after Rio+20

The palpable disappointment following the Rio+20 sustainable development conference cast a pall on sustainability thinking in general. What does it take to motivate nations to change?

One thinker, Edward Barbier, has put forward three near-term actions in an article in Science magazine. Since many of you probably don't subscribe to Science, I'm giving it a tiny amount of added publicity.

Basically Barbier, at the University of Wyoming, is saying that sustainability and development have been separate and cannot remain so; that sustainability has no priority in the thinking of governments; and that even the UN has no body to push sustainability initiatives. He cites the World Health Organization and the International Labor Organization as UN bodies that are effective because they have mandates.

But perhaps the most exciting thing in Barbier's piece was a discussion about how to raise funds for development. He cited a Gates Foundation study of which I was unaware. Bill Gates discusses in great detail how to finance global development using several untapped and largely painless sources.