Climate Performance Watch 2008 Released In Bali
by John Laumer, Philadelphia on 12.15.07
Climate Change Performance Index 2008 was just released in Bali Indonesia. We covered the 2007 release of the report, and the Chinese blow-back here.
See the full "Germanwatch" issued 2008 report for yourself here.
The expected news: US ranks down near the bottom (#55 out of 56 possible) 15 steps below China.
Among the pleasant surprises found in the 2008 report, Mexico is positioned toward the top of the ranked performers.
It's important to keep in mind that Germanwatch is using a forward-looking performance index. A trailing indicator-type (TI) index would weigh only such things as historic emission rates and what was invested already, based on past planning or regulations, whereas a forward-looking (FL) performance index looks at future programs, newly designed management systems, plus budgeted investments and projected emissions.
One can categorically and ideologically criticize forward-looking (FL)systems by arguing that they are too much of a stretch, technologically, or that they look idealistic or unpragmatic when considered against the past actions of a nation or industry sector. The advantage of FL systems is they make the laggards really stand out and the dreamers and hard workers get some credit for trying.
Here's an example of what Mexico is up to.
Both Mexico and Costa Rica have engaged in ambitious tree-planting efforts. A far cry from the community efforts often seen in the United States, Mexico wants to put 250 million trees in the ground by the end of 2007, and Costa Rica's goal is 6.5 million.
Image credit::Germanwatch
In China, Recycling by Tricycle
|
Al Gore Helps Pull The US' Monkey Wrench Out Of The World's Climate Treaty Gear Box
|
I am confident and hopeful that the US will get on board. Everyone I know is behind change, and we have a lame-duck administration that can't really get anything done.
Of course, the longer we wait, the bigger the challenge. The CAFE bill just passed by Congress is practically irrelevant because the new standards set are below what the car business will need to have in order to stay competitive anyway. like wise, Hillary has made unpleasant noises about "job killing" that indicate she might be slower off the blocks than we need her to be.
There is much to be hopeful about, and I want to single out Treehugger.com, and Discovery (owned by GE?), etc for special thansk. Treehugger has made environmentalism fun and friendly, and opened the eyes of many many people You guys rule.
While anyone that knows me or read past posts would know that I'm in no way a supporter of the current U.S. administration, and would myself give very low subjective marks to the U.S. stance on climate change.
However, this index seems to be a highly subjective and biased contrivance couched in and sold as objective analysis. Bad science misused for politics is something I don't like and this index is certainly bordering on being that. Here are a few of the areas that I found problematic...
- Why are land use changes "deforestation" not factored into the final score?
- Why have they created an artificial CO2 penalty for nuclear power? Whether or not you agree with nuclear it's just misleading and unscientific to release tables that appear to be Global Warming related only to sneak in other agendas.
- It would appear that countries like India rank well in CO2 per primary energy unit, probably because wood is a major source for heat and cooking. Yet the flip side of this, whether it is at the expense of deforestation is not considered.
- Does it consider non CO2 Global Warming factors (Methane, NOx, black soot)? Appears no. Methane flaring? Coal mine fires in China? Slash and burn?
- Who should international travel and shipping count against?
- 20% of the weighting of the score is for "climate policy" which would roughly seem to mean how closely a country's real policies as well as negotiating policies coincide with the particular view of this organization. It's as if they are saying they've already decided what the outcome of the Bali round should be because either there are no tough issues or because they are all knowing.
In the end I would much rather this organization just keep their methods internal and release the ranking as their own "ranking" rather than try to sell it as an objective "index".
The process of deciding which countries should do what to abate Global Warming is a very thorny one. How much should per capita count, how much should the contribution to global manufacturing or GDP count, how much is reasonable for developing countries to increase CO2 emissions counteracting progress in the developed world? In my opinion this index does a disservice to the very tough process that lies ahead for our world leaders.
Whats interesting is India in the 5th Position with the 2nd largest population and fastest growing nation it still managed to get 5th thts a tremendous achievement.