By now you have likely seen media reports on the outcome of Copenhagen.  The following sentences from the AP are representative:

• China, the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, lauded Sunday the outcome of a historic U.N. climate conference that ended with a nonbinding agreement that urges major polluters to make deeper emissions cuts – but does not require it.  The Obama administration on Sunday also defended the agreement as a “great step forward” – despite widespread disappointment among environmentalists that the pact does not include mandatory targets that would draw sanctions.  Disputes between rich and poor countries and between the world’s biggest carbon polluters – China and the United States – dominated the two-week conference. Tens of thousands of protesters took to the streets to demand action to cool an overheating planet.
• The meeting ended Saturday after a 31-hour negotiating marathon, with delegates accepting a U.S.-brokered compromise. The so-called Copenhagen Accord calls for reducing emissions to keep temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees F) above preindustrial levels. It gives billions of dollars in climate aid to poor nations but does not require the world’s major polluters to make deeper cuts in their greenhouse gas emissions.   UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said he would work with member states to convert the commitments into a global, legally binding treaty as soon as possible in 2010.
•  Under the new, nonbinding agreement, those richer nations, including the U.S., are to list their individual emissions targets, and developing countries must list what actions they will take to reduce the growth in their global warming pollution by specific amounts.  “Developing and developed countries are very different in their historical emissions responsibilities and current emissions levels, and in their basic national characteristics and development stages,” Yang said in a statement. “Therefore, they should shoulder different responsibilities and obligations in fighting climate change.”
• China has said it will rein in its greenhouse gas output, pledging to reduce its carbon intensity – its use of fossil fuels per unit of economic output – by 40 to 45 percent. The European Union has committed to cutting emissions by 20 percent by 2020, compared with 1990 levels; Japan to 25 percent, if others take similar steps, and the U.S. provisionally to a weak 3 to 4 percent.
• In a U.S. concession to China and other developing nations, text was dropped from the declaration that would have set a goal of reducing global emissions by 50 percent by 2050. Developing nations thought that would hamper efforts to raise their people from poverty.

********************************************

So what can one say about the American “deal” coming from Copenhagen?

Well, there are certainly several paths the U.S. could travel.  But it is likely that we are embarking on a 40-year adventure of re-tooling most aspects of our energy economy.  As others have said, it will be carbon constrained.  Incentives will continue to increase for wind and nuclear power, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, and widely-distributed solar photovoltaic.  And one can not rule out federal Carbon Cap and Trade legislation in 2010.

Perhaps I am merely reciting the conventional wisdom of 2009.  But as my Copenhagen vacation ends, that seems to be the current American Climate Deal.

First Taiwan.  I spent more than 13 hours in the Bella Center on Wednesday, leaving around 11 p.m.  It is much tougher to converse with people than it was 10 years ago.  It is not a language barrier, because most people speak English.  Rather it is the strong tendency for people to be engrossed with their laptop, cellphone, or Blackberry.  However, in one venue, sitting next to me was a 40 year-old Taiwanese consultant.  We spoke for more than a half hour.  He travels around Asia consulting on energy infrastructure.  It appears that Taiwan attended this COP15 essentially as an NGO, with status similar to mine.  They are not recognized as an independent country, even though their GNP dwarfs that of most island nations and African nations.  This gentleman agreed that mainland China has made massive industrial progress over the last 10 years, but he cautions that progress on issues of justice and freedom of their people is very slow.  He said there is a younger generation that might be open to reunification, if personal freedoms are improved.

China.  The U.S. and China are the two largest emitters of green house gases (GHG).  Imagine how hard it must be to negotiate with China.  Their approach seems to be as follows:

• We see climate change as a real threat.
• Our total emissions are similar to the U.S., but if you back out emissions associated with products shipped to the U.S., we are a little less.
• But most importantly, we have four times as many people as the U.S.  Our per capita emissions are one fourth of that of the U.S.
• And to the extent that there is a climate problem today, the largest contributors over the last 50 years have been the U.S. and Europe.
• So U.S., you start working to get your per capita emissions down to the China level, and then we can talk.

Wow!  That is a tough negotiating position.  Sort of leaves the U.S. demanding things like transparency of China emissions with verification.

At the moment it seems that President Obama is saying the U.S. will lead by embarking on a fast program of GHG emission reductions, culminating in an 80% reduction by 2050.  As he says this, is he counting on the current Clean Air Act or new legislation or both?  More later.

The U.S. came under renewed pressure to improve its pledge of greenhouse-gas emission cutbacks by about 17 percent by 2020, compared with 2005 figures. That’s only a 3 percent to 4 percent reduction from 1990, the benchmark year for the Kyoto countries and the basis for the EU’s pledge to cut emissions by at least 20 percent by 2020.

“I have to be honest, an offer by the United States to cut only 4 percent from 1990 levels is not ambitious enough,” German Chancellor Angela Merkel said before arriving in Copenhagen.

One expert analysis of industrialized countries’ current pledges on emissions in 2020 find that in aggregate they amount to 8 percent to 12 percent below 1990 levels, far below the 25 percent to 40 percent recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.N. scientific network.

Climate Action Network International, the coalition of environmental groups at the conference, estimate that emissions path would raise global temperatures about 4 degrees Celsius (7 degrees Fahrenheit) by mid-century, well beyond what scientists say is a 2-degree C (3.6-degree F) threshold for seriously damaging climate change.

So back to your career.  I am reminded of one of the sessions at the 2009 A&WMA Conference in Detroit.  On one of the panel’s was a gentleman from the U.S. EPA who had been instrumental in research and progress on mercury reduction from boilers.  He gained considerable expertise and respect.  But he said he would be moving on to other EPA research areas.  He remarked that the highest of all priorities at the U.S. EPA was climate change.

Think about that.  At the EPA, Climate Change may soon be as important as all other program areas combined.  What other issues would EPA executives tackle in world forums?  And what about their ultimate executive bosses?  Note that the President and the Secretary of State and leaders from almost all the countries of the world will be in Copenhagen tomorrow to work on what they consider the biggest environmental issue in the history of the U.S.

And we should view it as the convergence of at least five large issues:

1.  It is an earth science issue. 

2.  EPA just made it an air quality issue.

3.  It is an energy issue.  

4.  It is a foreign policy and energy security issue.

5.  And it has become an environmental justice issue for poor, developing countries.

• Most A&WMA engineers and scientists have specialized in areas closely tied to air quality, permitting, and air pollution control equipment.  We need to broaden that a little.  We must become a resource for at least basic expertise on earth science and climate science.  We should add that to our personal continuing education goals.  A particularly interesting area for study is the fragility of the ice/water balance on a planet. 
• Secondly, we know a lot about products of combustion.  But perhaps the siting of wind turbines, solar arrays, and nuclear power plants are growth areas for which we should prepare.
• Thirdly, what if the U.S. embarks upon a program of cutting CO2 emissions by 40% in 16 years, or by 80% in 40 years.  What does that mean for the industries that we work for or have as customers?  How does the steel and paper industries cut CO2 emissions by 40%.  How does the utility industry go from 200o pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour to 1200 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour?

In each of the three cases above, will A&WMA members be vital to the future changes?  When we attend an A&WMA Annual Conference is it heavy on all the technologies and approaches that reduce GHG emissions?  And is word going out to technical professionals in their 20′s that if your concern is bringing CO2 down to 350 ppm, you must be an active member in A&WMA?

I know that the President of A&WMA, Rick Sprott, is attuned to all of these issues.  How about the rest of us?

Tomorrow is the big day in Copenhagen.  Watch it with an eye to how it will shape your career.

Note to file:  It would be great if each A&WMA Chapter has at least one meeting in the first half of 2010 heavy on the science and technologies tied to addressing climate change.

At Copenhagen this interest in editing the work of others is compounded 100 fold, with most of the countries of the world thinking that they can write a better agreement.  Not only is each sentence loaded with unique import to them, but their special and pet issues must be addressed.

Apparently there is a manageable group of 20? countries behind the scenes trying to work out something tonight, before the national leaders begin arriving on Thursday.  (A large plenary adjourned at 11 p.m. Wednesday night.)  However, if a smaller group is working on something, this is very poorly received by the 100+ countries left out of the overnight discussions.

This is the night where it looks like two years of negotiations will have been for naught.  Many developing countries have extraordinary expectations.  They seemingly believe that the U.S. might be able to cut CO2 emissions by 80% by 2050 and still have enough money left over to send $1 billion a week to developing countries to help them address climate change.  It seems unlikely that the U.S. is in a position to offer anything that approaches this type of expectation.

I close tonight from my hotel room, having trudged the last five blocks through an inch of snow and 40 mile an hour wind gusts.  Nothing dissipates global warming demonstrators faster than a mini blizzard.

More tomorrow, with perhaps an emphasis on how all of this may shape the careers of A&WMA professionals.

The earth is warming.  The rate of heating is not slowing down.  There is a little warming and forcing by the sun.  However the warming and forcing by manmade global warming gases is 30 times stronger.  The old ice in the arctic is dramatically down.  Geographically, most of the arctic ice is one to two years old.  The consensus forecast for ocean rise is now three to six feet by 2100.  Intense rain events are up on most continents.  Heat waves rates are up on most continents, and models show continued increases for Europe and elsewhere.

Dr. Holdren asserts that the U.S. has been and will continue to embark on policies the will lead to reduced GHG emissions.  He believes that it is likely that each year, each decade the science associated with climate change will become clearer, more persuasive, and more worrisome.  This in turn will make it easier to establish policy to be more protective of the earth.

The tenor of the questions to Dr. Holdren and other U.S. speakers tends to initially be complimentary.  Then the question usually turns to something like when will the U.S. really become committed to meaningful changes.  Often the reply is, keep an eye on us, changes and committments are on the way.

More later.

This country may be too small for this event.  The total population is similar in number to Indiana.  The city of Copenhagen has a population about the size of Cincinnati.  They have a nice Metro system.  The Metro can dump 20,000 people at the convention center (Bella Center) in a short period of time on a cold morning.  (It only holds 15,000)  One high security entrance.  Festival entry.  Picture The Who Concert in Cincinnati.  Fortunately no one started shoving.

So the rules change beginning tomorrow.  Secondary passes will be required.  Sort of a cap and trade for entrance.  One out of three non-governmental organization (NGO) observers will be allowed in, if they have this second pass.  Same thing on Wednesday.  Thursday the cap gets smaller, perhaps one out of 15 NGOs will get in.  And then on Friday, when the leaders of the world arrive, the NGO cap may drop to one out of 100.  The Bella Center is simply too small.

On a more positive note, the U.S and several other key countries have agreed to work closely to bring about the next generation of more efficient electrical appliances.  

More later on glaciers, ocean acidification, sea level rise, Africa, etc.

I left the hotel at 11 a.m. this morning, walked four blocks to the metro, disembarked at the Bella Center, and got in line with 200 other people to pick up credentials.  I spoke with the 30-year old man behind me.  His credentials come from a prominent CO2 allowance trading firm.  He works for a very large Swedish electric utility.  Lots of wind turbines and biomass in Sweden.  However, his firm also has acquired much coal-fired capacity in other European countries.  The Kyoto agreement has his company buying numerous CO2 allowances.

Then after passing through airport-quality security screening, I spent more time in the credentials line.  I spoke with the 30-year old woman from India in front of me.  (Half the people here appear to between the ages of 20 and 35.)  This woman is attending on behalf of poor women in India, including poor women seeking micro-capital to start businesses.  She has been to other U.N. events, but has never seen as much world-wide interest and coverage as the COP15.  She hopes that money will flow from rich countries to the poor women of India.  She is not optimistic, since her experience is that money for wind turbines and carbon mitigation rarely makes it to those she represents. 

Soon thereafter I breezed through the photo area and was provided with my bar-coded photo ID and a pass for the Metro, trains, and buses of Copenhagen.

Vegetarians were well-represented outside the Bella Center with posters and demonstrators.  Inside they had several of the 100+ exhibits.  Their claim is that about half of all global warming gases are associated with meat production.  They assert that when rain forests are cut down, 80% of that land is converted to grazeland for cattle, and the remaining 20% is for soy beans and other crops fed to animals.  Lot’s of interest groups in Copenhagen with lots of claims.  The energy industry has received climate change attention for a long time .  But it appears that activist vegetarians would like to shift more focus onto the beef and pork industries.

There are dozens of meetings and negotiations going on simultaneously at COP15.  About half are “Open” to Observers and NGOs; the remainder are “Closed” and are only available to government negotiators.

Beginning Monday, I will dig into some of the areas that may affect the future of A&WMA members.  But for the weekend, it is historic Copenhagen and the castles of Denmark.  And perhaps I will skip the bacon for breakfast.

I have not seen anyone questioning the validity of the Keeling/Tans ambient CO2 data.  And it appears that ambient CO2 will increase 25 to 50% over a few lifetimes.  Is it surprising that supercomputers model increasing global temperatures as greenhouse gases significantly increase?  For the latest CO2 measurements, check this link.   http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

Lonnie was born in West Virginia and is my age.  The Ohio State University is his home base.  He has traveled to high altitude glaciers all over the world to drill and retrieve ice cores.  Ice cores that reveal climate conditions and temperature histories going back thousands of years.  Over the last 30 years he has witnessed thinning of glaciers and retreating of glaciers.  The ice cores that he brings to OSU in Columbus contain a wealth of historical information.  Lonnie reminds that glaciers provide year round water supplies to a large portion of the world’s population.  He hopes for their sake and for scientific reasons that glacier shrinkage does not result in Ohio State being an ice core museum for glaciers that no longer exist.

Dr. Lonnie Thompson is an easy Google and nicely described in Wikipedia.  And the link that follows is an especially interesting article.       http://www.pnas.org/content/103/31/11437.full