Oil and gas companies are not only major contributors to climate change, they are also uniquely at risk from the impacts of global warming. But despite the dual legislative and operational risks they face, many are burying their heads in the sand and failing to properly assess climate change risks.

That is the stark conclusion of a major report from environmental consultancy Acclimatise, which assessed oil and gas companies' responses to the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) and found that while more than three quarters accepted that already inevitable levels of climate change would affect their business through increased downtime, system failures and rising safety risks, only 19 per cent were taking action to address those risks.

A key global treaty to stop global warming almost collapsed last week after poorer nations threatened to walk out unless rich countries like America agree to cut their emissions.

However President Obama said he thinks a deal can still be done and he will go to Denmark in mid-December to make sure it happens.

"If I am confident that all of the countries involved are bargaining in good faith and we are on the brink of a meaningful agreement and my presence in Copenhagen will make a difference in tipping us over edge then certainly that's something that I will do," he told Reuters.

The UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen has been billed as the world’s last chance to stop temperature rise going above 2C (3.6F).

A key global treaty to stop global warming almost collapsed last week after poorer nations threatened to walk out unless rich countries like America agree to cut their emissions. --snip--
The UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen has been billed as the world’s last chance to stop temperature rise going above 2C (3.6F).

An enforceable carbon trading system would be the first substantive policy of an emmerging world goverment which would also be useable to mediate the effect of peaking world oil supp

Canada not likely to show any leadership on the environment
With Copenhagen just weeks away, our country is still mired in the reality that change will handicap economic growth and risk a unity crisis By Barbara Yaffe, Vancouver Sun 5 Nov 2009:
With just four weeks until a major climate change conference in Copenhagen, Canada once again is poised to play the role of environmental laggard. The Harper government would argue it has no choice -- because of hardship that would befall Alberta and Saskatchewan, in particular, should it take a hacksaw to GHG emissions, with national unity implications.

Meanwhile, environmental activists are arguing it's time to stop coddling western energy-producing provinces and face up to the dire climate consequences of continued inaction. The two sides have consolidated their respective positions in the wake of a report carried out by the Pembina Institute and David Suzuki Foundation, made public last week.

The report, titled Climate, Leadership, Economic Prosperity; final report on an economic study of greenhouse gas targets and policies for Canada and financed by the Toronto Dominion Bank, spells out what would be entailed in any Copenhagen pledge to substantively cut Canada's GHG emissions.
- Alberta's gross domestic product would shrink between seven and 12 per cent below what it would otherwise be, and Saskatchewan and British Columbia also would suffer losses.
- Canada, currently mired in deficit, would annually have to purchase between $2 billion and $8 billion worth of offshore carbon credits a year. snip..

With the clock ticking on the high-stakes Copenhagen climate summit, US President Barack Obama will try to salvage fading hopes for a
deal as he meets this month with the leaders of China and India.

Obama on Sunday starts his closely watched debut trip to China. A week later, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh comes to Washington in the first full-fledged state visit of Obama's presidency.

The United States is also dispatching Energy Secretary Steven Chu to both emerging powers in hopes of making headway ahead of the December 7-18 summit in the Danish capital.

Less than a month before negotiators will meet in Copenhagen with the ambitious goal of crafting a deal to curb global greenhouse gas emissions, the Obama administration is considering endorsing a limited short-term climate pact instead.

The scaled-back strategy is driven largely by the realities of domestic politics: The administration is hampered in making an international deal because Congress has not passed climate legislation. So any international agreement would be postponed until next year when it would be constrained by whatever domestic climate legislation Congress enacts.

Supporting an interim agreement -- which would fall far short of what many European and developing nations envisioned when President Obama took office -- would be an attempt to keep the U.N.-sponsored talks from being viewed a failure, say administration and congressional officials.

They emphasize that the trimmed-back approach should not be viewed as a withdrawal of U.S. commitment, but rather as a first step: "An interim, operational deal is not meant to be seen as a substitute for a real agreement," Todd Stern, the U.S. special envoy on climate change, said in an interview. "It's meant to be seen as substantive building blocks to a full, legal agreement, and perhaps the best chance of getting such an agreement."

World leaders representing nearly two-thirds of world economic output massively watered-down their public commitment to lowering greenhouse gasses last night, in what may be a grim portent for next month’s climate change talks in Copenhagen.

The surprise U-turn, which was privately described as “disappointing” by officials from several of the delegations, took place over the course of just a few hours on Saturday night as leaders met for summit discussions.

The leaders were later joined in Singapore by President Barack Obama, who flew in from Tokyo just hours after agreeing with the Japanese prime minister that the two countries would aim to reduce emissions by 80 percent by the middle of the century.

In an early draft of today’s official communiqué from the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (Apec) forum in Singapore, the 21-nation group said that “global emissions will need…to be reduced to 50 per cent below 1990 levels by 2050.”

One would suppose that they see the future resource wars coming, and want nothing to interfere or curtail their acquistion and utilization of those resources.

At least 21 people have perished in heavy snow in China including four children who reportedly died when two school canteens collapsed, China’s official news agency Xinhua reported. “As of 5 p.m. Friday, more than 9,000 buildings collapsed and about 190,400 hectares of crops were affected, causing direct economic losses of around 4.5 billion yuan (about 659 million U.S. dollars), ministry said.”

The strongest evidence yet that the rise in atmospheric CO2 emissions continues to outstrip the ability of the world's natural 'sinks' to absorb carbon is published this week in the journal Nature Geoscience.

An international team of researchers under the umbrella of the Global Carbon Project reports that over the last 50 years the average fraction of global CO2 emissions that remained in the atmosphere each year was around 43 per cent - the rest was absorbed by the Earth's carbon sinks on land and in the oceans. During this time this fraction has likely increased from 40 per cent to 45 per cent, suggesting a decrease in the efficiency of the natural sinks. The team brings evidence that the sinks are responding to climate change and variability.

The scientists report a 29 per cent increase in global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel between 2000 and 2008 (the latest year for which figures are available), and that in spite of the global economic downturn emissions increased by 2 per cent during 2008. The use of coal as a fuel has now surpassed oil and developing countries now emit more greenhouse gases than developed countries - with a quarter of their growth in emissions accounted for by increased trade with the West.

On 7 December, world leaders and climate change negotiators will meet in Copenhagen to discuss the future of our planet. As the debate intensifies, the New Statesman's panel of environmental experts have chosen their heroes and villains - politicians, activists, companies and institutions.

But who did we leave off the list? Are there activists who should have been recognised? Big bad businesses who somehow escaped inclusion? Tell us who should have been added, or who shouldn't have been included at all.