Irish people consider climate change less of a priority for the EU than other member states.  In a recent EU-wide survey, over 60% of people in countries such as Sweden, Denmark and Austria considered climate change a priority whereas only 38% of Irish people agreed.

More than 60% of those surveyed believed that economic growth must be a priority for Ireland, even if it affects the environment. The survey also highlighted that less than 50% of Irish people considered that EU action was key to tackling climate change, as opposed to the overall EU average of 75%.

Meanwhile in Britain, a BBC poll has shown climate change scepticism has risen since this time last year.  25% of British respondents to the survey did not believe global warming was actually happening.

A group representing the biofuels industry in Ireland has claimed that the new carbon tax, announced in December’s budget, will penalise environmentally friendly fuels.

The carbon tax imposes a levy of €15 per tonne of carbon dioxide emissions.  Pure biofuels are exempt from the tax, but blends that contain less that 10% biofuels are not.  The biofuels lobby group has complained to the Irish Government that such blends are being treated exactly the same way as conventional petrol and diesel.

Green Biofuel Ireland (GBI), that produce 30,000 tonnes of biofuels annually have complained that the 10% limit is too high and gave no advantage to biofuel producers over conventional fuel producers.

Is the 10% limit fair?

Even with the relaxing of the 31 January deadline for countries to submit their emission reduction targets under the Copenhagen Accord, only 55 out of 192 have formally pledged to cut or limit their emissions.

The list includes the US, the EU block of countries, China and emerging economies such as Brazil and India but 137 countries have chosen not to make pledges.  In addition, no pledging country has gone any further than the commitments they made public at the negotiations in Copenhagen.

The pledges were welcomed by Yvo de Boer (UNFCCC head) even though they are not recognised as being enough to avoid the worst predicted impacts of climate change.

After recent blows to the credibility of the IPCC with regard to the robustness and accuracy of its scientific claims, Rajendra Pachauri (Chair of IPCC)  is in need of official backing if his position is to remain tenable.

Today is has been reported that a senior British government official stated, with regard to Mr Pachauri, that;

The position is that he is the chair and he has indicated that mistakes were made.  There is no vacancy at this stage, so there is no issue at this stage.

This lacklustre show of support could further damage the credibility of the IPCC and detract from the work, both past and present, of the panel.

Should governments offer official backing to the IPCC and its current head or is change required?

Ahead of the 31 January deadline for countries to submit emission reduction targets under the Copenhagen Accord, world leaders are so far failing to provide adequate emission cut targets.

Pledges from rich countries are expected to total just 12-18 per cent below 1990 levels, less than half of the cuts that are required to keep global temperatures in check.

The bottom up approach encouraged by the Accord, where countries set their own targets, will not deliver the cuts that are needed. Instead, a global target based on the established science is required and national contributions must be based on a country’s historical responsibility for creating the climate crisis.

The Copenhagen Accord has also promised $30 billion in fast track finance to help the poorest and most vulnerable countries cope with climate impacts over the next three years. Delivering this money is the next big test faced by world leaders.

Will they fail again?

The climate change negotiations in Copenhagen brought world leaders together in the hope that a fair, safe and legally binding deal could be reached.  After the failure of the talks, many people shifted their focus to any opportunity for the same world leaders to take appropriate action to tackle climate change during 2010.

In the meantime however, some environmental groups and other interested parties see the courts as a viable mechanism to address climate change.  Recently, three major lawsuits have been filed in the US in an attempt to hold companies such as Shell Oil and Exxon Mobil responsible for their emissions that have allegedly contributed to the damage done by climate change.  Furthermore, an intention to hide any causal link between emissions and climate change is being examined as a possible legal infraction.

There is an issue however with regard to the separation of powers.  Some policy makers have already argued that the court does not have a mandate to set environmental standards and that legislation is the only appropriate mechanism. Despite this, environmental groups are still willing to test that logic.

Should the courts be involved or is climate change policy a matter that can only be addressed by governments?

With the State of the Union speech due to be delivered by President Obama on Wednesday 27th January, it has been reported that climate change may not feature.  Concerns have been raised that the president is being pressurised to avoid mentioning climate change or at the very least, downplay its significance.

The US needs to show that it is serious about tackling climate change in 2010.  Otherwise, other large polluting nations will not feel pressure to act themselves.

However, with the Democrats facing a tough challenge to get climate change legislation through the Senate, environmental organisations in the US are fearful that President Obama is being lobbied to skirt the issue in tomorrow’s speech.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has issued a statement in response to the recent criticism of its claim in its 2007 report that Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035.

In regard to the controversial claim, the statement acknowledges that

In drafting the paragraph in question, the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly.

This rare error by the IPCC has been accepted as being regretful and the statement continues by pointing out how

This episode demonstrates that the quality of the assessment depends on absolute adherence to the IPCC standards, including thorough review of “the quality and validity of each source before incorporating results from the source into an IPCC Report”. We reaffirm our strong commitment to ensuring this level of performance.

Naturally, detractors of the IPCC will use this opportunity to try and discredit the panel further but will this statement put an end to some of the recent criticism?

Yvo de Boer, UN climate change chief, has today announced that the deadline for countries to officially state their emission reduction targets (31 January) is now just a soft deadline.  This leaves countries free to sign up to the goals of the Copenhagen accord whenever they choose.

To date, only 20 out of 192 countries have signed up to the goals of limiting global warming to no more than 2C above 1990 levels and providing $100 billion per year to help developing countries reduce emissions and adapt to climate change from 2020.

Furthermore, it has been reported that the UN climate change chief has also endorsed the divisive proposal allowing for a small  group of countries to negotiate a climate agreement on behalf of everyone.

Could negotiations just involving the biggest polluting countries ever produce a fair, safe and binding climate deal?

The New Scientist revealed last week that the claim made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its 2007 report that Himalayan glaciers could melt entirely by 2035 was not based on scientific literature.

The claim drew strong criticism from the Indian government which maintains that although some glaciers in the Himalayas are indeed retreating, there was no evidence to suggest that they would disappear.

Based on an interview with an Indian glaciologist, the IPCC has now begun reviewing the controversial claim.

Does this damage the reputation of the IPCC? Or will a thorough review quell the criticisms?