Tiempo Climate Newswatch

United States president Barack Obama is to attend the imminent Copenhagen climate summit. He will table a commitment to reduce national emissions by 17 per cent below 2005 levels by the year 2020. This target has, however, yet to receive approval from the United States Congress and would, according to the White House, be "in the context of an overall deal in Copenhagen that includes robust mitigation contributions from China and the other emerging economies." There was disappointment that Obama's visit will be on the second day of the meeting rather than towards the end when the negotiations will be most intense. "The Copenhagen climate summit is not about a photo opportunity," said Kyle Ash from Greenpeace USA. "It's about getting a global agreement to stop climate chaos. President Obama needs to be there at the same time as all the other world leaders."

China, for its part, has announced that it will cut carbon intensity, carbon dioxide emissions per unit of production, by 40 to 45 per cent from 2005 levels by the year 2020. Unofficial calculations suggest that the reduction would result in a cut in greenhouse gas emissions to about 13 per cent below a "business as usual" projection. Frank Jotzo of the Climate Change Institute at the Australian National University in Canberra commented that the reduction is a "little less than what China was expected to announce." He considers, however, that the commitment is "broadly compatible with other countries' proposed level of effort, like the United States' 17 per cent reduction target, taking into account China's development status." According to Fatih Birol at the International Energy Agency, China's goal would mean that it alone would be responsible for more than a quarter of the global reduction needed to limit planetary warming to two degrees Celsius. He welcomed the announcements from the United States and China as "extremely important and positive."

Cutting greenhouse pollution could save millions of lives by reducing preventable deaths such as heart and lung diseases, according to a series of studies published in medical journal The Lancet. "Relying on fossil fuels leads to unhealthy lifestyles, increasing our chances for getting sick and in some cases takes years from our lives," reports United States Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. "As greenhouse gas emissions go down, so do deaths from cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. This is not a small effect."

The researchers considered the immediate health benefits of taking action to curb greenhouse pollution by, for example, eliminating charcoal-burning cooking stoves or switching to low-polluting cars. For Delhi, India, the results suggest that greater use of low-polluting cars could save nearly 1,700 lost years of life for every million residents. If people drove less and walked or biked more, the extra saved years would rise to 12,500 years because of reduced levels of heart disease. "Here are ways you can attack major health problems at the same time as dealing with climate change," said Paul Wilkinson of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

The 2030 Water Resources Group, a consortium established to create an integrated fact base on reducing water scarcity, has predicted that water needs in India could double by the year 2030. Rising agricultural demand is the main factor. Some of the most highly-populated river basins - the Ganga, the Krishna and the Indus - face the largest absolute deficiencies. The Group recommends investment in irrigation efficiency and rainwater management that could reduce the projected gap between demand and "accessible, reliable, environmentally sustainable" supply by 80 per cent.

The Group studied four representative countries and areas - China, India, South Africa and Sao Paulo state in Brazil - together accounting for 40 per cent of the world's population and 42 per cent of projected 2030 water demand. "There is no single water crisis," the Group's report concludes. "Different countries, even in the same region, face very different problems, and generalizations are of little help." Nevertheless, in any region, "many of the most cost-effective measures identified, especially those that increase efficiency and productivity of water use, can pay back their initial capital investment in three years or less."