SRI English

Copenhagen - low expectations mean no disappointment

by Martina Jung

We had not expected a global climate treaty – or anything close to it – to emerge from the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference 2009, and we had not been optimistic that emission reduction commitments would be made, in particular by China. So, we were not especially disappointed with the content of the Copenhagen Accord.

In contrast, the wider consensus view appears to be that Copenhagen failed to meet its goal: To reach binding agreements among the participating states to tackle global warming, which would serve as the basis for a global climate treaty to be signed in 2010. Indeed, participating countries have done little more than to take note of the Copenhagen Accord, without committing to accept it. The minimal compromise achieved does not include precise emission reduction targets or control mechanisms, nor is it legally binding or unanimous.

However, there are two points in the Copenhagen Accord which give us reason for optimism. The first is the recognition among UN member states that the increase in average global surface temperatures by 2050 must be limited to 2 degrees Celsius or less. This is the first time that scientific evidence of global warming has entered political documentation, applicable to 193 states. Looking ahead, this targeted restriction will serve as a universally accepted cap against which developments can be measured. The second is the pledge by industrialised nations to provide USD 30 billion to developing countries for the next 3 years. The pledge is aimed to step up action against climate change, and may be scaled up to USD 100 billion annually by 2020. This cash should accelerate installation of renewable energy capacity.

Achievements such as these are just a first step towards a global climate treaty. For now, they will have little immediate impact on the fundamentals of renewables stocks. But the need for continuing negotiations, and the growing pressure to achieve legally binding agreements, provides room for a positive mid- and long-term effect on renewables.

In the short-term, we do expect more ambitious action on a national level. In the course of the Copenhagen conference, China and the US presented various measures that they are prepared to implement in order to reduce their carbon emissions. All of them include the increase of renewable energy capacity, implying the potential for creating new jobs and reducing their countries’ dependence on foreign resources. The statements released by the world’s two largest emitters after the conference confirm their commitment to address the climate change problem and their willingness to further promote renewable energy technologies. We believe there will be more countries that follow this path now that 193 states are involved, at least politically.

Endocrine Disruptors – Our sexless future?

By Sara Wright

Endocrine disruption (ED) has been present in scientific literature for decades, but has not coalesced into a coherent topic in the popular media. This is down to several reasons: the issue is complex, its long-term ramifications remain unclear, and the path of mitigation is not well defined.

The US EPA defines an endocrine-disrupting compound as “an exogenous agent that interferes with synthesis, secretion, transport, metabolism, binding action, or elimination of natural blood-borne hormones that are present in the body and are responsible for homeostasis, reproduction, and developmental process.” EDs are heterogeneous and include synthetic chemicals that are widely used as industrial solvents and lubricants, agricultural chemicals and pharmaceutical compounds. Not only do they have serious impacts independently, but evidence is strengthening that the combined effect of multiple EDs can be exponentially harmful to the human body and ecosystems.

Some EDs were identified long ago as being responsible for the near extinction of entire species, such as the pesticide DDT and the bald eagle population. Others are only now being identified, especially as their multiple vectors of interaction with other substances emerge. Nearly all plastics that consumers use daily contain ED compounds. The majority of people in developed countries have a shockingly high “body burden”, which indicates synthetic compound levels carried in the blood and tissues. This was not true a mere generation ago.

Even infinitesimally low levels of exposure can cause abnormalities, especially if exposure occurs during a critical developmental window. Surprisingly, low doses may sometimes exert more potent effects than higher doses. EDs can affect not only the exposed individual, but also subsequent generations. Given that some of the most prevalent EDs have emerged from industrial chemistry, a relatively new field, the effects are likely not yet to have fully manifested.

But there are alarming signs everywhere. Water animals are exhibiting bizarre deformities, often in their sexual organs. In polluted lakes, amphibians are sprouting extra legs and alligators are developing stunted genitals. In the US Potomac watershed, male smallmouth bass were recently discovered to be transforming into “intersex fish” that display female characteristics – 80% were producing eggs!

There are similar signs in the human population. A startling trend shows significant increases in the numbers of genital deformities among newborn boys. The daughters of women exposed to DES – an ED drug prescribed from the 1930s to 1970s to prevent miscarriage – seemed fine at birth, but exhibited abnormally high prevalence of misshaped sexual organs and cancer later in life. New research has also tied EDs to obesity, insulin resistance and diabetes. Examples abound, and they paint a sombre picture.

Governments are moving toward regulating these substances. If the evidence continues to grow, and frogs in a lake are our modern-day canaries in a coal mine, EDs will become as important as climate change, and perhaps even more difficult to rein in. Nearly all industries will be affected, both by legislation to reduce the use of EDs, and by litigation seeking restitution for the damage they caused. Companies that seek to mitigate effects and produce safer alternatives will benefit in the long run.