According to the Environment Canada, the country’s major environmental agency, Canada will fail to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and achieve its 2020 targets because of emissions from tar sands.
The rapid development of tar sands in Canada which injects steam into thick oil deposits to produce oil will account for 62 million metric tons of CO2 emissions from 2005 to 2020, almost dwarfing 31 million metric tons in planned CO2 reductions as Canada’s power plants switch from burning coal to natural gas.
The recent study by Canada’s Pembina Institute estimates that by 2020 Alberta’s tar sands will account for 12 percent of Canada’s total CO2 emissions.
Tar sands will be the main reason why Canada will likely exceed its 2020 CO2 emissions reductions target by gigantic 178 million metric tons.
The Canadian fossil fuel industry, as expected, has denied these reports claiming they are far blown out of proportion because new technologies being employed in tar sands will help significantly reduce emissions in the upcoming years.
One thing is sure though, Canada has a very difficult task in reducing the amount of greenhouse gas emissions in years to come.
Russia's permafrost melting could further increase global climate change impact as according to the latest scientific estimates Russia could lose 15-30 percent of its permafrost by the year 2050.
Permafrost refers to the soil that has been permanently frozen and it currently covers around 63% of Russia's territory. Once permafrost melts it will release massive amounts of greenhouse gas methane currently stored in the frozen soil which will add more impact to climate change.
Not only that, thawing of permafrost will also give huge problems to transportation, building, and energy extraction infrastructure, accounting also for huge economic damage.
The temperatures in western Siberia territories will rise by up to two degrees Celsius to just three or four degrees below zero which will result in shifting of the boundary of the permafrost to the north-east by 150-200 kilometres.
This negative news have come from the Andrei Bolov, the head of the ministry's disaster monitoring department. He also added that "the negative impact of permafrost degradation on all above-ground transportation infrastructure is clear.
The ideal solution to solve the climate change issue would be turning carbon dioxide (CO2) into something useful such as fuel and plastics but the current scientific reports claim that this solution is years off, mostly because of very high construction costs.
Some pilot projects showed great promise such as manufacture of concrete, plastics and oils from carbon dioxide but the main drawbacks of all these pilot projects were high construction and operational costs.
Carbon capture and storage solutions that aim to store and bury carbon dioxide underground are also connected with relatively high costs but are currently receiving more attention than technologies that aim to transform CO2 into some useful products. However, these technologies have so far been used only in some regional pilot projects, still lacking global character.
This means that at this moment the only possible solution to tackle climate change is to significantly reduce global level of greenhouse gas emissions and this sadly cannot be achieved without the international climate deal.
International climate deal also looks to be years off because there is still a huge difference in opinion between developed and the developing world. The world leaders continue with their talks and promises but there's nothing concrete coming out of it. Hope for new climate deal seems to be fading away with each new disappointing talk.
At this moment there doesn't seem to be some easy solution to tackle climate change. There's no magic trick that will return climate back to the normal, the only solution at this time is to make a drastic cut in greenhouse gas emissions.
It may not seem that way to us but scientists continue to claim that our planet is still warming, and that climate change is very much a reality we live in. This was the conclusion of the newest review of climate data that included 26 climate scientists from eight countries, and all these scientists agreed how Earth is really warming, and how the global warming could reach as high as 7 degrees temperature increase by the end of the century if greenhouse gases growth continues its current trend.
Most climate change predictions have concluded that sea levels will globally rise around 1 meter by the end of this century. Such sea level rise is already huge, but a major review of climate change in Antarctica conducted by the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR)come up with even bigger numbers, namely that sea levels could rise 1,4m by the end of this century.
Climate talks have failed in the most important issue, namely to specify the carbon emission cuts, and the only thing that can be characterized as some sort of success is the "agreement" that outlined a goal of providing $100bn a year by 2020 to help poor countries and also promised to deliver $30bn of aid for developing nations over the next three years. These are significant commitments but are they enough for us to be optimistic?
Difficult to say. China and India did not want legally binding targets about carbon emissions because they want to continue their impressive economic growth at any cost, and though most delegates backed a US proposal that included limiting temperature rises to less than 2C, at the end the 193-nation summit ended with delegates taking "note" of the deal. Taking note is definitely not enough.
Though you have the general feeling like for the first time in human history both developed and developing countries look ready to fight the climate change problem, somehow it still looks like the differences between these countries are still making things extremely difficult in reaching new climate deal.
And the result of this is that we now have a declaration, instead of legally obliging deal. So much hopes, so much talks, so much world leaders on one place, such an important issues, and all we have is a declaration. It should have been so much more.
Climate talks will likely be the main topic in the upcoming months but from the current point of view it definitely does not look like the climate deal will be struck in any time soon.
After so many months of hope, hope that world has finally reach the point to put aside the difference in opinion, and struck deal about this vital issue, all we are left with is an empty accord with no legally binding targets, and no money guaranteed to be over and above existing aid budgets.
World has yet again showed its true face by showing how little we care for our planet. Pathetic and embarrassing.
Despite the climate deal has very much failed this will not stop Germany to continue with very ambitious target of 40% less CO2 emissions by 2020. Of course to do so, the emphasis will be on even bigger share of renewable energy sources in domestic energy supply. This highly industrialized country is the sixth largest CO2 emitter in the world, and any significant decrease from its part would be more than welcome to tackle climate change on global level.
This won't be very easy to do, because Germany being highly industrialized country, also has some powerful industry lobbies that have already started talking how such ambitious target would hurt German industry too much, causing lot of people to lose their jobs.
On the other hand such CO2 reduction target could also give further boost to German renewable energy sector, and could give German economy the edge in the clean energy race.
Since Copenhagen climate deal turned out to be a major setback, world really needs much more positive examples, or otherwise temperature increase will cause devastating damage to our planet, and irreversibly change our current way of life. It is nice to see that some countries are well aware of that.
From the current point of view it certainly looks like the Germany will be the leading country, and the driving force behind the EU's clean energy policy.
Though Copenhagen climate deal turned out to be one major disappointment still almost all world leaders agreed that one of the most important thing to do to tackle climate change is to save our forests, particularly rainforests that play one of the most important roles in regulating climate on our planet. Has world finally started realizing how important our forests and rainforests really are?
Forests do not only help regulate climate by absorbing large quantities of CO2 from the atmosphere but they are also the home to millions of plants and animals, and also protect soils and watersheds from erosion. Of course, in fight against the climate change their most wanted ability is to store carbon by absorbing greenhouse gases and preventing their release into the atmosphere.
So how can we save our forests that are so vital ally in fight against the climate change? Currently the most popular idea is that rich countries pay developing nations to protect and manage their tropical forests in order to reduce the global carbon emissions that result from massive deforestation. The largest rainforests in the world belong to developing countries, and without money from rich countries they will continue to destroy forests to primarily make more rooms for farms and more cattle pasture areas.
Globally deforestaion is the second main cause of global warming problem behind fossil fuels burning, and we would do great deal for tackling the climate change by halting deforestation. The solution really looks to be simple, namely the developed countries pay for the right to emit carbon emissions, and developing nations with vast forest areas are paid to keep these forests intact.
But in order for this solution to work it is vital to ensure that the money ends up in right place, and not in pockets of dirty politicians. This could be a big problem because many developed countries are struggling with corruption problems, and it would definitely not be easy to unsure the total transparency of the funds.
This problem still shouldn't prevent rich countries to finance funds against deforestation. All what these countries need to ensure is some sort of mechanisms that would ensure total transparency of these funds to ensure that money will end up in the right place. We must not forget that by saving our forests we are also saving the future of our planet.
According to the latest scientific study the water vapor plays much bigger role in global warming phenomenon than previously expected, and according to the new study a 10 percent drop in water vapor ten miles above Earth's surface significantly increased the impact on global warming. The results of this study could also explain the mystery of why temperatures have not risen as fast in the last ten years as they did in the 1980s and 1990s.
The satellite images show that water vapor was increasing in the 1980s and 1990s, and then dropping after 2000, and according to the scientists these ups and downs occurred precisely in a narrow altitude region of the stratosphere where they played the biggest possible role on climate.
Water vapor is one of the less known greenhouse gases, not as famous as its close relatives carbon dioxide, and methane but still important part of greenhouse gases family that plays crucial role in climate change.
Satellite images show that water vapor in the stratosphere decreased by about 10 percent in the last 10 years, and reasons for that are still unknown. Though we still don't know the reason of this decrease, this was quite helpful scenario that was mainly responsible for cooling by causing surface temperatures to increase about 25 percent more slowly than they would have otherwise, with the ongoing increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
Scientists have also concluded that an increase in stratospheric water vapor in the 1990s likely had the opposite effect of increasing the rate of warming by about 30 percent. Once the mystery what triggers the increase and decrease in stratospheric water vapor gets solved we will know much more about the role of water vapor in climate change.
Climate change experts agree that climate change will have very negative impact on global water supplies. Many impact of global warming are connected with water supplies. The list includes melting glaciers, heat waves, cyclones or water-borne diseases such as cholera, desertification, and floods.
Climate change will result in shortage of water, and shortage of water could lead to open conflicts, and even wars between some countries. People will only see how precious water really is once there won't be enough water, and this could happen in not so far future from now.
Shortage of water presents by many the most important threat to future peace in the world, and many countries should already start to cooperate in searching for the best possible solutions to overcome water shortages in years to come.
The most affected regions will be Central Asia and northern Africa. According to latest U.N. estimates up to 250 million people in Africa could suffer from insufficient water supplies by 2020.
Water issue will very soon become the most important issues though currently many people do not see it so important. But once water shortages become more frequent many people will see why the water is the most precious resource on our planet.
It would be wise to count how much water we are using for certain "not so relevant" uses, for instance one study showed that it took 15,000 litres to produce a pair of blue jeans. Such examples definitely do not help water conservation cause. Industrial water use should be definitely put under the magnifier.
According to the Environment Canada, the country’s major environmental agency, Canada will fail to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and achieve its 2020 targets because of emissions from tar sands. 
