Senate climate bill likely to include off-shore drilling, delayed CO2 curbs for some industries

(Remnants of steel plant with Three Mile Island nuclear plant behind it from Flickr and photographer Scooter Flix/Scott Shatto)


What form will the bi-partisan Senate climate bill finally take? New developments in the past week suggest the following:
• Industry, particularly trade-sensitive industry in the Rust Belt, may get a long reprieve.
• Off-shore drilling is likely to be part of the mix, probably with revenue sharing for the adjacent states.
• Nuclear power and natural gas could be part of a “clean energy standard” that would replace the current renewable energy standard RES).

These are three of the “asks” from major blocs of Senators, some of whose votes will be needed to get to 60.

In an analysis of the 30 or so fence-sitters, E&E News, the subscription wire service, has looked at the various blocs and their demands. Some are overlapping. The idea will be to swing some of these blocs, or at least some members, onto the yes-vote side of the fence to reach 60. They are now at 41.

The coal bloc (about 20 Senators) wants the cap on emissions by 2020 to be less than the 17% in the House bill and what was promised by the President at Copenhagen. They also want billions to develop “clean coal” technology.

The nuclear bloc (about 18) is looking for tax incentives and loan guarantees that they are likely to get. They also would like nuclear to be included in a “clean energy standard.”

The industrial bloc (13) is worried about job loss for energy-intensive industries with fierce international competition, such as steel, cement and glass. They want short-term transitional assistance and trade barriers for countries that don’t have similar curbs on CO2 emissions. (No point sending the jobs and CO2 to China, they say.)

The gas and oil bloc (13) wants more offshore drilling with revenue sharing for states. On the other side are some states, mostly East Coast, that don’t want drilling off their coasts (NIMBY).

Finally there are about 12 sector-specific advocates who want their industry phased in later, with utilities going first, which is likely to happen.

Meetings last week
President Obama met with 8 Democrats and 6 Republicans to hear them out for more than an hour last week.

Meanwhile, the triumverate of Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who are drafting the bill, met with the Big 3 opponents of climate legislation – the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Petroleum Institute and the American Farm Bureau.

What the three Senators will emerge with in the next couple of weeks (or maybe after spring break, Kerry admitted Friday) will be what Graham calls a jobs bill that emphasizes energy independence and reduces air pollution. He also said off-shore drilling is a must. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) has asked a 10-year delay for trade-sensitive industries and Graham noted, “We need Levin.”

A few, such as Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) want an energy-only bill, but the President was clear this should be a comprehensive climate bill. Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s (R-Alaska) demand for drilling in ANWR has been rejected out of hand.

The three said earlier this bill is unlikely to embrace cap-and-trade.

Stay tuned.

(Sources: E&E Daily, E&ENewsPM)

See Earthling Angst's daily tweets on Twitter by clicking on the blue bird at right.

Florida Keys face climate change now as sea rises

(Photo of beach in Florida Keys from Flickr and photographer Vladeb/Brian Garrett)

The Florida Keys are already feeling the damage from rising seas and climate change. The low-lying island chain is being eroded, flooded and losing unique wildlife – and that’s not just from hurricanes. The seas have risen 9 inches in the past century.

I’ve seen the encroaching water close-up. We bought a condo on the ocean in Islamorada in the mid-1990s. And we sold it 10 years later, in large part because the water was lapping at our building, requiring a seawall to be built. Aside from several hurricanes in recent years that took out our dock, insurance costs had skyrocketed and we knew if our building ever was destroyed they’d have to rebuild further back and smaller, and some of us would be out of luck.

An article in the Christian Science Monitor last week talked about frequent flooding of streets, the death of foliage from salt water, and gradual disappearance of some animals needing fresh water – like the tiny Key deer. A study at the University of Miami said a best-case scenario would be the sea rising another 7 inches by 2100. Worst case was 55 inches.

That would just about wipe out everything. Most of the Keys are flat and little more than a block wide, with water on both sides.

Some efforts are underway to combat flooding streets – for example in Key West where they are putting in gravity wells at intersections. And there’s talk about raising some roads. But money is short and I can’t see that they’d ever be able to save this wonderful, beautiful spot if the water rose even 24 inches.

What’s happening in the Keys is starting to occur on other coastlines, where beach erosion is eating away at the shore.

Just a reminder that climate change legislation is about more than what the coal companies want and the politics of getting re-elected.

(Sources: Christian Science Monitor, ClimateWire)

EPA backs down on rules for large power-plant GHG emissions -- under pressure from Congress

(Photo of Utah coal-fired power plant from Flickr and photographer Arbyreed )


Reactinging to pressure from some members of Congress, the EPA has backpedaled on its plan to begin regulating greenhouse gas emissions from large power plants and factories under the Clean Air Act this year.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said that in order to allow time for Congress to pass a climate bill she would:
• Not require permitting in 2010 for large sources of greenhouse gases.
• Raise the limit for permitting next year to those emitting more than 75,000 tons, not the 25,000 planned. That amount might be lowered to 50,000 tons in 2012.
• Give small sources of emissions a reprieve until 2016.

The EPA and Department of Transportation would, however, proceed with plans to issue rules next month for autos and light trucks, to reach the Obama Administration’s goal of 35.5 mpg by 2016.

Why the change?
Easing the plans for restricting emissions from large coal-powered plants and other industrial sources came in response to a series of threats to the EPA’s ability to regulate GHG.

• Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) has prepared a resolution to veto the “endangerment” finding that greenhouse gases should be regulated under the Clean Air Act, a finding that followed a Supreme Court decision. Murkowski has 41 co-sponsors, including Dems Ben Nelson (Neb.), Blanche Lincoln (Ark.) and Mary Landrieu (La.) Murkowski needs 51 votes to pass the resolution and apparently doesn’t have them or would have introduced it by now. A companion resolution in the House, would be spearheaded by two Democrats, Ike Skelton (Mo.) and Collin Peterson (Minn.)

• Coal-state Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) has introduced a bill to delay EPA regulation of large power plants for two years. There is no indication, however, that Senate leadership will bring it up for hearing. W. Va. Reps. Nick Rahall and Alan Molihan, both Dems, as well as Rick Boucher (D-Va.), have a similar bill in the House but there’s no sign that is going anywhere either. But Rockefeller’s bill may have done its job to get concessions from the EPA and head off Murkowski’s more dangerous resolution.

Rockefeller’s bill would not challenge the EPA’s right to consider climate change under the Clean Air Act, as Murkowski’s resolution would. It would just postpone it for stationary sources (not vehicles).

Who’s lining up with whom
Murkowski’s supporters include the National Automobile Dealers Assn. and the American Public Power Assn.

She, by the way, has collected $800,000 in gas, oil and utility contributions, according to climateprogress.org.

Among those opposing her resolution are the American Lung Assn. and 12 public health organizations, including the American Pediatrics Assn., as well as 569 scientists from the Union of Concerned Scientists.

The head of construction trades for the AFL-CIO has written the White House and asked it to reconsider taking such strong action quickly against stationary sources because it would hurt jobs.

Lawsuit
Alabama and Texas have filed suit to stop the EPA. But 16 other states, mostly on the West Coast and in the Northeast, have asked to intervene on behalf of the EPA. Among them are some you might not expect – Arizona and Iowa.

EPA’s Jackson told Congress she, like the president, would like to see Congress pass climate legislation as a better way to curb greenhouse gases. The House climate bill passed in June blocked EPA regulation, while the Senate bill that came out of the Environment Committee did not.

Now 13 Senators, led by Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), and including Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Al Franken (D-Minn.), have sent a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), as well and the bi-partisan trio crafting a new Senate bill (Kerry, Lieberman and Graham), asking them not to take away the EPA’s ability to regulate GHG from coal plants under the Clean Air Act.


(Sources: Greenwire, E&E Daily, ClimateWire, E&ENewsPM, climateprogress.org)

Carbon tax more acceptable than cap-and-trade?

(Photo of coal-burning plant near Kenosha, Wisc., from Flickr and photographer James Jordan )


Who'da thunk it? Cap-and-trade was the way to go the past few years because a carbon tax was politically impossible. Now, suddenly, that's turned on its head. A carbon tax -- or at least "a price on carbon" -- seems to have the best chance.

Climate legislation may not be dead after all, but cap-and-trade is. The odd triad – Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) – are preparing to release the main points of their “compromise” legislation to the Senate sometime this week or next -- and it doesn't include cap-and-trade.

They don’t have the 60 votes yet, haven’t even drafted the language yet, but are ready to work the crowd of uncertain senators and interested lobbyists to see if they can reach consensus.

President Obama says he’s willing to be flexible as long as the plan puts a price on greenhouse gas emissions and cuts them about 17% (below 2005 levels) by 2020, as he promised the rest of the world.

The three say their plan can do that.

Other important points:
• Three different mechanisms will be used for three different sectors.
• Power plants will go first and their emissions will be priced and capped and made more stringent over time.
• Industries, such as chemicals, cement and paper, will be able to wait several years, but will eventually be included.
• Motor fuel will have a price attached to carbon (that's right, a carbon tax) with at least some of the revenue going to transportation projects and helping auto companies becom more fuel-efficient.
• Nuclear power will be supported – Obama already took a step in that direction, announcing $8.3 billion in loan guarantees for two reactors in Georgia.
• R & D for carbon capture and sequestration will get support too.
• With emphasis on reducing dependence on foreign oil, plans for offshore drilling for oil and gas here are included.

Cap-and-trade a non-starter
The GOP has tagged cap-and-trade as “cap-and-tax” and has scared people into thinking energy costs will rise. The term is now political poison. Not to mention distrust of Wall Street and any trading mechanism.

What seems to be taking its place is “cap-and-dividend,” in which proceeds from a “price” on carbon (whatever form it takes) would go back to consumers to help them pay higher utility costs. The advantages are two:
• Voters won’t blame their Senators for sticking them with higher costs in a bum economy,
• Utilities will be able to raise prices to pay for the changes they have to make.

Can it pass?
It’s impossible to satisfy every politician, voter and interest group, but the triad is sure trying. Graham said even climate change skeptics can support this bill, which will provide jobs and reduce dependence on oil from unstable parts of the world. It's also a way for the GOP to appeal to young voters, he told Tom Friedman of the New York Times.

The three are running up against a serious time crunch in a Senate still preoccupied with health reform and jobs -- and an election that has incumbents very nervous. (Note that John McCain is very much absent from this effort by his two amigos.) And Graham suggested if the Dems pass health reform by reconciliation, all bets are off.

Once the bill's details are worked out, the EPA would need about a month to do its analysis, and other departments would have to weigh in. If it is in fact possible to get 60 votes, we still have a problem – similar to the one in health care.

The House has already passed a bill, HR 2454 (last June – did you forget about that?) and it is based on cap-and-trade. So, will the two chambers be able to reconcile their differences before election season heats up?

It seems like a tall order.

(Sources: Reuters, E&E Daily, PlanetArk , New York Times)

Freight train mess in Chicago gets stimulus help

(Photo of freight trains passing through Chicago from Flickr and photographer Kumar McMillan)


Believe it or not, a freight train can take as long to get through Chicago as it does to go on to the West Coast. This railroad hub is so congested, with its 40,000 rail cars passing through each day, that trains usually travel at 9 mph or less. They have been known to take 36 hours to get through the area.

So it was good news to hear last week that the U.S. Department of Transportation was giving a $100 million recovery grant to improve the situation.

The money will be used to upgrade traffic control systems, switches and signals, build a bridge and otherwise facilitate trains in moving through one of the world’s busiest hubs. Only Hong Kong, Singapore and Shanghai see more freight train traffic. And estimates say rail traffic could almost double here in 20 years.

The DOT money is expected to attract an additional $62 million from non-federal sources. (I hope that doesn’t mean the state, because we know what kind of fiscal shape it is in.)

CREATE
Back in 2003, following a 1999 winter storm that had trains backed up for 500 miles, a program called CREATE (Chicago Regional Environmental and Transportation Efficiency) was agreed to by the city, the state and the 6 railroad companies that go through Chicago. CREATE hasn’t been able to do much so far, for lack of money. So, thank you, President Obama and Ray LaHood (Transportation Secretary, who happens to be from Illinois.)

Most of the $1.5 billion in announced TIGER (Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery) grants went for rail and public transit rather than highways.

Chicago is not the only region to get a large grant. Two other freight corridors got similar amounts – one in Tennessee and Alabama, the other in Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Maryland. And there are many other small projects throughout the country.

More fuel-efficient
Freight train companies (if you’ve seen the recent ads) boast they can carry a ton of goods 436 miles on a gallon of gas. They also say by taking truck traffic off the road they can ease highway congestion. The Texas Transportation Institute says trains are 3 times as efficient as trucks.

Truckers argue they can move things faster and can go anywhere. Over the past 20 years freight has been moving from rail to trucks and planes. And trucking’s carbon footprint has grown.

Quebec and some European countries are subsidizing a move back from trucks to rail. And the White House has put a priority on rail – both passenger and freight.

The cost to complete all the CREATE projects planned for the Chicago area is estimated by DOT at about $3B, and last year it was running $2.6B short of its goal. The $162M won’t get them there, but it will be a start.

And it’s nice railroads are getting some respect.

Read more about the TIGER grants at DOT.

(Sources: ClimateWire, Medill Reports, U. S. Department of Transportation)

Provocative NASA study puts road traffic ahead of power plants as cause of climate change near-term

(Picture of auto traffic from Flickr and photographer Lynac)

A new study from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies says tailpipe emissions will cause the most global warming over the next decade. Next comes heating homes by burning wood and cow dung in poor countries. Third is methane from cows.

Electric power is further down the list, though it will be the prime source of warming by century’s end, the study predicts. The provocative study, by a team led by NASA’s Nadine Unger, was published this month in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Policy implications
Does this mean we should turn away from fighting the coal industry and focus more on electric cars, high-speed rail and aid to third-world countries? Possibly. We may have a little more time than we thought to shut off coal – as far as global warming is concerned.

But this is just one study. It will need to be confirmed by others.

And the reason behind the findings is troubling. It all has to do with the release of aerosols that block the incoming sunlight and have a temporary cooling effect. Tailpipe emissions don’t have much of those, while coal-fired plants do. Some aerosols, such as sulfates and organic carbon, have a very short-term cooling effect (they are rained down in just a few days), while greenhouse gases stay aloft for decades.

Of course this is a double-edged sword. Aerosols have a known harmful effect on human health and on the environment. That’s why industrialized countries have been phasing them out.

A choice we don’t want to make
Do we have to choose between climate change and our health? Unger says, “no,” that we need to phase out unhealthy aerosols, but that an immediate focus on transportation will give us the biggest bang for our buck in the next decade.

A sound way to proceed is by attacking all sources – tailpipes, burning of wood and dung, cattle-produced methane AND power plants. If we can remove many of the sources of greenhouse gases, we won’t need unhealthy particles in the air to block out the sun.

To read about the study and see graphs go to NASA’s Web site.

See Q&A with Unger. (Caution: Don’t be biased by her picture. She’s a pretty blonde.)

If you want to read the study abstract.

(Sources: NASA, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, fastcompany.com)

High-speed rail chugging along with stimulus $$

(Photo of inside of high-speed train in UK from Flickr and photographer Jon Curnow)

Can the U.S. develop a viable high-speed train system that will lure people out of their cars and reduce air travel, thus cutting down on CO2 emissions?

High-speed rail is the transportation priority for President Obama, and it recently won $8 billion in stimulus funds plus $2.5B from Congress (the president asked for $1B.) Obama is seeking another billion in his 2011 fiscal year budget.

That’s only a drop in the bucket. Requests for stimulus funds exceeded $50B, and a nationwide high-speed rail system would cost an estimated $600B. But hopefully the initial allocations will prime the pump for more federal, state and private money in the future, so some of the projects can reach fruition. The stimulus money was spread over half the states and 40% of congressional districts. So many officials will now have an interest in adding money as time goes on.

Maybe we can approach the level of many European countries and Japan, though they have a huge head start because of our powerful auto and oil interests. China, which is investing heavily in rail, just launched a link between Zhengzhou and Xi’an, with a top speed of 217mph. Europe and Japan high-speed trains reach speeds of about 220mph.

Where the money went
The bulk of the stimulus money went to California, Florida and the Midwest:
• California got $2.3B for a planned line linking San Diego, LA and San Francisco.
• Florida received $1.25B for a Tampa-Orlando run.
• The Midwest got $2.2B for initial steps for a network linking Chicago with Detroit, Milwaukee and St. Louis. The goal is to make those cities reachable in the same time it would take to drive or fly.

The remaining $2B in stimulus was divided among 20 other states for planning and upgrades, including $112 million for the high-speed Northwest Corridor connecting N.Y., Washington and Boston.

The California and Florida lines aim for speeds up to 150mph, while the Midwest network would reach 110. Regular passenger trains now go up to about 80mph.

Trains emit much less CO2 than planes and cars, anywhere from 3 and 10 times less, depending on the type of train (electric is best) and other conditions, says French company UIC. About 80% of high-speed trains in Europe are electric.

Advocacy groups in the U.S. include the
Midwest High Speed Rail Association, Western High-Speed Rail Alliance, and the new U.S. Center for High-Speed Rail, which has set up a Web site for information sharing.

See map of corridors receiving stimulus money.

See earlier EarthlingAngst post explaining high-speed rail.

(Sources: ClimateWire, E&E TV, CNN, Greenwire, E&E Daily, Midwest High Speed Rail Association, Federal Rail Administration)

It’s the moisture, stupid, not the temperature

(Photo of Capitol Building in last week's snowstorm from Flickr and photographer eped1999)

Heavy snowstorms in the East are causing quite a tizzy. Climate skeptics are loving it and spreading doubt about the validity of global warming. Especially in Washington, D.C.

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) tweeted that “It’s going to keep snowing in D.C. until Al Gore cries ‘uncle.’”

And Sen. James Inhofe’s (R-Okla.) daughter and grandchildren built an igloo on the National Mall, calling it “Al Gore’s new home.”

My, my, they certainly have it in for the former vice president.

But the truth is the heavy snowstorms in the mid-Atlantic states are completely consistent with global warming.

1. The temperature is changing SLOWLY, folks. Only 1.4 degrees F in the past 100 years. That’s enough to change weather patterns, but not enough to feel.
2. Precipitation is not the same as temperature. More concentrated precipitation as the Earth warms was predicted by climate scientists. Whether it’s in the form of rain and floods or snow depends on if it’s above or below freezing. And the rain or snow tends to get dumped in some places while others stay too dry.
3. Heavy rains and snows are the result of more moisture in the air, which is caused by warming land and oceans. Water vapor in the air is up 4% since 1970.
4. The East and Upper Midwest were predicted to see see the most precip, while the South and West, which have suffered droughts, get less.

A study in 2004 said there had been a 14% increase in heavy rain or snowstorms in the past 100 years, including a significant increase in the winter in the Northeast. Another study in 2006 found a decline in precipitation in the lower Midwest, South and California, but an increase in the upper Midwest and East between 1901 and 2000.

The 2009 U.S. Climate Impact Report found “Cold season storm tracks are shifting northward and the strongest storms are likely to become stronger and more frequent. There will also be an increase in lake-effect snows. The ice cover on the Great Lakes has decreased 8.4% per decade since 1973, which leads to more evaporation and heavier storms.

So don’t let people get away with saying unusually heavy snows, like those last week and in December, mean there’s no such thing as global warming. More likely they are caused at least in part by global warming and will get worse in the future if Congress sits on its hands and hopes the threat has gone away so they don’t have to stand up to the oil and coal lobbies.

(Special thanks to Climate Progress for its research and commentary on this topic. To read in more detail, go to climateprogress.org. For the U.S. Climate Impact Report see The U.S. Global Change Research Program.)

Obama needs credit for environmental successes

(Photo of Obama from Flickr and jmtimages)

Despite the failure so far to pass a climate bill in the Senate, or to help forge a final international agreement in Copenhagen, the Obama Administration has, without much fanfare, quietly reversed destructive Bush environmental policy and ramped up green jobs development as it sets a course for a cleaner energy future.

Carl Pope, outgoing executive director of the Sierra Club, told the Mercury News, “This is by far the best first year on the environment of any president in history.” In just one year, he said, the president reversed most of Bush’s anti-environment actions over eight years.

The League of Conservation Voters gave him a B+ for is first year.

Among the accomplishments::

Reversing Bush policies
Fuel efficiency: Instead of fighting California’s request to the EPA to let the state restrict tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions (something many other states wanted too), Obama’s EPA granted permission and then the president announced new federal rules increasing fuel efficiency 40%, from the current average of 25 mph to 35 mph in 2016.

Regulating GHG: Bush avoided taking action on the Supreme Court decision giving the EPA power to regulate GHG under the Clean Air Act. This EPA is now finalizing a Big Polluter Rule, under which is would be able to restrict emissions from sources emitting more than 25,000 tons per year.

Oil and gas drilling: This Administration blocked Bush’s rule to open the California coast and 77 sites near Arches and Canyonlands national parks to drilling. Interior Sec. Ken Salazar also announced major reforms for oil and gas leasing on public lands.

Bisphenol: The Food & Drug Administration said bisphenol-A in plastics poses a significant danger to babies and young children.

Ozone: The EPA announced new health-based ozone standards.

Yellowstone: The Administration negated a Bush rule allowing more snowmobiles in Yellowstone National Park.

Funding clean tech through ARRA
Green technologies will get a strong shot in the arm from stimulus funds, with an estimated $80 billion targeted for everything from weatherization and other efficiency measures to public transit and high speed trains to hybrid and electric cars to electrical grid improvements and renewable sources like wind and solar. Only $5B of that money has been released to date, with another $26B committed. The DOE says the delay was needed to establish rules about how the funds could be spent.

Obama is emphasizing the importance of creating jobs for the energies of the future, but the results will also to cut GHG emissions.

Additional actions
In the first year, the Administration also:
• Said it would catalog GHG emissions from large sources.
• Ordered that 500,000 federal buildings and 600,000 federal vehicles cut GHG emissions.
• Began developing standards for more efficient appliances.
• Required federal agencies to consider climate change in environmental reviews.
• Broadened guidelines for mass transit projects to receive federal funds.
• Signed into law a bill to create 2 million acres of new wilderness that bans logging, mining and new roads in federal forests and deserts in 9 states, including Joshua Tree and Sequoia national parks.

The president doesn’t get a lot of credit for all this – and more – because things were so bad in the Bush years, and the news focus has been on the economy and health care. But we are slowly moving forward despite Congress and the big lobbies. That’s why it is so important to defeat Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s (R-AK) resolution to keep the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. Tell your senators to vote no.

(Sources: Sierra Club, mercurynews.com, Center for American Progress, White House blog)

BASIC nations meet to finalize GHG pledges as EU tries to regain climate leadership

(Photo of Chinese coal plant from Flickr and photographer ishmatt)

In preparation for the Jan. 31 deadline for countries to add GHG targets to the Copenhagen Accord, a new power bloc of four big developing countries, Brazil, South Africa, India and China (known as BASIC), will meet Jan. 25-28 in New Delhi to finalize their action plans and talk about how to get other developing countries to do the same.

Meanwhile the European Union meets this weekend in Spain to find a way to reassert its worldwide leadership on climate change.

The BASIC bloc was the one that met with President Obama behind closed doors at the end of COP15 and hammered out the deal that became the Copenhagen Accord. The EU, wanting a stronger agreement, felt marginalized.

Two follow-up UN meetings are planned, in Bonn this June and Mexico in November, to try to finish the business left undone in Copenhagen. The U.S. has indicated it may host the main polluting countries for discussions sometime soon. That could bring together BASIC and the EU.

Problems with the process
In the wake of the climate conference, variously called “chaotic,” “ugly,” and a “near disaster,” many are questioning the UN Framework’s ability to gather all parties and reach agreement on a follow-up treaty to Kyoto.

Copenhagen attracted far too many people (tens of thousands), critics say, and the appearance of 130 heads of state further complicated things. The conference was “too politically charged for the technocrats and way too technical for the politicians,” Ron Bradley, director of international climate change for the World Resources Institute, told E&E TV.

The U.S. role
In the United States, much rests on the Senate, which should match the House’s 17% cut by 2020 to meet Obama’s pledge at the conference. Obama got the Senators what they wanted wanted, a pledge from China and agreement to international review, but the Senate still seems unlikely to agree on cap-and-trade legislation before the next election the end of 2010.

It’s also unclear how the U.S. will come up with its share of the agreed-upon $100B annually for adaptation and mitigation in poor countries by 2020. Republicans aren’t happy about sending money elsewhere in a bad economy. Some money could be raised from private sources and some may have to be a diversion of other foreign aid funds, Sec. of State Hillary Clinton suggested recently.

Others countries’ pledges
Leading up to the Jan. 31 deadline to add some meat to the Accord with specific targets, Germany said it will go with its most ambitious plan of cutting 40% by 2020. The EU as a whole committed 20% but will talk about whether to go higher in an effort to re-assert its leadership. There is considerable disagreement among the union, which was a problem for them at Copenhagen.

China has committed to a 40-45% reduction in intensity and India to 20-25%.

South Africa pledged at COP15 to cut 34% intensity by 2020 and 42% by 2025. A new study says that will be difficult for the coal-dominated country to accomplish.

And Brazil just passed a law targeting a 39% cut by 2020, which amounts to a 20% reduction from 2005 levels.

Many countries are likely to miss the Jan. 31 deadline, according to Orbeo, a carbon-market consulting firm. Only about 50 of 194 have signed on so far. Both BASIC and the EU are planning to urge those who haven't done so to make their pledges.

Whether or not countries meet the deadline may well tell how serious they are about fighting climate change. And will help us gauge the success of Copenhagen.

(Sources: Bloomberg, PlanetArk, ClimateWire, Greenwire, E&ETV, London Guardian.)

How to talk about global warming when it's freezing and snowing outside

(Photo of January snowstorm from Flickr and Wobblymol/Loraine Davis)

The snow is piling up, the cold is harsh. So what does that say about global warming? The deniers say it means the Earth is cooling, not warming. Some of your family and friends may be having serious doubts, too, about whether the planet is really heating up. It’s hard to believe when it’s so darn cold outside.

Well, it is heating up. You can tell people that with confidence. We just finished the warmest decade on record. Arctic summer ice has melted at a record pace. Last year was among the 5 warmest years ever recorded.

We don’t always feel that warmth. It varies from place to place and much of the change is in the oceans.

We’re talking long-term, widespread trends here, not specific weeks or months or specific regions. Even more important – what people find hard to grasp – we’re talking miniscule changes. Fractions of degrees that add up.

Climate scientists are saying if the average world temperature rises more than 2 degrees Celsius (4.6 Fahrenheit) over what it was is pre-industrial times, we are in for cataclysmic climate change.

Some folks wouldn’t even be convinced of global warming if this year was 4.6 F above last year. They are looking for changes they can feel – and feel quickly – like a 10-degree difference for a whole season. If the summer averaged 90 instead of 80, they might believe.

It doesn’t work that way. It happens slowly and insidiously. We need to look, as scientists do, at the slow, long-term changes that are, for example, causing early spring run-off of mountain ice followed by drought; lack of freezing temperatures to kill off pine beetle infestations; and wildfires exploding because the dry season is longer.

Climate isn’t the same thing as weather. Weather can vary widely, and right now it is particularly cold in parts of the Northern Hemisphere, due in large part to something scientists call Arctic Oscillation. That – to put it very simply -- is when pressure pushes cold weather further south than usual. AO is extreme right now. Britain and much of Western Europe are feeling the brunt of it, as are China and Korea. At the same time, though, the west coast of Greenland is having warm rain and parts of Africa are unusually hot. Alaska and northern Canada are warmer than usual, too.

So, what the weather’s like in Montana or Buffalo in a given month doesn’t tell us what’s happening the world over. In fact a Nobel-prize-winning scientist at the University of Montana predicted this week that his state and others in the Rockies are looking at more short winters, more beetle infestations and more wildfires. Steve Running says that while Montana used to have 10-12 sub-zero days a year, now has just 3-4.

That’s what it’s about. A matter of degree. Not weather you can see and feel changing year to year. But trends that recorded data reveal. That’s why we need scientists. And why we need to look at the results of the cumulative changes.

Winter will still be with us, and it may seem just as severe. But it isn’t, and you’d better believe it.

(Sources: Dot Earth, Climate Progress , The Guardian, AP, Missoulian.

No new coal plants in 2009; reason to celebrate!

(Photo of defunct Seaholm power plant in Austin, Texas, being turned into civic center, from Flickr and photographer Craig Allen.)

The year 2009 was a “coal-free” year. No new coal-fired power plants started construction in the U.S. Thanks go to the Sierra Club’s anti-coal campaign and other environmentalists who have gone to court and protested new plants every step of the way.

Last year 26 U.S. new coal plants were defeated or abandoned, following on the heels of 2 dozen stopped in 2007 and 2008.

In addition to hard work by enviro groups, the cause was helped by the economic slump (which reduced need), a lower price for natural gas (a cleaner alternative), uncertainty about pending climate legislation (to put a price on carbon) and EPA regulation of greenhouse gases, as well as increased interest in clean, renewable sources like wind and solar.

Coal provides power for nearly half the electricity in the U.S., though in the past year its share declined from 49% to 45%.

Grassroots antipathy against coal has grown, not only because it emits the most global warming gases (twice as much as natural gas), but also because of its mining procedures (mountain top removal is becoming more common) and disposal problems (toxic coal ash), as well as health concerns about sulfur dioxide, mercury and nitrogen oxide.

A recent Washington Post poll showed about two-thirds of the public support federal regulations to reduce power plant emissions.

In 2001, 150 new plants were on the drawing board. But since then, 111 have been stopped or dropped. Today, there are 90 proposals. Some companies are saying they are looking at other sources of power. Duke Energy, for example, may steer clear of coal after it completes plants underway in Indiana and North Carolina. And Progress Energy is closing several coal-powered plants in N.C.

Coal use in general is down about 10% over the past year, according to the Energy Information Administration, which forecasts it will bounce back 4% in 2010.

One new plant was given a permit in Michigan the last week of the year, though it still needs certification of necessity. In exchange, the company, Consumers Energy, will close three old plants – with the stipulation it can keep two of them running if the need is there when the plant is finished in about 7 years. The new plant will cut sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and mercury 80-90%, the company maintains. Environmental groups will continue to fight the plant.

EIA sees U.S. electricity demand increasing 26% by 2030, and says coal’s share will remain about the same – at 45.7%. On the other hand, the Electric Power Research Institute forecasts coal’s share in 2030 at 38%, with natural gas and alternative sources growing.

You can view the Sierra Club’s anti-coal campaign map and actions being taken in each state.

(Sources: ClimateWire, Reuters PlanetArk, Sierra Club, EIA,
Detroit Free Press.)

No new coal plants in 2009

No new coal plants last year! Reason to celebrate

The year 2009 was a “coal-free” year. No new coal-fired power plants started construction in the U.S. Thanks go to the Sierra Club’s anti-coal campaign and other environmentalists who have gone to court and protested new plants every step of the way.

Last year 26 U.S. new coal plants were defeated or abandoned, following on the heels of 2 dozen stopped in 2007 and 2008.

In addition to hard work by enviro groups, the cause was helped by the economic slump (which reduced need), a lower price for natural gas (a cleaner alternative), uncertainty about pending climate legislation (to put a price on carbon) and EPA regulation of greenhouse gases, as well as increased interest in clean, renewable sources like wind and solar.

Coal provides power for nearly half the electricity in the U.S., though in the past year its share declined from 49% to 45%.

Grassroots antipathy against coal has grown, not only because it emits the most global warming gases (twice as much as natural gas), but also because of its mining procedures (mountain top removal is becoming more common) and disposal problems (toxic coal ash), as well as health concerns about sulfur dioxide, mercury and nitrogen oxide.

A recent Washington Post poll showed about two-thirds of the public support federal regulations to reduce power plant emissions.

In 2001, 150 new plants were on the drawing board. But since then, 111 have been stopped or dropped. Today, there are 90 proposals. Some companies are saying they are looking at other sources of power. Duke Energy, for example, may steer clear of coal after it completes plants underway in Indiana and North Carolina. And Progress Energy is closing several coal-powered plants in N.C.

Coal use in general is down about 10% over the past year, according to the Energy Information Administration, which forecasts it will bounce back 4% in 2010.

One new plant was given a permit in Michigan the last week of the year, though it still needs certification of necessity. In exchange, the company, Consumers Energy, will close three old plants – with the stipulation it can keep two of them running if the need is there when the plant is finished in about 7 years. The new plant will cut sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and mercury 80-90%, the company maintains. Environmental groups will continue to fight the plant.

EIA sees U.S. electricity demand increasing 26% by 2030, and says coal’s share will remain about the same – at 45.7%. On the other hand, the Electric Power Research Institute forecasts coal’s share in 2030 at 38%, with natural gas and alternative sources growing.

You can view the Sierra Club’s anti-coal campaign map and actions being taken in each state.

(Sources: ClimateWire, Reuters PlanetArk,Sierra Club, EIA,
Detroit Free Press.)

Opposition to Obama = poor chance of passing Senate climate bill in 2010

(Photo of Capitol Building from Flickr and photographer wallyg/Wally Gomez)


Prospects for passing a climate bill in the Senate next year are looking grim when Senators return to Washington to pick up where they left off -- squabbling about health care. A bicameral conference group will try to reconcile the House and Senate versions in a way that can pass both houses, likely with no GOP votes. Tops on the agenda after that are financial regulatory reform and a jobs bill. So where will something as controversial as climate change fit in? Or will it?

Some Democratic Senators and the White House are pushing for a cap-and-trade bill this spring, before the heat of the 2010 election campaign picks up. But others are pushing back, suggesting postponement or even dropping the idea altogether.

Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), who got big money in exchange for her vote for health reform, is the underdog in a re-election fight next fall. She’s pushing for an energy bill separate from cap-and-trade. Other Dems down on cap-and-trade include those from Louisiana (an oil state), North Dakota (the leading coal state, which also has oil reserves), Nebraska (concerned about the impact of high energy costs on farming) and Indiana. A vote for cap-and-trade to restrict fossil fuels is not something they want to campaign on next summer and fall.

If any bill materializes that can get 60 Senate votes it will be the compromise being forged by Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). Such a bill is not guaranteed to contain cap-and-trade and will inevitably have big giveaways to offshore drilling, nuclear power and “low-emissions” coal.

But that assumes they’ll get around to it, when the nation is much more focused on jobs and the economy. Time may run out, thanks to Republican refusal to cooperate on health care and their pretty uniform opposition to climate legislation.

Which brings me to something I’ve been stewing about for months: Why there is such solidarity among Republicans against Obama’s main initiatives. They’ve made it clear, they want him to fail.

The Harold Washington syndrome
It takes me back to the election of Harold Washington, Chicago’s first black mayor, in the '80s. Most white aldermen (the Vrdolyak 29) banded together to oppose everything he wanted to do. Racism was more blatant, as one of their number showed up the day after the election with an all-white button on his jacket. They wanted him to fail and believed opposing him would play well politically with their white constituents.

Sound familiar? I’ve no doubt race is an issue here, as well as fear of something different (a foreigner from Kenya??) who was swept into office in large part by young people who hadn’t voted before and therefore were considered by many to be illegitimate. Don't think so?

What if Joe Biden where president, with the same agenda? Would there still be the tea parties, the vitriol stirred up by talk show hosts and by politicians like Sarah Palin? Would Joe Wilson have yelled, “You lie” during the President's health care address to Congress?

In Chicago’s case, Washington’s popularity with the people led to his re-election and a change of tune by his opposition who in many cases saw better opportunities for re-election by emphasizing they were now with him, not against him. That could happen with Obama.

But meanwhile, the country -- and the planet -- suffer while the Republicans just say “no.”

(Sources: The Hill, The Times of London, MSNBC)

Earthling Angst the blog is taking the week off

But we'll still be tweeting short takes on Twitter

Final deal at Copenhagen climate conference omits greenhouse gas targets, deforestation plan

In the end, the Copenhagen climate conference “took note” of, rather than approved, the agreement essentially brokered by President Obama with the BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) major emerging economies plus Japan and Europe. Strong dissent was voiced by Venezuela, Sudan, Cuba, Nicaragua and Bolivia, who were outraged industrial countries didn’t commit to strong, specific targets.

UN Sec.-Gen. Ban Ki-moon, who gaveled the final consensus Saturday morning after a night of debate, said afterward this accord was an essential first step and must lead to a legally binding agreement next year.

Dropped from the document in the final hours was a plan to pay countries to avoid deforestation.

The “breakthrough” accomplished in Obama’s meeting Friday with the major economies was agreement that they would all report their emissions cuts (or in the case of emerging economies, their actions) for international scrutiny. The president extended his visit by 6 hours to jawbone with leaders of major economies, then took off because of the blizzard targeting on Washington.

What was in the final document?
• Recognition that world temperature increases should be kept to 2 degrees Celsius (though they dropped the term “from pre-industrial levels,” allowing for an additional 0.7 degrees).
• $30 billion for poor countries to adapt to climate change over the next 3 years, with a goal of $100B a year by 2020.
• Industrialized countries must list their targets for cutting GHG, while major developing economies such as BASIC, Mexico and South Korea, must list actions taken to reach specific goals.
• A method for international verification of emissions.

What wasn’t in it?
• Agreement on specific, significant targets for cutting GHG, either short-range or long-range
• A plan to pay 40 countries to curb deforestation, which accounts for between 15-20% of emissions (and puts Brazil and Indonesia in the top 5 emitters).
• A date for reaching a legally binding agreement.

Countries that agreed with the Copenhagen Accord were asked to sign it.

UN climate chief Yvo de Boer told reporters, “We should have done better.”

Pledges made to date will not limit temperature increases to 2 degrees. More like 3 degrees.

The U.S. role
Despite Obama's important role in brokering an agreement, some blamed the weak accord on the U.S. for failing to come in with a climate bill at home signed, sealed and delivered. And if the U.S. had committed to, say, 20% cuts (from 1990) by 2020 like other industrialized nation, the agreement would likely have been much stronger.

So our Senate held back not only the U.S., but the entire world, which is a crying shame. One note: Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the global warming denier who’s ranking member of the Environment Committee, had pledged to take a “truth squad” to Copenhagen to tell world leaders there’d be no U.S. climate bill. Apparently there was no squad and he spoke to no leaders. Let’s hope those he reached saw him as the annoying gnat that he is.

So, what now? Another year of tedious, fractious worldwide negotiations and a concerted effort to pass a meaningful bill here, while each country works toward its goals at home. I know you’re probably exhausted with signing petitions, sending money and demonstrating for the health care fight, but gear up for a new challenge in January. We need a decent climate change law. The world is depending on it.

(Sources: NRCD switchboard, Yahoo News/AP, BBC, Guardian. MSNBC)

What did Hillary's $100B offer at COP15 mean?

(Photo of Clinton with U.S. negotiator Todd Stern at COP15 from Flickr and photographer Andy Revkin)

When I woke up this morning to the news that Hillary Clinton had announced in Copenhagen that the U.S. would raise $100 billion a year for poor countries to fight and adapt to climate change, I was amazed that Barack Obama hadn’t saved such big news for his speech tomorrow.

Here’s what she said, when she arrived last night, or was it this morning? The half-day time difference really throws me.

“The United States is prepared to work with other countries toward a goal of jointly mobilizing $100 billion a year by 2020 to address climate change needs of developing countries.”

A lot of qualifying terms there: work with others, toward a goal, jointly mobilizing…. It wasn’t exactly a declaration that the U.S. government, perhaps with bonus money thrown in by Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and other Wall Street fat cats (and maybe some help from Mr. Bill’s Foundation connections) would put up all the money.

As I began to parse the language and read more reports, some things became clearer – i.e. that she was sent to offer a carrot to African and other very poor nations to use a stick on China and India to allow their emission cuts to be monitored.

She noted such a fund was only for the poorest countries (i.e. not China) and it depended on a climate agreement including verifiable commitments to cut emissions or carbon intensity (i.e. China).

Other things became less clear – i.e. how much of the $100B will come from the U.S.? How much public and how much private? Will the billions already pledged by Japan, the EU and others for the next three years be part of that fund? Are we simply echoing a pledge by Europe to help set up a worldwide $100 billion fund for the long term?

According to U.S. Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), the pending climate bill here contains $5B a year in proceeds from auctioning cap-and-trade allowances that would go to developing countries. Others are suggesting some of the money could come from $60B in annual subsidies for fossil fuels.

Whatever the case, response by other countries and environmentalists is positive and seen as perhaps the “breakthrough” the climate talks needed to avoid a failed conference. It suggests a long-term commitment by the U.S.
This may be the only way Obama can “lead,” given the stinginess of the Congress in committing to cut emissions.

Although poor countries say they need much, much more than $100 billion as droughts ravage some countries and rising seas threaten to obliterate others, their point person at the conference, Prime Minister Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia, acknowledged they would accept $30B in the short term, $50B by 2015 and $100B by 2020.

Some of this money would help avoid deforestation, which causes about 20% of the world’s greenhouse gases. (Did you know the world is losing an acre of forest every second? I read that in Al Gore’s new book, “Our Choice.”)

An agreement to pay countries to avoid clearing their forests for agriculture has been one of the more likely outcomes of this conference.

World leaders are starting to arrive. We’ll see what the coming day brings (it’s already getting to be evening Thursday in Copenhagen).

(Sources: Sierra Club, Greenwire, Washington Post, LA Times, climateprogress.org)

Time is running out; deal or no deal for climate agreement at Copenhagen this week

(Photo of session at COP15 from Flickr and UN Climate Talks)

It’s hard enough to get 60 Democrat and Independent senators to agree on a health reform bill. Negotiations just seem to boil it down to the lowest level.

But try negotiating with 15,000 delegates from nearly 200 countries. That’s what’s been going on in Copenhagen the past 9 days. Small wonder they haven’t come up with much.

The poor countries want the rich countries, which caused the problem, to be much more aggressive about cutting emissions and to put up about $500 billion a year to save them from climate change.

And the rich countries want the big emerging economies with significant emissions, like China and India, to be accountable to the rest of the world for their planned cuts in carbon intensity (emissions wouldn't grow as fast as the economy.)

After a week of posturing and casting blame (and a half-day walkout by African and other developing countries), not much has been decided.

Now the top environment ministers and celebrities have arrived. Al Gore, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Prince Charles and N.Y. Mayor Michael Bloomberg gave them a pep talk and the ministers settled in to try to resolve some things before more than 100 heads of state arrive later this week for the conclusion of the much-touted climate treaty conference, COP15. President Obama will address the group Friday.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Yi-Moon arrived, saying, ”Time is running out. There’s no room for posturing and blaming.”

What now?
Will anything come of this conference? There are only 3 days left.

Despite the discord, some environmental leaders think there may be success. A great deal of advance work was done by the U.S., China and India in the past weeks, with their leaders making specific pledges to curb emissions.

One question is whether Obama will be emboldened to up the ante on his original pledge of 17% (over 2005 levels) by 2020, which is only about 3% over the usual baseline 1990. He now has the EPA’s endangerment finding which allows the administration to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, as well as a bipartisan “blueprint” for a Senate bill that would meet the House target of 17%. Our offer is pretty pathetic compared with Europe’s and Japan’s. But does he dare roil up a prickly Senate which has yet to pass any climate bill and would have to ratify any international treaty by (omigod) 67 votes. Probably not.

Another question is will China eventually give in and let others monitor its pledged 40-45% drop in intensity.

Funding for poor nations
A third major area to be resolved is how much the rich countries will put up to fund mitigation and adaptation in poor countries. The mitigation helps us all, by keeping GHG out of the air. The adaptation helps poor countries that are already hurting from the climate change that some say doesn’t exist. (Maybe someone from a disappearing island nation will throw a sandal at wacko Sen. James Inhofe, who plans to show up.)

The European Commission, before the conference began, offered $10.8 billion a year for the next 3 years. Japan just agreed to put in $10B a year. The U.S. apparently has offered $1B next year, to be followed by $2B in 2011 and 2012. We’ve also offered to put $85 million a year for 5 years into a clean energy development fund for these nations.

This is not nearly enough, say the developing countries. They want half a trillion. So how much is really needed? Of course it’s impossible to say. But British economist Nicholas Stern said $100B a year by 2020, then double that amount in the following decade. The EU estimated $147B a year by 2020. And the UN is calling for more than $500B a year.

Of course if we did more to curb emissions sooner, we wouldn’t have to spend so much on adaptation. And conversely, if we end up with a weak deal, or no deal at all, it will cost much, much more – we’ll all need adaptation funds.

(Sources: E&E News PM, ClimateWire, BBC, E&E TV, Huffington Post, Reuters PlanetArk)

New bipartisan Senate 'framework' for climate bill favors oil, coal, nuke industries

(Sen. Lindsey Graham gives John McCain's mother a punch in the cheek (not really) on Election Night 2008. Photo from Flickr and photographer Dr. Akomodi

Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) released a framework last week for a Senate climate bill that supposedly could get bipartisan support. Kerry was chief sponsor (with Barbara Boxer) on the original, stronger Senate bill, which presumably can’t get the 60 votes needed to avoid a filibuster.

Lieberman has been working several years, first with John McCain (R-Ariz.) and then with now retired John Warner (R-Va.) to pass some kind of climate bill in the Senate, so it’s not too surprising he offered to help massage Kerry’s bill.

Graham? He’s great buddies with Lieberman and McCain (the three amigos were a frequent photo op during McCain’s presidential campaign), so I have to wonder if he’s a stand-in here for McCain, who’s publicly gone more conservative with a Senate election coming up.

Anyway, the framework was released last week in an effort to show that, yes, there’s a chance to cut greenhouse gases in the U.S. 17% by 2020, despite the foot-dragging in the Senate. That is what the House passed and Obama has more or less promised to the rest of the world. Do you know how piddling 17% based on 2005 levels is? Most industrialized countries that made pledges based them on 1990 figures and are up in the 20-30% range.

The four-page framework doesn’t have a lot of other details but it does outline priorities: jobs and lowering dependence on foreign oil.

There are whole sections, though, on nuclear, domestic oil and coal. A little of that would be expected, if they’re trying to get bipartisan support. But let’s not let those industries write the bill!

A comment Graham made to E&E News last week is particularly alarming:

"I need the nuclear power industry to say that this bill gets us to where we want to go," Graham said. "I need the coal companies to say that clean coal provisions will not only not put us out of business, but actually increase the value of coal in America. And I'm going to need the oil and gas industry to say that the oil and gas drilling provisions are meaningful, will add to our inventory and make us more energy independent, and it's good business."

He actually said that.

Wait a minute here. Wait just a minute. Are we doing this to ensure the continuation of fossil fuels and the resurrection of a defunct nuclear industry? Or are we doing it to clean up the environment and make the planet safe for humans?

We need to watch very carefully as this bill is developed. There are some nice thoughts in it: Like long-term 80% reduction in GHG (they don’t commit to any year though, and it may be hard to get from here to there by 2050, which is when we should be at 80%).

They do note that putting a price on carbon will push development of low-carbon energy, but incentives for nuclear and “clean” coal get more attention.

There are actually sections entitled “Ensuring a Future for Coal” and “Encouraging Nuclear.” Um, excuse me, what about wind and solar? And geothermal and biomass? And efficiency….

Clearly this is written to appeal to the coal states (of which there are many) and the oil states, but will they lose the environmentalists -- and any sane person who realizes what fossil fuels are doing to this planet? A big part of the motivation is they want Congressional action instead of EPA regulation or a patchwork of restrictions in individual states. They actually say all that.

There is too much mention of “outside stakeholders.” Guess who that is? Not us.

The rest of the world is not happy with our puny 17% pledge at Copenhagen and I can’t see that they’re going to like the rest of what’s in the Senate “framework.” Let’s hope they put huge pressure on the U.S. to get real on climate and not just shill for existing industries as this framework seems to do.

It’s embarrassing the U.S. is so far behind Europe and being chided by China and other developing countries for not doing enough. Are we really going to let the “outside stakeholders” in the U.S. determine the future of the planet?
(Source: E&E News PM)

Copenhagen Climate Change Conference 101

(Photo of coal power plant in Germany from Flickr and photographer davipt/Bruno Rodrigues

Nearly 200 countries head to Copenhagen this weekend, in an effort to forge a “political” climate agreement – to be followed in 6-12 months by a “binding” agreement. It is far from certain what the outcome of this Dec. 7-18 United Nations Climate Change Conference will be.

The UN’s chief climate executive Yvo de Boer hopes to see:
• Deeper emissions targets from industrialized countries.
• Reductions or actions pledged by developing countries.
• A “prompt start” fund for clean energy, adaptation and deforestation reductions – with rich countries pledging $10 billion a year over the next 3 years.
• A decision about the structure of a legally binding agreement to follow next year.

Individual pledges
Some industrialized countries have individually stated targets for emission cuts by 2020.
• Norway was the most ambitious, offering to cut 40% (from 1990 levels).
• The EU pledged 20% (from 1990), going up to 30% if others did the same.
• Japan pledged 25% (from 1990).
• Australia said 15% (from 2000).
• The U.S. said 17% (from 2005). (We are already down 8.5% because of the economic slowdown.)
• Canada followed the U.S. lead, though its parliament wanted a 25% cut (from 1990).
• Russia pledged 25% (from 1990), though it’s already down about 34% based on economic problems, so could increase its emissions under this pledge.

The overall pledged reduction from industrialized nations for 2020 is somewhere in the range 11-15%, far below the 25%-40% developing countries expect from the “rich countries.”

Developing countries
Some developing nations also have announced goals, often measured against BAU (business as usual) projections. They all want to grow economically, but will cut “intensity” or amount of emissions per economic unit.
• China pledged 40-45% reduction in intensity.
• Brazil said 36-39%, and an 80% cut in deforestation.
• South Korea pledged 30% below forecasts (from 2005 levels).
• Indonesia said 26% from BAU.

About 70 heads of state have said they will attend, including Obama, who will be there Dec. 9 on his way to Oslo for the Nobel ceremony; president Hi Jintao of China; Prime Minister Gordon Brown of UK; and Prime Minister Kevin Rudd of Australia.

Terminology
Some issues and acronyms you should know about if you plan to follow this conference, knows as Cop15:

MRV = monitor, record and verify. Obama pushed this concept as a necessary component of any agreement. Some developing countries are wary of it, without any funding to help them keep track of their emissions.

BASIC = The four biggest polluting developing countries: Brazil, South Africa, India and China. Under the Kyoto treaty they didn’t have to set targets. Now they threaten to walk out if rich countries demand too much of them.

REDD = Reduced emissions from deforestation. This is a big issue for rainforest countries that want credit for not cutting down trees and financial help to replace farming and livestock that are replacing the forests.

Trust – This is not an acronym but a serious problem between the have and have-not countries.

All this plays out against the backdrop of recent reports that climate change is happening more rapidly than anticipated – fulfilling the worst-case scenario in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports.

Stay tuned. This is important stuff. We’re all in it together.

(Sources: Sierra Club, BBC, Reuters, ClimateWire, NRDC, climateprogress.org)