Under the Government’s Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC) scheme, announced last May, from next year every organisation that consumes more than 6,000 megawatt hours of electricity in 2008 or about £500,000-worth will now buy carbon allowances.

The mandatory cap and trade scheme will affect 5,000 large companies and local authorities in Britain and is aimed at slashing the country’s total carbon emissions by an extra 1.2 million tonnes a year by 2020. (Source: The Times, March 31, 2009)

However, in a struggling financial climate, can UK businesses afford the time and expense in delivering what may be viewed as ‘another layer of bureaucracy’? 

Unfortunately, in the UK’s recently launched economic rescue package, there appears to be “negligible” spending on green measures – as campaigners claimed in a report published today.

According to Andrew Simms from the New Economic Foundation, only 0.6% of the promised £120m government stimulus package to offer businesses the incentive to create and deliver a low-carbon economy was delivered. 

Compared with the £775m bonuses paid to staff at the Royal Bank of Scotland and £2.3bn handed to the car industry, the environmental sector has been short changed.

Gordon Brown has claimed that around 10% of the stimulus package is directed towards “environmentally important technologies”, thus this figure not only conflicts with the amount of 0.6% offered, it also does not meet the proposed funding targets by Lord Stern, a target of 8% of Gross Domestic Product annually in green stimulus spending.  (Source: guradian.co.uk – March, 30 2009)

As businesses are driven by the new CRC target to invest in carbon saving measures, it appears that the UK green stimulus package is not doing the same.  In fact Boris Johnson was seen to be halving his Environmental team in London this week, setting the tone for difficult environmental times ahead.

But is the CRC really compromising the bottom line of businesses, or in fact creating financial savings through less energy consumption over time?  It appears that the financial impact of the CRC scheme will grow in the longer term, with an introductory phase due in April 2010, under which all allowances will be sold at a fixed price, and from April 2013, allowances will be allocated through auctions, with the number of credits available being reduced over time.

The proceeds of these auctions will be paid back later to businesses (based on their performance during that year) and ranked in a league table based on carbon reduction actually achieved. (Source: The Times, March 31, 2009)

©WWF, Japan

As explained in a previous article, the Japanese Government has been examining its mid-term goal of greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions (2020) and is going to announce it in June. On 12 February, the committee on the mid-term goal, which has been established under the conference on global warming of the Government and has examined the mid-term goal of GHG reductions, proposed six plans concerning the GHG reductions. According to the six plans, proposed reduction rates range from a 6% increase to a 25% decrease.

Then, on 27 March, the committee disclosed results of economic impact assessment of those plans, which were carried out by several research institutes. The ranges of GHG reduction rates in this analysis became slightly modified to those of a 4% increase to a 25% decrease because the previous trial calculations of the reduction rates in GHG emissions looked at CO2 only, excluding other greenhouse gases that were included in the current trial calculations.

Economic impact assessment was carried out based on an assumption that Japanese GDP would increase annually by 1.3% and analysed economic impact of five plans compared to the other plan of increasing GHG emissions by 4%. According to the results of economic impact assessment, for example, in a case that Japan would reduce GHG emissions by 25%, the cumulative GDP losses by 2020 would be 3.2% to 6.0%; the maximum increase in the annual average unemployment rates would be raised by 1.9%; disposable income per household in 2020 would be pushed down by 220,000 yen to 770,000 yen.

Because the results of economic impact assessment of GHG reduction plans strongly emphasized negative economic effects, if people read them, they might feel threatened not to agree to the great reductions of GHG emissions. Although environmentalists and those who believe in ecological modernization (EM), may argue that strict environmental regulation would have positive economic effects, the committee might underestimate or even neglect positive effects of reducing GHG emissions greatly. Surely, environmentalists and EM believers would not agree to the results of economic impact assessment.

The battle between the industry side and the side of the Ministry of the Environment (MoE) over the mid-term goal of GHG reductions has been recently critically severe. In order to make people to stand by their own side, both of them have shown their results of economic impact assessment and cost estimation of GHG reductions. For instance, the Institute of Energy Economics, Japan, under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), estimated that reducing GHG emissions by 7% by voluntarily introducing most up-to-date energy saving technologies would cost totally approximately 52 trillion yen by 2020. On the contrary, the National Institute for Environmental Studies, under the jurisdiction of MoE, analysed that reducing GHG emissions by 25% would cost annually approximately only 7 trillion yen. According to Sankei Shinbun, this difference was generated by different preconditions between them over costs of introducing energy-saving technologies and diffusion rates of them. Further, several economic associations, including the Economic Association of Japan (Nippon Keidanren), jointly carried out opinion advertising in major newspapers on 17 March. They emphasized that only the small amount of GHG reductions would cost 52 trillion yen for the society as a whole and approximately 1.05 million yen for each household. Regarding this argument, Tetsuo Saito, the Minister for the Environment, criticized that such an argument would be misleading people because it was the opinion of the industry side. World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), Japan, also complained that if energy saving technologies were domestically used, it would expand domestic demand.

Although environmentalists and MoE have often criticized negative campaigns of the industry side including METI, it might be unfair if they were not entitled to do so. Because there are millions of uncertainties in economic assessment and cost estimation of GHG reductions, there might be no ‘right’ arguments and a wide range of conflicting opinions/data/analyses should be discussed in public whether they support for GHG reductions or not. Thus, the number of different opinions/data/analyses might be less important.

The more important thing is rather ‘who choose?’. It might be a waste of time and money if the Government did not ask what people want though a number of both public and private organizations/groups/individuals showed their own opinions/data/analyses to people. Choosing a plan for the mid-term goal of GHG reductions is a very important choice for the Japanese future. People should be involved in this important choice process. Because of millions of uncertainties over economic/social/environmental impact of GHG reductions, it might be highly difficult for the Government and Prime Minister to take a responsibility for consequences of the choice. Different opinions/data/analyses should be showed to people by different sides, especially the industry side and the MoE side. Then, examining them, people should choose a plan for the mid-term goal of GHG reductions even though they would choose the worst plan for the environment.

It rarely receives the same attention as the Amazon rain forest, one is being devastated by illegal

Deforestation (credit: energyportal.eu)

logging and development but the other, Canada’s Boreal forests also represents a key battleground against Climate Change. Set in the in the far north, not far below the arctic line, the Boreal forests are a huge band across Canada stretching from coast to coast, annually temperatures can go from 30C in the summer all the way down to -50C in the winter. Covering 2.9million km^2,, and representing 25% of the world’s un-developed forests the Boreal forests are a huge source of concern for conservationists and Scientists alike.

The Boreal is to carbon what Fort Knox is to gold.
These maps document where and how these vital reserves
– a virtual shield against global warming –
are distributed across Canada. We should do everything we can
to ensure that the carbon in these storehouses is not released.

Dr. Jeff Wells, Senior Scientist, International Boreal Conservation Campaign

From the point of view of Climate Change a truer statement could hardly have been made, because locked up in the Boreal forests are over 100 billion tonnes of Carbon, and they annually sequester 12.5m tonnes of Carbon each year making them a critical sink of Carbon but more importantly a source of Carbon that needs to remain locked in.

Their importance has for several years attracted strong concern from various environmental groups from their own Conservation group the IBCC to Green Peace and a number of similarly concerned conservation and environmental organisations. Many feel that the ever-rising demands from industries that rely on boreal forest resources could in the long-term threaten the Boreal Forests. However a turning point came in 2007 when 1,500 Scientists from over 50 countries signed a letter calling for conservation measures to be put into place.

Their concerns were not without merit. Canada’s natural resources, already a critical part of its economy are subject to ever rising demand. In particular logging, mining and energy development all place demands on the Boreal forest region. These demands are set to increase with the growing appetites of China and India for raw materials, putting greater pressure on provincial governments to open up more of the Boreal forests for development.

As if shouldering the burden of economic weight was not enough, natural phenomena have begin to take their toll on the Boreal forests, forest fires and Pine-beetles, already devastating in the US have taken their toll on Canadian forests. Pine beetles, able to spread through rising temperatures, destroyed 130,000 km² in Western Canada in 2008, as well as devastating parts of the US.

Forest fires, have been equally devastating, with perhaps the most concerning statistic being that in some years forest fires account for up to 45% of Canada’s GHG emissions, and large-scale forest fires have hardly been a scarce: 2002, 2003 and 2004.

Fortunately the importance is starting to sink in and rising awareness has prompted greater efforts to preserve, manage or sustainably develop the Boreal Forests.

Quebec Premier Jean Charest has promised to sustain 50% of its Northern forests from intensive development such as mining and 12% from any development at all. Quebec as in most has to walk the line between mining and logging mining, a multi-billion dollar industries for Canada.

Nevertheless, even Alberta, Canada’s oil state and home of the Tar-sands, has recognised the importance of preservation. The Alberta Research Council, working with the Pembina institute and Forestry leaders has formulated a policy to offset Alberta’s declining Boreal forests.

However, the most groundbreaking effort comes from Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, no stranger to bold environmental legislation (he recently proposed the Green Energy Act) he has promised to preserve 50% of Ontario’s Boreal forests and the other half subject to sustainable development regulation. This amounts to 225,000 km² of land where even hunting and fishing will be severely curtailed and other development completely banned.

Of equal importance, is the emphasis on sustainable development for the other 50%. As this article, makes clear up to 24,000 people live in the Boreal forested part of Ontario many of them first nations people and Metis communities. McGuinty has pledged to allow sustainable development with them, including reforming mining, to make it more sustainable. While the plan is estimated to take 10-15 years before its fully realised, like the Green Energy Act, Ontario has become an uncompromising trendsetter in its dedication to environmental pursuits.

The Boreal forests, might not have the attention of the Amazon, and are often second in environmentalists demands, in the place of renewable energy or fighting the tar sands but they represent a key battle that should never be far from campaigners eyes. Much of the above legislation is a start in the right direction, but how durable conservation efforts will prove, in the face of rising global demand for raw materials and the economic benefits to Canadian provinces and even local communities will prove a much greater test in the years ahead.

Stavros Dimas, European Commissioner for the Environment (c) European Communities, 2009

The climate conference in Bonn this week has given the EU another opportunity to reiterate its negotiating position leading to Copenhagen and attempt to maintain momentum in the negotiation process.

The EU’s Czech presidency used both its opening address to the Bonn conference and a written statement to restate its views on how a global deal would look. The statements repeated the public position laid out by the EU in January (details here), and called for other developed countries to set out medium-term emissions targets by the middle of this year at the latest.

Having defined a clear and credible position early, the European Union is for now limited to repeating its view at every public opportunity, while awaiting developments in the US and China. Stavros Dimas, the European Commissioner for the environment, told EurActiv last week that he is looking forward to seeing details of the US’s cap-and-trade system to evaluate its potential compatibility with the EU’s. Separately, consulting firm McKinsey released three interviews with three European policy experts last week, asking for their views on the prospects for a deal at Copenhagen. Two of them – Nicholas Stern and Michael Grubb – emphasised the role of the US and China and developing economies, and not one of the trio mentioned Europe.

After much internal wrangling in 2008, then, it appears that 2009 is a year of looking outward for Europe’s climate policy-makers.

www.lookatvietnam.com

Earth Hour has grown far beyond the expectations of its organiser, WWF Australia, with about one billion people around the world following Sydney’s lead and switching off lights on Saturday night. The United Nations is calling it “the largest demonstration of public concern about climate change ever attempted”. Earth Hour originated in Sydney in 2007, with just 2.2 million Sydneysiders taking part. On Saturday, 3000 cities and towns in more than 90 countries switched off their lights for an hour this year.The Australian Federal Government backed Earth Hour, and switched off lights in hundreds of government buildings including Parliament House in Canberra. The Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, praised Earth Hour as “a great home-grown initiative” whereby Australians could “show their commitment to taking action on climate change”. (SMH 29/03/09) An Energy Australia spokeswoman said Sydney had cut electricity use by 9 per cent over Earth Hour and reduced carbon dioxide emissions by more than 21 tonnes.

However, the event’s impact was nothing but symbolic. In terms of energy savings, Bjorn Lomborg , director of the Copenhagen Consensus Centre think-tank, said that “even if a billion people turn off their lights this Saturday the entire event will be equivalent to switching off China’s emissions for six short seconds”. He even argued that the use of candles during the hour could actually produce more emissions than electric lights. (AFP 28/03/09) Of course the point of the event was to send a strong message to our world leaders and, in Australia, to ask Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to lead the charge with what is happening in Copenhagen. Indeed, the Australian government has committed to emissions cuts of only 5 per cent by 2020, when most climate scientists think that cuts of between 25 and 40 per cent are needed, and many believe recent droughts and floods are the result of man’s destabilising influence on the climate.

But we can doubt that the event actually encourages people to change their behaviours and consumption habits. Do people really take action beyond the hour or do they think that is all they have to do? To some extent the event has been captured by multinational companies with bas record of environmental destruction (like McDonalds or BP), which “greened up” their image by switching off their lights for an hour; or politicians keen on attending green tie parties while failing to reach a position on the country’s carbon trading scheme. There were signs on Saturday that Australians were getting a little weary of the event when it rolled around for the third time. Polling conducted in Australian state capitals over the weekend showed the number of people participating had dropped slightly in some cases. In all about 10 million Australians observed Earth Hour, compared with 11 million last year (SMH 30/03/09). Let’s hope that the global enthusiasm for change demonstrated on Saturday will still exercise some pressure on decision-makers.

Africa is set to be one of the most afflicted continents from the impacts of climate change. Compounding Africa’s fragile economic basis to deal with the consequences is the impact the global economic recession is having. The continent is set to lose $40 billion in 2009 as a result of stagnated growth, which continues to plummet as the crisis takes hold. The impacts of these loses are huge for the poorest of the poor living in the continent - equivalent to two weeks income for each of Africa’s 900 million people. The impacts of the crisis are wide and varying from crashing copper prices in Zambia to reduced tourism in Kenya.

It is crucial South Africa takes a purposeful and strong stance at the G20 summit due to the huge vulnerability of many African countries, however many debate the leverage it will have. The vulnerabilities are greatest within the most dependent nations especially those with weak budgets and Balance of Payments. It is essential South Africa is able to effectively highlight these needs at the G20 discussions as capital is desperately required, a trade deal must be secured and the Millennium Development Goals and their failures must be dealt with and reassessed. A huge challenge, considering the $30 billion shortfall in donations for the 2010 aid budgets. If there is no money pledged to the financial losses Africa will suffer in 2009, climate policy has no chance of entering in many national policy discourses across the continent despite the afflictions it will cause.

Both Britain and the Obama administration have promised action on Africa however the significance of the recession, existing Middle East conflicts and the need for a global climate deal with clock ticking towards Copenhagen may result in Africa’s woes being sidelined. South Africa needs to flag the importance of Africa in policy discussions, especially the potential for investment in line with Cap and Trade systems and a drive for energy efficiency, which has not been prevalent in most African nations. Nigeria for example as huge potential for solar investments with its climate yet the use of diesel generators is prevalent due to the dysfunctional state of the state run power grids. This highlights Africa’s inherent problem which the G20 discussions table is unlikely to make any impact on - huge potential that cannot be manifested due to corrupt and perfidious governance.

South Africa has a monumental responsibility at the G20 to attempt to prove to the world’s leading nations the role Africa can play in abating the recession and reestablishing the global economy. Potential lies in investments such as the huge potential for sustainable biofuels, appealing to many OECD nations in terms of energy security at low cost. If regulation allows economies like that of South Africa, the flagship for the continent, to be established many other nations will recognize the potential for investment funds in Africa’s emerging economies.

In order to capitalize on the discussions of the G20 South Africa needs to engage as determined leaders for the continent and display Africa’s readiness to be part of Obama’s ‘new foundation for prosperity.’ It needs to flag the issues of the budgetary hole in Africa’s account due to the recession and importantly Africa’s position in climate negotiations and the importance of strong policy in individual nation states. This is imperative, as the floods that are currently ravaging the Southern African drainage systems show the consequences climate change will have on the continent. Around 500,000 people have been affected with whole villages lost in Angola, Namibia and Zambia - further worsening the plight of vulnerable Africa citizens living on the edge of survival.

Scottish ministers are aiming for 50% of electricity demand to be met by renewable energy by the year 2020, with an interim target of 31% by 2011, and recent reports suggests that they are running ahead of schedule.

Minister Alex Salmond said:

“…we are well ahead of schedule in meeting our renewables energy targets. The consented projects, as well as those already operating, represent some 35% of Scotland’s electricity needs.”

The UK is one of the windiest locations, and attracts significant investment for onshore and offshore wind energy projects. Vestas wind turbine manufacturers recently announced a new manufacturing plant near Campbeltown, Scotland, is being taken over by the subsidiary of another Danish firm, Skykon, which plans to expand the plant three-fold. Mr Salmond expects the deal will safeguard the current 85 jobs, create 250 more, as well as 150 indirect spin-off jobs.

Meanwhile, UK ministers were last night considering fresh incentives designed to spur investment in renewable energy amid evidence that the credit crunch is threatening government energy targets, made legally binding by the Climate Change Act 2008.

The Energy Minister hit back at claims that the Government was failing to deliver on an ambitious plan to foster a green energy revolution by building thousands of onshore and offshore wind turbines. Mike O’Brien told a meeting of renewable-energy chiefs that he was determined that Britain would meet its goal of generating as much as 35% of all UK electricity from wind, wave and solar power by 2020, up from less than 5% at present.

This was welcome news for the UK renewables industry in light of current job losses announced across the economy, and speculations over frozen investments drawing to a halt despite Gordon Brown’s rhetoric about the “Green New Deal” to help the UK out of recession.

Spanish firm Iberdrola Renovables confirmed they would be standing by all its planned wind power projects in Scotland and elsewhere in the UK.

A spokeswoman for Iberdrola confirmed the company received consent for its first UK offshore wind farm in the Irish Sea, which will have 500 MW of capacity. Iberdrola’s five-year strategic plan to invest 18.8bn by the end of 2012 remained on track, she said.

He confirmed that the Government was examining new ideas to increase investment, which has been hit by the recession as banks rein in lending and the price of conventional fuels plunges.

Mr O’Brien said: “We are fully aware of the investment challenges facing some parts of the industry. We are examining how we can help ensure there is sufficient finance and other support available for viable projects which are short of the investment they need.”

The Observer recently reported that a £1bn public-private funding body, the Energy Technologies Institute (ETI), is allowing several multinationals to secure exclusive licences to British renewable developers’ innovations in return for providing funding. The firms in question include BP, Shell, E.ON and French government-controlled EDF.

Scotland’s confidence in meeting their challenging renewable electricity targets reflects the ambition from the country’s private industry, despite the lack of funding and investment from governments and banks; acting to only further highlight the supportive action needed across a united and great, Britain.

As the G20 and UNFCCC meetings draw closer, France’s Green Plan (le Grenelle Environment Round Table) and a couple recent additions are worth a quick review. So a few things:
• The Oceans Initiative (Le Grenelle de la Mer) was originally announced in February 2009, but major action has just started in the past weeks.
• the French government will launch in April an eco loan of up to 30,000€ with no interest rate to increase the use of thermal renewable energy sources and of energy conservation.

Le Grenelle is a rare example of federal-level government-led effort to connect the State, unions, employers, NGOs, and local authorities in a rigorous process to determine approaches to climate change.

The “Grenelle Environnement,” officially launched on 6 July 2007, and combines the state and civil society in order to define new actions for sustainable development in France (through 2012). Action plans were developed around the themes of: climate change and energy, biodiversity and natural resources, health and the environment, production and consumption of ecological democracy, development patterns and environmental employment and competitiveness.

With regards to Le Grenelle de la Mer, four working groups have been formed this month around the themes of:
* Sustainable fishing
* Employment in the marine sector
* Coastal development
* Governance at the local and global level

The working groups will produce a road map before the summer, which will then be submitted to an inter-ministerial committee. The project is viewing ocean and fishing issues as strongly tied to changes in climate in the near and long-term futures.

According to the latest report on fisheries published by the FAO in March, around 28 percent of world fish stocks are over-fished.
One big unanswered question is how France will reconcile the need for sustainable fishing policies with the fishing subsidies, which cost France 27 billion Euros per year, according to calculations by Daniel Pauly, head of the Fisheries Center of the University of British Colombia.

Let’s shift gears to the Grenelle Housing Initiative, which is gearing up for action…

The energy and environment Minister, Jean-Louis Borloo expects heavy energy –efficient renovations to go above 400,000 per year, to be compared to the current 40,000. He goes on to say that each construction project built prior to 1990 has to be renovated. This represents 27 million housings, including 15 individual houses.

People willing to benefit from these loans have to choose two or three options among the following:

* Insulation of the roof ;
* Insulation of the walls ;
* Replacement of doors and windows ;
* Installation of a more efficient heating system ;
* Installation of a water heating or housing heating system with renewables.

By choosing two, one can benefit from an eco loan of 20,000€; choosing three, one can get 30,000€. Households will have from ten to fifteen years to payback these loans.

To Mr. Borloo, such a scheme would allow households to cut by 70 to 80 percent their heating bills.

Sounds like Frnace has some good ideas to share at the upcoming international climate change meetings.

Photo courtesy js42/Flickr

Renewable energy has been in the Indian news a lot lately. Firstly, India is gearing up for a partnership in renewable energy with the United States: an American trade mission exploring possible tie-ups in solar energy has come to India at a time when India is fleshing out its national solar mission (which was announced in the climate change action plan last year).

As far as public awareness on energy conservation is concerned, there seems to be a new push towards fostering awareness. The government has been running a series of environmentally themed ads (although the approach is one of cutting costs and economising) on conserving energy (saving cooking gas, petrol and switching to ecofriendly lighting). Let’s also not forget that today a number of mostly urban Indians will observe Earth Hour and turn off their lights for an hour this evening.

Thirdly, Greenpeace’s recent report on energy efficiency notes that given the right political will, India could potentially source 35% of its electricity requirements from renewable energy. Arguing that economic development need not be compromised, it calls for an “energy revolution” that will push for encouraging innovation, removing subsidies that support fossil fuels, reforming the energy sectors and introducing better regulation and laws. The press release adds that “there is a huge opportunity in going green now given the fact that India is still developing its energy infrastructure and has the human and intellectual capital to be world leaders on this front”.

Clearly, the political will required to push such policies through is very important. India has been pretty slow in formulating an environmental agenda and acting upon it in the past (indeed, as mentioned above, the climate change action plan was mostly silent on policies and most of the missions announced in the action plan are yet to be articulated). The recently released election manifestos of the main political parties don’t really mention any environmental or climate change initiative because elections in India are fought on a very different set of issues. And of course, India doesn’t have a green party. A report published by FICCI (the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry) evaluates the incumbent government’s environmental performance noting that it has fallen short in a number of areas: inefficient CDM processing procedures, weak EIA monitoring measures and insufficient biodiversity and conservation initiatives.

Nevertheless, energy security is perhaps the most important feature of India’s climate change policy so far. The economic ramifications are perceived to be just as important as (if not more than) the environmental ones and the renewable energy market is poised to expand considerably. Given also the fact that the infrastructure and networks are still being set up in India the pursuit of energy self sufficiency is a priority and will continue to be so, irrespective of political and electoral outcomes.

EPA logo

In a landmark move, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is about to declare an “endangerment finding” on GHGs, meaning they officially acknowledge them to be a threat to human health, and are therefore required to regulate them under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

This is the latest development in a process that started in 1999 when 12 states, 3 cities and several environmental organisations petitioned the EPA to regulate GHGs emissions from motor vehicles under the CAA. The case - known as Massachusetts v. EPA - eventually made it to the Supreme Court, and in April 2007 the Court ruled that as greenhouse gases meet the Act’s definition of air pollutants, the EPA must take action to regulate tailpipe emissions.

Following this decision the EPA was required to find whether or not GHGs emissions from vehicles endanger public health (unless it found that the science is too uncertain to make a judgement).

Unsurprisingly EPA scientists found that GHGs do in fact endanger human health as they contribute to global warming, but under the Bush administration the EPA stalled, taking over a year to publish just an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR is an informal action used when an agency seeks more information and public input before deciding what to propose).

Now the EPA, under the new director Lisa P. Jackson, has finally sent the Obama administration a proposed “endangerment finding”, which - if cleared by the White House Office of Management and Budget – will pave the way for EPA regulation of GHGs.

While many agree that the 1970 Clean Air Act is not ideal for dealing with rising GHGs emissions (and anyway, this first stage deals with emissions from vehicles only), this will still be a step forward as it will likely put pressure on Congress to pass legislation that would be better suited for the task. Such a move will be welcomed both by environmentalists and the industry.

So what now? Now we wait for Ms. Jackson to sign the endangerment finding, probably in mid April, and see if this will indeed prompt Congress to act more swiftly on regulating US emissions of greenhouse gases.