Under the Bush administration, greenhouse-gas emission legislation was considered excessive regulation that could prove harmful to U.S. businesses. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, under Bush, denied a request under the Clean Air Act to establish tail-pipe emission standards - claiming that such regulations were not within their authority. In Massachusetts v. EPA in 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court scolded the Bush EPA for providing what seemed a “laundry list of reasons not to regulate” greenhouse emissions rather than basing their arguments on science. However, following his first 100 days in office as the President of the United States, Barack Obama’s policies have proven to be in stark contrast to those of George W. Bush. Within his first week in office, Obama announced the closure of Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba, reversed aid restriction policies for organizations that provide abortions, limited lobbyist influence within the administration, and held an interview with al-Arabiya where Obama offered a hand of friendship to Muslims and demonstrated his desire to work diplomatically with the Middle East. Now fourteen weeks in, Obama’s sharp departure from his predecessor continues - including the appearance of a notable shift in the United States’ stance on climate change.

Marking Obama’s first 100 days in office, the following is a summary of United States climate change policy under the direction of the Obama administration:

Days 1-25 (Jan 20-Feb 13): In an effort to reverse former President Bush’s policy on climate change and take the United States in a new, greener, direction, Obama follows up on the request under the Clean Air Act. Only one week into office, Obama asks the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider its ruling and review whether states should be allowed to set more stringent emission standards than is currently federally mandated. Additionally, Obama directs American automakers to develop more fuel efficient cars and trucks for models with release dates starting in 2011.

Days 26-50 (Feb 14-Mar 10): Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress pass the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act totaling nearly $800 billion. Included within this massive bill are substantial investments in clean and renewable energy, infrastructure, and scientific research including $7.22 billion for programs administered by the EPA. The administration’s states that their rationale for the funding was not only to help in the economic recovery in the United States but also to increase the number of green jobs, promote technological innovation, reduce U.S. dependency on foreign oil and ensure a healthier environment. In addition, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visits China and invites China to join the U.S. in curbing greenhouse gas emissions.

Days 51-75 (Mar 11-April 4): On March 23rd, Obama announces to the White House that $129 billion of his $3 trillion budget proposal for the year is allocated for environmental plans - such as renewable energy, solar power and hybrid cars - and is off limits to bartering by Congress. This pledge by Obama comes as the EPA makes another large announcement: following years of resistance under the Bush administration, the EPA tells the White House that global warming is, in fact, a danger to public health. On March 31st, the House Energy and Commerce Committee, along with the Environment Sub-Committee, announce the draft of the “American Clean Energy and Security Act 2009″. This draft is potentially a landmark step toward ushering in a clean energy economy through carbon emission tracking and regulation by the United States. A few days later, Obama attends the G20 Summit in London where he holds a bilateral meeting with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Obama and Singh touch on the issue of “energy and how important it is for the United States to lead by example in reducing our carbon footprint so that we can help to forge agreements with countries like China and India…for our efforts to control climate change.”

Days 76-100 (April 5-29): On April 17th, the EPA makes their announcement official: scientific studies show that CO2 and other greenhouse gases “endanger” the health and well-being of humans. The formal recognition by the EPA marks an important step under the Clean Air Act toward the establishment of national emission standards for large emitters. A week later, in recognition of Earth Day on April 22nd, Obama signs a proclamation which affirms the importance of protecting the environment and addressing global warming. In addition, amidst Earth Day celebrations, the House Energy and Commerce Committee spend the week holding hearings on the draft of legislation of the “American Clean Energy and Security Act 2009“. These hearings include testimonies by over 60 witnesses including Energy Secretary Steven Chu, former Vice President and Nobel laureate Al Gore, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, and representatives from manufacturing, energy, and environmental groups. Negotiations continue and the bill will likely go before the House of Representatives by Memorial Day on May 25th.

It has only been 100 days into President Barack Obama’s administration and, so far, the United States has made great strides toward greening America’s image. The next 100 days may prove more difficult, however, as details of the “American Clean Energy and Security Act 2009″ are worked out between Republicans and Democrats in Congress. Furthermore, announcements and gestures are more easily accomplished than finding funding or implementing projects, particularly when unexpected bailouts or emergencies such as Swine Flu arise. Therefore, it is important to look beyond the first 100 days of a presidency to determine the true direction of a policy. While the success of the new policies are yet to be determined, if there is anything certain from observing the first 100 days of Obama’s term in office it is that Barack Obama is definitely not anything like George W. Bush.

On 10 April, the Government and the ruling parties, the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and New Komeito, officially compiled the nation’s largest-ever economic package, worth 56.8 trillion yen in total, including 15 trillion yen in fiscal spending. In the new package, they proposed the introduction of the ‘eco-point’ (or eco action point) scheme.

 Then, on 21 April, the Ministry of the Environment (MoE), the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) and the Ministry of International Affairs and Communications (MIC), announced that they would commence, from 15 May, the eco-point scheme, in which those who buy products designated in the scheme can gain eco-points, on condition that the supplementary budget for the fiscal year 2009 is to be approved. In the scheme, they seek to stimulate economy as well as promoting energy-saving products to reduce CO2 emissions. 

 The Products in the scheme includes refrigerators, air conditioners and TVs, which have been given four stars or five stars in the evaluation system for products which displays energy-saving performances of products from one star to five stars. Those who buy these eco-products can obtain eco-points: 5% of the purchasing prices for refrigerators and air conditioners and 13% of the purchasing prices for TVs for digital terrestrial television, at maximum. Then, they can use the obtained eco-points when they purchase ‘eco’ electric home appliances afterwards.       

 Although it was supposed that eco-points can be used when ‘eco’ electric home appliances are purchased afterwards, Fuji Sankei Business Eye reported that the Government is now considering the extension of the range of products that can be purchased by eco-points. The scheme originally sought to urge consumers to replace their less energy-saving electric home appliances by buying new energy-saving ones.  It has been however complained within the Government and the ruling parties that if eco-points can be used only for eco electric home appliances, eco-points cannot be used easily and the scheme would not stimulate consumption. Consequently, METI, MoE and MIC has started to consider the extension of products that can be purchased by eco-points. The electric home appliances industry strongly welcomes the extension and a managing staff of a major electric home appliances company said, ‘the range of products that can be purchased by eco-points had better be as extended as possible.’ 

Possibly, in order just to stimulate consumption, the range of the products should be as extended as possible as the industry suggests. However, the environmental effects of the eco-point scheme would dramatically diminish if it were extended to products that are not environmentally friendly. It may be however acceptable if eco-points can be used for services such as baby-sitting and day-care for children and continuing education because they are socially welcomed and environmentally harmless. It might be necessary that eco-points can be easily used and its range should be extended in order to stimulate consumption. However, it should be vital that eco-points must not result in the increase in CO2 emissions if the word, ‘eco’, is used in the scheme.

Wind turbines beside a road in northern France.

France is known for nuclear energy, but it seems that the winds of change are gathering momentum.  The vast majority of the electricity generated in France comes from its 59 nuclear reactors.   The country has not historically been considered a global leader in renewable energy, but France has taken some bold steps recently to support growth in this industry.
By 2020, the French government plans to generate 23 % of its electricity from renewable energy sources.  France now exceeds Denmark in aggregate wind energy capacity after adding 950 MW in 2008.  France currently has 3400 MW of wind power generation and plans to increase this to 25000 MW by 2020.

The above table gives the total installed wind energy capacity for France according to the Global Wind Energy Council.  With the annual growth rate around 38 % and new wind capacity represents 60 % of all new generation installed in the country last year.  France is now the fourth largest market in Europe after Germany, Spain, and Italy.
The policy framework to encourage wind energy growth has been in place since 2002.  Initially, a tariff of 8.2 euro cents per kWh of wind generated energy was offered to producers for a period of ten years.  Yet, in July 2005, the law was amended to stipulate that in order to be eligible, wind farms have to be built in special Wind Power Development Zones (ZDE).  The ZDEs are defined at the regional level based on electrical production potential, grid connection capacity, and landscape protection.

The concept of ZDEs may be a good one, but it has slowed up legislation and development in the past few years.  The feed-in tariff in the ZDE was reaffirmed in a decree signed on 17th November 2008, after the previous decree was cancelled by the Conseil d’Etat, the highest administrative court, in August 2008.  The French Syndicat des énergies renouvelables (SER) suggested a wind power generation target of 25 GW by 2020, including 6 GW offshore wind power.  This has been adopted by the National Assembly and should be adopted by the Senate in the coming months and passed into functional law by the end of 2009.
As the wind power sector grows, France is taking a close look at protecting the environment, but also at the workforce.  According to the French Agency for Environment and Energy Management, the wind industry in France currently employs 7000 people.  The SER goes on to claim that by 2020, at projected growth rates, the wind energy sector could represent 60000 direct jobs in France.

Wind energy companies are taking note and seizing opportunities.  For example, Vestas just announced an opening of a new office in Paris, La Défense.  Nicolas Wolf, General Manager of Vestas France, explains, “In 2008 alone, we have almost doubled the wind capacity delivered in France compared to the year before, and in the past three years we have doubled the number of employees in our country. It is extremely important for Vestas to be established in Paris in order to continue supporting the growth and the development that we have experienced in the past years.”

There are still several barriers that remain and hinder development of wind energy throughout France.  Some examples include: slow authorization; inadequate grid connection capacity; and zones in which installations are forbidden.  A 2007 study issued by the Ministry of Industry and Economy indicates that 9 weeks are necessary to notify applicants that the application process has been launched and a farther 22 for the process to be completed.   Preparation for the first offshore wind farm in France began with government financing in 2005, but long authorization has delayed construction until the end of 2009 or 2010.

Overcoming existing obstacles to wind energy development is certainly the key to France realizing its wind energy potential.  According to a report authored by A.R. Laali and M. Benard for l’Electricité de France, France appears to have the second largest wind energy potential in Europe, after the United Kingdom.  The biggest potential for growth in the coming years is in the north and northeast of the country.  The winds may be blowing slowly, but they are blowing surely for increased wind power throughout France.

As predicted in Climatico’s last national climate policy report, Australia has just taken the lead, along with Britain, in the development of Carbon Capture and Storage. A few days ago, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd inaugurated the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute in Canberra, with its 85 members, ranging from the governments of Japan and the US to giant coal and oil companies. The Institute will receive up to AU$ 100 million in government funding per year. CCS demonstration plants will soon be built.

Australia is indeed the world’s largest coal exporter, and coal is the nation’s most valuable export. As acknowledged by Rudd, “coal has been a major contributor to our nation’s prosperity.” (SMH 16/04/09). Yet coal production and use is also a very significant contributor to greenhouse gas concerns and remains a millstone around the country’s neck. By recognising that “the cold hard reality that coal will be a major source of power generation for many years to come” (SHM 16/04/09) Prime Minister Rudd is quite clear about his intentions, and therefore reassures the powerful industry lobby.

Pressure to be able to deliver Australia’s pledges of major carbon emissions reductions in 20 to 50 years is undoubtedly hangs in the balance. But what about medium term targets? Coal-fired power stations with CCS technology will not be operating for another ten years at least and they will not be commercially viable for 30-40 years. The technology’s efficiency is controversial. Moreover, CCS technology cannot be retro-fitted to existing coal fired power stations, so how long will it realistically take before Australia uses 100% clean coal?

The Government needs climate solutions now and should dedicate its funds to develop existing reliable renewable solutions such as wind and solar. Scientists from the government’s principal scientific board, the CSIRO, have taken a bold step last week by making clear that coal is the energy of the past. The scientists have chosen not to make a submission to the Senate inquiry into the Government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (SMH 27/04/09) but have rather spoken out personally to the Senate committee. Their message was precise and simple: no coal-fired power plants should be built, and existing plants must shut within 20 years, if the world is to keep atmospheric carbon dioxide at a less dangerous level (SMH 24/04/09).

California, the US’s most populous and wealthy state and Alberta, a far less populous but nonetheless vital part of Canada’s economy sparred this week, as California seeks to push forward ever bolder Climate Change initiatives. The battle pits two states that could hardly be more dissimilar when it comes to Climate Change. California has trail blazed its way through Climate change, running against the Bush administration and much of his own party, Schwarzenegger reached out to states in the US and Canada in his attempt to direct California’s entrepreneurial dynamism to capitalise on green economics.

Alberta, has been rather different, opting for “reduction in intensity” over actual reductions in its Climate Change reduction, it has been got on well with the Harper administration’s under-whelming Climate Change efforts. The reason lies in Alberta’s not so secret oil sands which have endured a barrage of infamy from protests in Poznan, to a National Geographic report. Tar sands already in development could become an exceptionally lucrative export if as predicted oil prices continue to rise, and the US continues to look for energy supplies to be brought closer to home. While the latter is already underway in some US states and a Climate Change bill currently in discussion, the oil sands future took a different turn as rather than a continually rosier future it met it’s first major clash when one of its largest potential markets passed a bill on Thursday that will eventually ban fuels, that are deemed to emit too much carbon in their production phase.

The Bill, which passed on Thursday, (a neat summary is here) aims to diversify California’s fuel supply with a  move towards expanding the market for low-carbon based fuels, some producers of which are in California and place restrictions on high end polluting fuels.

The principle is typically bold of California, even if in the short term it will only make small changes, it effectively legislates against high end pollution fuels such as Alberta’s tar sands which are likely to become viable in the future of oil prices over the next decade rise as expected to.

The worry for Alberta is twofold, California on its own wouldn’t be a problem , as it doesn’t import any fuel from Alberta at present but a number of other states across the US and even Canada could follow suite (California is already in alliances with US and Canadian states such as in the WCI), and it effectively rules out California and potentially other states as future markets for Alberta. Furthermore, once a few states start, what’s to stop more states taking up their lead?

While ruling out future markets, is one bonus for environmental campaigners, the second is the more immediate investment impact this could have on tar sand development. As it stands tar sand is relatively undeveloped compared with its potential in Canada, but it relies on heavy investment, given the exceptional costs of extracting tar sands, although this won’t be any means derail their development, tar sands could find it increasingly harder to find the willing investors if many of the key north American markets are locked out so early.

Perhaps frustratingly for environmentalists is that this is another example of the Harper Government (who also lobbied with Alberta against the legislation) incorrectly gauging the changing tides in North American Climate Change politics.. As a recent editorial in the Chronicle Herald highlighted, Harper’s like many other politicians saw environmental legislation as a drain on the economy, despite considerable economic evidence and in sharp contrast to the position of many states, within such as Quebec and Ontario, who have been ramping up their investment to capitalise on the future market. The Harper government may well have missed a valuable window of opportunity to consolidate Canada’s position in green

During the past week, the House Energy and Commerce Committee held hearings on the draft legislation of ‘American Clean Energy and Security Act 2009′. Over 60 witnesses testified, including Energy Secretary Steven Chu, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Nobel laureate Al Gore, as well as representatives of environmental groups, electricity producers, auto manufacturers and renewable energy companies.

Prior to the hearings, Rep. Henry Waxman, chairman of the Committee and co-sponsor of the bill, promised that he will stick to his proposed 20% reduction in GHGs emissions in the next decade and that it was Congress, rather than the EPA who should determine how to regulate these emissions (referring to the EPA’s endangerment finding released on the previous Friday).

Here is a brief description of the proceedings and some of the highlights.

Tuesday:

The first day consisted of opening statements only, but the action surrounding the hearings kick-started with a letter from the 23 Republican members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee to the Committee’s Democratic leaders saying that the draft bill is not ready to be discussed, as a major element - how the permits will be distributed - is missing. They also called for a hearing dedicated to the EPA’s recent endangerment finding.

This was seen more as a delaying tactic, as Edward Markey, the other co-sponsor of the bill, said in the opening session - “The time for delay, denial and inaction has come to an end”.

Wednesday:

In the second day the committee heard from representatives of the administration (Secretary Chu, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood), the United States Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) and others, such as the CEO of American Wind Energy Association, President of the Union of Concerned Scientists and a Senior Economist from the Stockholm Environment Institute.

The administration’s representatives responded to the concerns of Republicans as well as some Democrats and explained that the benefits of a cap-and-trade system will outweigh the costs, stressing that such a bill will create jobs and a stable investment environment, as well as ultimately reducing costs to consumers. Both Chu and Jackson though said they are still studying the details of the draft bill and that the administration had not given its blessings to it.

Secretary LaHood, in response to a question from Democrat John Dingell, assured the committee that the administration is committed to helping the automobile industry.

Companies belonging to USCAP generally stated their support of a cap-and-trade system. For example the representative from Alcoa, an aluminium producer, mentioned that increasing energy efficiency has already helped them reduce costs, and that aluminium is expected to be used in future energy efficient vehicles and buildings. However, both she and others (Duke Energy and NRG Energy, to name two) said they will drop their support for the bill if they did get free permits.

Thursday:

Day three saw testimonies from utility companies, think tanks and research institutions, consumer organisations, renewable energy companies and more. The panels dealt with issues of allocation policies, ensuring US competitiveness and the more technical issues of low-carbon electricity, CCS, renewables and grid-modernization. 

The utility companies stressed that they will need time to adapt and urged a gradual transition to a full auction system, also requesting allocation of free permits at first. It is encouraging to note though, that the American Public Power Association, which represents more than 2,000 community-owned electric utilities, supports auctioning no more than 5 percent of total allowances from the onset of the programme.

In response to that and to opposition from Republican members of the committee, as well as concerns raised by Democrats, Markey told reporters that “There are going to be some free allocations of allowances.”

Advocates of renewable energy called on Congress to set a renewable-energy standard requiring all states to get part of their energy from renewable sources.

Friday:

The main focus of the day was on the “star” witnesses - former vice-president Al Gore, former Republican Senator John Warner, and Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, which was apparently added by the Republicans as a last minute addition to balance out Gore and Warner’s favourable testimonies.

Former Sen. Warner was one of the few Republicans in the last Congress who supported strong action on climate change (and joined with Dem. Joe Leiberman in a bipartisan attempt to pass a climate change bill). He attacked the “clean coal” mantra, saying that “we know clean coal is not around the corner” and argued that climate change is a national security issue which must be addressed.

There were no surprises in Al Gore’s testimony, who equated the bill under discussion to the civil rights legislation of the 1960s and the Marshal Plan of the 1940s. He urged the House panel to make sure the bill includes provisions to protect people who would face hardships as a result of the expected changes. In response to Rep. Dingell’s concern that US jobs will suffer after all, as countries such as China won’t face the same burdens, Gore drew on his experience with the international negotiations when he said that “If the United States leads, China will follow”.

What Next?

The bill will have to go through other House panels, but Waxman planned a tight schedule and hopes to have it ready for discussion in front of the full House by Memorial Day (May 25).

In the meantime, there are apparently negotiations going on behind the scenes to find a compromise that will build a winning coalition in favour of the bill.

Wednesday saw Chancellor Alastair Darling announce the first official UK carbon budget to tackle the problems of climate change, which is designed to finance existing policy commitments to achieving a low carbon future.

Darling announced that:

- £405 million will be provided to finance the development of low-carbon energy and advanced green manufacturing sectors.

- £375 million will support energy and resource efficiency in businesses, public buildings and households for the next two years, out of which £100m is allocated to social homes and £100m for the construction of new green homes.

- £70 million of funds are earmarked for small-scale, decentralised low-carbon energy projects.

Whilst plans are designed to encourage investment in resource efficiency and low carbon buildings, it is also designed to cut 34 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 to keep the UK on track for its long term goal of cutting emissions by 80 per cent by 2050.

The budget does therefore, show a strong commitment to creating a low carbon economy, as it is the first legally binding green budget of its kind.  However, critics of the green agenda, and forecast based on Stern’s recommended total budget investment, will strongly argue that the 2009 budget falls short of the investments needed to achieve strong economic growth in the environmental sector, and to gain a slice of the anticipated £107 billion economy (1997-8).

The funding levels set aside for Housing and Green Stimulus initiatives is causing much debate among construction industry professionals, as it is said to be “simply not enough.” 

Given that the construction sector is the biggest UK carbon emitter (approximately 50% of the UK market), with energy used in homes responsible for over a quarter of the UK’s carbon emissions (Source: Direct.gov), giant steps are needed to tackle this struggling industry at present.  At its worst, projects are halted (Colleges), funds are not running directly into project delivery due to lack of finance from banks, and sustainable energy features are being compromised in the efforts to cut costs.

However, in a climate where most businesses, including the government are forced to cut costs, should critics of the budget request a much larger budget in order to kick start the housing and construction economy, and deliver 3 billion new, green, homes by 2016?

Please tell us your view, environmental budget versus-governments cutbacks - How should our UK budget be spent?

In addition to conflicts over resources, border disputes, and civil war, the South Asia region is also predicted to be one of the most vulnerable areas in climate change models. Without a doubt, it is a neighborhood where tensions and stakes are high.  Such issues are high on the agenda for the Government of India as a matter of national security and regional stability.  For example, water wars could be the next issue of contention between India and Pakistan. Alternatively, there has been a growing concern over some of the most dire climate change models which predict that certain predictions may cause a dangerous rise in ‘environmental refugees‘- people who are displaced due to climate-related impacts such as rising sea levels.

The country of Bangladesh (India’s eastern border neighbor) and the island nation of the Maldives (off the west coast of India) are said to be at high risk of producing some of the largest numbers of such refugees. As a low lying nation, Bangladesh is particularly at risk to rising sea levels given its proximity to the Himalayan region (facing threats of glacial melting) and long coastal border with the Indian Ocean. A Greenpeace report broadly estimates that more than 120 billion people in India and Bangladesh will be homeless due to climate change. Others report that 22 million Bangladeshis could be displaced by 2050.

Scare Tactics?

The environmental refugee debate comes with its share of skeptics. With the uncertainty over climate change models and ‘impacts,’ estimates of possible refugees is debatable. I think is that there is reason to be cautious in whole-heartedly accepting these numbers (and labels) as there are so many ‘ifs, ands, ors, and buts’.  For example, Nepal, India’s northern border neighbor, experienced an exceptionally dry winter that some say was caused by the mixture of increased slash-burn agriculture tactics and climate change patterns- yet lack of data and inconsistencies limits conclusive statements.

In addition, while these suggestions may attract political attention and promote climate change policies under the label of ‘national security’ concerns, it can also produce unintended tensions between countries and encourage protectionist attitudes. In doing so, those that may be most affected are the ones that will be the most hurt.  

What can be done?

The capacity  of all governments in the region to cope with climate-related displacements or increased refugee populations is limited, yet there are some positives. Under the banner ‘the right to survive,’ Bangladesh has advocated for stronger support and funds from the international community. It also produced its own national plan for tackling climate change in 2008 with a heavy focus on adaptation and mitigation strategies. Positive partnerships in other issues between India and Bangladesh also exist as initial stepping stones- such as a recently renewed treaty on transboundary water navigation between the two countries to strengthen trade.  The island nation of Maldives has also been active in the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) funded ‘Global Island Partnership,’ which has also advocated for stronger international support and funds. Possible resettlement of island nations’ populations remains to be a contentious topic among policy makers.

Those who are discussing the issue have suggested that the international community look into developing a legal framework to formally protect climate refugees in the future- opening up communication among normally defensive stakeholders. Additionally, building adaptive capacity continues to be a key strategy alongside broader climate change goals.  In essence, the issue requires a ‘plan for the worst, hope for the best’ attitude. While currently hidden between the lines of climate change policies, the issue of climate change refugees will become more prominent.

Voters in South Africa’s 5^th democratic election will mainly be concerned by a 21% unemployment rate, fundamental problems with service provision and the economy’s track for 2009, but for a few climate change will be on their agenda.

The African National Congress (ANC) leader Jacob Zuma is widely anticipated to become the next President of South Africa with a sweeping two thirds majority.  The emergence of the Congress of the People (COPE) and the strengthening power of the Democratic Alliance has reignited the democratic process in South Africa and  polling stations are anticipating record number of voters.  Zuma, a populist anti-apartheid hero has ascended from being a stalwart freedom fighter with the exiled ANC during the apartheid regime to becoming the probable next president.

The manifesto of the ANC focuses on climate change through the promotion of ‘green jobs’ and if successful the ANC must maintain the promise of the resolution made in Polokwane, to ‘develop and invest in programs’ to create the green jobs, especially prudent with South Africa’s high unemployment rate. Ironically despite the huge failings of the ANC in service provision to the poorest citizens of South Africa it is this demographic group which remains stalwart in their support for Zuma and the ANC.

The ANC have framed their focus on climate change on the public works programme on energy efficiency and renewable energy for job provision.  This is where COPE comes out stronger as they aim to ensure the Expanded Public Works Programme must be successful in the creation of work to ‘clean and green’ the environment’.  However their manifesto doesn’t make explicit links to climate change which has to compete against the prioritization on a list of ‘important global challenges’ including reform of the United Nations of transnational organized crime, international terrorism.  Placing climate issues amongst these weighty and largely intangible problems to solve significantly weakens their commitment to earnestly implement climate policy.

If predictions are correct and the Democratic Alliance (DA) is able to secure a victory in the Western Cape, the ‘mother city’ - Cape Town, seriously afflicted by water shortages and predicted declines in the annual winter rainfall may be lucky with a stronger commitment by the DA to climate and energy issues.  These are both mentioned in their manifesto and their commitment to ensuring that South Africa does not wait in its ‘response to the challenges of climate change’ is clear.  If my vote was based on climate policy the DA’s focus on mitigation, which will be fundamental to South Africa, illustrates a better understanding of the importance of a strong climate policy.  Their energy section supports the tariff and a roll out of one million solar water heaters, and ultimately my confidence lies in their understanding of the importance of establishing a price for carbon.

The smaller parties such as the Independent Democrats (ID) have a much clearer stance on climate change than the ANC, for example facing the fact that South Africa is the 14^th greatest emitter of greenhouse emissions and being explicit about the implications - flagging up biodiversity, water and salt- water intrusion impacts as key.  The ID’S manifesto is one of the best in terms of climate policy because of its clear proposition of renewable energy as the solution, and illustrating their appreciation of all forms they discuss ideas of radioactive waste disposal and radiation level studies at Koeberg, South Africa’s only nuclear energy facility.  The ID’s manifesto encapsulates the potential South Africa has in leading a global energy revolution and dominating the market for some technologies, namely solar thermal and solar photovoltaic’s.  Its value also comes in the proposition of applicable, tangible and necessary policy reforms that need to occur for example the ending of Eskom’s monopoly of electricity production, and the importance of implementing feed-in tariffs and investment in research and development into renewable technologies.

The smaller parties are also much more clear in their understanding of the intrinsic links between poverty and climate change, for example the Unites Democratic Movement (UDM) flags up soil erosion, water pollution and deforestation’ as a direct result of climate change.  However for the millions of South Africans that vote in the elections and take advantage of their democratic right, ganined through a tumultuous transition from the apartheid regime, most people will think of their basic individual needs not the collective need of South Africa’s climate.  Therefore Zuma’s personality, his history and character, have struck a chord in the hearts of millions of largely rural and poor voters.  One must put their faith that the largest party, despite having one of the weakest manifesto’s on climate policy will remain true to their statement on green jobs and do good in this way.

Earlier in my writing on Climate Change politics in Canada, I was struck by the sharp disconnect between Climate Change politics at a federal level (see Derek’s article for example on Canada’s Tar Sands) compared with its movement at a state level. It’s not just that states have been quicker in passing legislation, have advocated stronger proposals that will come into effect sooner, and supported more comprehensive approaches but that states have also been bolder and more imaginative in their vision.

From the Western Climate Initiative, of which, British Columbia, Ontario, Manitoba and Quebec (the actual subject of this post) are full members, to British Columbia, which has regardless of its potential frailty a Carbon Tax already in place, Ontario has perhaps the boldest of all the provinces with its Green Energy Act and right to connect.

So where does this leave Quebec?  Quebec has not been slow in the move towards GHG reduction and made its centre-piece move in 2006 in its “Quebec and Climate Change, A Challenge for the Future” (contrary to the name Quebec began taking action that same year). The plan is ambitious in its goals, as well as rightly lauded at the time for being comprehensive at an early stage in the global Climate Change debate by Environmental Activists.

So what did Quebec promise?

Quebec outlined 24 measures necessary to reduce GHG emissions, broadly falling into reduction, transportation, energy efficiency, research and public awareness and adaptation.

The highlights are as follows:

• To aim to increase energy efficiency in public building by 10% by 2012.
• To continue to invest 5 million annually in public transport and to increase public transport’s share of total transport. As well as supporting alternative transport (e.g. bikes)
• By 2010 to implement vehicle GHG emissions standards (including 5% ethanol mix by 2012)
• Boost investment in building standards
• Increase renewable energy output (particularly hydroelectricity and wind power)
• Promote emissions reductions in the industrial sector.

All of this has the aim of saving 14.6 Mt of CO ² by 2012, taking Quebec’s predicted emissions down from their then predicted path of 96.9 Mt of CO² to 82.3 Mt of CO², or 6% below their 1990 levels.

In addition to these bold targets  Quebec through the WCI (previously mentioned) has also signed up for a regional Cap and Trade in conjunction with Ontario among others, to be implemented as early as 2010, capping off (pun…intended) a  remarkably comprehensive effort to tackle Climate Change.

Yet Quebec has even more surprises in store for those willing to look. Quebec, as it’s A Challenge for the Future will tell you, has the lowest per capita carbon emissions in Canada, at only 12.1 tonnes, compared with a Canadian average of 23.1 tonnes. Just in case, you had missed how important and impressive Quebec is to Canada’s Climate Change efforts, the plan helpfully notes that if Quebec’s figures were excluded from Canada, Canada’s average would rise above the US average!

How they achieve this goal, is tied into Quebec electricity production, which is only responsible for 1.6 % of their emissions, with 96% of Quebec’s energy coming from non-emitting (or as Quebec calls it “renewable”) sources of energy, I pick my words carefully because by far Quebec’s largest source of electricity is hydroelectricity which is not viewed by the US as renewable.

Quebec may well win its fight to have hydroelectricity as renewable, their abundance of energy has already seen them link up with Ontario to provide electricity during Ontario’s summer (when it’s demand peaks) and Ontario provide to Quebec in winter when the latter’s supplies fall. As well as shoring up their internal market for energy, Quebec has long eyed the US energy market for current and future export and if a Climate Change bill passes this year Quebec’s hand could be strengthened as Northern US states reach out to provide energy from non-emitting sources. It’s a promising future for Quebec, and can only be a positive when a green future is strongly tied in with domestic economic potential.