(c)yomiuri online

The Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) won 308 of the 480 seats though the ruling bloc of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and New Komeito got only 140 seats in the Lower House election on Sunday. This is a landslide victory for DPJ, as DPJ had only 115 seats while the ruling bloc had 331 seats before the election. It can be called ‘revolution’ because LDP was out of power for only 11 months (1993-1994) and was always the largest party.

Then, the question is ‘can the new government led by DPJ reduce GHG emissions more than the Government led by LDP/New Komeito for the greener future?’

As climate change issues were not sufficiently discussed during an election campaign period because other topics such as employment and social welfare were main issues, it is difficult to answer the question.

However, as shown in the previous post, as far as climate change issues are concerned, DPJ is more ambitious and environmental groups and environmentalists normally support DPJ. Indeed, DPJ proposes stricter mid-term targets than the Government in its manifesto. Namely, DPJ promises to cut GHG emissions reductions by 30 percent below the 2005 level by 2020 though the government’s target is 15 percent. Before the Government chose this target, the Economic bloc (e.g. the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry and Nippon Keidanren) proposed 4% while the Environment bloc (e.g. the Ministry of the Environment and environmental NGOs) suggested 20-30%. Thus, the LDP’s proposal is a compromise but the DPJ’s proposal is clearly the one proposed by the environment bloc.

Although there seems a big difference between them, the difference might not be so big because 15 percent is the total amount of ‘domestic’ reductions of GHG gas emissions while 30 percent is the total amount of reductions achieved by reducing domestic GHG gas emissions as well as buying carbon credits, GHG absorption by forests and plants, and etc.  Nonetheless, according to an anonymous highly-ranked official of the Ministry of the Environment, ‘the DPJ’s targets are clearly stricter.’ Katsuya Okada, the Secretary-General of DPJ, emphasizes, ‘by setting ambitious targets, we want to take an initiative in international negotiation on climate change.’ In order to achieve the targets, DPJ has considered introduction of a wide range of measures, such as a domestic emissions trading system and a global warming tax, though Japanese industries have been strongly against these measures.

The DPJ’s proposal has been severely criticized mainly by LDP and industries as infeasible and unrealistic, again as told in the previous post. For instance, Akihiro Sawa, a senior researcher at the 21st century public policy institute, a thinktank established by Nippon Keidanren (Japan Business Federation), criticized the proposal because of three reasons.  First, according to Sawa, DPJ has not clarified how much the costs to achieve its proposed targets will be. While LDP clarified that the costs will be 76,000 yen per year per household, DPJ has not. Second, he argued that though a domestic emissions trading system and a global warming tax (environmental tax) cannot be introduced at the same time in terms of policy objectives and policy effects, DPJ considers introducing both. Third, he maintained that, although DPJ insists that Japan will be highly evaluated by the world and take an initiative in international negotiation on climate change by setting the mid-term targets as 30%, the world would not evaluate Japan so highly because developing countries such as India and China required industrialized nations to reduce GHG emissions more.

Further, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry pointed out that if Japan is to achieve the mid-term targets of DPJ, it would cost more than 190 trillion yen for ten years, leading to critical economic damages to the Japanese economy, while the Government’s targets would require approximately 62 trillion yen. Moreover, Tetsuo Saito, Minister for the Environment, criticized that though DPJ proposes stricter targets in its manifesto, DPJ inconsistently proposes  to make highway charges free, which would lead to increases in CO2 emissions from automobiles.

Thus, it is now unclear whether the new government led by DPJ can reduce GHG emissions more than the Government led by LDP/New Komeito for the greener future. However, one thing that is clear is that DPJ will attempt to reduce GHG emissions more than the Government whether its attempt will be successful or not.

Last week the US state department approved an oil pipeline which will carry tar sands oil from Alberta across Canada down to Wisconsin. The move follows long term plans between the US and Canada over energy deals, with tar sands already a key part of the US’s current oil provider. For environmentalists the move is a major setback, with tar sands, considered the dirtiest of all oils permanently and visibility crossing the boundary of the two countries.

Environmentalists both sides of the border and around the world can only greet this with disappointment. It had been thought during the Obama campaign that his rhetoric of “dirty oil” would restrict the development of tar sands to its most likely consumer, the US. However, what now appears likely is that the US has given tacit International approval to the oil sands by creating a permanent pipeline.

Continue reading…

Ice sculpture in Darling Harbour. Image by Kirsten Spry.

There are only a few months left until leaders of the international community convene in Copenhagen to agree upon a replacement for the Kyoto Protocol. Prime Minister Rudd has already declared that Australia will not go to the convention empty-handed. So far, Australia’s climate change legislation has faced some hurdles with its CPRS bill. However, with the recent approval of the renewable energy target, there is hope that Rudd will be able to keep his promise.

Following the defeat of Prime Minister Rudd’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) 42-30 by the Senate on August 13th, the Renewable Energy Target was split from Rudd’s controversial carbon trading legislation. The new legislation – calling for a 20 per cent renewable energy target – was subsequently approved when brought before the Senate again last Friday.

This new target matches the renewable energy target set by the European Union and means that, within a decade, all Australian households could be powered by renewable energy. While the Greens argue that this renewable energy target should be 30 per cent, it is huge increase from the 8 per cent target in place prior to the bill’s approval.

Upon the failure of Rudd’s CPRS scheme, Minister of Water and Climate Change, Penny Wong, vowed to bring the legislation up for a vote once more in three months time.

“I urge those opposite who have become supporters of renewable energy in recent times to join the bigger fight, the bigger fight against climate change, and I urge them to support when the government next presents the carbon pollution reduction scheme,” says Wong.

With the approval of the new renewable energy targets, Australia is guaranteed at least some legislation on hand in Copenhagen. However, the Rudd government faces an uphill battle in the months ahead to get their carbon trading scheme through.

With one failure already on its books, the carbon trading legislation will need re-tooling over the course of the next three months in order to stand a chance at success.

In its current form, the proposed legislation faced several opponents who will make the same claims in the next round of votes if their concerns are not appeased. These opponents included the Greens, Conservatives and independent senators who blocked the emissions trade scheme due to its impact on the economy, environment, and on jobs for Australians.

With so many groups to appease, can Rudd make the necessary adjustments in time to get his carbon trading legislation through parliament? The timing might be short, but the Opposition has already begun drafting amendments for the bill and Government continues to have talks with the coal industry.

It may be impossible to please every opponent, but hopefully by mid-November, some form of consensus will be reached on an emissions trading scheme for Australia, allowing Rudd to bring a solid example of Australia’s commitment to combat climate change with him to Copenhagen.

Following on from Derek Piper’s article on Canada’s proposed Cap and Trade system for this fall, environmentalists and policy makers will be left to wonder at whether Prime Minister Harper’s effort is part of a more serious effort to tackle green house gas emissions or simply keeping up with Jones’.

Some of the most far-reaching efforts have been initiated in Canada’s provinces: from British Columbia’s carbon tax to Ontario’s Premier McGuinty’s push for a transformation of domestic energy suppliers as renewable base. These efforts on the one hand, provide an idea on Canada’s potential to act as leader in climate change issues and, in stark contrast on the other hand, show the lack of leadership at federal level. The efforts of provincial leaders mean that the vast majority of Canada’s population and a majority of its economy are located in areas that face significant climate legislation. In addition, the British Columbia election, has shown that environmental legislation can endure beyond an electoral term. To put it plainly, Harper need only coordinate provincial efforts to turn Canada into a global leader for Climate Change policies.

Harper’s efforts however, have always been to manouvre Canada to around the middle of the developed countries pack. Harper has two rationales and if nothing else he has always been consistent with regards to climate change policy. His first rationale is that Canadian economic development is his primary aim and climate change targets will only be implemented where they don’t conflict with existing industries; particularly the EITE group industries “(energy intensive, trade exposed) which includes aluminium, cement, chemicals, iron & steel, lime, gas transmission, base metal smelting, iron ore pelletizing, pulp & paper, and potash companies”. The EITE industries are core areas of the Canadian export economy, and as might be expected have concomitant environmental impacts.

The sum of Harper’s latest move as Derek highlights, is keeping up appearances, with the US having passed the Waxman-Markey bill, (although probably not voting on it now until late Autumn and possibly watered down) and in the face of upcoming talks with the US and in Copenhagen in December. Canada will have little clout to influence the direction of global talks with its current policy widely derided as insufficient. The current proposal of Cap and Trade with plenty of opt outs allows for a generous fig leaf cover when going into negotiations. Harper has aided the undermining of Obama’s climate leadership from both stiff resistance from industrial lobbyists in the US and Republican opposition in Congress.

Where does this leave us? Harper’s efforts should not be taken entirely negatively; an actual Cap and Trade is still an improvement on the intensity based targets, although it will still fall short of the requirement that Canada cut its emissions by far more than 20% on 2006, the current emissions targets for 2020. Going into Copenhagen, Harper has left Canada positioned to be neither praised nor censured, perfect positioning for Harper, but woefully short of what a country of Canada’s wealth and status is capable of.

Canada dropping intensity targets?

The Canadian Government is adjusting its climate plans to more closely resemble those proposed in the US.  This summer Environment Canada is conducting a series of consultations with respect to its greenhouse gas emissions policies for heavy polluting industries and an announcement is expected in the fall outlining the new regulations. 

Climatico has learned from confidential sources that changes are likely to include a turn-around on ‘intensity targets’ which the Conservative Government has been promoting since 2007 in its widely-panned ‘Turning the Corner’ climate plan.  This reflects the US direction towards ‘cap and trade’ plans envisioned by the Waxman-Markey Bill  and now being discussed separately in the US Senate.

According to the leaked information provided to Climatico, changes in the Canadian plan are likely to include hard emissions caps for the power and oil & gas sector (a change from previously announced intensity targets, levels not yet determined).   Hard emissions caps also being discussed for the utility & electricity sector as well as the ‘EITE’ group (energy intensive, trade exposed) which includes aluminum, cement, chemicals, iron & steel, lime, gas transmission, base metal smelting, iron ore pelletizing, pulp & paper, and potash companies.

While hard emissions caps represents a welcome shift in policy away from intensity targets, what still remains unclear is how the Government will allocate pollution permits under the proposed system, and what the actual cap will be.  Information leaked to Climatico indicates that EITE industries will likely receive their permits free instead of through an auction therefore weakening the incentives to reduce emissions.   

Critically, changes to the Canadian plan will not include an adjustment of the overall ambition of emissions reductions.  Canada’s 2020 target will remain 20% reductions from 2006 levels – a target that has received substantial criticism for not reflecting the levels suggested by scientists of the IPCC for developed countries.

Furthermore, sources indicate that the proposed changes are likely to include plenty of loopholes allowing industry to weaken the climate-impact of the measures.  For example, compliance with the emissions cap could be achieved through payment into a ‘technology fund’ instead of implementing emissions reduction measures.  The level of inter-firm trading, as well as domestic and international offsets that would be allowed has also not been determined and the government is seeking input from industry on these matters.  It also remains unclear who else, aside from those being regulated will be consulted regarding these proposed changes.

With multiple meetings scheduled between Prime Minister and President Obama in the fall, the renewed discussion of a possible fall election, and the pivotal UN climate meeting in Copenhagen this December it appears the Canadian Government is trying to get its house in order on the climate front. The proposed changes to the ‘Turning the Corner’ plan start to fill the void in Canadian climate policy, but they still have a long way to go.

Cloud over climate climate change deal in Parliament House, Canberra

On Thursday (13/08/09), the Australian Senate defeated the Rudd Government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS), a legislative package made up of a Carbon emission trading scheme and ten related bills (click here for previous developments). The Opposition, Greens, and the independents, Nick Xenophon and Steve Fielding, voted to defeat the package 42 to 30. Prime Minister Rudd has called the day “a disappointing day for Australia” and accused the opposition of “placing the nation’s future at risk” (ABC 13/08/09).

The Government is determined not to go to Copenhagen empty-handed, and will reintroduce the same legislation in three months. At that time, if the bills are rejected a second time, Labour will have a trigger to dissolve both houses of Parliament and call an early election.

Let’s have look at the opponents’ rationale for rejecting this scheme.

Malcolm Turnbull, the Coalition leader, has managed to save himself some embarrassment by gaining the support of the majority of his party room to keep alive the prospect of negotiating a deal with the Government over the emission trading scheme. Indeed, if Turnbull had directed the Coalition to vote for the Government scheme, his weakness would have been fully exposed. The Nationals, and perhaps even some Liberals, would have defied him by crossing the floor in the Senate.

However, his leadership is seriously threatened as he will have to reassess his position to avoid potentially disastrous elections, and faces an inevitable split among the Coalition. Eventually, Liberals will somehow have to support the legislative package and split from the Nationals, who are not prepared to countenance any emissions trading scheme. In the meantime, Turnbull is trying to win some time in order to offer constructive alternatives. But he is not. Two days before the vote, the Coalition had produced a policy model, commissioned from the consultancy Frontier Economics, and which Climate Change Minister Penny Wong has described as a ”mongrel” (SMH 14/08/09). The model is radically different from Labour’s scheme in that it treats electricity generation less punitively and claims to reduce the negative impacts on Australian employment, one of the main Liberal arguments against CPRS. But Turnbull has little hope of succeeding in negotiating with the Government, which is showing him no mercy.

The Greens rejected the bills because they see the Government’s 2020 emissions reduction targets – between an unconditional 5 per cent and a highly-conditional 25 per cent – as too timid; and generally condemn the CPRS’ easiness on polluters (ENS 14/08/09). Green groups are now using the defeat of the emissions trading scheme bill to urge the Government to separate its renewable energy target from the rejected trading legislation. Indeed, the renewable energy target – 20 per cent by 2020 – is set to reach the Senate next week for a vote, but is not expected to pass unless the Government removes a part of the bill that links compensation to heavy-emitting industries under the target to the passage of its now-rejected carbon trading scheme.

The Greens will move amendments to the target legislation, increasing it and removing industry assistance, and introducing a renewable energy feed-in tariff. The Opposition is also working on amendments, mainly to add extra exemptions for the aluminum and milk pasteurisation industries. Prime Minister Rudd said he would not commit to changes to the renewable energy target but that Labour is likely to separate this question from the carbon trading scheme. Next week’s vote on renewables target will therefore be an important test to see if Australian parties manage to overcome their excessive divisions. All the more so as a recent poll showed that Australians, who by a majority support the CPRS legislation, are losing patience with their politicians on climate change. (SMH 14/08/09)

Prices up at French Pumps in 2010?

A government panel has suggested that France should aim to tax greenhouse gas emissions by 2010. This tax is lauded as a mechanism to encourage clean and greener habits among the French population. But the big questions remain: how effective will the tax be and who will it affect?

The panel concluded that: “carbon dioxide emissions are a threat to life on this planet…among the many necessary responses, a significant tax on carbon dioxide emissions is one of the most pertinent and efficient.”

France aims to divide its greenhouse gas emissions by 4 by 2050; a tax seems enviable to achieve this level of reduction. Economy Minister, Christine Lagarde, sees implementation of such a tax as “the beginning of a wider process of reflection and consultation [on climate change].”

The carbon tax plan would see France bill 32 € (~$46US) for every ton of carbon dioxide emitted in 2010. The levy would be raised progressively on a yearly basis until it reaches 100 € in 2030. Effectively, this regulation would add 7-8 cents to the cost of a liter of fuel. The tax is proposed to apply to all sectors that are not part of existing emissions trading programs.

The plan is drawing hot opposition from intensive fuel users, especially small-scale farmers and fishers. “We haven’t received any objection to the tax in principle, but there will be lots of fighting over the details of course,” said the Panel’s head, Michel Rocard, on France Info Radio.

Under the proposal, the extra cost per household would be around 300 € per year. There is a strong debate concerning how to compensate low income households; such as those that qualify as “fuel poor.” Rocard recognizes that, “there are whole jobs, farming, fishing, and taxi drivers where we need to find ways to make the jobs economically possible in spite of this tax.”

A key part of the debate is how to compensate poorer households, workers in certain sectors, and those for whom driving is a necessity because they work odd hours or live in rural areas. The small business union, CGPME, said in a statement that “for [the tax] to be accepted by households and companies…it must be compensated by an equivalent fall in taxes elsewhere.” The Panel did suggest that extra costs would vary according to household size and location.

Sweden, which is the current EU presidency, does have a carbon tax in place, as do Denmark and Norway.

The Panel’s report will provide the basis for legislation, due to be debated after the French parliament’s summer break.

Rich countries, led by the US, have opposed discussing proposals from various poor countries around the reform of intellectual property rights (IPR). These discussions are crucial to technology transfer efforts. This document is quite useful as a primer on IPR and climate change.Technology transfer (as I’ve written before) will be crucial for helping poor countries develop clean technologies. However, current IPR regimes are quite restrictive, and much IP is owned by private companies who don’t want to give it away for free.

This isn’t the first time these issues have come up in a global social justice context. A few years ago there was uproar when big pharma tried to stop generic drugs companies copying their HIV/AIDS treatments and selling them at prices which poor people in developing countries could afford.

G77+ China have been arguing that rich nations should buy cleantech IPR from private companies in their countries and make it available to all, in the name of climate justice. This move would also prevent those companies from making huge profits out of the necessity of the world moving towards less carbon-intensive growth.

It is essentially another row about market-based mechanisms – countries like India are arguing that the market can’t be trusted to provide a consistent flow of technologies, which is fair enough. Of course, there is another side to the argument. It would be very difficult to change the IP regime to accommodate free transfer of clan technologies – the whole thing could need to be rewritten.

Furthermore, it would remove the profit motive for companies to develop the technology in the first place. Therefore, rich countries are sceptical because if the idea was put in place it would essentially involve them massively subsidising green industry, distorting markets, and generally holding back the “invisible hand” that is supposedly going to solve all our climate problems.

In any case, there has to be a way around this issue that lets technology transfer happen in both a fast and fair way. Just don’t expect rich countries to budget on IPR reform…