The G8 Research Group has invited Climatico to speak at a press conference at 12:00 on Friday 10 July 2009 in Press Room 3 of the G8 Summit in L’Aquila, Italy. Accredited journalists should assemble at the Pool Meeting Point at 11:45.
Welcome to our climate policy liveblog. This is a live feed from our twitter account @_climatico_ 
8:59:08 PM: Our Italian #G8 hosts have banned access to Twitter from the Summit so you can access out full liveblog from http://www.climaticoanalysis.org
8:59:39 PM: Reuters have a good summary of where the #MEM is on the climate communique. http://is.gd/1ql1E
9:04:36 PM: The Major Economies Meeting (MEM) has in fact now been renamed to the Major Economies Forum (MEF).
9:08:48 PM: The #MEF met in Rome today in an attempt to break the deadlock on a commitment to half global emissions by 2050.
9:33:20 PM: India remains opposed to adopting an emissions target. Thus the #MEF may focus on committing to prevent a temperature rise of more than 2C
9:40:22 PM: Avaaz are currently organising a mass action and campaign asking Japan, Canada and Russia to sign up to the 2C target. http://bit.ly/32Bj8
9:44:39 PM: Updated: @avaaz now say that Harper is leading the opposition against the 2C commitment
9:46:25 PM: The Summit itself has been a bit of a shambles thus far with internet not working in the media centre for most of today
9:54:04 PM: Washington has even been organising Italy’s “Sherpa calls” in an attempt to ‘inject purpose into the meeting.’ http://is.gd/1qosD
9:59:10 PM: Obama will also be chairing the climate change negotiation on Thursday, which the UN and Denmark (COP15 hosts) will also be invited to
10:00:27 PM: http://is.gd/1qoQE
10:04:10 PM: That’s a rather interesting article that we’ve been discussing here at the G8 Research Group. Why do you think it was leaked? I’ll discuss our theories here tomorrow. Good night for now and see you tomorrow when the Summit begins.
In a landmark vote on Capitol Hill today, The House of Representatives passed the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill, which lays the foundations for a cap-and-trade system in the US. The vote was narrowly passed with 219 for and 212 against.
In the run up to the vote today some pundits said that the vote would pass, while others said it would fail. Conventional wisdom, however, suggests that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would not have put it to a floor vote unless she knew she had the votes in the bag. In a vote this tight, those that fall on the dividing line can have a disproportionally-large influence on the Bill. This phenomenon was well illustrated by the extra 0.25% of permits that were allocated to refineries at the last minute in order to win over Rep. Harry Teague.
The reception has been mixed in the US, with House Republican leader John Boehner calling it “the biggest job-killing bill that has ever been on the floor of the House of Representatives.” On the other hand the response internationally has been largely positive. In a meeting with Obama earlier today, German Chancellor Angela Merkel praised the bill: “This is, indeed, a sea change that I see [...] this really points to the fact that the United States are very serious on climate.” Although the bill has been widely supported by environmental groups, some say it does not go far enough.
The vote today does not guaruntee the passage of the bill into law, as it must first face the daunting task of passing the Senate. Nonetheless, Obama’s victory today gives him some important extra cards to play in the run up to the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen this December.
For those not acquainted with the Bush Administration’s latest pastime I should probably introduce the concept of the ‘midnight ruling’. Late in a presidency, an administration will often issue rulings that are unpopular but uphold the President’s worldview. President Bush’s recent midnight rulings have predominantly been concerned with environmental deregulation. The latest of these concerns the carbon dioxide emissions produced by coal-fired power plants.
As I reported earlier, a decision to disregard a Utah coal power plant’s carbon emissions when considering its environmental impact was overturned last Novermber. However, on Thursday Stephen L. Johnson, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), went on the record to reject November’s overturning, “the current concerns over global climate change should not drive [the] EPA into adopting an unworkable policy of requiring emission controls.”
California Senator Boxer soon issued a statement responding,
This illegal document issued by Stephen Johnson makes it clear that he has become a renegade administrator… Mr. Johnson’s latest action is intended to make the job of combating global warming more difficult and will add to the millions of taxpayer dollars he has wasted in defending his illegal decisions.
Boxer also wrote a letter (available here) to the Attorney General asking him to “intervene immediately” with Johnson’s “blatantly illegal memo.” Senator James Inhofe, who frequently clashes with Boxer, responded with a statement siding with the EPA.
So what does all of this mean? Well, first that the regulation of CO2 (or lack of) has been one of the defining features of the President Bush’s time in office, and that he is keen to ensure that greenhouse gases are not controlled during his presidency. Obama has pledged to use his “executive authority without waiting for congressional action” to reverse Bush’s midnight rulings. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NDRC) issued a statement saying,
The ultimate consolation, however, is that today’s EPA offense is so ham-handed, so divorced from the law, that it can and should be reversed by the Obama administration with the stroke of a pen.
If the Attorney General does not intervene (which is, in my opinion, likely) then there will be a number of coal-fired power stations that progress far enough down ‘the pipeline’ that Obama will not be able to stop their being built when he takes office on January 20th. The Justice Department said that it would review Boxer’s letter and respond appropriately, to which Joe Romm of Climate Progress replied, ““Appropriately”? This is the Department that signed off on torture. What the heck is a few coal plants to them?”
Yesterday, Obama appointed John Holden as his Chief Science Advisor and Jane Lubchenco to head the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which carries out most of the government research on climate change. Both have advocated greater government action on climate change.
“This is a superb appointment,” Sir David King, former UK chief scientific advisor, told the Observer. “Holdren is a top-rate scientist and his position on climate change is as clear as you could get. This is a signal from Barack Obama that he means business when it comes to dealing with global warming.”
Holdren has described the Bush Administration’s current approach to climate policy as like “being in a car with bad brakes driving towards a cliff in the fog.” (hat tip to Treehugger)
Alongside Steven Chu and Carol Browner, Holdren’s announcement puts three big-hitters advising Obama on climate change policy, so it will be intersting to know who will have the most sway with the incoming president. It is likely that it will not be Holdren, as he does not control a government agency nor administer a large budget. Additionally, in his new position he can be called upon to testify before congress, which means that Obama will be less likely to share politically-sensitive information with him. (hat tip to New Scientist)
My ‘most influence vote’ would go to Browner, who headed up the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) during the Clinton Administration. She will have “forceful support” in Congress according to the New York Times, and being located in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue* can’t hurt her chances!
In subtle recognition Al Gore’s work, Obama said during his announcement, “It’s about listening to what our scientists have to say, even when it’s inconvenient — especially when it’s inconvenient.”
* that’s the White House for those not in the know!
Obama’s green team (L-R): Carol Browner, Lisa Jackson, Nancy Sutley, and Steve Chu, with Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.
Yesterday, Obama announced his pick for Secretary of Energy. He chose a Nobel laureate who is a keen supporter of alternative energy, and who has said that people saying that they are uncertain whether climate change is being caused by humans is “reminiscent of the dialogue in the 1950s and ’60s on tobacco.”
No, it was not Al Gore!
Obama picked the physicist and director of the Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory, Stephen Chu – a decision that has won praise from scientists across the board. “His appointment should signal to all that my administration will value science,” the President-elect said in a press conference yesterday. “We will make decisions based on facts.”
“Now, should he be confirmed, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist who specializes in climate change and renewable energy and already knows how to run a decent-size bureaucracy is going to be in charge of realizing Obama’s bold promises to lead the United States toward an energy-sustainable future. Symbolically speaking, one would be hard put to draw a sharper contrast between the Bush and Obama eras than what is achieved by this single appointment,”
commented Andrew Leonard of Salon.com.
Alongside Chu, Obama chose Carol Browner as his “Climate Tzarina” who will coordinate between the different government agencies that deal with energy policy. He also picked chemical engineer and former environmental policy official Lisa Jackson to head the Environmental Protection Agency, which regulates air quality. Nancy Sutley, a Californian environmental officer, becomes head of the president’s Council on Environmental Quality.
Gene Karpinski, the head of the League of Conservation Voters, sums up the response from environmentalists, calling Obama’s choices “a green dream team“.
Obama has frequently said that tackling climate change and creating energy independence were high on his list of priorities, and these announcements reinforce Obama’s claim that he will take significant action to on these issues early in his presidency.
While there are many stories that could be told about the Global Day of Climate Action, I would like to talk about the rising star of climate campaigning: non-violent direct action, or NVDA.
Today campaigners in over 40 countries marched in a global effort to increase government action on climate change. Climatico had half-a-dozen analysts on the ground to report on the action.
After much walking, chanting, drumming, and shivering, our estimated 10,000-strong battalion of climate marchers rounded the corner into Parliament Square. After a few speeches and some music, we were greeted with two quotes:
“Direct action is the last resort of democracy”
“If you’re a young person looking at the future of this planet and looking at what is being done right now, and not done, I believe we have reached the stage where it is time for civil disobedience to prevent the construction of new coal plants that do not have carbon capture and sequestration.”
Any guesses as to who these were credited to?
Parliament Square by Dominic Rowland
Nope, not a bunch of eco-hippies, but Oscar Wilde and Al Gore (though I can’t find a source for the first).
Later, we heard from John McDonnell, the MP whose constituency includes Heathrow Airport, who gave a rousing speech in which he pledged to participate in NVDA if the government approved the plans to build a third runway at Heathrow.
Finally, Caroline Lucas MEP, came up on stage, inviting us all to a “tea party” (read sit-in) at Heathrow Terminal One.
So we have high-profile politicians calling for NVDA, a situation which is unlkely to have happened without the game-changing court verdict regarding the Greenpeace protesters at Kingsnorth. But will it work? Well there certainly seem to be a lot of people that hope so!
–
Now I would like your input: Is the growth of climate-related NVDA a UK-only phenomenon, or is this a global trend? And do you think that it is an effective mechanism for increasing government action? Leave your comments below…
On Thursday, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) appeals panel overturned a permit for a proposed coal-fired power station in Utah. The panel ruled that the EPA’s Denver office had inadequately supported its decision to issue a permit to the plant without considering its carbon dioxide emissions.
In October 2007, the Sierra Club and others filed a request to overturn the permit, which had been issued to the proposed coal-fired power station, because it did not require any controls on carbon dioxide pollution.
The key word in the previous sentence, and the basis for this entire case, is ‘pollution’. The term pollution, according to a landmark ruling by the US Supreme Court in April 2007, can now be used to describe carbon dioxide, as a consequence of its ability to warm the climate. This gave the EPA the ability to regulate carbon dioxide through the Clean Air Act, however the EPA, with the help of the Bush Administration, has been slow to act, and does not intend to regulate on the issue while President Bush is in the White House.
The Sierra Club’s David Bookbinder said that the decision will temporarily stop permits being handed out to any coal burning power plants, essentially putting the development of all coal-fired power stations on hold for the moment.
As the President-elect, it falls to Barack Obama to decide the future of carbon dioxide regulation in the US. In an interview in October, Jason Grumet, a top Obama energy advisor who has been mentioned as a possible candidate for Secretary of Energy, said that Obama would regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act, “in the absence of congressional action” on climate change.
Yesterday, traders connected the dots and coal stocks plummeted by up to 12.5%.
By setting a precedent for many more lawsuits of a similar nature, Thursday’s ruling hints at the long-term consequences of the Supreme Court decision for carbon-intensive industries in the US. This is “an issue of national scope that has implications far beyond this individual permitting process,” the EPA appeals panel stated.
