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)

Al Gore, former U.S. Vice President and climate change campaigner, was in Melbourne on Monday for the launch of the new think tank Safe Climate Australia and to help train 300 people from 19 nations to address and encourage their leaders on the issue of climate change. Gore’s visit also coincides with Australia’s first ever Youth Climate Summit which hopes to mobilize a new generation of climate change activists. Speaking before a group of 1,000 Australian business leaders, Gore praised the Rudd government for pushing forward with emissions trading legislation ahead of the climate change conference held in Copenhagen this December.

Safe Climate Australia is a new environmental think tank composed of scientists, business and civic leaders and is modeled on a similar project in the United States called Repower America. The group demands that emergency action must be taken in order to address global warming and plans to help Australia move away from emissions-heavy coal towards a zero-carbon economy. Gore stated that the mounting environmental challenges in the world require immediate action.

According to the SCA organizer, Brendan Condon, the SCA hopes to develop a blueprint for the transition of all major sectors of the Australian economy to net zero carbon with a draft expected in 12 months.”This is a massive body of work that will include collating all relevant scientific research, developing systems architecture, scenario planning, emission reduction and sequestration strategies.”

While Gore praised the work of Rudd and the progress that the United States and Australia have made toward making climate change a higher priority, Gore mentioned that he would have written stronger emissions targets than currently proposed in Australia’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) bill. “It’s not what I would have written, I would have written it as a stronger bill, but I’m realistic about what can be accomplished in the political system as it is,” Gore said.

Rudd’s proposed legislation has also been attacked by green groups who claim that the emissions targets are too weak. Currently, the emissions trading legislation commits to an emissions reduction target of 60% by 2050 and interim targets of between 5-25% by 2020. Rudd hopes to push the trading bill through parliament in August, four months ahead of the Copenhagen conference.

While Prime Minister Rudd’s legislation has come under fire, Gore still remains encouraged by the progress made by the Rudd government. “I am sincerely convinced that the right way forward is to get to the maximum that the political system will allow us to accomplish and begin the change, and then, as we gain experience with it, toughen it, strengthen it, make it better based on experience as business and industry learn how to adjust.”

Scientists warn that Australia can be vulnerable to damage caused by warming temperatures such as more severe storms and droughts as well as rising sea levels. Gore sited the record temperatures and brutal wildfires this past February in parts of Victoria that took the lives of 173 people as evidence that the planet has a “fever” brought on by climate change. “The odds have been shifted so heavily that fires that used to be manageable now threaten to spin out of control and wreak damages that are far beyond what was experienced in the past. This crisis is gaining momentum and the reason why is not that complicated.”

At the climate change talks in Copenhagen later this year, governments will meet in order to negotiate an international environmental agreement to succeed the Kyoto Protocol when it expires in 2012. While an agreement between leaders will be difficult, Gore remains optimistic. Gore stated before reporters, “One of the barriers in the Kyoto process was that the United States and Australia did not provide the kind of leadership necessary…Now with new leadership in both the United States and Australia our two countries are providing leadership. When that leadership is most needed is in the run up to Copenhagen, it can make a huge difference.” One of Rudd’s first acts as Australian Prime Minister was to sign Australia on to the Kyoto Protocol and both Australia and the United States have been active in the negotiation process leading up to Copenhagen in December.

The Rudd government has just released (19/06/09) draft regulations for the Australian Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS), outlining how carbon emissions will be measured and industry compensation calculated. The draft regulations specify the framework for the Emission Intensive-Trade Exposed assistance program, application procedures and reporting requirements for eligible entities under the program.

The regulations just published are the first of several disclosures on how the country’s emissions trading scheme will take shape, Australia’s Climate Change Minister Penny Wong said. The rules outline some of the highly emissions-intensive sectors that will receive up to 94.5 per cent of their expected needed amount of emission permits for free under the CPRS.
Production of carbon black, methanol, silicon, bulk flat glass, newsprint, and zinc will all be counted in this category. Moderately emission-intensive sectors will get up to 66 per cent of their allowances free of charge.

Treatment of energy-intensive trade-exposed industries under the carbon scheme is playing a major role in Australia’s debate on how to tackle climate change, as many industries and the Opposition fear jobs will be lost to countries without carbon regulations, such as China and India. In addition, Greens strongly oppose the draft, as stated by Senator Christine Milne: “The draft regulations confirm that the carbon pollution reduction scheme will be a multi-million dollar wealth transfer from the people to the big polluters, and that stands in the way of protecting the climate,” (ABC 19/06/09)

The Government says it is releasing the draft regulations earlier than normal because it wants to give MPs as much information as possible. It is indeed trying to get senators to support its scheme in an effort to have the legislation passed by the Senate next week. But the ETS legislation is in trouble. The Opposition, which does not want to vote on the scheme until next year, plans to filibuster all week to avoid it being put to a vote at all. The Greens have vowed to vote the scheme down but do not support delaying the vote. (ABC 18/06/09) If the bill is defeated, or there is a vote to defer it until August, either will count as a refusal by the Senate to pass it. In this case, things could start to become very difficult for the Rudd government, possibly triggering an early election before the end of the year. (SMH 19/06/09)

South Australia (SA) has reaffirmed its leadership in a move to a low carbon economy, announcing an ambitious 33% renewable electricity target for 2020.  The target is matched with a A$20m Renewable Energy Fund to encourage investments and uptake, booting the renewable energy sector.

This builds upon the federal target, which saw the Rudd government asking each state to reach 20% of renewable electricity generation by 2020.  Mike Rann, Premier of SA and Minister for Climate Change & Economic Development, added that

“We had a much more ambitious target in South Australia to reach that 20% by 2014. We are going to reach our target ahead of our 2014 deadline, and years ahead of the national deadline.

“So we’re now announcing an even tougher target of 33 per cent by 2020 which will keep us at the forefront internationally of jurisdictions supporting renewable energy.”

According to Rann, South Australia is home to 56% of the nation’s wind power, 90% of its geothermal investment and nearly 30% of its grid-connected domestic solar systems – by far the highest in Australia. The first project to be funded from the Renewable Energy Fund will be the South Australian Centre of Excellence for Geothermal Research at the University of Adelaide, which will receive A$1.6m over two years.

If the 33% target is met, South Australia will not only be a global leader, but will also produce 3 times as much energy as it consumes, potentially exporting clean energy to Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland. Whilst Premier Mike Rann is hoping that other states may follow this admirable lead, the details of a federal target will shed more light on what this might mean for other states. Barry Brook highlights that SA may burden most of the nation’s load if it is agreed that a national target can be achieved across any state. However, if each state is assigned an individual target or quota, SA’s leadership position will triumph, strengthening a new industry, which promotes economic development and creates green jobs in difficult economic times.

The news comes just days after Rudd’s announcement that Australia is the only developed nation in the world that is not in a recession; and SA is one of the benefitting states.  A strong focus on sustainable development, renewable energy and alternative fuels has sparked a successful economic development story amongst countless doom and gloom reports of budget cuts and set backs in the face of the global financial crisis. In a recent TV interview, Lord Stern stressed the need for stronger leadership from Australia on the climate change agenda in the run up to Copenhagen – whether the federal government will strengthen its position on climate change remains to be seen, but for now, South Australia is leading the way.

Australian Senate (flickr Aschaf)

Last week, in the biggest policy reversal of his prime ministership, aimed at wooing big businesses and the Liberal Party, Kevin Rudd announced important changes concerning Australia’s emission trading scheme.

Firstly, Prime Minister Rudd announced the delay of the scheme of one year, pushing back the start date to July 2011, in order to manage the impact of the global recession. Australia will also fix the trading price of carbon at AU$ 10 (US$ 7.35, € 5.50) a tonne until mid-2012 (instead of the AU$ 40 a tonne maximum price for emission permits originally proposed), making the scheme akin to a carbon tax in its first year. In addition, the government will increase free permit allocation by adding a “global recession buffer” in the early years. Industries eligible for 60 per cent of their permits issued free will receive a further 10 per cent, while energy intensive, trade exposed industries eligible for 90 per cent assistance will now receive an extra 5 per cent. This generous compensation for the nation’s heaviest polluters, illustrating the success of the country’s enormous oil, gas and coal lobbies, has been found repugnant by Rudd’s own expert, Professor Ross Garnaut.

The issue is that the Rudd government doesn’t have the power to implement any scheme because it doesn’t have the numbers in the Senate and faces a barrage of opposition from the Liberals, the Greens and independent Senators. Through accommodating the demands of business lobby groups, Rudd aimed at putting the Opposition Leader, Malcolm Turnbull, under business pressure to pass the emissions trading scheme in the Senate. But that was underestimating Turnbull’s stubbornness. Following its strategy of opposing anything and everything the Government says or does, the Federal Opposition said it will have an alternative proposal to the Government’s emissions trading scheme by the time it is debated in the Parliament next month. (ABC 10/05/09)

Secondly, Rudd announced a change to Australia’s 2020 emissions reduction target range. As a sop to environmentalists, he announced a heavily conditional commitment to increase from 15 per cent to 25 per cent the maximum amount by which greenhouse gases would be reduced by 2020. “I am in the practical business of responding to realistic challenges,” Mr Rudd said of his reversal, which would mean “a slower start” but a “stronger, greener conclusion” (SMH 05/05/09). The Government’s strategy was to win back public support for Labour’s climate policy by holding out the prospect that Australia was now supporting a stronger global agreement. However, this commitment would depend utterly on other countries, China and India included, making serious commitments at Copenhagen. The new deal was slammed by Green senators who consider the new target still too low and new corporate compensation too generous (SMH 10/05/09).

Today, hope around the two-fold Government strategy to win back support for its carbon scheme in Senate has evaporated. Australia remains deeply divided on how to build an ambitious national climate change policy. Four Opposition senators have even issued a report that says boosting Australia’s emissions could help the planet because if Australia reduced its emissions, that could mean industries moving offshore, where environmental standards were lower. Such initiative has reason to worry Climate Change Minister Penny Wong. She is determined to pass the emission trading scheme through Parliament in June; otherwise Australia’s negotiation credibility could be undermined at Copenhagen. But today it appears Wong will arrive in Copenhagen not only without a national commitment, but also without a national consensus.

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).

The G20 leaders standing for their

The G20 Summit in London has now concluded, with US President Obama filling the main press briefing room for an hour-long press session.  The main points of the summit for international and national climate policy are summarised below:

1. Overall: In the substantive elements of the summit outcomes there is little mention of climate change.  In the summary communiqué climate change is mentioned in the second-to-last and penultimate paragraphs only.  As Climatico’s Simon Billett asked UK Climate Change Secretary, Ed Miliband, there is little evidence that this summit has been more than an agreement to agree in later meetings.
2. Forestry: UK Climate Change Secretary, Ed Miliband, said that forestry was a fundamental element of the global climate programme.  Italy has agreed to hold specific discussions on it at the G8 in July 2009.  There was agreement from France, Australia, Italy, Germany, US on the need for a global forestry deal.  Forestry was a major point of discussion in the corridors between delegations.
3. USA Climate Policy: It remains unclear whether the Obama administration will require cuts from China and India for a ‘comprehensive’ COP15 deal.  Obama said that “further discussions” needed with China, and that the US recognises its role as leader of clean energy and tech for China and India.  Obama: “We need an interesting conversation on how to overcome this challenge… we need low carbon growth… a rapid deployment of technology across the world… the US needs to lead these countries into the low carbon energy future”.
4. Green Growth: The summit has done little to define green growth or encourage the use of best practice measures between G20 countries.  While para. 27 and 28 of the final communiqué do reaffirm the commitment to low carbon growth, the summit has done almost nothing to further definitions of what this might mean or how it should be achieved.

Geithner, Obama, and Brown

As expected, the global economy took center stage at the G20 Summit held yesterday in London. Amidst the world economic crisis, G20 leaders met to discuss and put forth a global plan for recovery. Included amongst the six pledges made by the leaders of the Group of Twenty was a pledge for a green and sustainable recovery. However, despite this pledge and the hopes of many demonstrators, the public, and officials, climate change and plans for a green recovery featured little in the day’s discussions.

Over the weekend, the official G20 communiqué leaked to the press and included only vague language on the topic of climate change. According to paragraphs 27 and 28 in the official communiqué:

27. We agreed to make the best possible use of investment funded by fiscal stimulus programmes towards the goal of building a resilient, sustainable, and green recovery. We will make the transition towards clean, innovative, resource efficient, low carbon technologies and infrastructure. We encourage the MDBs to contribute fully to the achievement of this objective. We will identify and work together on further measures to build sustainable economies.

28. We reaffirm our commitment to address the threat of irreversible climate change, based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, and to reach agreement at the UN Climate Change conference in Copenhagen in December 2009.

The vague language of the communiqué led to speculation that a “green stimulus” package might be less than concrete. This sentiment continued in the days leading up to the Summit.

Therefore, the day began with slightly lowered expectations for the one-day summit. Much of the morning for reporters was spent researching, writing, and watching leaders get their pictures taken. Anticipation and excitement began to grow as delegates sat down for their plenary session in the morning. However, not until close to 2:00 PM did green issues appear on the agenda with a press conference held by the UK Climate Change Secretary, Ed Miliband.

In the early afternoon, Miliband surprised reporters with a short press conference to brief them on the progress of climate change discussions and answer questions. Miliband stated that he was confident that the G20 Summit would provide forward movement towards Copenhagen in December. The discussions would serve to facilitate the process toward Copenhagen and would be used to make a statement to China and other developing countries that the United States, UK, and EU countries were committed to tackling climate change.

Climatico’s Simon Billett asked Miliband whether this talk of “first steps” was anything more than “agreeing to agree?” In response, Miliband stated that while the G20 summit was “essentially an economic summit,” among the G20 participants existed the understanding of the “mainstreaming [of] the green message.” Furthermore, Miliband said that countries such as Saudi Arabia and Russia are more likely to attach importance to renewables despite prior hesitation. “This is a significant step in mainstreaming low carbon development in economic recovery…The notion of low-carbon as a way out of recession has gone from being marginal to being mainstream.”

Miliband went on to say that forestry is a fundamental element in the climate program and will be discussed in Italy at the G8 meeting in July. Billett noted that forestry proved a major topic of conversation within the corridors of the Summit. Furthermore, private discussions between German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd regarding the importance of including forestry in a global climate deal adds to the speculation that forestry will be a topic to watch in the months to come.

Despite Miliband’s press conference, the topic of climate change once again became quiet over much of the afternoon. During his speech, French President Nicholas Sarkozy failed to reference any discussion on the topic of the environment. And, despite Miliband’s enthusiasm, UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown only restated that the G20 was committed to meet again later this year to discuss a Post-Kyoto climate deal.

However, U.S. President Barack Obama brought climate change back onto the floor during his press conference late in the day. Obama’s trip to London included several bilateral meetings with the leaders in attendance outside of the context of the G20. In response to a reporter’s question from the Times of India, Obama addressed a bilateral meeting he had with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Amongst other points of discussion, Obama and Singh touched 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.”

Obama alluded to future discussions on the topic of climate change with China. In addition, he recognized the challenges that lie ahead for the topic amidst the current economic crisis. “In some ways, our…European counterparts have moved more quickly than we have on this issue, but I think even the Europeans have recognized that it’s not easy. It’s even harder during times of economic downturn.” He went on to add, “We’re going to have to combine the low-hanging fruit of energy efficiency with rapid technological advances. And to the extent that in some cases we can get international cooperation and pool our scientific and technical knowledge around things like developing coal sequestration, for example, that can be extremely helpful.”

Obama’s speech wrapped up the events of the day. However, despite a long day of meetings and press conferences at the G20 Summit, action towards green growth remained largely undefined. As to be expected, the world economic crisis was the star of the show and, therefore, plans to repair the global economy held the spotlight. Yet, often this subject turned to the discussion of bank regulation and executive pay rather than outlining plans for green growth. Despite all of this, environmentalists can rest assured that the international dialogue on climate change has begun to move forward. Furthermore, as demonstrated in Obama’s press conference, the United States appears onboard for further discussions and acknowledges its role as a leader and partner in reaching a climate change deal come December. Between Obama’s acknowledgement that the US must lead by example and Miliband’s enthusiasm for momentum, hopefully the G20 will prove a success for environmentalists, after all, by bringing in greater participation, particularly by China and India, at Copenhagen later this year. We shall have to wait and see.

20:17 NB: So to end what has been over 12 hours of live-blogging from our analysts, I will leave you with Simon Billett’s summary article with four key take-home messages for the day.  Thanks for following our coverage of the climate-related aspects of the G20 Summit here in London, UK.  Goodnight!

20:14 NB: With the final press conference over, journalists and media representatives are being ushered from the Summit.  Many of the leaders here today called the Summit “historic”, and yet it had a distinct lack of discussion on climate change, save a press conference from Miliband and some final remarks from Obama.

19:48 FA: After the G20, President Obama is expected to visit France and Germany to mark the 60th anniversary of NATO. Many local hopes rest on enhanced US-EU cooperation in the international sphere.

19:46 SB: It is unclear whether Obama’s statements make Chinese and Indian action a condition for US action in COP15.  He has left this discussion open.

19:37 Obama: We need an interesting conversation on how to overcome this challenge… we need low carbon growth… a rapid deployment of technology across the world… the US needs to lead these countries into the low carbon energy future”

19:36 Obama: Our EU counterparts have moved quicker on this issue and perhaps the US need to catch up.

President Obama's press conference concluded the G20 Summit

19:35 Obama: We talked about a whole range of issues: energy, how important it is for the us to lead by example in reducing our carbon footprints so that we can help to forge something with China and India who have much smaller footprints and chafe at the idea of having to sacrifice their development.

19:34 Obama just stated that if China and India had the same per capita emissions as us in the US, we would effectively “melt”.

19:29 RV: Reuters also reports “Glen Tarman of BOND (British Overseas NGOs for Development) and chair of Put People First, an alliance of 160 unions, development, faith and climate change groups, said: “The G20 appears to have made progress on some critical issues but there are also missed opportunities, especially on building a green economy, and causes for real concern in other areas. G20 leaders have not yet gone far enough on the fundamental changes the world needs.”

19:28 RV: Reuters reports “Adrian Lovett, director of campaigns for Save the Children, said: “Nobody should imagine this summit is anything more than a beginning. A communique feeds no one and words alone do not save a child’s life. But there is a ray of hope from today’s summit that leaders may have grasped the chance to point the world in a fairer, more just direction. Everything now depends on what those leaders do next.”

19:26 RV: Tearfund regrets sees the G20 as a missed opportunity.  “We welcome the new money in this huge fiscal package but the G20 today missed a major opportunity to ensure that all new investments constitute a genuinely Green New Deal,” said Paul Cook, Tearfund’s Advocacy Director. “With no clear commitments to ensure that stimulus money is invested in low carbon technology the world risks a recovery which is based on business as usual. It locks us into a path which will result in runaway climate change and devastating impacts for the world’s poorest community.”"

19:25 RV: India reaffirms confidence in Obama’s leadership “”Under your leadership we will face challenges such as climate change,” the prime minister told Obama at their meeting on the sidelines of the G-20 summit here.”

19:13 NB: Still no mention of climate change in the question session.  Obama appears ill and just sneezed twice.

19:00 NB: Perhaps it’s an attempt to bring himself down to the level of the journalists in order to win their praise?

18:58 AD: While most politicians have an aide select people to ask questions, Obama is choosing them himself.

18:51 Obama’s only mention of climate change during his speech occurred while talked about the bilateral meetings: “we discussed coordinated action on a range of issues… [including how to] protect our planet from the scourge of climate change”.

18:50 NB: No mention of climate change yet in Obama’s press conference.

18:43 NB: At the reception earlier today, Obama was called “the most popular politician on the planet”.  His press conference just started and is being watched by the World’s media as I write this.  

18:41 FA: We have to remember that change in the US adminstration will take time, as they previously have been outside the Kyoto carbon reduction framework. Writing in the Guardian earlier in March, Nigel Purvis warned that the EU needed to resist the urge to set the US unrealistic climate standards. Its current emmissions are 17% abover their 1990 levels.

18:40 RV: Manmohan Singh description of his meeting with Obama where they spoke on how “the global issues like energy security and climate change can be dealt with together. I go back home very satisfied…”

18:36 NB: In true Summit style, Obama’s press conference has not begun yet, but the room is absolutely packed, and the organisers are currently shuffling around photographers to ensure that everyone has a sight line to the stage.

18:25 Adeline Dontenville just posted an article on Climatico discussing the seeming absence of the issue of climate change at the G20 Summit.

18:17 George Monbiot advocates a far greater focus on climate change

“The G20 leaders appear to have decided to deal with these problems only when they have to – in other words, when it’s too late. They persuade themselves that getting the economy back to where it was – infinite growth on a finite planet – can somehow be reconciled with the pledge “to address the threat of irreversible climate change”"

18:12 RV: ActionAid’s response: “Today’s crucial G20 talks have promised a huge rescue package for the global economy, but the promise must be kept”

18:09 FA: The Guardian reports that US President Obama’s G20 visit brought a ‘warm glow’ to Number 10. President Obama’s press conference looks as though it will start shortly.

17:52 RV: John Hilary has also been barred, and asks on guardian.co.uk, “[h]as the government decided only to allow non-critical organisations into major events?”

“More importantly, excluding critical voices means that there risks being less media coverage of what the G20 has omitted to do when it comes up with the statement to conclude its meeting. The “deal or no deal” fixation sets the summit up as a game show in which the only concern is whether all leaders can sign up to a joint communiqué. This is setting the bar almost as low as it can go”

17:46 NB: The G20 leaders’ wives and husbands’ photo shoot is currently taking place.

17:45 jimwebber@twitter: #g20 You choose your leaders and place your trust, as their lies wash you down and their promises rust

17:44 FA: Several NGOs have been prevented from attending the G20 summit.  As well as the World Development Movement, War on Want had its accreditation revoked at the last minute. The FCO maintains that this is a matter of being inundated with applications and not having sufficent space. Both of these NGOs were organisers of the ‘Put People First’ march through London on Saturday. Some have pointed out that a common thread amongst those being sidelined is that they do not feel that the IMF, WTO and World Bank should be empowered by the financial crisis. All three of these organisations have been given seats at the leader’ dinner table tonight.

17:42 SB: The Canadian and Italian press conferences have now both come to an end without any mention of climate change.

17:40 FA: Walden Bellow, an economist with Manila-based ‘Focus on the Global South’ doubts whether any stimulus packaged managed by the IMF will obtain international buy in.

17:31 SB: Obama’s press conference will begin in 20 minutes.

17:29 AFP: “German and US economic recovery plans are more climate friendly that those in France, Britain or Italy, but all fall short of what is needed to avoid dangerous levels of global warming, according to a green ranking of stimulus plans released Thursday” 

17:17 RV: The Task Force on Low-Carbon Economic Prosperity, part of the World Economic Forum, has sent an open letter to the G20.  The group, made up of major companies, international bodies, and leading climate change experts sent the letter demonstrating their willingness to work towards fighting climate change and rebuilding the economy.  The letter, sent earlier this week, touched upon low carbon economies, energy efficiency, adaptation and other topics.

“Designed properly, the new framework could have a greater degree of impact than any other sustainable development initiative in history. This is because a well-designed, market-based framework…can also help catalyse the required flows of private capital and clean energy technology to developing nations in the most innovative, entrepreneurial and cost-effective way”

17:10 AD: The Dutch Prime Minister says it is really important the G20 has today talked about long term issues like climate change.

16:59 NB: The EU press conference is currently taking place.  The Canadian conference will begin shortly, and the India press conference will be in roughly 45 minutes.

16:57 RV: Julian Oram of the World Development Movement:

“It’s absolutely astounding that the G20 communiqué merely paid lip service to climate change and the need for a low carbon economy. The excuse that climate change will be discussed later in the year at Copenhagen doesn’t wash. The G20 has missed the opportunity to deliver a green global stimulus package that would create jobs and help to tackle climate change. The economic crisis and the climate crisis are intrinsically interlinked and must be addressed as such through a global green new deal.”

16:54 RV: The World Development Movement, who were banned from Summit, have released a press release: “G20 outcome a bitter pill to swallow”

16:53 atvieira@twitter: “next G20 Summit @ North Pole. Penguins have just confirm attendance”

16:51 MMG: Paragraph 27 of the communique text:

We agreed to make the best possible use of investment funded by fiscal stimulus
programmes towards the goal of building a resilient, sustainable, and green
recovery.  We will make the transition towards clean, innovative, resource
efficient, low carbon technologies and infrastructure

16:48 MMG: The summit has still not resolved on what measures are required to implement this green growth that is being discussed.

16:46 MMG: Here is the communique text on climate change:

We reaffirm our commitment to address the threat of irreversible climate change,
based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, and to reach agreement at the UN Climate Change conference in Copenhagen in December 2009.

16:40 DA: Sarkozy’s press conference is now over without a single mention of the world “climate”.

16:39 RobertsDan@twitter: #G20 #Sarko “if this is not capitalism with a conscience I don’t know what is”. He sounds happy.

16:37 Sarkozy: “The G20 has recognised that the world must change.”

16:34 NB: The final question of the Brown press conference has been asked, without a single mention of climate change in any of the questions.

16:31 sdmoss@twitter: “#g20 good outcome for poor and macro stabilty. Where’s climate change?”

16:30 CAFOD says Miliband “cannot see the wood for the trees”

16:25 Brown: “We now have countries that would never have sat around the table together a few years ago coming together… and working together.”

16:21 SB: Climate change is not particularly on the agenda before the next G20 Summit in Washington in September.  Brown failed to mention it when he was asked about the road to the next summit.  The G20 leaders have effectively deferred climate policy to the UNFCCC process and the G8 in Italy.

16:20 SB: All of the talk is on trade at the moment.

16:17 AD: Sarkozy: Gordon Brown was a “particularly intellectually honest host” of the G20. The “agreement goes beyond what we could have imagined.”

16:16 robertsdan@twitter: #G20 green promise goes no further than committing to “work together”. What does that mean?

16:15 AD: Sarkozy has made no mention of the environment or climate change.

16:14 SB: Brown attempts to advocate a coordination game in the globalised world to deal with climate change, “If countries act together they can make a better difference”

16:12 Brown” “We will put more money aside for a green recovery.”

16:10 Brown: “We will manage the process of globalisation.”  “A new world order is emerging… to build a more sustainable… future.”

16:09 SB: Brown has just said that the G20 is committed to meeting again later this year to discuss a Post-Kyoto climate deal.

16:07 NB: Brown has just agreed to appoint the heads of the IMF and World Bank based on merit (one would assume as opposed to the current scheme of the EU picking the head of the IMF and USA choosing the leader of the World Bank).

16:04 NB: No mention of climate change in either conference yet.

16:00 SB: Brown has begun his press conference.  Sarkozy is next door giving a simultaneous conference.  Brown’s aids seem unhappy about Sarkozy speaking at the same time.

15:48 SB: Primeminister Brown’s press conference is about to begin.  President Sarkozy’s will be straight after.

15:46 RV: Dan Roberts at the Guardian says:

“Sadly, the difficulty of reaching agreement on other thorny issues such as regulation has kicked climate change into the long grass at just the wrong moment.”

15:44 RV: guardianeco@twitter calls Miliband’s press conference earlier “disappointing on green issues”

15:36 RV: fissionstrategy@twitter says:

“Just met with UK Enviro Sec David Miliband who says getting people excited about green jobs means describing what those jobs look like.”

15:29 NB: The Summit’s live web-stream is full of journalists tensely waiting for the next news conference.

15:19 RV: Despite the rhetoric, Giles Broadbent feels that climate change was shortchanged during the G20.

Journalists waiting in anticipation of the next press conference

15:17 RV: Ed Miliband is confident about climate change progress: “What the G20 summit shows is there is an understanding among world leaders that the economic crisis and the environmental crisis can be tackled together”

15:09 NB: The second session is just beginning and Gordon Brown is speaking. Most of the discussion appears to be focusing on financial institutions.

15:05 MMG: The quite for the main press conference is very long, and the atmosphere feels rather anticipatory.

14:56 NB: Fuad Ali is taking a break so I’ll be taking over on the live-blogging front from here.  We still have plenty to look forwards to including an number of press conferences and a couple summary pieces from our analysts.  Stay tuned…

14:29 RV: This is not an absolute suprise, a Chinese news agency quoted Miliband last week saying,

“One of the fastest growing markets in the future is going to be in environmental industries.”

14:26 SB: Mexico’s President Calderon is leaving the UK at 14.30 BST and will be giving a statement at the airport rather than the conference centre.

14:25 SB: the press mood is frantic. This statement from Miliband is what many were hoping to hear.

14:18 SB: Miliband,

‘This is a significant step in mainstreaming low carbon development in economic recovery.’

14:16 SB: The communique from the G20 is throught to include specific language on climate change, [quoting Miliband] ‘despite the G20 being a primarily economic summit’.

14:12 SB: Climatico’s Simon Billett asks Miliband whether this talk of ‘first steps’ was anything more than agreeing to agree.

Miliband responded by saying that momentum building was key and that he had had significant discussions with Berlusconi on the inclusion of forestry as a specific issue at the G8 that will get its own discussion time.  There have also been private discussions between Merkel and Rudd on the importance of including forestry in a global climate deal.

Thus it appears that forestry will be a major topic of for the next ten months, yet the G20 seems to have reached nothing more than an agreement to agree.

13.58 RV: Intel chief Otellini has signed the Copenhagen Climate Council’s letter published in the International Herald Tribune today.

“We believe that this year we are at an historic crossroads. Either we establish a new more effective global climate treaty to tackle the climate problem, or we jeopardize our common future.”

13:53 SB: Miliband continues that the meeting with President Obama last night went well. Green growth was emphasised and both politicians agreed the challenge now was to build on the momentum developed at the G20 all the way to Copenhagen.

13:49 SB: Miliband talks around three points: 1) optimism with reference to copenhagen and securing a 20 nation sign-up at this Summit; 2) recognition that the mainstreaming of mitigation into development has been established from this moment on; and 3) that the G20 shows that Climate and Economy can be tackled together.

13:49 SB: More than two-thirds full now.

13:41 SB: The briefing room is filling up, and is currently at half of its capacity.  The media were not expecting any specific briefing on issues at the Summit, especially not on climate change, which has figured as something of an auxiliary issue at this G20.  The briefing was announced suddenly on screens in the media hall.

The press gather for a statement from Ed Miliband, the UK Secretary for Energy and Climate Change.

13:20 FA: Ed Milliband, UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change will be giving a statement at 13:45. We will be bringing it to you shortly. Grapling with two sometimes contradictory interests in the same portfolio in an age of great climate diplomacy and politics, Ed Milliband has delivered the UK public and bureaucracy a special pragmatism in the recent past.  From controversy with respect to a new coal power station in Kingsworth Kent to promoting carbon trading between government departments, his statement is important for the UK domestic climate picture as well as for what it expresses to the G20 community.

13:12 SB: At this point it looks as though there will be little or no new content on green growth and low carbon technology. [FA] Political horizons have no doubt shortened and with Copenhagen COP not to far away, little ground will be made up at this forum. Bilateral and regional contact sessions will have played an informal role in developing national coalitions for future discussions.

13:09 SB: Working lunch, fish and chips for the press.

12:45 RV: Ashok Sinha from Stop Climate Chaos says,

“Instead of boosting more unsustainable consumption, the hundreds of billions of dollars on the G20 table for a fiscal stimulus must be used to invest away from using fossil fuels in favour of low-carbon economies, as well as supporting low carbon development in poor countries.”

12:41 SB: The G20 family photography needed to be taken again, as Stephen Harger (Canada) had been ommitted. He was in the loo.

12:38 SB: Rudd (Australia) and Berlusconi (Italy) now chatting in private.

12:38 SB: Mandelson says “There are key differences over numbers”.

12:34 RV: The Jakarta Post quotes Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono on his 15 minute pre-summit meeting with Gordon Brown.

“I said it was good to have *energy cooperation*, especially *with* BP, to jointly develop environmentally friendly biofuels in Indonesia.”

12:24 SB: The seating plan for dinner later today.

12:20 AD: It looks like they agreed upon listing tax havens and increasing IMF loan funds by $250 billion

12:19 SB: The first plenary session is just wrapping up.

12:00 RV: More from the bilateral sidelines, this time concerning President Obama’s interaction with Chinese President Hu Jintao. China and the US are the two largest national polluters. XinghuaNet reports that substantial attention, a paragraph, was devoted to clean energy and climate change in the ensuing White House statment.

11:46 AD: A study commissioned by environmental charity WWF and the low-carbon group E3G stated that the economic recovery plans being discussed by G20 leaders at the London summit represent “a missed opportunity” on low carbon technology.

Bob Geldof continuing advocacy for Africa.

11:40 AD: Adeline Dontenville has just published a blog article on how green the London G20 Summit outcomes will be.

11:27 RV: Globoreports that Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva will tell the G20 that Brazil is ready to contribute to an IMF fund to help poor countries affected by the crisis.

11:06 SB: There will be no new money provided by this summit.  This leaves ‘green growth’ within the sphere of national policies.  All that this summit can do is to pledge to use certain climate measures in their plans.

10:53 RK: In his meeting with President Obama, the Indian envoy Schyam Saran called for a comprehensive climate pact and for the famous ‘stimulus’ package to include to provision to improve developing country’s access to green technology.

10:42 SB: Delegates are taking their seats in the plenary session now.The atmosphere is growing in the media pool as statements are expected to reveal the extent of agreement and division between delegations.

10:37 MMG: Post-breakfast photo opportunistic politics, Gordon Brown flanked by the Chinese premier and the Brazilian president.

10:19 FA: Leaders are busy having their photos taken. In recent months, government and press attention on fundamental failings in financial culture have been prioritised over environment. The coincidence of climate and financial crises creates an opportunity for newer, less seasoned ideas about how government may approach economy and environment.

“There can be no going back to business as usual” Put People First

This has been one of the messages from the public demonstrations taking place all over London.

10:15 SB: In the pre-summit information (reported below) there has been much discussion of ‘green growth’, but with little detail of precisely what form this will take.  Discussions taking place at the ExCel Centre here suggest that the use of market mechanisms maybe a preferred method for reducing emissions while also stimulating new markets within the economy–i.e. the carbon finance/trading sector.  While the use of market mechanisms allows emission reductions to follow the most efficient mitigation options financially, there is some concern among the NGO parties here that market mechanisms will not work without hard caps on carbon within the G20 economies to drive forward carbon trading–that is, trade cannot function without a cap.  Such a cap would be largely incompatible with the industrial interests that are also represented at this G20 summit.  Resolving these contradictions to effective mainstreaming of carbon mitigation into growth will be a key decider of the success of this meeting from a climate perspective.

The very idea of carbon trading, which stems from 2001 COP meetings, was strongly contested by many demonstrators at the Climate Campon Bishopsgate, who made their peaceful basecamp outside the European Climate Exchange (FA).

10:11 MMG: The Summit document “The Road to the London Summit: The Plan for Recovery,” emphasises trade, employment, climate and international development, in that order. On climate it articulates the need to

“Call for a low carbon recovery, and agree the need for international leadership on a strategic framework to stimulate investment”

Low-carbon growth is evidently being viewed through a wider sustainability lens in the context of the summit; this lens includes technological capacity-building and the creation of long-lasting trade links.  How sustainable can post-crisis growth really be? The FT has the whole strategically (leaked)communique online.

10:04 FA: This G20 summit has attracted much public and civil society anger, demonstration and hope. Conditional hope because of the new US administration.

09:52 SB: The sub-committee draft represents a departure from a report released earlier this year, with the House suggesting that the use of offsets was not a reliable method for reducing emissions

09:44 SB/MMG: On March 31 2009 the Energy and Environment Sub-Committee of the US Congress released a draft o the ‘American Clean Energy and Security Act 2009′. The release of the US House draft bill will certainly play well at both the G20 and UNFCCC Summits taking place.

“While it is clearly a step forward for the US domestically, as well as for the international negotiations, there are still major problems to be overcome–not least in terms of regulation and methodological problems with REDD at present.  The US must ensure that it is financing projects that are truly sustainable through offsets.” G20 Voice

09:32 SB: Just in from UNFCCC Bonn (ENB) . Canada has said that decisions on how to address consequences are a matter of national sovereignty, and the international response could only consist of recommendations of best practices or considerations.

09: 26 SB: There is some talk in the media hall that expectations may have been placed too high for a single, one-day summit.  UK Business Secretary Peter Mandelson has just made a comment to BBC News to that effect.

09:20 FA: The Business Secretary’s green credentials were the subject of a protest action recently.

09: 16 SB: Low-carbon growth may simply be reduced to agreement on attempting to ‘mainstream’ some environmental considerations in any new infrastructure.

09:13 FA: This meeting is the first opportunity many G20 leaders have will have to make face-to face contact with US President Obama. Much will be negotiated on the fringes of the summit. The course and potency of the global Climate Change negotiation has been strongly impacted by US policy in the past. ANP reports that Dutch Prime Minister Balkenende call directly for greater US action on climate change (RV).

‘I mentioned the fact that in the past the US did not join Kyoto. And that I hoped the US would expressly take part in the reaching of agreements on climate change in Copenhagen.’

09:09 SB: The press area is now filling up as delegations arrive at the Summit centre.

Delegations and press

08:20 FA: The Heads of Delegation and Finance Ministers are arriving, limousine by limousine.

08:03 , and at the Guardian have reported

The draft G20 communique leaked at the weekend makes only the smallest reference to climate change, and appears to be vague on the subject of how green the $2tn (£1.4tn) stimulus package agreed by world leaders should be.

Fuad Ali (FA), Paige Andrews (PA), Simon Billett (SB), Niel Bowerman (NB), Adeline Dontenville (AD), Maria del Mar Galindo (MMG) and Radhika Viswanathan (RV) all contributed to this report.

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.