As of July 22^nd , the second effort to enact a Climate Change bill in this congress failed. Democratic Senate Majority leader Harry Reid announced that the ‘We know that we don’t have the votes’ for a comprehensive reform. Instead, the focus will be on a slimmer package focusing on household efficiency and the gulf oil spill.

Continue reading…

The past week has marked Barack Obama’s first State of the Union address, where the president traditionally outlines his agenda and priorities for the coming year, as well as reporting on the condition of the United States. As far as climate change is concerned, Obama seems to be continuing the approach we have seen him taking in the past months – while it is probably important to him, there are apparently many other issues that are more pressing and deserve a larger share of his attention.

In fact, he did not even mention climate change per se, other than referring to the (energy and) climate bill that was passed in the House over the summer, and even that, only as it relates to clean energy. Clean energy by the way – as far as Obama is concerned – is apparently nuclear (Obama’s proposed budget for 2011, to be sent to Congress on Monday, contains a tripling of government loan guarantees for nuclear power), offshore oil and gas, biofuels and clean coal. There was no mention of solar nor of wind, and the word ‘renewable’ was never used throughout the 71 minutes speech.

Once again, Obama skirts around the issue of climate change, referring only to clean energy, energy security and jobs. High speed rail is not a matter of moving away from dirty fuels used in planes and cars, but rather a way to create jobs. And it does not seem to take higher priority than building new highways. Apparently the Recovery Act should be enough to prevent “Europe or China [from] hav[ing] the fastest trains” (it’s not), as there was no mention of continuing investing in rail infrastructure beyond the one off investment in the Act.

Obama continues not to show strong leadership when it comes to climate change. He says he is grateful to the House for passing its bill last summer and that he is eager to help advance the bipartisan effort in the Senate, yet he does not mention what he would like to see in such a bill, he does not use this rare platform to move the discussion forward.

This was not the case in other issues – he used the SOTU to give quite a talking to to Republicans, especially in the Senate, for being continually obstructive and for focusing only on the next election rather than on governing the country. He made a gentle veto threat “if the [financial reform] bill that ends up on my desk does not meet the test of real reform”. Why then didn’t Obama even mention what a good climate bill should contain in his opinion? Why is there no mention of cap-and-trade or some other mechanism to reduce carbon emissions? Pandering to wavering Democrats and potential Republican allies is all very well, but what about showing the way? What about using this opportunity to outline his plans and his vision, as he has done with financial reform or Afghanistan?

Already, in the aftermath of the SOTU, business leaders such as Tom Donahue, President of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a well known antagonist to the House climate bill, and John Rice, a vice chairman of General Electric Co. pointed to the fact that America has a lot on its plate, and therefore a cap and trade bill is not likely to be passed in the coming year.

This is how momentum is brought to a halt…

Guest Author: Bettina Wittneben, University of Oxford

Hopenhagen (Image by:/kallu)

I have to admit, seeing President Barack Obama finally walk up to the podium did make my heart beat just a little bit faster. After so much hype about his arrival – the potential visit in the first week, then a firm commitment to support the process personally in the second week and, yesterday, some rumours that he may not come after all – it was exciting to finally see him there. Agile, hopping onto the stage, adjusting the microphone, obviously fully comfortable in his role of addressing the world on the most important issue of our time. It is all too easy to rekindle your hopes when you see President Obama speak.

His tone of voice was serious yet hopeful. He spoke of climate change being science, not fiction (a comment most likely addressed to his home audience), of not wasting any more time by talking, and of taking action now. Of choosing the future over the past. He eloquently reiterated the US position:

1. All major economies need to declare to take decisive action. The US proposing to reduce emissions by 17% by 2020 and 80% by 2050.
2. Transparency in the reporting of emissions that leads to a credible treaty and accountability of the parties.
3. Financing of adaptation in the poorest countries, with the US contributing $10bn by 2012 for the fast start and later, in 2020, being part of a $100bn funding effort globally. This is contingent on countries signing a treaty that fulfils the first two aims.

This triple aim of mitigation, transparency and financing could be the backbone of a new treaty, says Obama, one that has gone further than any treaty before.

President Obama’s speech was very moving, motivating and makes one think: hey, why have they not all gone for this great deal that seems so honest and makes so much sense. Well, let’s look behind the words and see what is left when we boil down Obama’s speech to what the US is bringing to the table and what they are demanding of others.

Stop talking, start acting – It must be a slap in the face of the countries that have been serious about reducing emissions since signing the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992. The US has spent the majority of the past 17 years either openly blocking progress or complicating talks to absurdity. Surely not Obama’s personal fault, but he is speaking for his country in this forum. Nevertheless, it is a positive note and gives hope for the US finally coming around to accepting climate change as a global challenge.

Choosing the future over the past – This is a direct confrontation with countries like Brazil (whose President gave a passionate speech just minutes earlier) who argue that industrialized countries have been polluting the atmosphere for the past century and cannot tell newly industrialized countries to halt climate change. It depends on your definition of equity. It depends on whether you look at emissions as a flow or a stock. Looking at emission flows, we know that countries such as China and India will be emitting much more in the future; looking at emission stocks, we know that most of the dreadful stuff in the atmosphere is due to industrialized countries having burned fossil fuels to fire up their economies in the past. President Obama wants us to look at climate change as a challenge for the future, not a bundle of opportunist behaviour of the past.

Mitigation – It is indeed very comforting to hear the US speak of mitigation. After all these years of the Bush doctrine, that is very refreshing. However, the numbers Obama is bringing to the table are very low. In his speech, he neglected to mention that the 17% reduction refers to the baseline year of 2005, a year of strong economic growth and high emissions in the US. Usually, negotiators refer to the baseline year of 1990, which is the one used in the Kyoto Protocol. When calculating the proposed US emission cut on a baseline year of 1990, we get a mere 4% of emission reduction. This is well below the proposed EU target of 20-30% and even below the US target that Clinton’s administration signed in Kyoto in 1997. I looked it up – it was 7% then. When Obama says ‘all major economies’ he means China. China has proposed taking on a target, albeit an emission intensity target, which takes the edge off the argument that the US has used for years to justify its refusal to act on climate change. It is questionable, whether Obama’s meagre emission reduction target can be called ‘decisive action’ and hence complies with his own first major aim.

Transparency – Now that China has come forward with a target, the US has a new complaint: are they really going to do it and how do we know? Both the Convention and the Protocol require industrialized countries to report their emissions according to agreed-upon methodologies. These emission inventories are checked by UN staff.

Developing countries have been cut some slack and can report their emissions in any way they want and at any time they want. They do receive guidance from the UN but are not checked rigorously. Having said that, some industrialized countries have in the past failed to report adequately and timely. Given these previously agreed upon rules, countries such as China could take on targets but would not be monitored. The US, as an industrialized country and a member of the OECD, is under much more stringent requirements to report emissions. So, Obama’s requirement number two is firmly aimed at newly industrializing countries. It is a demand, not an offer.

Financing – Hilary Clinton already announced the large number of $100bn by 2020 yesterday. It turns out that this is not something the US administration will provide, but something that the US proposes to be part of as a global effort, both from governments and industry. It is supposed to be raised through public and private partnerships. It is a relief to see that President Obama was able to underscore that with a promise of a more concrete $10bn by 2012, similar to the EU amount, to support adaptation efforts by the most vulnerable in a fast start programme. But here is the hook – it is conditional to signing an agreement that the US deems ‘decisive’. Basically, it is a bribe for the least developed countries and other vulnerable states to pressure China to bow to US demands.

Mitigation, transparency and financing – Even with all its faults, the Kyoto Protocol already contains these three elements. Why not just ratify that and build on it to make it a better treaty in its second commitment period?

Overall then, Obama brings very little to the negotiation table: a mere 4% cut in emissions and some money if conditions are met. The only reason one can be excited about this is that, for once, they are not entirely blocking the process from the start. Asking China to open its books to UN evaluators is the gamble that Obama is willing to take to save the planet. If climate change is such a real concern to the country, why is the US not moving ahead with more ambitious plans to be part of the solution?

After much speculation, including people pointing out that Copenhagen is just around the corner from Oslo where he will receive his Noble Peace prize, President Obama finally addressed the issue of his possible attendance at the Copenhagen negotiations.

In a Reuters interview Obama said yesterday that he will go to Copenhagen “If I am confident that all of the countries involved are bargaining in good faith and we are on the brink of a meaningful agreement and my presence in Copenhagen will make a difference in tipping us over edge”

This is still a far cry from a promise to be at the talks, which is what forty heads of state already indicated they will do (including UK’s Gordon Brown, Brazil’s Lula de Silva and France’s Nicolas Sarkozy) according to Yvo de Boer . Not only is he not promising to help reach that “brink of a meaningful agreement”, but his pinning his travel on his belief that all countries are “bargaining in good faith” seems to me like a potential ‘exit clause’ from this promise.

The main reason for this feeling is Todd Stern’s testimony last week in front of the House Foreign Affairs Committee where he said that “some developing countries … focus more on citing chapter and verse of dubious interpretations … designed to prove that they don’t have any responsibility for action now”. His full testimony, as it was originally written, was – I felt – rather haughty and laid most of the blame for the slow progress of the negotiations on developing countries. Though his actual testimony was more balanced, with more focus on US’s and other developed countries’ necessary actions, to me the general tone indicates a lack of faith in developing countries negotiators on the part of the administration.

Some observers noted in the past that Obama is not likely to put himself in a position where he will be forced to personally sign a treaty he can’t be sure of passing in Congress. It is possible then that this half promise to attend comes now as it seems extremely unlikely that Copenhagen will result in a legally binding treaty, the hopes have now scaled down to achieving a “meaningful agreement”.

So while Obama coming outright and saying that he might go to Copenhagen is good news, I would have liked to see a much stronger commitment as, at least in this case, I don’t share Al Gore’s optimism when he told the Guardian that “He hasn’t told me that he will, and no one representing him has told me that he will. But I feel certain that he will.”

It started the previous Friday, when President Obama paid a visit to MIT and gave a speech on clean energy and climate change. Without going into policy details, Obama emphasized the innovation needed to respond to the climate challenge (which was very appropriate to the location) and reminded how such innovation is part of what helped shape the United States and how it can place the US back in a leadership position. He also attacked those who appose any attempts to move towards a low carbon economy, saying that “There are those who will suggest that moving toward clean energy will destroy our economy — when it’s the system we currently have that endangers our prosperity and prevents us from creating millions of new jobs.”

As if to prove that last point about creating new jobs, Vice President Biden went to Delaware on Tuesday to announce the reopening of a former General Motors factory by Fisker Automotive. Only now the factory will produce plug-in hybrid vehicles. Like other members of the administration, the vice president noted the importance of such projects to the American economy as a whole – “we’re on our way to helping America’s auto industry reclaim its top position in the global market.”

That very same day, Obama was in Florida where he announced an investment of $3.4 billion of Recovery Act funds in projects aimed to start the transition to a smart energy grid. Out of the three this is by far the biggest development – not only is it the largest single energy grid modernization investment in U.S. history, it is also a huge push towards making America more energy efficient and more reliant on alternative energy. And of course, another opportunity for new jobs. This is a very important point when garnering support for climate action within the US, alongside direct economic benefits to the public, which is why Obama once more emphasized that “Such an investment won’t just create new pathways for energy — it’s expected to create tens of thousands of new jobs all across America… It’s expected to save consumers more than $20 billion over the next decade on their utility bills.”

These are just the most public and high-level of the administration’s involvements this past week in supporting a clean energy future. There were also the testimonies of several cabinet members and the head of the EPA in front of the Senate’s Environment and Public Works committee (which held three days of hearings on the Kerry-Boxer climate bill – the bill’s markup is expected to start today, assuming the Republican boycott of the meeting won’t prevent it from happening) and Energy Secretary Chu published a piece about weatherisation and energy efficiency in the Huffington Post.

It seems then, that now that the climate bill is being discussed in the Senate, the administration is publicly showing its support for climate action, something that was sorely lacking during discussions in the House (though behind the scene the White House did apply pressure on Democrats to support the bill). And though the main target is domestic, this is probably also suppose to serve as a demonstration of the administration’s commitment in the international arena in the run up to Copenhagen.

For Blog Action Day, focusing this year on climate change, I thought to do something a little different and take a look at climate action, and how it relates to climate policy and politics. So I talked with Ada Aroneanu, an organiser with 1Sky, a collaborative campaign bringing together many organisations so as to bring about “public demand for a clear, simple, specific national policy platform that would set America on the road to real solutions.”

I asked Ada how and when 1Sky came into being?

During 2007 several groups who were active on climate change at the local level came to realise that there was a need for a mouthpiece on the federal climate policy level, and that these groups involved in climate action lacked variety. 1Sky evolved out of the coming together of these local groups as well as new groups who haven’t been directly involved with climate change before then (faith, human rights, anti-poverty, etc).

This also coincided with other national events – the ‘Step It Up’ campaign, which formed in 2007, and the 2007 Power Shift in November which saw 6,000 youths lobbying Congress on 1Sky principals.

And what are these principles?

1Sky promotes 3 main principles –

These principles are the prism through which 1Sky analyses policy.

My main interest was how on-the-ground actions might affect policy, so I asked Ada to tell me about some of their past actions and successes.

1Sky actions kicked off with the 2^nd Step It Up action in November 07 which called for a 20% reduction by 2020 and 80% by 2050 (below 1990 levels). At the time these numbers were not in the public debate, but following this action they started to be commonly referred to.

Green Jobs Now – a call to create 5 million green jobs. A collaboration with Green for All and Al Gore’s “We” campaign (now Repower America), with about 700 events covering diverse locations – urban sprawl, coloured communities – across the country. This number – 5 million jobs – and the principles of this campaign were incorporated into Obama’s presidential campaign which was nearing its final stages before the elections.

Power Shift 09 brought 12,000 students to Washington. 6,000 went to campaign on the Hill (despite a freak snow storm). There was a lot of face time with politicians over that weekend.

When asked about 1Sky’s current focus Ada told me about two of their summer actions -

Business outreach where 1Sky volunteers contacted local businesses and encouraged them to call their local chambers of commerce and talk to them about their climate change policy; and direct lobbying, with visits to – and rallies at – regional offices of representatives before the vote on the Waxman-Markey bill in June.

Currently 1Sky are focusing on the 350.org’s International Day of Climate Action on October 24, getting their volunteers and mobilizers to participate. Following that they are shifting their focus to placing some pressure on President Obama, calling on him to make America a leader in clean energy. Pushing the president, which will be done alongside pushing senators, comes as – in Ada’s words – “we need to be putting pressure on both branches of the federal government to act at the executive/agency level as well as Senators to act through congress.”

[I believe this focus on the president might also prove to be important in encouraging him to take a more active role in the climate legislation, as he did with health care but only very little with the climate bills, something that many US climate campaigners and analysts have noted.] 

Finally, as the main action in US domestic climate politics at the moment is the bill currently making its way through the Senate, I wondered how 1Sky were dealing with it.

“As it is currently at the committee level, we are working in the states of the relevant committee members. Once it reaches the floor, hopefully before Copenhagen, we will work across the entire country.”

With over 2,000 Climate Precinct Captains across the country, and 40 organisers, mobilizing communities on the ground, 1Sky joins million of people the world over in demanding bold climate action from their leaders.

Senators John Kerry and Lindsey Graham reaching across the aisle

Skimming over the headlines this morning, what I thought was a standard positive-thinking op-ed at the NY Times entitled “Yes we can (pass climate change legislation)”, transformed into an exciting development when I noticed the authors of this piece – Senators John Kerry (no surprise there), and Republican Lindsey Graham. 

Though there were some foreshadowing signs, after a practical witch hunt on the 8 Republican representatives who dared to vote in favour of the House bill back in June, the chances of any constructive partisan debate in the Senate seemed slim. 

Since John Mccain lost the elections, the Republican Party was nearly unanimous in opposing any climate action (Mccain talked of addressing climate change during his campaign). Not only is a significant number of elected Republicans set firmly in the climate denial camp, but also since Obama took office, Republicans automatically opposed anything suggested by Democrats, be they Congress or Administration (this recently reached a ridiculous level when far right pundits rejoiced in Obama’s failure to secure the 2016 Olympics for Chicago. More moderate Republicans pointed out that hosting the Olympics is harfly a partisan issue). That is why Graham’s recent remark - “I’d like to solve a problem, and if it’s on President Obama’s watch, it doesn’t bother me one bit if it makes the country better off.” – was already a newsworthy item. 

So what is the compromise Kerry and Graham outline in their joint opinion piece?

1) “we agree that climate change is real and threatens our economy and national security” – as I mention above, this statement is still important in American domestic politics, where – unlike in most other countries – many elected officials still refuse to acknowledge climate change as a legitimate problem.

2) “while we invest in renewable energy sources like wind and solar, we must also take advantage of nuclear power” – strong support for nuclear energy is important to many Democrats as well, and without it no climate or energy bill is likely to pass Congress.

3) “climate change legislation is an opportunity to [break] our dependence on foreign oil…we must recognize that … we will continue to burn fossil fuels … The United States should aim to become the Saudi Arabia of clean coal.” - clean coal was also a recurring theme in both Mccain’s and Obama’s approach to climate change during the presidential campains. Even more so than nuclear energy, coal is a sticking point for Democrats representing coal-producing states. An emphasis on clean coal might help these Senators to swallow the climate bill pill, but it is important to keep firmly in mind that carbon capture and storage is still far from being a sure thing.

4) “we are committed to seeking compromise on additional onshore and offshore oil and gas exploration” – that is certainly a compromise. Focusing mainly on energy security issues, as has sometimes been done to promote the climate agenda, makes drilling for more American oil a logical solution. That however, does not help to combat climate change.

5) “we cannot sacrifice another job to competitors overseas” – unlike many Republicans, proponents of climate legislation – including leading companies – realise that ignoring the business opportunities inherent in moving towards a low carbon society will not help the US regain economic leadership nor supply new jobs in a time where unemployment is still on the rise.

6) “we should consider a border tax on items produced in countries that avoid these standards…we will develop a mechanism to protect businesses… there will be short-term transition costs associated with any climate change legislation, costs that can be eased” – Kerry and Graham recognise that tackling climate change and transitioning to a low-carbon world is a complex process, one that cannot be done smoothly without some involvement from the government.

And if the above isn’t convincing enough, they provide one final reason why Congress should act – “If Congress does not pass legislation dealing with climate change, the administration will use the Environmental Protection Agency to impose new regulations. Imposed regulations are likely to be tougher and they certainly will not include the job protections and investment incentives we are proposing.” – as expected, the EPA’s swift progress on GHG emissions is a good incentive for legislators to deal with this huge issue in a more balanced and systematic way.

 From a party not known for a forward stance against Climate Change legislation and with many members downright sceptical, perhaps we should be positive when Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) visited Saskatchewan last week and declared himself a believer, that Climate Change was a “reality”. The interview, worth reading in full, brings to light some of the thinking of Republicans on Climate Change and the North American energy market.

Senator’s Graham’s views are particularly important for several reasons. Firstly the Climate change bill that passed through the US house and is awaiting its senate hearing is possibly the single most important turning point in getting a global deal on Climate Change. As Graham himself noted, the bill narrowly passed in the house meaning that it dropped Democrats, given the house is often seen as more partisan, the implication is that the bill would need to be watered down to make a passage through the Senate. While this may be true to some extent, Graham is being slightly disingenuous, the House bill passed with enough votes – some Democrats were able to vote against it for their constituency, safe in the knowledge it would pass (i.e. if it had been closer they would probably have also voted for it).

Senator Graham’s views were likewise interesting in terms of the shape of Climate legislation in North America, which can probably be read as a reasonable gauge of Republican thinking on energy policy if not Climate Change policy.

“Carbon sequestration is the key to anything you want to do when you talk about getting away from fossil fuels or controlling CO2 emissions”

Not that this will surprise many, but CCS ( Carbon Capture and Storage) is in the near future at least a political reality– whether its viable or not. For both Canada and the US, CCS is the magic wand which can placate their powerful fossil fuel lobbies – especially Coal in the US and the oil-sands in Canada. Both Obama and Harper have alluded to its necessary use – and with many Democrats hailing from coal states such as West Virginia and Virginia, it will be next to impossible for Climate Change legislation to be passed without it. Similarly in Canada, the powerful geopolitical role envisaged from Alberta’s oil sands including in any North American Cap and Trade, ensures that both countries will create opt outs or subsidies to nurture their particular fossil fuel industries.

On Oil Sands Senator Graham words will disappoint environmentalists:

“the United States should accept it, because every drop of oil that we can receive from our friends in Canada is one less we have to buy from people who don’t like us.”

“I think the future’s on your side when it comes to your U.S. neighbours accepting your products.”

Almost without a doubt, there is a necessary trade-off to be made in environmental issues. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) may be a “believer” in Climate Change, but his language was firmly rooted in pragmatic security and economic issues- cheap and safe energy – if Congress does swing back towards Republicans, future Climate Change debates will be shaped by this kind of language. This isn’t necessarily negative, in order to make Climate Change a permanent legislative priority it needs to be bundled into other issues, to appeal to wide base. In this case, the issue is energy security, while for many this was meant to be about fuel economy standards, reduction in oil for power stations and growth of new green energy industries – yet in the interim this will mean oil sands from Alberta. The battle for environmentalists will be to try to lobby for the clean- up of the Alberta sands and the US coal.