Authors: Nyla Sarwar & Sabrina Chesterman

Secretary General Ban Ki-moon during the final hours at COP15

As the climate demonstrators started to pack away their banners and the Christmas shoppers descended on a freezing Copenhagen (-7C), over 100 leaders and statesmen headed back to their various countries. Many are left to now ponder about what has actually been achieved, except a huge carbon footprint created by the tens of thousands of people who travelled to Denmark in the anticipation of being part of an expected key moment in history.

“The conference of the parties takes note of the Copenhagen Accord,” says a final decision on Saturday 19^th December 2009.

The Copenhagen Accord (see final text here) was negotiated on the basis of political superpowers asserting their national sovereignty and many have pointed the finger at China for being so dogged in their approach to the negotiations. The head of the Chinese delegation, Xie Zhenhua and Chinese Prime Minister, Wen Jiaboa, remained resolute in their refusal to discuss and put on the table figures for emissions cuts. Although Obama may hail the drafting of the Accord as a success over China, there are huge loopholes. Developing nation delegates, exhausted, frustrated and now worried, returning to countries on the front line of climate change with no clear guarantee or safeguard that climate change can be slowed or its worst effects abated.

The agreement, drawn up by US, China, India, Brazil and South Africa, lacks any legally binding commitments, or interim targets for developed or least developing countries, removed at the last minute to appease disgruntled negotiators.

Several texts had been presented to the delegations over the course of the 10-day conference in Copenhagen, including two surprise Danish texts, which were both angrily rejected by developing countries, which questioned the transparency of the proposal having worked on the same text over the last 2 years.

On Day 9, Hilary Clinton delivered a press conference to bolster hopes of a positive contribution from the US in ongoing negotiations. She announced that the US was in support of the $100bn/pa fast start fund for adaptation in developing countries, and the US’s contribution was later announced to be $3.6bn pa annum by 2020, to support the $10bn/pa from Europe and the $15bn/pa from Japan.

Day 10 began with optimism, as over 120 Heads of State gathered in one location, to discuss the threat of climate change, for the first time since the Second World War.

Obama’s 8am arrival on Air Force One, into Copenhagen fuelled hopes for a positive breakthrough in negotiations at the conference. As the world’s largest economy and second largest emitter, the US had (as always) a very powerful position in the negotiations. However, Obama failed to provide any further commitments in the chaotic final phase of negotiations, and knocked heads with the Chinese Premier Wen Jibao and Brazilian President Lula in intense meetings upon arrival. Saying he was “here not to talk but to act” he failed to provide any further commitments from the US and did not even press the Senate to move ahead on climate change legislation, which environmental organisations have been urging for months.

His disappointing, lackluster speech was frustrating for conference delegates and heavily criticized by many, including Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

Despite ongoing tensions and disagreements behind the scenes, Obama made the announcement of a ‘deal’ before his departure at around 6pm on Friday for his Christmas holidays. He delivered a press conference to highlight the ‘agreement that had been reached’, which China and many other developing countries vehemently rejected in the plenary session later.

The Copenhagen Accord was reached from the depths of desperation on Saturday morning, stating that average global temperature increases should be limited to 2C, but no legally binding targets for emissions reduction were set to achieve this. This a major blow for many LDCs and small island states, who pushed for a global temperature increase to be limited to just 1.5C, which they believed to be crucial for their survival.

Developing nations, and notably Africa, have presented themselves as a key power force in an era of supposed global climate governance. The big emerging economies, India, China, Brazil and South Africa allied to prevent a developed country domination of the negotiations. Success was made in terms of the fast start finance of $30 billion/year from next year to 2012, and the long-term pledge of $100 billion/year to 2020. Although President Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia, representing the African country block was criticised for accepting this deal, his ‘compromise’ on this issue ensured it was formalised in the Copenhagen Accord.  The efforts of Chavez and the block of Bolivia, Nicaragua, Sudan and Saudi Arabia, attempted a last minute block to the talks just as it seemed the Copenhagen Accord would be agreed upon.  Although with the help of UK Energy & Climate Change Minister, Ed Miliband this move was averted, many question the viability of Chavez and others in their fidelity to finding a common ground to climate changes, instead using their speeches in the High Level plenary to lament on the silent ‘ghost’ of capitalism driven by Obama, Nobel man of war, that was the root cause of climate change.

Attempts to kill the Kyoto Protocol also dominated the negotiations at Copenhagen, with LDCs furious at the suggestion of a new agreement, which opens up the possibility of them being required to measure and report their emissions (which only Annex I countries are required to do under the conventions of Kyoto). Several developed countries have begun to back the idea of creating a new treaty which would clean the slate and start again addressing emissions from both developed and developing countries. These divergent views led to wasted hours of precious negotiating time at the conference and significantly weakened the Copenhagen Accord, with many agenda items simply postponed for discussion at COP 16 in Mexico City next year.

Some organisations felt that the deal was a positive start, and a successful outcome that we can strengthen in future negotiations.

“This deal provides a solid foundation for international action, including emissions targets, a new financial mechanism and transparent reporting and review to assess countries’ performance,” said Jennifer Morgan, Director of WRI’s Climate and Energy Program.

“But more is needed to ensure a functioning legal instrument, and the ambition of the emission cuts still falls far short of what the science indicates. The agreement will need to be strengthened over time.”

The UN process was also disputed, with many arguing that it had become totally unworkable and impossible to forge consensus among disparate countries fighting over environmental guilt, future costs, and who should referee the results. It might therefore be more likely going forward that discussions about tackling climate change are raised at other forums - the G8, G20 - where approximately 30 countries are likely to represent over 90% of global emissions. This smaller group of nations will tackle a narrower agenda of issues, like technology sharing or the merging of carbon trading markets, without the chaos and posturing of the United Nations process. A version of this already exists in the 17-nation Major Economies Forum, which has been a model of decorum and progress compared with what the world saw unfold at the climate talks.

We would argue that the whole concept of consensus agreement, as enshrined in the convention, is totally flawed and close to impossible for a contentious and political agreement of this sort. Majority votes may sideline those most vulnerable, but might encourage more unity in negotiations. However, Copenhagen has already represented some of the divisions and back-stabbing that prevails with deep disputes occurring within groups like the G77, Association of Small Island States (AOSIS), and the African Group. The process is fundamentally driven by politics, not the science, to deliver short-term economic and political gains, rather than what the planet demands.

The torturous path to the Copenhagen Accord was dismissed by speaker after speaker from the developing world, denouncing the deal as a sham process fashioned behind closed doors by a club of rich countries and large emerging powers. The NY Times reported that the heated debate even saw the Sudanese delegate likening the effect of the accord on poor nations to the Holocaust.

It is unclear how many delegates will sign up to the Accord. The EU, AOSIS, Japan and the African Group all urged delegates to adopt the Accord, though the Latin American countries and Sudan are believed to be in angry opposition.

As the air hung thick in the Bella Centre, one NGO representative commented, just as we emerged from the plenary, “You’re in there with the presidents, I work with the poor. We all know who the real heroes of climate change are.”

Yvo de Boer, UNFCCC Executive Secretary, highlighted that the challenges now remain in attempts to ‘move towards something real, measurable and verifiable.’ Watch out Bonn and Mexico City, the circus is coming.

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?

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

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

Continue reading…

Ed Miliband hailed the G8 Declaration as a “real breakthrough”. For the first time, it seemed, the ‘Outreach 5′ states were putting aside their differences on international mitigation action and joining the G8 to commit to a 2 C warming target. However, in India these moves have not been universally accepted or endorsed, suggesting that the G8 Declaration has still failed to answer the key question: who is going to do what to reach the 2 C by 2050 target.

An article appearing yesterday in India’s centre-orientated Hindustan Times quotes a member of the Indian UNFCCC negotiating team suggesting that India has not modified its position on the need for Annex 1 mid-term targets. For the 2050 goal to be realistic, he argues, there must be mid-term targets by rich nations.

There has also been much consternation within the wider Indian policy-making community more broadly since Manmohan Singh signed the Declaration in Italy. A range of newspaper articles and TV items have pointed to the strong opposition to mitigation action that a) harms economic growth and b) is not part of a financial transfer mechanism from Annex 1 countries.

The Hindustan Times article, for example:

What this suggests, it seems, is that while India is happy to agree to the goal in question, the means of getting there is an issue on which there has been little movement, despite Manmohan Singh’s signature in Italy.  Indeed, as my colleague Ian Ross notes, Hillary Clinton’s visit to India has not been the smooth ride that her press secretary valiantly continues to tell us it has been.  Several media sources report that Clinton engaged in a blunt exchange with a member of India’s Ministry of Science and Environment, which houses the negotiating team.  India, Clinton was told, will not be accepting cuts or limits.

This is nothing new; I could have been writing this blog six months ago.  However, what has changed is the USA’s persistence that action by India is required for a “successful” negotiation in December, and that they remain confident they will get it.  From this week’s events in the media and in Hillary Clinton’s meetings, that does not seem immediately likely at present.

So, what would this mean?  What if India will not budge on the issue of burden sharing to reach 2 C?

Well, the ball would be back with the US.  Would they strap in and go for an agreement anyway, risking a rejection in the Senate when ratification comes around?  Would they push for a watered down treaty, preferring instead to focus efforts on the domestic legislation they have moving through?  I think that neither of these are politically palatable options–the first domestically, the second internationally.  The US Government have pledged action at both levels to both groups of stakeholders.

As a results, some kind of middle way may well be the most likely option.  And there are a number of opportunities here.  It is coincidental, for instance, that Hillary Clinton is also in India promoting American nuclear investment in India; could there be room for manauvering the much-discussed international ‘Green Fund’ (see Ian’s post) to send more US technology to India in return for an Indian energy generation target? This would have the advantage of pleasing both sides, especially the US nuclear lobby.  It may, though, not be possible when all 190 other parties are involved.

Another alternative maybe the ‘no-lose’ targets (which Dafydd Elis posted on last month).  If the US becomes a buyer of international carbon credits (which the draft domestic legislation would allow) then India potentially has much to gain from selling its ‘no lose’ credits on a presumably buoyant international market.  It would then set a mitigation baseline.  Again, though, we come back to domestic legislation that will not be finalised before December and on which India would be committing itself.

Should Barak Obama’s the worst case scenario come to pass–where no agreement can be reached in advance of Copenhagen–then much will rest on the political pressure in December itself.  Incidental media pressure, possible horse-trading with other policy areas, and the other domestic issues of the day.  From a climate policy perspective, this is not ideal, as it often takes several years to work out how to make last-minute ideas into workable policies (I think here of the CDM, which was added to Kyoto with hours to go and was not finalised until the Marrakesh Accords 2 years later).  And there is always the possibility that nothing will be agreed, although I think that unlikely.

The key issue here is what options are on the table that could serve as tools for a compromise–both now and then.  Nuclear, no-lose, US emission purchases, domestic legislation, a Green Fund: in some combination it is these that are likely to be the deal breakers.  Manmohan Singh’s coincidental state visit to the US in mid-November is sure to be an important date in the respective climate delegations’ calendars.

Those hoping the G8 would achieve a breakthrough in Climate negotiations, would only need to look at the history of the G8 to know it is often more like an extended press conference for the G8 countries to touch base and put out some symbolic gestures on the issue of the day, meanwhile the real negotiations are happening behind the scenes round the clock all year long.

But in terms of gestures what was achieved?

That the G8 countries aim to keep global emissions low enough to avoid a 2C rise in temperature

That it should aim to cut 80% of emissions by 2050, and the world aim for 50% cuts.

Neither stands out as groundbreaking, and worse for environmentalists was that several measures discussed appeared to fall by the way side: Mexico proposed a “green fund” for developing countries, something floated by Brown prior the G8 meeting and worse still developing countries are of the opinion that only a 40% cut by 2020 by developed countries could get them to make serious cuts.

Nevertheless, The G8 has not been a failure and in fact is another albeit small stepping stone for an event which garners far too much publicity for what actually goes on. While the developed countries proposed cuts against those demanded by developing countries may make negotiations appear at an impasse, in reality, a solution is probably not so far off.

Three factors, discussed could make a breakthrough:

The first is the role of a “Green fund”, developing countries protest that the G8 make deeper cuts because they are responsible historically for emissions but more importantly because their people are already more prosperous. If a significant ‘green fund’ was made available, it could have the dual role of aiding development and doing so sustainably. This could also take the form of technology transfer, in combination with funding, which remains a critical road block to developing countries supporting environmental energy options.

The second is the Waxman-Markey bill currently being debated in the US senate, this needs to pass with a credible amount of its original intention left intact, if it does, that paves the way for further North American legislation ( with Canada and possibly Mexico in some role), perhaps more importantly it gives the US genuine clout to lead.

The third and most important factor lies with US negotiations with China, Russia and Brazil. Already the US has persuaded China to come to the table, as well as reticent Russia. Although importance should also be attached to the role of Brazil, India and Indonesia, is is these two countries, the next most powerful of non-western countries that could make or break global negotiations. I

The US has its work cut out; continued behind the scenes work will be the modus operandi in the run up to Copenhagen. However all policy relies on momentum, a global deal even a disappointing one, changes the domestic policy debates for the better, this could create a positive interchanging momentum that increasingly reaches for greater efforts to cut emissions globally.

“Unless the G8 sign up to cut emissions by at least 40% by 2020, developing countries will not commit to emissions targets” - that’s the major point of discussion between developed and developing nations, which has (as was to be expected) paralysed the outcome of the Major Economies Forum (MEF). Following yesterday’s G8 declaration, the members of the Major Economies Forum (G8, G5, Australia, EU, the Republic of Korea, Indonesia and Denmark) may not have agreed on a specific target for emissions reductions by 2050 but at least agreed to allow no more than a 2 degrees rise in global temperatures. Reading through the communiqué that was just released in l’Aguila we don’t find many surprises, neither positive nor negative. A little bit on forests, a little bit on adaptation. No doors are closed but real commitment should sound different.

A definitely positive development from yesterday’s declaration is a stronger commitment to leverage financing. Where yesterday’s document related financing for adaptation and mitigation to existing development aid, today’s communiqué stresses that: “Financial resources for mitigation and adaptation will need to be scaled up urgently and substantially and should involve mobilizing resources to support developing countries (…..) Climate financing should complement efforts to promote development in accordance with national priorities and may include both program-based and project-based approaches.”

Yet, non-governmental observers are not entirely satisfied. In the words of WWF’s Kim Carstensen “It’s all about money. Rich countries are telling poor nations: oh poor you. But they avoid commiting to pay their fair share” He adds that ["]wealthy nations should show solid financial commitments and not comforting statements and should replace the blame game with responsible and credible commitments”.

But it is not only the non-governmental sector that recognises the difficulties. President Obama who chaired the meeting, acknowledged a good start but conceded that “progress on this issue will not be easy”. He especially cautioned against cynicism, in front of the immensity of the problem. Some others like CAFOD express it more directly “The G8 could be risking the lives of millions the world’s poorest if there is no agreement on climate in December”.

Bottomline: the outcome probably meets realistic expectations: whoever thought the MEF would do anything more than keeping the door open, i.e. whoever hoped that any substantial progress was to be made without the pressure of the last minute in Copenhagen is probably too optimistic. We also have to consider that without China’s presence moving negotiations towards a more definite outcome was next to impossible. No matter which perspective we take, it is pretty obvious that all sides are trying to push out a definite commitment and to keep the game open until the negotiations at the end of the year. The game continues…..

Read what could be decisive next steps in “What next for the G8“!

By Niel Bowerman, Ruth Brandt, Radhika Viswanathan and Marie Karaisl

… but doesn’t agree on when to turn down the heat. This is Oxfam’s resumé on the freshly released G8 climate change communiqué. Leaders could not improve on last year’s commitment of “a 50% reduction of global emissions by 2050”. They did however agree that to reach such a global reduction, developed countries will have to reduce their emissions by 80% by 2050. There was no agreement on a specific year as a baseline, and the final wording - “compared to 1990 or more recent years” - reflects the disagreement between the EU who pushed for a 1990 baseline and the USA and Japan who want future emissions to be compared to a more recent reference year.

As hoped and expected, it was agreed, however, that “the increase in global average temperature above pre-industrial levels ought not to exceed 2°C.” This is the first time that the US has officially agreed to such a target, something that would have been unimaginable under George W. Bush. The Canadians were opposed to this statement earlier this week, but after long negotiations and NGO campaigns from the likes of Avaaz, Canada accepted the language.

Like last year, no interim goal has been agreed on, though the EU’s push for a 2020 goal is reflected in the statement that a 50% reduction by 2050 “implies that global emissions need to peak as soon as possible and decline thereafter”. This lack of an interim target does not sit well with a 2°C target as Kim Carstensen, leader of the WWF Global Climate Initiative, puts it: “What are [world leaders] going to do between now and 2020? If they don’t outline a path to reach the announced goal, the 2 degree statement will just join a long list of broken promises.”

In the short term, they will be working on their economic recovery. The deterioration of the economic climate is noticeable throughout the document. Yet, positively, the trend to “green” individual stimulus packages (at least rhetorically) has been picked up in the communiqué: “We must seize the opportunity to build on synergies between actions to combat climate change and economic recovery initiatives, and encourage growth and sustainable development worldwide.”

For those interested in adaptation and forestry, the document seems to have something on offer.  The document mentions the “possible security implications of the adverse impact of climate change and the potential for increased conflicts over scarcer resources.” It goes on to discuss not only deforestation but also land degradation and the importance of biodiversity.

The bottom line is that apart from the lack of interim targets, most NGOs and other observers agree that the communique is adequate. Or as John Kirton, of the G8 Research Group, put it - “It met my standards.”

The G8 leaders will now take this communique to the Major Economies Forum tomorrow.  There Obama will chair a difficult meeting in which he will attempt to reverse China and India’s longstanding opposition to adopting quantitative emissions targets.

By Ruth Brandt, Niel Bowerman and Marie Karaisl

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.

President Obama, in close discussions with Energy Secretary Stephen Chu and Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach is to give the green light for US consumption of oil sand oil, or rather the import of fuels considered among the “dirtiest” in the fuel market. In a meeting last week, President Obama decided that the Canada’s oil sands represented an important part of national security supplies for petroleum in America’s near future.

The move is not without immediate precedent, as Francois Cardinal at cybercress.ca notes, both Hillary Clinton had offered support for oil sands at a recent conference on energy security, and Obama’s national Security adviser General Jim Jones was similarly adamant that the US would be foolish to reject the possibility of a stable source from a close partner in Canada.

The move will disappoint many in the green movement, given Obama has previously been less supportive of oil sands, noting that the Us needed to ween itself off dirty and dangerous oil supplies. In particular at a recent summit with Canada, President Obama described US coal as equivalent to Alberta’s oil sands, given environmentalists hope that the US would take a tough line demanding far reaching cleanup efforts if the oil sands were ever to be imported.

Speaking at a recent energy conference the Calgary Herald noted Energy Secretary’s Chu’s position

“This is energy that one hopes to develop in a clean way, and so that you can decrease the environmental footprint, both in the energy invested in order to recover it and on the local environmental issues,” Chu said Monday in response to a Herald query.

“There are also environmental issues having to do with the recovery of the oil sands, the very tarry stuff that’s left behind, the residues. There haven’t been solutions to that yet,” added Chu, who met privately with Premier Ed Stelmach on Monday for about 30 minutes”

How far the environmental issues are pushed depends on a large number of factors, in terms of Canada’ s federal Climate policy projects such as oil sands are only required to reduce the intensity of their energy consumption in order to keep with Canada’s GHG targets, in short allowing growth in absolute Carbon emissions. Worse, of the projects designed to reduce emissions from critical polluting sectors, most of Canada’s research investment is going to “clean coal” rather than oil sands:

“Alberta Minister of Environment Rob Renner said Tuesday that the lion’s share of $ 2 billion planned for the burial of carbon was destined for the coal industry”

However, environmental movements within Canada, have made strong progress in other states such as British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec which could increase the pressure on states such as Alberta to set more ambitious reduction targets and forcing them to channel greater investment into cleaning up the oil sands. Furthermore, the role of California the US’s biggest car using state has effectively banned Alberta oil unless it cleans up, through regional Environmental alliances such as the WCI such policy could be diffused throughout other key states, potentially even within Canada.

In summary, oil sands as noted previously now look set for a stable future, one albeit without the much feared spectacular growth that marked environmentalists concerns prior to the recession and one in which increasing pressure will probably be put on the oil sands to reduce their environmental impact, but in terms of derailment, the oil sands appear to have escaped that pitfall.

Although as yet unofficial, an exciting new development is expected when President Obama will soon - probably later today - announces new federal rules for automobile emissions and mileage standards.

When Obama cleared the road for a federal waiver, which would have allowed California (and 13 other states which would have followed suit) to develop more stringent fuel efficiency standards, there were concerns that this will lead to a patchwork of regulations around the country. The new regulations which are about to be announced should redress these fears and bring the whole of the US up to the standards set by the Californian regulations (see fact sheet for California’s regulations, though the two set of rules use difference measurements, so complex conversions are needed to actually compare them). They will also mark the first ever limits on GHG tailpipe emissions in the United States.

Although some of the details are not completely clear, and there seems to be some confusion as to exact numbers, these rules which will take effect in 2012, will create a car and light truck fleet which is about 40% cleaner and more efficient than what we have today, by 2016. This is four years earlier than is required under current federal law, which was passed in 2007 but never enforced, as no regulations were made by the Bush administration.

This development will have wide support as it follows months of discussions with the ailing American auto industry, as well as fit in with the Waxman-Markey ACES bill which calls for a nationwide standard. Car manufacturers welcome the pending announcement in part because this will allow them to better plan for the future market, after finding themselves lagging behind Japanese and European manufacturers.

The expected announcement is naturally also supported by environmental politicians and NGOs. And as Daniel Becker, director of the Safe Climate Campaign said - “This is the single biggest step the American government has ever taken to cut greenhouse gas emissions.”

UPDATE - and now it’s official. With executives from 10 automakers by his side, and environmental leaders applauding from the audience, President Obama announced a new national fuel efficiency policy. The policy will cover model years 2012-2016, and by 2016 will require an average fuel economy standard  of 35.5 mpg (or 15km/litre. Compare this to the 35 mpg by 2020, which is what the 2007 CAFE law requires. The current average is 25 mpg). Obama mentioned that 1.8 billion barrels of oil will be saved over the lifetime of vehicles sold in the next 5 years (this is the equivalent of shutting down 194 coal plants or taking 58 million cars off the roads for a year).

This policy is a result of an unprecedented collaboration between the Department of Transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency, Amrican auto manufacturers, the United Auto Workers, environmental leaders, the State of California, and other state governments.

UPDATE #2 - more details coming through mention that the EPA will indeed regulate tailpipe emissions, which has never been done before, and that Congress does not need to aprove these standards as they will be implemented through federal rules (which - together with the strong alliance backing it up - means that this is not just a pretty statement, but is a policy able to bring real changes).

Some thoughts - one of the things mentioned again and again by the different people involved, is how much collaboration went into this. It is a unique alliance between groups representing very different interests (auto industry, state governments, environmental NGOs, etc) all “marching forward in the same direction.” as California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said at some point. Obama notes this as well, mentioning in his statement that “it represents not only a change in policy in Washington but the harbinger of a change in the way business is done in Washington… No longer will we accept anything less than a common effort, made in good faith, to solve our toughest problems.” As the problems facing the US are are indeed tough and deeply rooted, I only hope that this is really true, and not just wishful thinking from a man who sought to ‘reach out across the aisle’ since his first days in office (and was constantly rebuffed)

UPDATE #3 - questions have been raised about how this will affect the struggling ethanol industry which is currently trying to increase the national standard from a 10% ethanol blend (that is, ethanol constitute 10% of the blend sold at the pump) to a 15% blend. Some analysts say a tougher fuel efficiency standard might harm the industry as ethanol has a lower energy content than gasoline. However when questioned, Carol Browner the president’s assistant on energy and climate change, said she did not know the answer to that.

While sorry for the workers in a struggling industry, I can’t say that I will be sorry to see the strong ethanol lobby run into some difficulties or the industry forced to change the way it produces biofuels. Heavily subsidized corn based ethanol is not the way to produce carbon neutral fuels, nor is it beneficial to the American economy as a whole.

UPDATE #4 - The new policy resolves the conflict between the federal government and the state of California regarding fuel standards. Which means that the lawsuits connected to said conflict will now be dropped and these resources can be directed elsewhere (maybe sending more environemental lobbyists to Washington??).