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…

Canada has slightly adjusted its mid-term climate mitigation targets to match US pledges. Canada’s Environment Minister, Jim Prentice, recently announced that Canada has changed its mitigation goals in an effort to harmonize with the Obama administration.

Canada’s new emissions reduction target for 2020 is a cut of 17% on 2005 levels. Heading into the Copenhagen meeting this past December Canada’s mid-term target was a 20% reduction on 2006 levels by 2020. This adjustment comes as countries report their national targets to the UNFCCC as outlined in the Copenhagen Accord. The new Canadian commitment has been labeled by environmental groups as being slightly less stringent than the previous target, and well outside the range of targets proposed by the European Union (20% cuts from 1990 levels by 2020, with the possibility of going up to 30%).

On the face of things, Canada’s adjusted target is just another step towards an apparent harmonization between the Canadian and US positions on climate change, something that Minister Prentice has been calling for since taking over the portfolio.

However, differences clearly remain on policy direction and actions for addressing climate change. While Canada will now follow US pledges for 2020, it is not clear if Canada will adjust its long term targets to match those included in legislation before the US Senate.  A climate bill passed by the House proposed a sharp cut of 80% on 2005 emissions levels by 2050, a target that the Canadian government does not seem to be considering.

Additionally, as previously reported on Climatico here, there is a big difference in stimulus spending on green initiatives on either side of the 49th parallel. Reports by the Pembina Institute have suggested that the U.S. is vastly outspending Canada on a per capita basis on renewable energy infrastructure.

In a recent speech in Calgary to oil executives, Minister Prentice indicated that any Canadian action on climate change was contingent on American actions. Critics have argued that this matching of American policy may result in indefinite delays as climate legislation faces an uphill battle in the US Congress.  This position has also resulted in furthering internal political divisions within Canada, as Quebec Premier Jean Charest came out strongly against the federal government policy.

If Canada is to wait for certainty in the American position it could be some time before Canada implements a comprehensive program to reduce emissions, either through a cap-and-trade scheme or through regulation.

While the Obama administration is making moves towards regulating carbon emissions through the Environmental Protection Agency it is unclear how far along Canada’s plans are to similarly regulate industry north of the border.  A plan to regulate emissions from heavy industry in Canada was due to be released last year (a deadline already shifted numerous times) but will now likely be stalled indefinitely.

With the dust barely settled from the Copenhagen talks, critics within Canada have been scathing of its approach to the talks. They note Canada’s failure to take any leadership, its humiliation at the hands of the Yes Men (although there, Canada is hardly alone) in recent times, as well as the recipient of a fossil award, for lack of leadership as an industrialized country. When leaders came out of Copenhagen with an underwhelming accord, many in Canada were quick to point the finger at their own government’s failure.

Continue reading…

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.

Administrator Lisa Jackson signing the final rule (photo: EPA)

Starting on January 1^st 2010, any US fossil fuel and industrial GHG suppliers, motor vehicle and engine manufacturers and other facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more of CO2 equivalent per year, will be required to report their emissions data to the Environmental Protection Agency. According to the EPA this will cover approximately 85 percent of the United States’ GHG emissions and apply to roughly 10,000 facilities.

These new rules lay the groundwork for regulating emissions, providing the basis of a monitoring system that should be in place by the time – if such a time arrives – that greenhouse gas emissions are to be regulated.

As Administrator Lisa Jackson, who signed the rules on Sep 22, stated – “The American public, and industry itself, will finally gain critically important knowledge and with this information we can determine how best to reduce those emissions.”

 While opposed by many business, claiming that the reporting requirement is a first step toward burdensome and needless government regulation, others have welcomed this move.

Even the United States Chamber of Commerce seems to be on board with the new rules – “We have always supported transparency and do not oppose the reporting requirement,” said Bill Kovacs, senior vice president for environment, technology and regulatory affairs.

This is somewhat surprising as the Chamber of Commerce stance has so far been very much in opposition to any action, legislative or otherwise, on climate change. Throughout the past months the Chamber has sided themselves with climate change deniers by repeatedly attacking the EPA’s use of climate science, and it was the same Bill Kovacs who said in August that the EPA doesn’t “have the science to support the endangerment finding,” when the Chamber recently demanded a “Scopes Monkey Trial” for climate change science. A call they have later retracted after receiving too much heat.

The Chamber’s continual opposition to climate legislation has recently resulted in several utilities – including the major Californian utility Pacific Gas and Electric – withdrawing their membership (mirroring similar desertions in other industry groups). Others, such as Nike and Johnson & Johnson, have also expressed their dissatisfaction over the Chamber’s approach, saying it does not represent the full spectrum of members’ views. I wonder if the support, or at least non-opposition, to the EPA’s new reporting rules is an attempt to soften the Chamber of Commerce’s position before more companies quite it.