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??).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson testified on Tuesday before the members of the Environment and Public Works Committee regarding the proposed EPA FY 2010 Budget request. Tuesday’s discussion concentrated on how the budget request of $10.5 billion (USD), proposed by President Barack Obama, is designed to both contribute to the U.S economic recovery while also addressing today’s environmental challenges.

The FY 2010 budget is an increase of 37 percent over the budget for FY 2009, providing for a greater opportunity for the EPA to address environmental challenges by way of EPA programs. According to Jackson, this budget increase “reflects President Obama’s commitment to usher in a new era in environmental stewardship and puts us on a clear path to a cleaner and safer planet.”

In its press release issued yesterday, the EPA outlined the budget allocations addressing U.S. environmental protection priorities. Receiving the largest allocation in the FY 2010 funds are the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds with $3.9 billion – marking an increase of 157 percent over FY 2009. These Funds will finance water infrastructure projects across the United States including 1,000 clean water and 700 drinking water projects.

Particular to the threat of climate change, the FY 2010 budget allocates an additional $19 million over FY 2009 budget provisions toward President Obama’s efforts to slow global warming. This funding will help the United States develop a greenhouse gas emissions inventory and collaborate with industries to provide greenhouse gas emission data reporting. Specifically, the money from this budget increase supports the development of the data management system, guidance and training materials, and sources measurement technologies as well as provides for the conducting of industry-specific workshops.

The allocation of ‘merely’ an additional $19 million toward slowing the progression of global warming seems small in comparison to the $3.9 billion allocated to water infrastructure projects. This may partially reflect public attitudes regarding environmental priorities within the United States. According to a recent Gallup Poll released in March 2009, issues regarding water pollution or contamination ranked highest amongst eight major environmental issues listed while climate change ranked last (see my previous post regarding this issue here).

Alternatively, the funding and implementation of such necessary repairs to U.S. water infrastructure may be better suited under the umbrella of the EPA in order to achieve the attention that it requires. Energy and climate change legislation are currently under development which could lead to the establishment of a new cap and trade or carbon tax program in the United States. A separate funding request for emissions reduction programs may lead to similar or greater financial provisions than the $3.9 billion that the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds will receive under the FY 2010 EPA budget.

Which environmental concern deserves greater support is speculative and not up for debate at this time. Regardless of whether public attitudes or political strategy are motivating the budget allocations, the environment comes out on top. As stated by Obama and reiterated by Jackson in her testimony, “now is the time to make long overdue investments in clean energy and new infrastructure to create a platform for entrepreneurs and workers to build an economy that will lead us into a better future.” I’ll cheers to that.

Under the Bush administration, greenhouse-gas emission legislation was considered excessive regulation that could prove harmful to U.S. businesses. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, under Bush, denied a request under the Clean Air Act to establish tail-pipe emission standards – claiming that such regulations were not within their authority. In Massachusetts v. EPA in 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court scolded the Bush EPA for providing what seemed a “laundry list of reasons not to regulate” greenhouse emissions rather than basing their arguments on science. However, following his first 100 days in office as the President of the United States, Barack Obama’s policies have proven to be in stark contrast to those of George W. Bush. Within his first week in office, Obama announced the closure of Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba, reversed aid restriction policies for organizations that provide abortions, limited lobbyist influence within the administration, and held an interview with al-Arabiya where Obama offered a hand of friendship to Muslims and demonstrated his desire to work diplomatically with the Middle East. Now fourteen weeks in, Obama’s sharp departure from his predecessor continues – including the appearance of a notable shift in the United States’ stance on climate change.

Marking Obama’s first 100 days in office, the following is a summary of United States climate change policy under the direction of the Obama administration:

Days 1-25 (Jan 20-Feb 13): In an effort to reverse former President Bush’s policy on climate change and take the United States in a new, greener, direction, Obama follows up on the request under the Clean Air Act. Only one week into office, Obama asks the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider its ruling and review whether states should be allowed to set more stringent emission standards than is currently federally mandated. Additionally, Obama directs American automakers to develop more fuel efficient cars and trucks for models with release dates starting in 2011.

Days 26-50 (Feb 14-Mar 10): Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress pass the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act totaling nearly $800 billion. Included within this massive bill are substantial investments in clean and renewable energy, infrastructure, and scientific research including $7.22 billion for programs administered by the EPA. The administration’s states that their rationale for the funding was not only to help in the economic recovery in the United States but also to increase the number of green jobs, promote technological innovation, reduce U.S. dependency on foreign oil and ensure a healthier environment. In addition, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visits China and invites China to join the U.S. in curbing greenhouse gas emissions.

Days 51-75 (Mar 11-April 4): On March 23rd, Obama announces to the White House that $129 billion of his $3 trillion budget proposal for the year is allocated for environmental plans – such as renewable energy, solar power and hybrid cars – and is off limits to bartering by Congress. This pledge by Obama comes as the EPA makes another large announcement: following years of resistance under the Bush administration, the EPA tells the White House that global warming is, in fact, a danger to public health. On March 31st, the House Energy and Commerce Committee, along with the Environment Sub-Committee, announce the draft of the “American Clean Energy and Security Act 2009″. This draft is potentially a landmark step toward ushering in a clean energy economy through carbon emission tracking and regulation by the United States. A few days later, Obama attends the G20 Summit in London where he holds a bilateral meeting with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Obama and Singh touch 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.”

Days 76-100 (April 5-29): On April 17th, the EPA makes their announcement official: scientific studies show that CO2 and other greenhouse gases “endanger” the health and well-being of humans. The formal recognition by the EPA marks an important step under the Clean Air Act toward the establishment of national emission standards for large emitters. A week later, in recognition of Earth Day on April 22nd, Obama signs a proclamation which affirms the importance of protecting the environment and addressing global warming. In addition, amidst Earth Day celebrations, the House Energy and Commerce Committee spend the week holding hearings on the draft of legislation of the “American Clean Energy and Security Act 2009“. These hearings include testimonies by over 60 witnesses including Energy Secretary Steven Chu, former Vice President and Nobel laureate Al Gore, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, and representatives from manufacturing, energy, and environmental groups. Negotiations continue and the bill will likely go before the House of Representatives by Memorial Day on May 25th.

It has only been 100 days into President Barack Obama’s administration and, so far, the United States has made great strides toward greening America’s image. The next 100 days may prove more difficult, however, as details of the “American Clean Energy and Security Act 2009″ are worked out between Republicans and Democrats in Congress. Furthermore, announcements and gestures are more easily accomplished than finding funding or implementing projects, particularly when unexpected bailouts or emergencies such as Swine Flu arise. Therefore, it is important to look beyond the first 100 days of a presidency to determine the true direction of a policy. While the success of the new policies are yet to be determined, if there is anything certain from observing the first 100 days of Obama’s term in office it is that Barack Obama is definitely not anything like George W. Bush.

Barack Obama’s reshaping of America is continuing at full speed, this time with the transport system. Yesterday, in an inspiring speech, President Obama outlined his vision for a network of high-speed rail corridors across America.

Introduced by Vice President Biden, well known for being a train-enthusiast and a regular commuter, Obama delivered a stimulating speech already compared by some to Kennedy’s moon speech. He painted a picture of travel made simple (“No racing to an airport and across a terminal, no delays, no sitting on the tarmac, no lost luggage, no taking off your shoes”), clean and fast. He noted that while this may seem futuristic to Americans, high-speed rail have been a reality in many countries from Japan to Spain, citing the prosperity it brought with it. Once more he challenged America to return to its former leading position, and reminded Americans that it was much-admired Lincoln who first expanded the nation’s infrastructure and invested heavily in connecting East and West (by rail and telegraph).

To me he seemed a little frustrated by the naysayers, whether it was when he was describing the wonders of the high-speed rails in foreign countries (over 300mph in Japan, bringing growth to isolated regions in France) while the US is lagging behind, or with those who believe that a time of crisis is not the time to make big changes. It was for their benefit mostly, that he invoked Lincoln’s investment in infrastructure, done during the civil war.

He also promised impatient supporters of change that this is just the beginning – the $8 billion from the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (which have to be spent within two years) and the additional one billion a year for the next five years (as requested in the FY 2010 budget) are, as far as both Obama and Biden are concerned, only a down payment.

And for anyone who feels that actions are better than words, no matter how stimulating or revolutionary, the speed with which the Obama administration is moving will be encouraging – this strategic plan was issued before the Congressional deadline (only 58 days after the Recovery Act was passed) and the first round of grant awards are expected to be announced before the end of the summer, which is 3 years ahead of the schedule required by law.

The main points of the President’s vision are -

• Rebuilding existing rail infrastructure
• Launching high-speed rail services in 100-600 mile corridors that connect US communities
• These will be developed through partnership between the public sector and private industry, with a national vision, provided by a strong Federal leadership

A transcript of both Biden’s and Obama’s speeches can be found here; a video of Obama can be found here, and highlights of the strategic plan are in this pdf document.

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.

Ed Miliband highlighted the importance of momentum (photo credit: webwandering, Flickr)

Ed Miliband’s statement on climate change at the G20 was short and to the point.

Miliband briefed for ten minutes from Room Three of the conference centre, and quickly answered four questions before departing to give BBC and SkyNews interviews on the same topic.

The thrust of the conference was just that: thrust.  Momentum, Miliband said, is the “most important commodity” in the lead-up to COP-15, and he is confident that forward movement towards Copenhagen is well underway at this G20 summit.

Miliband said he was “optimistic” that the G20 communiqué will contain a “reference to a [G20] agreement” to set fixed objectives at Copenhagen.

But is this agreement more than “agreeing to agree?” asked Climatico’s National Research Director, Simon Billett.

Yes, Miliband replied.  While this G20 meeting is “essentially an economic summit,” there is a “real understanding” among the participants regarding the “mainstreaming [of] the green message.”

Miliband plans to address climate change issues at the Major Economies Forum meetings leading up to the G8 in July, which Italy will host.  The first of these meetings will take place in Washington on April 27 and 28.

He also highlighted the importance of the UNFCCC framework in the lead-up to COP-15 at Copenhagen, as it is the “main track” for climate change issues.

Several “productive” steps have already been taken, however.  Miliband highlighted the importance of a meeting with Saudi Arabian officials in December of 2008, in which he discussed the “importance [that Saudi Arabia] attaches to renewables” with them.

Furthermore, a meeting organised by the Prince’s Trust yesterday, as part of the G20 schedule, provided an opportunity for leaders to have significant conversations regarding the importance of LULUCF and other climate change issues.  “Chancellor Merkel, President Sarkozy, Prime Minister Berlusconi, Prime Minister Rudd, and Secretary Clinton”, among others, discussed the importance of a G20 commitment to reach an “ambitious” agreement at Copenhagen.

“The world is changing” in terms of climate change, Miliband argued, partly as the result of “President Obama’s actions” as well as the efforts of “other EU countries.”

It is clear from Miliband’s enthusiasm that the G20 leaders have, indeed, gathered climate-change momentum at this London Summit.  A recipe for a successful negotiation at Copenhagen, however, will require more than this single ingredient.

EPA building with Washington Monument in the background

On Tuesday, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed the first ever comprehensive system for reporting greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. In a press release issued yesterday, EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson states that with the new reporting measures proposed “we will have comprehensive and accurate data about the production of greenhouse gases. This is a critical step toward helping us better protect our health and environment – all without placing an onerous burden on our nation’s small businesses.”

Much of the reporting requirements used in the development of the proposal are already underway in several states, regions and through various reporting programs. The EPA’s proposal applies reporting requirements to fossil fuel and industrial chemical suppliers, certain manufacturers, and large direct greenhouse gas emitters whose emissions are equal to or greater than 25,000 metric tons per year. Most small businesses fall below this threshold and would not be required to report their emissions under the proposed rule.

This means that, if the proposed rule is enacted, 13,000 facilities across the United States will be required to report their greenhouse gas emissions. Industries affected include manufacturers of oil, cement, chemicals, iron and steel, automobiles, and many others. The proposed rule covers about 85-90 percent of greenhouse gas emissions originating in the United States.

The initial cost to the private sector to comply with reporting requirements is estimated at $160 million in its first year, with subsequent years dropping to $127 million annually. If on schedule, the proposed reporting is set to begin in 2011 after the monitoring of 2010 emissions. Vehicle and engine manufacturers will begin reporting for model year 2011.

The proposed rule comes under the heading of the Clean Air Act and is in accordance with the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 signed into law in December 2007. The proposal was originally expected to come out last September. While this measure is a first of its kind for the United States, greenhouse gas emissions reporting is already underway in other countries. In Australia, for example, the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 was passed in September 2007 requiring mandatory reporting of corporate greenhouse gas emissions as well as energy production and consumption.

While delayed in its release, the timing of this announcement by the EPA might be significant in that it underscores the environmental consciousness of the new administration. Despite its expected debut during Bush’s term in office, the Obama administration has managed to finally kick emissions regulation into gear and put the United States on track for a greener future.

Flickr Photo credit: Benoit Marquet/Oxfam GB

While the highly anticipated summit in Copenhagen is in December, there are already international negotiations taking place amongst country representatives. Much has changed in the world for many nations since Kyoto, and India is a prime example. Since Kyoto, India has since become one of the top 3 emitters of carbon dioxide and continues to grow. Similarly, India has experienced tremendous growth economically that has led to marked improvements in certain development goals, though not all. Perceptions on climate change since Kyoto have also changed, especially within India, as awareness among Indians has risen, though fragmented.

Recently, Indian-based The Energy and Resource Institute (TERI) sponsored its annual Sustainable Development Summit in Delhi. Attracting a number of international delegates, the Summit was marketed as a starting ground for Copenhagen. While there is increasing international pressure on India to commit to aggressive climate policies, India’s participation in the international arena tends to be one of mixed rhetoric: vocal in its concerns and priorities as these frameworks emerge, yet silent and awaiting commitments by other nations.

India emphasizes technology and funding in climate diplomacy

India has been steadfast in echoing the ‘common but differentiated responsibility’ tone in its climate diplomacy in the past few years. This tone is likely to continue in the months leading up to Copenhagen focusing on the ‘principle of equity’. Noting that developed countries assistance in technology and funding is critical to building their capacity to address climate change goals, the Government of India has resisted any commitments to emission targets. Shyam Saran, senior official in the Prime Minister’s Special Envoy for Climate Change, stated  “We would expect the Copenhagen outcome to provide us with the space we require for accelerated social and economic development in order to eradicate widespread poverty.” This stance challenges some of those emerging from international organization officials, such as UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon who stated at the Delhi Summit “We should not argue who is more responsible, who is less responsible, who should do more and as to who less. This is a common, shared responsibility.”  The latest publication from the Ministry of External Affairs outlines India’s position on climate issues leading up to Copenhagen and challenges misconceptions of India’s position. Some points:

• On India’s resistance to GHG target commitments: Challenging criticism, the publication emphasized that the Government of India’s position is based on the fact that India’s per capita emissions are low and the Government is intent on ensuring they remain low in the future. In addition, India is interested in seeking outcomes in Copenhagen that address inevitable outcomes resulting from climate change- seeking an equitable distribution of resources to adapt.
• On India’s vocal objections and lack of proposals on the international front: The Indian Government is looking to address issues that currently hinder technology transfers in India such as weak intellectual property rights and lack of collaborative research and development (R&D).

Economic downturn concerns

In the months leading up to Copenhagen, the view among Indian officials is one of concern that economic downturn will deflate developed countries commitments to global climate change commitments particularly emission targets, funding, and technology transfer. External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee voiced that the current economic downturn  should not be used as an excuse for developed countries to scale back environmental commitments. Domestically, India’s own “Green Energy Summit” supposed to be held early this month and attracting India businesses, NGOs, and ministries was postponed due to the economic downturn. Thus, capacity concerns associated with technology transfer worry Indian officials as economic constraints limit diffusion and adoption of new technologies in various sectors.

India looking to lead in research and technology

Erik Solheim, Norway’s minister for environment and international relations, suggests India should take a more assertive approach on emission targets and set the tone for developing countries in the climate change pact leading up to Copenhagen 2009. In its own contexts, the Indian Government has aimed to be leader on the international front, stating India would not allow its per capita emissions to exceed the average of developed countries’ and has sought its own Action Plan to confront issues. India has also shown interest in forging R&D partnerships with countries such as the United States- noting President Obama’s increased attention towards renewable energy as an opportunity for the Indian economy. In the end, equity concerns and capacity shortfalls are key issues formulating India’s stance on climate change.

Clearly, India’s accountability and capacity in climate change issues has considerably been – and will continue to be- a target of discussion as India receives a growing spotlight in the international climate change policy arena leading up to Copenhagen in December.