Just in time for the UN summit in New York next week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid warned earlier this week that due to the Senate’s busy schedule it might not act on a comprehensive climate change bill until 2010. Health care and regulatory reform are also high on the Senate’s agenda, and according to Reid’s statement, the climate change bill might have to wait until the other two are dealt with.

This follows Senators Boxer and Kerry’s announcement at the beginning of the month, that rather than early September, they are now aiming to unveil their version of the bill at the end of the month. A target that was repeated this week by Sen. Kerry saying that “We are aiming for this month.”

Reid’s statement naturally caused quite a stir, though it was later somewhat retracted by Reid’s spokesman, who commented that “no decisions have been made” on floor timing for a comprehensive climate and energy bill. And two days after his original comment, Reid insisted that he hopes to move a climate bill “as quickly as we can”

In response though, the EU ambassador to the US expressed his concern by the delay which will push the decision about a US climate policy until after the UNFCCC meeting in Copenhagen, noting that “if this were to happen it would open the United States to the charge that it does not take its international commitments seriously, and that these commitments will always take second place to domestic politics“

This feeling is echoed by the concerns expressed by environmental organisations such as Environmental Defense Fund, whose international counsel Annie Petsonk pointed out that “The appearance to the international community would be that the U.S. Congress is just adrift,” and others who worry that this lack of domestic progress in the US will give other countries an excuse not to act as well.

Obama’s administration also acknowledges the importance of US legislation to international progress as was evident when Todd Stern, the State Department’s special climate change envoy, testified in front of the House Select Committee for Energy Independence and Global Warming saying that “Nothing the United States can do is more important for the international negotiation process than passing robust, comprehensive clean energy legislation as soon as possible” and stressing that “President Obama and the Secretary of State, along with our entire Administration are committed to action on this issue“

Progress Nonetheless

Even though the legislative process is delayed, the US is still making progress in its attempt to curb GHG emissions, as evident by two developments in the past week.

On Monday Interior Secretary Ken Salazar signed an order setting up a Climate Change Response Council and eight regional response centres to study and respond to the expected impacts of climate change on wildlife and historic places. The order also includes a commitment to produce a plan to reduce the Interior Department’s own greenhouse gas emissions, including setting a firm target. The Interior Department, which manages 20 percent of the land in the United States, will also explore methods to sequester carbon by storing it underground and by absorbing it through forests and rangelands.

The following day the EPA ,along with the Department of Trasport, moved ahead with car emissions regulations – unveiling the proposed rules based on the outline presented by the president in May.

These two developments give somewhat more weight to Todd Stern’s warning to countries such as China and India, that if there is no cooperation on international action to reduce emissions, Congress is more likely to put in place protectionist measures, as at least the US can show some domestic progress.

These actions though, while beneficial in mitigation of CO2 emissions, are not as reassuring to other countries of the US willingness to tackle climate change as actual legislation. The US failure to ratify Kyoto is still very much on everybody’s mind and Obama will have to work hard to convince other countries, especially major players like the EU and China, that any agreement signed in Copenhagen – if one is at all signed – stands a good chance of later passing Congress. This might motivate him to be involved more closely with the legislation than he has been so far (more like he has been with health care reform), which in the end might result in a better bill. If that happens, Reid’s statement would have been for the better.

© Laura Padgett

Following two days of high-level discussions held in Washington at the beginning of last week, the U.S. and China signed an agreement to increase cooperation on climate change and energy.

These discussions were the first meeting in the China-U.S. Economic and Strategic Dialogue which was launched by Hu Jintao and Barak Obama at the G20 meeting in London in April, and are set to continue later this year. They consisted of two parallel tracks – an economic track, co-chaired by US Treasury Secretary Geithner and Chinese Vice Premier Wang Qishan; and a policy one, co-chaired by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Chinese State Councilor Dai Bingguo

In the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) which was signed at the end of the meeting the two nations agree to “strengthen and coordinate our respective efforts to combat global climate change, promote clean and efficient energy, protect the environment and natural resources, and support environmentally sustainable and low-carbon economic growth”. The countries agree that cooperation between them is crucial to reaching these goals, and that they both have an important role in global negotiations. The document also states that this future cooperation will also strengthen and improve the relationship between China and the US, something that will benefit both countries in areas other than climate change as well.

As far as practicalities, the MoU doesn’t contain a whole lot of those. There are no exact targets and no detailed plans for cooperation other than stating that the two countries will “establish Climate Change Policy Dialogue and Cooperation as a platform for the United States and China to address global climate change and to identify and resolve areas of concern.”

So this agreement is no more than a general outline for future cooperation, which while it is definitely a step in the right direction, as US Senator John Kerry pointed out “the fully defined mutuality of effort between our two countries—did not materialize.”

This does not mean though that the improved relationship between the US and China since Obama took office has not yielded more concrete developments. These came two weeks previously when – during secretaries Steven Chu (energy) and Gary Locke (commerce) visit to China – the two countries agreed on several joint projects including an agreement between the U.S. DoE and the Chinese Ministry of Urban-Rural Development to foster collaboration in the development of more efficient building designs and sustainable communities; and an announcement of a joint Clean Energy Center to which the two countries pledged $15 million in support of initial activities.

These increasingly closer ties with China also provide opportunities to expose the US public and members of Congress to the progress made within China in fields such energy efficiency, renewable energy and clean energy technologies. This is important as the perceived lack of progress in other major emitters, especially China, is often used as an excuse to oppose and water down the US climate bill.

Copenhagen's famous mermaid (source: about.com)

The leading think-tank Chatham House held a conference on Monday and Tuesday this week, entitled “The Politics of Climate Change Agreement”.  There were some high-level speakers, including Joan Ruddock (DECC minister), the head of UNEP, and the chief negotiator of Papua New Guinea (he who told the USA to “show some leadership or get out of the way” at Bali).There was a vein of optimism running through the discussions – after all, who would have thought three years ago that the US would (almost) have a cap-and-trade bill, that India and China would have mitigation plans, and in 2008 investment in renewable energy would exceed investment in both nuclear and fossil fuels.

The main focus of the conference was what needed to happen politically to get a good deal at Copenhagen. The position of most developing countries is that annex 1 countries must provide binding targets for emissions reductions by 2020, consistent with keeping us on a 450ppm pathway or below. Secondly, there will be no deal without clear commitments by rich countries on adaptation financing. There was general agreement that Gordon Brown has broken the logjam on this with his speech last week finally putting a price tag of $100bn a year.

These are both likely to be forthcoming, but the extent of rich country cuts are still unclear – the Waxman-Markey bill in the US is unambitious, and recent figures put out by Russia and Japan were also disappointing. An aggregation of commitments so far gives a 16-26% reduction on 1990 levels by 2020. This is not good enough, as the IPCC says we need 25-40% cuts by 2020 to stay on the 450ppm pathway.

On the rich country side, the US in particular wants developing countries to commit to binding emissions cuts (cf. previous stand-offs with India), which many of them see as unjustifiable. This will probably be the major sticking point at Copenhagen. The piece of UNFCCC jargon for developing country emissions cuts is “Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions” (NAMA) by poor countries, which implicitly mean a move away from business as usual. This move is critical, because even if OECD emissions were zero, developing country emissions would still need to fall in order to meet 450ppm.

It is clear that we need a political deal at Copenhagen, even if the technical aspects take another year to hammer out. Regional or national negotiations targets around CCS and industry will be important, but a global political agreement is needed to hold it all together. The worst outcome would be a deal with vague or insufficient emissions reductions, including lots of greenwash around REDD. In conclusion, four essential elements for a good deal probably include (i) emissions targets for rich countries consistent with staying below 2 degrees warming, (ii) NAMAs for developing countries, (iii) a decent institutional framework, (iv) financing for adaptation.

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.

… 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

Barbara Boxer, chairman of the Environment & Public Works Committee

Hot on the heels of the House vote on the Waxman-Markey bill, the Senate is now taking its turn to deliberate a climate change bill, with a full Environment & Public Works Committee hearing today, only the second legislative day since the House took its vote.

While parts of a Senate bill have been discussed previously, today was the first big hearing in the issue, and an opening shot for discussions that should last throughout the summer. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declared Sep 18 as the deadline for the 6 relevant committees to produce their pieces of the bill so that the bill can be voted on this autumn, and California Senator Barbara Boxer, chairman of the Environment & Public Works Committee is expected to release her draft of the bill in the next few weeks.

The first panel consisted of representatives of the administration – Secretaries Steven Chu (Energy), Tom Vilsack (Agriculture) and Ken Salazar (Interior) and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. The questions they received from committee members ranged in subject and style – discussions of the merits and demerits of nuclear energy (which Chu agreed will have an important part in a low carbon future); inquiries into the the potential of solar energy (Sen. Sanders, I-VT, is a know solar enthusiast); nitpicky remarks about alleged suppressions of documents within the EPA; and a request for clarifications as to the benefits of public transport (Sen. Cardin, D-DM, wanted to know about energy saving and environmental benefits, stating that its contribution to quality of life is obvious).

Sen. Lautenberg (D-NJ), with his questions, provided the opportunity for Chu to explain how science actually works and why climate change science can’t be a hoax, and got on record the connection between more cars, which leads to increased pollution, and an increase in asthma sufferers. Something his grandson shares in common with Jackson’s child.

One of the things that struck me during these discussions, is that the Republican members of the committee can’t seem to understand the fact that the solution to climate change will take a global effort. Again and again they solicited quotes from the panel members that this bill is not going to solve the climate crisis (a crisis most of them still deny), concluding that the bill is not worth it. Again and again the panellists responded that not only is it not just a climate bill (but also an energy bill, a jobs bill and a chance for the US to again be a leader in innovation), but also that for an effective global action, the US must lead and the other countries will follow.

After this there was a break in the hearing, while members went to the swearing in of Democrat Al Franken, whose final winning of the Minnesota seat gave the Democrats a filibuster-proof majority of 60 senate seats (though they are still far from 60 supporters for a climate bill).

The second panel consisted of Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour who – amongst other things – criticized the length of the House bill; Rich Wells, VP of the Dow Chemical Company who represented a business that has already realised the importance, and reaped the benefits, of energy efficiency; David Hawkins of the NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) who mentioned serious concerns about the way biomas and offsets are dealt with in the House bill; and finally John Fetterman, mayor of Braddock, a small town in Pennsylvania which transformed from a “thriving steel town of over 20,000” to “a shattered community of under 3,000 residents today”. He spoke on behalf of the people that for decades have watched their jobs being exported overseas and reminded the committee that many workers unions – United Steelworkers, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and the Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association, to name but a few – have supported the House climate bill. He told of how clean energy initiatives benefited his community – for example increasing summer youth employment – and how he, and his town, see the bill as an opportunity, not a financial burden.

Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States (image credit: NOAA)

This week the United States government has finally released the long awaited report entitled Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States. This is the first report dealing with climate change impacts to have been released in nearly a decade (though Congress has mandated annual updates on the science of climate change and a comprehensive report every four years is required by federal law, none has been released during the Bush years), and is the most detailed and comprehensive to have ever been written by a US agency.

Commissioned by the US Global Change Research Program, it is a collaborative effort by experts from 13 US government science agencies as well as from several universities and research institute. The report, which uses the most up-to-date scientific findings, updates the latest IPCC reports and breaks climate change impacts – both current and expected – by US region and economic sectors.

I won’t go into the impacts mentioned in the report – those have been detailed in other places (see for example NOAA’s press release for the main findings, or more detailed breakdowns by regions and sectors), and are not new in themselves, as this is in essence a review of scientific publications similar to the IPCC reports. The exciting part for me is that for the first time Americans are presented with government sponsored, easy to read and detailed information about the impacts that will – and already are – affecting them directly. I don’t think that I am being too optimistic in hoping that this report – published just before an expected House vote on the Waxman – Markey bill next week – will be a beginning of a long overdue paradigm shift in the American public. 

After all, there are reasons why most Americans don’t believe that climate change in happening, that it is man made, or that its consequences will affect them, and one of these reasons is that official information has been so sorely lacking from the public debate. Even when reporting natural disasters such as hurricanes and droughts, most newspapers have so far failed to make a connection to climate change. Now however, NGOs have been quick to pick up this report and rely on its clout to encourage their members to act, or just to remind them that climate change is real and it is about to affect us all.

EPA logo

In a landmark move, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is about to declare an “endangerment finding” on GHGs, meaning they officially acknowledge them to be a threat to human health, and are therefore required to regulate them under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

This is the latest development in a process that started in 1999 when 12 states, 3 cities and several environmental organisations petitioned the EPA to regulate GHGs emissions from motor vehicles under the CAA. The case – known as Massachusetts v. EPA – eventually made it to the Supreme Court, and in April 2007 the Court ruled that as greenhouse gases meet the Act’s definition of air pollutants, the EPA must take action to regulate tailpipe emissions.

Following this decision the EPA was required to find whether or not GHGs emissions from vehicles endanger public health (unless it found that the science is too uncertain to make a judgement).

Unsurprisingly EPA scientists found that GHGs do in fact endanger human health as they contribute to global warming, but under the Bush administration the EPA stalled, taking over a year to publish just an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR is an informal action used when an agency seeks more information and public input before deciding what to propose).

Now the EPA, under the new director Lisa P. Jackson, has finally sent the Obama administration a proposed “endangerment finding”, which – if cleared by the White House Office of Management and Budget – will pave the way for EPA regulation of GHGs.

While many agree that the 1970 Clean Air Act is not ideal for dealing with rising GHGs emissions (and anyway, this first stage deals with emissions from vehicles only), this will still be a step forward as it will likely put pressure on Congress to pass legislation that would be better suited for the task. Such a move will be welcomed both by environmentalists and the industry.

So what now? Now we wait for Ms. Jackson to sign the endangerment finding, probably in mid April, and see if this will indeed prompt Congress to act more swiftly on regulating US emissions of greenhouse gases.

Rendering of US city under water – by TERRA-Dreams (SoftPIX_Techie)

According to a recent Gallup Poll, an increasing number of Americans believe that the threat of global warming is exaggerated. In the 2009 poll, Gallup surveyed 1012 adults by fixed and mobile phone. The results found that forty-one percent of Americans doubted the severity of global warming as reported by the mainstream media. In addition, the environmental poll found a record-breaking 16 percent of Americans reported that they believed the effects of global warming will never occur.

Gallup Analyst Lydia Saad comments that, “Americans generally believe global warming is real (but) most Americans do not view the issue in the same dire terms as the many prominent leaders advancing global warming as an issue.”

Americans ranked global warming last out of eight environmental issues to be concerned about in the poll. Of highest concern to Americans surveyed was the pollution of drinking water – pulling in 84 percent of the votes. While Americans tend to believe that global warming is real, only 34% surveyed felt that they worry “a great deal” about the issue.

The annual environmental poll shows this drop in public concern across several measures. Global warming not only ranks last among the percentage of Americans concerned either a “great deal” or a “fair amount”, global warming is the only issue to have seen a significant decrease in public concern over the past year.

What could have caused such an increase in global warming doubters?

Global warming has received a great deal of attention this past decade due to debates regarding the Kyoto Protocol and former Vice President Al Gore’s Oscar-winning documentary “An Inconvenient Truth”. However, in this past year, the global warming message may have lost some of its ground with Americans. Given the economic downturn, it is possible that some of the public concern for global warming has turned toward pressing economic issues. Additionally, other factors may also be contributing to the dampening of the global warming message.

The recent elections in the United States could have had some effect on issue. The number of Republicans to believe that global warming media coverage is exaggerated has continuously increased since 1997. However, the 2009 environmental poll also reveals an increase in independent voters agreeing with the Republicans doubters.

Heightened politicization of issues leading up to the elections – including the concern over global warming – may have altered American beliefs on the subject. Additionally, an abundant number of debates over drilling in Alaska, renewable energy and the necessity for climate change legislation may have increased public fatigue over topics related to global warming. Therefore, next year’s survey will be of further importance to determine whether the increased number of global warming doubters in America is a reaction to unique circumstances or a trend that will continue into the future.

Canada has had a rough time of it in recent weeks, the visit of President Obama, on his first official state visit was marred by domestic protests. The issue, a divisive one for Canadians, was made explicit when the National Geographic ran a on the tar-sands, using double spreads to highlights the destructive cost of tar sand development with some lurid before and after photos.

As if the National Geographic article was not enough, another journal of note, The Economist, wrote this article, providing some substantive criticism of Prime Minister Harper’s green efforts to date and prompting some passionate discussion in the subsequent comments.

Continue reading…