Independent Berkeley Earth Study Confirms "Global Warming Is Real"

Oct 24: "Global warming is real," according to a major study by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project, just released on October 20. According to a summary, despite issues raised by climate change skeptics, the BEST project finds reliable evidence of a rise in the average world land temperature. The team finds that "the global land mean temperature has increased by 0.911 ± 0.042 C since the 1950s (95% confidence for statistical and spatial uncertainties). This change is consistent with global land-surface warming results previously reported, but with reduced uncertainty."

 

    The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project, an effort to provide an unbiased and independent analysis of global warming to prove or disprove its existence, has release four scientific papers setting out the main conclusions of the study to date (October 2011). The BEST project was created to make the best possible estimate of global temperature change using as complete a record of measurements as possible and by applying novel methods for the estimation and elimination of systematic biases. It was organized under the auspices of Novim, a non-profit public interest group. The papers have been submitted for peer review and cover the following topics: Statistical Methods; Urban Heat Island; Station Quality; and Decadal Variations. The BEST team is making the preliminary results public, together with the programs and data set in order to invite additional scrutiny as part of the peer review process.

 

    The team explains that existing data used to show global warming have met with much criticism. The BEST project attempts to resolve current criticism of the former temperature analyses by making available an open record to enable rapid response to further criticism and suggestions. The results include the best estimate for the global temperature change and the estimates of the uncertainties in the record. The team indicates that "science is nonpartisan and our interest is in getting a clear view of the pace of climate change in order to help policy makers to evaluate and implement an effective response. In choosing team members, we engage people whose primary interests are finding answers to the current issues and addressing the legitimate concerns of the critics on all sides. None of the scientists involved has taken a public political stand on global warming."

 

    The team indicates that the most important indicator of global warming, by far, is the land and sea surface temperature record. This has been criticized in several ways, including the choice of stations and the methods for correcting systematic errors. The BEST study sets out to do a new analysis of the surface temperature record in a rigorous manner that addresses this criticism. It uses over 39,000 unique stations, which is more than five times the 7,280 stations found in the Global Historical Climatology Network Monthly data set (GHCN-M) that has served as the focus of many climate studies. The team's aim is to resolve current criticism of the former temperature analyses, and to prepare an open record that will allow rapid response to further criticism or suggestions.

 

    The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project has the following objectives: (1) To merge existing surface station temperature data sets into a new comprehensive raw data set with a common format that could be used for weather and climate research; (2) To review existing temperature processing algorithms for averaging, homogenization, and error analysis to understand both their advantages and their limitations; (3) To develop new approaches and alternative statistical methods that may be able to effectively remove some of the limitations present in existing algorithms; (4) To create and publish a new global surface temperature record and associated uncertainty analysis; and (5) To provide an open platform for further analysis by publishing our complete data and software code as well as tools to aid both professional and amateur exploration of the data.

 

    The project is funded from grants and donations. A complete list of donors and the amounts that they contributed is available on the BEST website. The project has received financial support totaling more than $600,000 from the Folger Fund, the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (created by Bill Gates), the Bowes Foundation, the Koch Foundation, and the Getty Foundation. Together, the people who created these organizations span a wide range of political views. Also, the project has received funding from a number of private individuals, totaling $14,500 at this time. All donations were provided as unrestricted educational grants and donors have no influence over the methodology or the published results. The results have now been made public and will be presented with full transparency, and the data are available to those who wish to carry out their own analysis.

    Access a 2-page summary of results (click here). Access the BEST website for complete background, FAQs and related information (click here). Access links to the 4 papers, data sets, summaries, charts, and more (click here). Access the complete list of donors (click here). [#Climate]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)

UNEP/WRI Report On Options In Reaching Climate Change Goals

Oct 24: A report by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Resources Institute (WRI) warns that  international efforts to mitigate climate change are insufficient to meet the goal of keeping global warming to below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. The report is being released just a month in advance of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) meeting in Durban, South Africa (COP17/CMP7).

 

    The report -- Building the Climate Change Regime: Survey and Analysis of Approaches -- outlines a list of options to achieve the target, including more cuts in greenhouse gases (GHGs) from additional sectors, stronger accounting rules both within the UNFCCC and through other multilateral and domestic strategies, sharing mitigation efforts based on countries' capacities or contributions to the problem, and legally binding commitments. The report reviews more than 130 proposals put forward by governments, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and academics to design a climate regime capable of delivering adequate mitigation. At the upcoming climate meeting in Durban, November 28 to December 9, 2011, countries will have the opportunity to turn these ideas into action and start to bridge the ambition gap needed to truly have an impact [See WIMS 10/19/11].

    The report and warning from is the latest in a long series of UN warnings that world is falling behind in the battle against global warming. Just last month, at a Leaders' Dialogue on Climate Change on the eve of the high-level session of the General Assembly, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urged governments to show greater commitment. Scientists say that keeping to the 2-degrees Celsius limit over the course of the 21st century is crucial to avert widespread disasters, from the disappearances of low-lying island nations under rising seas and searing droughts, famines, extreme storms and flooding, to the extinction of species.

    UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner said, "The analysis provided in this new report offers many options that can happen either in the formal negotiations or as complementary measures elsewhere, options that can assist the more than 190 United Nations Member States move quickly to harvest the opportunities of a transition to a climate resilient, low-carbon, resource-efficient Green Economy." The report highlights the need to mobilize a range of public and private sector groups at the international, national and sub-national levels, who can contribute to climate governance, emission reductions and adaptation investment.

    The report stressed that the issue of legally binding commitments is central to debates ahead of Durban and noted that it is possible to build upon existing UNFCCC processes to strengthen the climate regime and raise the overall level of ambition to reach the target. UNEP indicated that "While a number of studies have demonstrated that the level of climate mitigation pledged to date is insufficient to limit temperature increases to 2 degrees Celsius, this paper clearly demonstrates that there are a range of good ideas and options available that could help correct the course and move toward a safer and more stable climate." The report breaks down proposals into five key issues that have been major points of debate:

1. Options under the UNFCCC to Increase Ambition: Within the UNFCCC, new approaches could involve reducing the emissions of additional greenhouse gases, including additional sectors, and strengthening accounting rules for emissions and emission reductions. Utilizing tools within the UNFCCC can be beneficial because they minimize duplication and implementation costs while facilitating trust-building. However, other complementary options should also be considered.
2. Options outside the UNFCCC to Increase Ambition: Beyond the UNFCCC process, approaches include multilateral, plurilateral, bilateral and domestic strategies. These approaches offer prospects to mobilize actors around shared interests like development, trade, human rights, energy or food security. While these new strategies can generate greater ambition, one disadvantage of following approaches outside the UNFCCC is a risk of undermining existing processes and creating inefficiencies.
3. Means for Sharing the Mitigation Effort Under the UNFCCC: Various proposals could be used to allocate responsibility to bridge the gap between the current level of effort and scientific recommendations. Possible approaches include dividing mitigation efforts based on countries' capacity or based on countries' contribution to the problem. Setting a global carbon budget would help ensure that the climate regime meets the adequacy standard, but it could be difficult to implement new allocations for emission obligations.
4. The Role of Various Actors in Tracking Country Performance on Mitigation: Harmonized global accounting, reporting and verification standards are fundamental to progress. Two options are to use tools within the UNFCCC or outside the UNFCCC. Both options are discussed in detail.
5. The Legal Form of a Future Climate Agreement: The issue of legally binding commitments is central to the debates ahead of Durban. The paper presents multiple options for climate negotiators: to proceed without new, legally-binding commitments; to commit to achieving new legally-binding commitments immediately; or to strengthen the components of legal character over time to achieve new, legally-binding commitments as soon as possible.

    Access a release from the UN (click here). Access a more detailed release from UNEP (click here). Access a release from WRI with links to the complete report, background and related information (click here). Access the UNFCCC website for more information and details on the upcoming COP17/CMP7 meeting (click here). [#Climate]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)

Global Investors Call For Meaningful Action On Climate Change

Oct 19: Despite the global economic crisis, and increased market volatility, the world's largest investors urged governments and international policy makers to take new and meaningful steps in the fight against climate change. In a joint statement, the group of 285 investors representing more than $20 trillion in assets stressed the urgent need for policy action which stimulates private sector investment into climate change solutions, creates jobs, and is essential for ensuring the long-term sustainability and stability of the world economic system.

    According to a release, investor support for climate action has more than doubled since November 2008, when 150 investors with $9 trillion in assets under management first came together to urge government leaders to act on climate change. Current levels of investments in low-carbon technology and infrastructure are substantially lower than the $500 billion per year deemed necessary by the International Energy Agency (IEA) to hold the increase of global average temperatures below 2 degrees Celsius -- the target agreed in Cancun last year.

    Coordinated by three leading investor groups on climate change -- the US-based Investor Network on Climate Risk (INCR); the European Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC); and the Investors Group on Climate Change (IGCC) in Australia and New Zealand -- alongside the United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative (UNEP FI), and the Advisory Council of the Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI), the statement represents the largest ever grouping, by both number of signatories and assets under management, to call for policy action on climate change.

    The statement concludes: "Investment-grade climate change and clean energy policy will provide substantial economic benefits. Those countries that succeed in attracting private capital into low-carbon growth areas such as cleaner and renewable energy, energy efficiency and decarbonization will enjoy multiple benefits, including new jobs, new businesses, new research and technology innovation, more resilient and secure energy systems and, ultimately, more sustainable economies. Private investment can and must play a critical role in addressing the risks and opportunities posed by climate change. However, private sector investment will only flow at the scale and pace necessary if it is supported by clear, credible and long-term domestic and international policy frameworks -- "investment-grade climate change and energy policies" -- that shift the balance in favor of low-carbon investment opportunities."

    The statement is supported by the findings of a report -- Investment-Grade Climate Change Policy: Financing The Transition To The Low-Carbon Economy -- commissioned by the three investor groups and UNEP FI. The report underscores the importance of "investment-grade policy" which will enable institutional investors to allocate capital towards climate change solutions, including appropriate government incentives to compensate for heightened risk and sufficient scale of technology deployment. The report also emphasizes that long-term policy stability is critical and retroactive changes can significantly damage investor confidence. Contained within the report are case studies on the climate policies of six major emitters and further examples of investment-grade policy, which may prove instructive for national governments and negotiators considering future policy initiatives.

    Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) commented saying, "Governments have clearly signaled their intention to move towards a low-carbon future. To get there fast enough will require huge new investments in clean energy. This is the only way to guarantee the long-term sustainability and security of the world economic system and the stability of returns from global investment, a major part of which is directly linked to the pensions and life insurance of ordinary people around the world. This global investor group has seen this clearly. The Statement from major private sector investors will help to give governments both the confidence and the knowledge to put the right incentives and mechanisms in place".

    The Investor groups sent the statement and report to the G-20 and other governments in anticipation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change meeting (COP17/CMP7) in Durban, South Africa November 28 to December 9, 2011 [See WIMS 10/11/11]. Investors will engage with policy makers there and call for domestic and international policy action including:

• The definition by governments of clear short-, medium- and long-term greenhouse gas emission objectives and targets and comprehensive, enforceable legal mechanisms and timelines.
• The creation of lasting financial incentives that shift the risk reward balance in favor of low-carbon assets.
• The design of lasting and comprehensive policies that accelerate the deployment of energy efficiency, cleaner energy, renewable energy, green buildings, clean vehicles and fuels, among others.

    International policy recommendations include:

• Continued work towards a binding international climate change treaty that includes all major emitters and sets short-, mid-, and long-term greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.
• Support the development of the Green Climate Fund and other comparable funding mechanisms.
• Accelerate efforts to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD and REDD+).

    Stephanie Pfeifer, Executive Director at the IIGCC said, "Policy risk has a critical influence on investment in low-carbon growth areas such as renewable energy. Attracting capital at the scale required to meet climate change goals will only be possible when low carbon investments are seen as attractive relative to higher carbon investments. Determined leadership on national and international climate and energy policy will be fundamental in shifting this risk/return balance in favor of low carbon investments".

    Frank Pegan, Chair of IGCC Australia/New Zealand said, "Individual nations will be in a stronger position to attract private capital to stimulate their economies by implementing clear and credible climate policies. As and when governments around the world show leadership and reduce policy risk around climate change for investors, the investment flows will follow." Mindy Lubber, president of Ceres and director of the Investor Network on Climate Risk said, "The global economy is moving towards a low-carbon future. The governments that act aggressively to enact strong, long-term climate and energy policy will reap the rewards. They will drive the innovation, maintain competitiveness in the 21st century and attract investment."

    Access a release from the organizations (click here). Access the joint statement (click here). Access the 44-page report (click here). Access the UNFCCC website for more information and details on the upcoming COP17/CMP7 meeting (click here). [#Climate]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)

Climate Interest Fading?; UNFCCC Last Session Before COP17/CMP7

Oct 11: A week of formal UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) climate negotiations in Panama City, Panama ended on Friday, October 7, with reportedly some progress on drafting the decision texts that will allow governments to move forward at the upcoming COP17/CMP7 meeting in Durban, South Africa November 28 to  - December 9, 2011. UNFCCC indicated in a release that the Panama meeting "made good progress on preparing the decisions that will help developing countries adapt to climate change and get access to the technologies they need to create their own clean energy futures." The COP is the "supreme body" of the Convention. The CMP is the "supreme body" of the Kyoto Protocol.

 

    Christiana Figueres, UNFCCC Executive Secretary said, "This includes meeting deadlines for the launch of the new Adaptation Committee and Technology Mechanism which were agreed at last year's Cancun climate change conference. It also made clear progress on how efforts to limit emissions by developing countries will be matched with necessary support from developed countries in a transparent way. This includes work on a new Registry to record and account for this effort, which was also agreed

in Cancun.

 

    Figueres indicated that, "The progress made in Panama means governments can have more time and space in the coming weeks and during Durban to resolve those outstanding issues on the future of the global climate change regime which will require political guidance. Durban will have to resolve the open question over the future of the Kyoto Protocol and what that means for a future global climate agreement. Governments retain different positions but many technical issues related to this have already been brought to conclusion and there is a strong desire from all sides to see a final political decision made." She said that in Panama the South African Presidency led two inclusive and transparent consultations on those questions, one with governments and one with stakeholders and civil society.

 

    On the subject of financial support that developed countries have pledged to the developing world, Figueres said Panama had provided a better view of how the $30 billion (USD) in fast-track funds up to the end of 2012 have been committed and the plans to disburse them. Meanwhile, governments put forward their ideas for mobilizing the long-term finance that should reach USD100 billion a year by 2020. Figueres said, "It is critical that no financing gap occurs between the end of fast-start finance in 2012 and the ramp up of long-term finance to 2020."

 

    UNFCCC indicated that the Panama meeting also made some progress on the longer-term question of how governments will meet their agreed goal of limiting global average temperatures to no more than a 2 degree Centigrade (2C) rise. In Durban, governments will look to decide the shape of a formal Review between 2013 and 2015, which they agreed in Cancun as a reality check on progress towards their temperature goal. Governments discussed doing this via a possible expert body which would receive updates on the latest climate change science and its assessments. Figueres said, "Clarity on an effective, credible Review is most important, especially in light of the fact that the sum total of current national pledges to reduce global emissions falls 40% short of keeping below 2C and that gap will have to be filled in the future."

 

    While the UNFCCC painted an optimistic picture of the Panama meeting there was very little interest by U.S. interest groups, political leaders or news media. Others engaged in the process were not as encouraged and some even warned that the international negotiating process is on the verge of collapse. Environmental Defense Fund (EDF's) International Climate Program Director Jennifer Haverkamp observed, "Some positive signals came out of Panama – less rancor and obstructionism than we had come to expect this year, and some progress on teeing up negotiating texts -- but these glimmers of progress are eclipsed by the unresolved question of the Kyoto Protocol's future."

    Haverkamp said, "Our preferred Durban outcome is agreement on a timetable and pathway to a new mandatory agreement. Sad to say, that's looking like a heavy lift. But the prospect of a collapse of the existing legal framework will only strengthen the resolve of countries that actually want to tackle this problem to move forward in the avenues available to them. Much still needs to be done in the next six weeks if Durban is to successfully advance progress toward a climate regime that preserves the planet for our grandchildren in a form we would still recognize."

    Access a release from UNFCCC on the Panama meeting (click here). Access the UNFCCC website for links to more information and details from the Panama meeting (click here). Access a 16-page summary of the meeting from the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) (click here). Access a release from EDF (click here). Access a NYT report on the meeting (click here) [#Climate]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)

Battle Lines Drawn Over OIG Report On Endangerment Finding

Sep 28: U.S. EPA released a statement on the Agency's Office of Inspector General (OIG) report on the process and procedure it used in developing its Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act [See WIMS 9/28/11]. EPA emphasized that, "Some news accounts have mischaracterized the report's findings." The Agency included a number of highlighted excerpts from the report in addition to its statement. 

 

    Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) Inhofe, and avid critic of climate change science and EPA actions to control GHG emissions, who requested the report from OIG reacted immediately and said the report indicated EPA endangerment finding "was rushed, biased, and flawed. It calls the scientific integrity of EPA's decision-making process into question and undermines the credibility of the endangerment finding." He said, "I am calling for the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, the committee of jurisdiction over the EPA, to hold immediate hearings to address EPA's failure to provide the required documentation and have the science impartially reviewed. . ."

 

    EPA said in its official response, "We appreciate the important role played by the Inspector General's Office and will give the recommendations in this report the utmost consideration. Most importantly, the report does not question or even address the science used or the conclusions reached -- by EPA under this and the previous administration -- that greenhouse gas pollution poses a threat to the health and welfare of the American people. Instead, the report is focused on questions of process and procedure. While EPA will consider the specific recommendations, we disagree strongly with the Inspector General's findings and followed all the appropriate guidance in preparing this finding.

    "EPA undertook a thorough and deliberate process in the development of this finding, including a careful review of the wide range of peer-reviewed science. Since EPA finalized the endangerment finding in December of 2009, the vast body of peer reviewed science that EPA relied on to make its determination has undergone further examination by a wide range of independent scientific bodies. All of those reviews have upheld the validity of the science."

    EPA highlighted the following excerpts from the OIG report:

• EPA met statutory requirements for rulemakings.
• We did not test the validity of the scientific or technical information used by EPA to support its endangerment finding.
• We did not make conclusions regarding the impact that EPA's information quality control systems may have had on the scientific information used to support the endangerment finding.
• EPA fulfilled the statutory requirements for notice and comment rulemakings mandated in the Administrative Procedure Act and in Section 307 of the CAA, and employed several of its processes designed to ensure data quality.
• OMB in response to our draft report stated that OMB believes that EPA reasonably interpreted the OMB bulletin in concluding that the TSD did not meet the bulletin's definition of a highly influential scientific assessment.

    Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, issued a brief statement saying, "The EPA Inspector General in no way questions the science underlying the endangerment finding. It is time to move on to protect the American people from the impacts of climate change, which we are already beginning to see."

 

    House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) expressed concerns over the report and said the OIG found "that EPA failed to follow the government's own scientific review requirements" on the endangerment finding for greenhouse gases which he said is "at the core of Obama's climate change regulatory agenda." He said, "The Inspector General's findings call into question the credibility of the endangerment finding and the justification for multiple regulatory efforts that stemmed from that finding. EPA failed to conduct its proper due diligence and now the American people will be forced to pay the price. 

    "Sound process is critical to sound outcomes, and the credibility of federal policy and regulations is compromised when agencies cut corners. EPA's controversial greenhouse gas regulations are projected to cost tens of billions of dollars and could eliminate up to 1.4 million jobs by 2014. Clearly the stakes are high, and the notion that the Obama administration took regulatory shortcuts in pursuit of their preferred policy outcome is deeply troubling."   

    Steve Seidel, Vice President for Policy Analysis at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change analyzed the OIG report and said in a blog post, "So exactly what process fouls did EPA commit and how did they affect the outcome of the report? The IG criticizes EPA for not deeming the technical support document a "highly influential scientific assessment" and for not undertaking the procedural requirements set out in OMB guidance for such a document. Instead of undertaking its own assessment of the climate change literature, EPA determined that it would rely on the existing (and extensively peer reviewed) assessments performed by the U.S. Global Change Research Program, the U.S. National Research Council, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Because its document was essentially a summary of existing assessments, EPA argued that it was not conducting a scientific assessment and therefore was not subject to the process requirements for a "highly influential scientific assessment" in OMB guidance. And OMB agrees.

    "Putting aside the fact that OMB agrees with EPA's call, it is still reasonable to ask what peer review process was used for the document. In preparing the technical support document, EPA organized a panel of 12 federal agency climate experts (including one from EPA) to review the document. The document also underwent extensive interagency and OMB review before being published in the Federal Register for public review in July 2008 as part of the agency's Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. It was revised in response to public comments and reissued for a second round of public comments as part of the proposed endangerment finding in April 2009. The agency held public hearings on its proposed action and prepared 11 volumes of responses to public comments before issuing the final document and endangerment finding in December 2009.

    "The endangerment finding has been challenged in the courts, and they ultimately will decide its fate. Given the extensive body of peer reviewed scientific assessments that formed the basis for the finding and EPA's thorough review process for the finding itself, it is highly unlikely that any such challenges will prevail."

    Access the statement from EPA (click here). Access the statement from Sen. Boxer (click here). Access the statement from Rep. Upton (click here). Access the complete posting from the Pew Center (click here). Access the complete OIG report (click here).  [#Climate, #Air]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)

Final Health Assessment For Trichloroethylene (TCE)
DOE Finalizes Another Loan Guarantee For An Arizona Solar Project
Dems Request Offset Vote On Boiler & Cement MACT Bills
DOE Announces 60 ARPA-E Research Grants In 25 States 
Boston Edison Co. v. US

GOP Leaders Release Draft Bill To "Stop EPA's Cap & Trade Agenda"

Feb 2: U.S. Representative Fred Upton (R-MI), Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Representative Ed Whitfield (R-KY), Chairman of the Energy and Power Subcommittee, and Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, issued a joint statement on the release of their discussion draft, "The Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011." The Energy and Power Subcommittee is scheduled to hold a hearing on the draft legislation next Wednesday, February 9, at 10:00 AM.

    The Republican environmental committee leaders said they were releasing the draft as part of "a deliberative process with their colleagues on both sides of the aisle to discuss the most effective approach to stop EPA's cap and trade agenda." They said the draft legislation is based on the belief that: "(1) Congress, not EPA bureaucrats, should be in charge of setting America's climate change policy; and that, (2) A 2-year delay of EPA's cap-and-trade agenda provides no meaningful certainty for job creators, fails to protect jobs, and punts decision-making in Congress on a critically important economic issue past the voters and the election next year."

    According to a release, "The Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011" would: Stop EPA bureaucrats from making legislative decisions that should be made by Congress; Clarify that the Clean Air Act was not written by Congress to address climate change; Stop EPA bureaucrats from imposing a backdoor cap-and-trade tax that would make gasoline, electricity, fertilizer, and groceries more expensive for consumers; and Protect American jobs and manufacturers from overreaching EPA regulations that hinder our ability to compete with China and other countries.

 

    The members said, "With this draft proposal, we are initiating a deliberative, transparent process that we hope will prevent EPA from imposing by regulation the massive cap-and-trade tax that Congress rejected last year. We firmly believe federal bureaucrats should not be unilaterally setting national climate change policy, and with good reason: EPA's cap-and-trade tax agenda will cost jobs, undermine the competitiveness of America's manufacturers, and, as EPA has conceded, will have no meaningful impact on climate. In other words, all cost with no benefit. America's consumers, large and small businesses, farmers, and entrepreneurs should not carry this burden. We look forward to working with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and the Obama Administration, to pass and sign into law legislation that stops EPA, puts Congress in charge, and helps get our economy growing again."

    The action follows by a couple of days, a similar effort launched on January 31, by U.S. Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) who introduced the "Defending America's Affordable Energy and Jobs Act" (S. 228). Senator Barrasso said his bill "would stop Washington bureaucrats from regulating greenhouse gases (GHG) for the purpose of addressing climate change without specific Congressional authorization." Barrasso's bill has 9 co-sponsors, including: Roy Blunt (R-MO), John Cornyn (R-TX), Mike Enzi (R-WY), James Inhofe (R-OK), Jerry Moran (R-KS), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Pat Roberts (R-KS), John Thune (R-SD), and  David Vitter (R-LA) [See WIMS 1/31/11].

    Equally troubling for EPA and the Obama Administration, Senator John Rockefeller (D-WV) has introduced S. 231, a bill to suspend, until the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of enactment of the Act, any U.S. EPA action under the Clean Air Act "with respect to carbon dioxide or methane pursuant to certain proceedings, other than with respect to motor vehicle emissions, and for other purposes." Senator Rockefeller's bill has six Democratic cosponsors including: Senators Kent Conrak (D-ND), Tim Johnsor (D-SD), Joe Manchin (D-WV), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Jim Webb (D-VA).

    Both Senate bills have been referred to the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, Chaired by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA). Senator Boxer and other Democratic EPW Committee members released statements reacting to the GOP leaders draft proposal. Senator Boxer said, "Bipartisan environmental laws are now under attack. EPA's common-sense steps to address carbon pollution follow the law and the Supreme Court decision that the agency must consider this threat. Congress should not turn its back on the American people by prohibiting EPA from doing its job to address carbon pollution." Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) said, "These attacks on the Clean Air Act will only take us backwards to a time when big polluters dirtied our air with impunity and hurt the health of our children. If Republicans want to tear down the progress we have made to make air cleaner in America, they're going to get a fight from those of us who are committed to the public health of our communities."

    Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD) said, "The facts are simple: EPA's work to protect human health and the environment through the Clean Air Act has saved hundreds of thousands of lives and provided literally trillions of dollars in health benefits. It also has helped generate billions of dollars in revenues for American environmental businesses and exports that support 1.6 million American jobs. Legislation to stop EPA from doing its job under the Clean Air Act is misguided and must not move forward." Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) said, "As Chairman of the Green Jobs Subcommittee, I believe the American people want Congress to protect our families from pollution and create jobs in sustainable energy. As this legislation makes clear, however, Republican leaders in the House and Senate think we should be bailing out big polluters by exempting them from Clean Air Act standards. I will vigorously oppose this and other efforts to gut our nation's clean air health standards."

    Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) said, "These short-sighted attempts to roll back EPA's authority to protect air quality will do harm to clean energy jobs, energy efficiency, and our children's health. We should be working to stimulate our clean energy economy and protect public health, not protecting polluters." Senator Tom Udall (D-NM) said, "This bill goes way too far by undermining the Clean Air Act and putting politics over public health. The Supreme Court and the best climate science - some of which comes from New Mexico's national labs -- compelled the Environmental Protection Agency to act and protect health and welfare of our citizens. EPA oversight is an important responsibility and I will continue to evaluate the impact of the agency's performance." Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) said, "We need strong protections for the air we breathe and the water we drink.  This extreme attack on the Clean Air Act protects polluters, while putting our health at risk. At a critical time when we need to be addressing climate change and impacts on public health, this assault on our environmental protections takes us in the wrong direction."

    Access a release from the GOP leaders (click here). Access the discussion draft bill (click here). Access S.228 (click here). Access S.231 (click here). Access a release from Senator Boxer and other EPW members (click here).

THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS
- Perchlorate Standard & 16 More Chemicals In Drinking Water Strategy
- Senate EPW Hearing On Public Health & Drinking Water Issues

- UN Genetic Resources Treaty Open For Signing
- WRR Launches Interactive Climate Adaptation Website
- Climate Strategies Report On The Future Of The UNFCCC Process
- Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA
- Ocean County Landfill Corp v. US EPA
- California Wilderness Coalition v. US Department of Energy
- Chico Service Station, Inc. v. Sol Puerto Rico Ltd.

(Click here for details)

Farm Bureau Calls For Congressional Oversight Of EPA

Jan 11: Delegates at the American Farm Bureau Federation's (AFBF's) 92nd Annual Meeting voted to maintain a strong farm income safety net, address dairy price volatility and urge greater oversight of regulatory actions by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. As Congress prepares to draft a new farm bill later this year and in 2012, the delegates reiterated their support for extending the concepts of the 2008 farm bill. American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman said, "The 2008 farm bill has worked as farmers and ranchers have weathered market ups and downs over the last four years. It's important to maintain a program that protects our nation's food, fiber and fuel supply and the consumers who rely on agriculture's productivity."

    The delegates approved a resolution calling for more congressional oversight of U.S. EPA's regulatory actions. They asked Congress to assess the impact that EPA regulations would have on agriculture and to consider legislation to stop EPA's regulation of greenhouse gases. Stallman said, "EPA's regulatory reach continues to metastasize at the expense of our ability to produce food, fiber and fuel, and EPA often does not recognize the contributions that farmers and ranchers have made to reduce soil loss and produce more with less land, water, nutrients and other inputs. We need more common sense and less negativity toward production agriculture in the enforcement of the nation's existing environmental statutes."

    AFBF also announced on January 10, during the annual meeting, that it was filing a Federal lawsuit to halt the EPA's recently announced Chesapeake Bay pollution regulatory plan. AFBF said that the Agency overreached by setting up a plan for the entire 64,000 square-mile Chesapeake watershed, usurped state control, relied on faulty data and failed to account for agriculture's contributions to improving water quality, and provided insufficient information and time for the public to check EPA's actions.

 

    U.S. Representative Frank Lucas (R-OK), the new Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, issued a statement at the conclusion of the AFBF annual meeting saying, "I commend the American Farm Bureau Federation and all of its members for the work they do on behalf of America's farmers and ranchers. The Farm Bureau continues to be a strong advocate for our producers and continues to provide common sense solutions to the issues facing rural America.

 

    "The resolutions AFBF passed during the annual meeting will serve as an important guide as we begin the process of reauthorizing the farm bill in 2012. . . I want to commend the Farm Bureau for taking a strong stance on one of the most significant issues facing American agriculture: the hostile regulatory approach of the EPA. As the new Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, I pledge to hold vigorous oversight of the administration on a number of issues that threaten the livelihoods of our farmers and ranchers.

 

    "I welcome the Farm Bureau's continued efforts to rein in the EPA's aggressive attempt to impose new regulations on agricultural production throughout the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, which has far reaching consequences for the entire U.S.  We all support the goal of achieving clean water, but EPA is moving forward with accelerated and questionable regulations without considering the consequences for farmers and rural communities or without considering the ongoing conservation measures our producers are using to improve water quality."

 

    U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), the new Chair of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry did not have a public statement on the AFBF actions.

   

    Access a release from AFBF (click here). Access a release from AFBF on its EPA lawsuit (click here). Access a release from Rep. Lucas (click here). Access a release from EPA on the Chesapeake Bay plan and link to complete details (click here).

EPA Defers GHG Permitting For Biogenic Sources

Jan 12: U.S. EPA announced its plan to defer, for three years, greenhouse gas (GHG) permitting requirements for carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from biomass-fired and other biogenic sources. The Agency said intends to use the time to seek "further independent scientific analysis of this complex issue and then to develop a rulemaking on how these emissions should be treated in determining whether a Clean Air Act permit is required."

    EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said, "We are working to find a way forward that is scientifically sound and manageable for both producers and consumers of biomass energy. In the coming years we will develop a commonsense approach that protects our environment and encourages the use of clean energy. Renewable, homegrown power sources are essential to our energy future, and an important step to cutting the pollution responsible for climate change."

    By July 2011, EPA plans to complete a rulemaking that will defer permitting requirements for CO2 emissions from biomass-fired and other biogenic sources for three years. During the three-year period, the Agency will seek input on critical scientific issues from its partners within the Federal government and from outside scientists who have relevant expertise. EPA will also further consider the more than 7,000 comments it received from its July 2010 Call for Information, including comments noting that burning certain types of biomass may emit the same amount of CO2 emissions that would be emitted if they were not burned as fuel, while others may result in a net increase in CO2 emissions. Before the end of the three-year period, the agency intends to issue a second rulemaking that determines how these emissions should be treated or counted under GHG permitting requirements.

    The Agency will also issue guidance shortly that will provide a basis that state or local permitting authorities may use to conclude that the use of biomass as fuel is the best available control technology for GHG emissions until the agency can complete an action on the three-year deferral in July. In a separate but related letter, EPA is notifying the National Alliance of Forest Owners (NAFO) that it will grant its petition to reconsider the portion of the May 2010 tailoring rule that addresses the same issue.

    CO2 emissions from biomass-fired and other biogenic sources are generated during the combustion or decomposition of biologically based material. Sources covered by this decision would include facilities that emit CO2 as a result of burning forest or agricultural products for energy, wastewater treatment and livestock management facilities, landfills and fermentation processes for ethanol production.

 

    On January 4, Senators Max Baucus (D-MT) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR) sent a letter to EPA Administrator Jackson seeking immediate action on the treatment of biomass under the Tailoring Rule. The letter says that the agency's response to the matter is "critical to the future of the role that biomass will play in our nation's renewable energy future" because regulation of the fuel source has "created significant uncertainty in the biomass energy market."

    On January 2, 2011, air permitting requirements began for large GHG emitting industries that are planning to build new facilities or make major modifications to existing ones [See WIMS 1/3/11]. These facilities must obtain air permits and implement energy efficiency measures or, where available, cost-effective technology to reduce their GHG emissions. This includes the nation's largest GHG emitters, such as power plants and refineries. Emissions from small sources, such as farms and restaurants, are not covered by these GHG permitting requirements.

    Access a release from EPA and link to more information (click here). Access a release from NAFO with a link to the Senators' letter (click here). Access the NAFO website for additional background (click here).

Supreme Court Action Likely Ends Citizens Climate Nuisance Suit

Jan 10: The U.S. Supreme Court has issued an order denying a petition of mandamus in the case of Comer v. Murphy Oil USA (Docket 10-294) [See WIMS 10/21/09]. The action effectively dismisses the case with no explanation. The case decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (Case No. 07-60756) on October 16, 2009, represented a major decision regarding citizen enforcement, utilizing common-law actions and seeking damages resulting from corporate greenhouse gas emissions. The case followed another related decision in State of Connecticut v. American Electric Power Co. Inc. issued on September 21, 2009, by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit [See WIMS 9/22/09]. The Supreme Court will hear that case this year [See WIMS 12/7/10].

    The plaintiffs (i.e. Comer, et al), residents and owners of lands and property along the Mississippi Gulf coast, filed this putative class action in the district court against the named defendants, corporations that have principal offices in other states but are doing business in Mississippi. The plaintiffs allege that defendants' operation of energy, fossil fuels, and chemical industries in the United States caused the emission of greenhouse gasses that contributed to global warming, viz., the increase in global surface air and water temperatures, that in turn caused a rise in sea levels and added to the ferocity of Hurricane Katrina, which combined to destroy the plaintiffs' private property, as well as public property useful to them.

    In its conclusion the Appeals Court said, "The plaintiffs have pleaded sufficient facts to demonstrate standing for their public and private nuisance, trespass, and negligence claims. We decline to find standing for the unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, and fraudulent misrepresentation claims and dismiss these claims. We find that the plaintiffs' remaining claims are justiciable and do not present a political question. We do not hazard, at this early procedural stage, an Erie guess into whether these claims actually state all the elements of a claim under Mississippi tort law, e.g., whether the alleged chain of causation satisfies the proximate cause requirement under Mississippi state common law; we leave this analysis to the district court in the first instance. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, we reverse the judgment of the district court and remand the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."

    The National Association of Manufacturers' (NAM) blog explains the convoluted case as follows: ". . .a District Court Judge in Mississippi held that Mississippi residents could NOT sue power companies and refineries for damages that resulted from global warming, but a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled otherwise on appeal. That decision was appealed to the full Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for en banc consideration, but after accepting the case, another judge recused herself because of a conflict of interest, eliminating the court's quorum to hear the appeal. However, the appellate court had already vacated the lower court's decision in anticipation of hearing it, so the lawsuit basically died. The petition for mandamus was an effort to keep the litigation going." The NAM blog comments, "This should be the end of the case because the plaintiffs did not file a petition for certiorari, but given how convoluted the lawsuit's path through the courts has been, perhaps there's a strange maneuver that could revive it." NAM called the case "one of the major -- and preposterous -- suits claiming damages against industry for causing global warming. . ."

    Access the Supreme Court docket (click here). Access the Supreme Court order (click here, page 26 of 40). Access the complete 36-page Appeals Court opinion (click here). Access the NAM blog post with more details (click here). Access a Pace Law School blog post explaining the convoluted appeals process in the case (click here).

EPA Launches GHG Rules & Sets Schedule For Actions

Jan 2: Beginning January 2, 2011, industries that are large emitters of GHGs, and are planning to build new facilities or make major modifications to existing ones, must obtain air permits and implement energy efficiency measures or, where available, cost-effective technology to reduce their GHGs emissions. EPA indicated that the requirements include only the nation's largest GHG emitters, such as power plants, refineries and cement production facilities. Emissions from small sources, such as farms and restaurants are not covered by these GHG permitting requirements [See WIMS 9/16/10 & WIMS 5/14/10].

 

    The State of Texas, the only state in the country, received a last minute stay of the rules from the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, DC. The appeals court ordered EPA to respond to the Texas motion by January 6. On December 23, EPA issued its plan for establishing greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution standards under the Clean Air Act in 2011. The Agency said it looked at a number of sectors and is moving forward on GHG standards for fossil fuel power plants and petroleum refineries -- two of the largest industrial sources, which they say represents nearly 40 percent of the GHG pollution in the United States.

    EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said, "We are following through on our commitment to proceed in a measured and careful way to reduce GHG pollution that threatens the health and welfare of Americans, and contributes to climate change. These standards will help American companies attract private investment to the clean energy upgrades that make our companies more competitive and create good jobs here at home."

    Several states, local governments and environmental organizations sued EPA over the Agency's failure to update the pollution standards for fossil fuel power plants and petroleum refineries. Under the settlement agreement, EPA said it will propose standards for power plants in July 2011 and for refineries in December 2011 and will issue final standards in May 2012 and November 2012, respectively. EPA said the schedule will allow the Agency "to host listening sessions with the business community, states and other stakeholders in early 2011, well before the rulemaking process begins, as well as to solicit additional feedback during the routine notice and comment period. Together this feedback will lead to smart, cost-effective and protective standards that reflect the latest and best information." (See link to settlement details below).

 

    Also on December 23, EPA announced the issuance of a final series of actions to ensure that the largest industrial facilities can obtain Clean Air Act permits that cover greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions beginning in January 2011. The actions are part of the highly controversial regulations that EPA calls a "common sense approach to GHG permitting outlined in the spring 2010 tailoring rule."

    The first set of actions are designed to give EPA authority to permit GHGs in seven states (AZ, AR, FL, ID, KS, OR, and WY) until the state or local agencies can revise their permitting regulations to cover these emissions. Secondly, EPA took additional steps to disapprove part of Texas' Clean Air Act permitting program and the Agency will also issue GHG permits to facilities in the state. EPA said the actions would ensure that large industrial facilities will be able to receive permits for greenhouse gas emissions regardless of where they are located.

    In the second set of actions, EPA issued final rules to ensure that there are no Federal laws in place that require any state to issue a permit for GHG emissions below levels outlined in the tailoring rule. EPA indicated it has worked closely with the states to ensure that the transition to permitting for GHGs is smooth. EPA said, "States are best suited to issue permits to sources of GHG emissions and have experience working with industrial facilities. EPA will continue to work with states to help develop, submit, and obtain approval of the necessary revisions to enable the affected states to issue air permits to GHG-emitting sources. 
   

    On December 17, 2010, EPA issued three concurrent actions related to certain data elements reported under EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP). EPA needs to further examine the likely business impact from the disclosure of certain data elements before those data elements are collected and potentially subject to public availability. EPA is therefore taking these three actions to defer reporting of these data elements while EPA obtains and reviews additional information to resolve issues related to reporting and public availability of these data elements. On December 20, EPA issued a release on the proposed actions

indicating that the total emissions for each facility is still required to be reported to EPA and released to the public.

 

    The three actions included: (1) A proposal to defer reporting of data elements that are inputs to emission equations for calendar years 2010, 2011, and 2012 until March 31, 2014. The public has 30 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register to submit comments on the proposed deferral, or 45 days if a hearing is requested. (2) An interim final rule amendment that defers reporting of data elements that are inputs to emission equations for calendar year 2010 until August 31, 2011. The interim final rule is in effect upon publication in the Federal Register. This interim final rule does not defer the reporting date for any other Part 98 data elements. (3) A notice requesting information and comment to assist in evaluating issues related to reporting and public availability of inputs to emission equations. The public has 60 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register to submit comments and requested information.

 

    On December 23, the American Petroleum Institute (API) issued two releases about EPA's actions. In one release API said EPA should finalize the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) that remain under development prior to setting new greenhouse gas standards. They said, "It is important that EPA conclude the current revisions to the New Source Performance Standards before moving forward with greenhouse gas standards." In a second release API said that EPA's plans to issue Federal Implementation Plans as part of its upcoming regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources was "unprecedented and coercive." API said, "In unprecedented fashion, EPA is now coercing some states to relinquish their authority and is directly usurping state regulatory authority in Texas. . . EPA is cramming too much in too short of a time. The administration's focus should be job creation and economic recovery, not unnecessary and burdensome regulations that will threaten jobs and create a drag on business efforts to invest, expand and put people back to work. . ."

 

    API said that, "Any New Source Performance Standard must be cost effective and achievable so refineries can continue to make the changes necessary to meet the nation's energy needs. The Clean Air Act was never intended to be used to regulate stationary source greenhouse gas emissions. Elected members of Congress should chart U.S. climate change policy. API hopes that EPA will reconsider using NSPS to set greenhouse gas emissions standards and is concerned that such standards will hurt businesses' ability to create jobs and spur economic growth."

 

    The National Petrochemical & Refiners Association (NPRA), issued a statement saying, "EPA's proposals would carry tremendous costs but no benefits for the American people -- all pain and no gain. Regulations can't create technology that doesn't exist or change the laws of physics and economics, so the only way to comply with EPA's proposals would be to inflict massive increases in energy costs and massive increases in unemployment on families across our nation. This is exactly the opposite of what President Obama rightly called for when he said economic recovery and job creation should be our nation's top priorities. Exporting American industries, jobs, cash and prosperity to other nations -- and then importing greenhouse gases and manufactured goods from those countries -- makes no sense environmentally or economically. It's the wrong action at the wrong time, as our nation struggles to recover from high unemployment and a devastating recession."

 

    Numerous environmental organizations issued releases praising EPA's actions. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC said, "By setting timetables for issuing standards to cut dangerous carbon pollution from power plants and oil refineries, EPA is doing precisely what is needed to protect our health and welfare and provide businesses certainty at a time when some would prefer to roll back the clock. The EPA's forthcoming standards will be based on available and affordable measures to clean up the two industries responsible for the most pollution that drives climate change. Clear pollution control standards also will help these industries plan future investments, fuel the economic recovery, and create jobs."

   

    The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) said, "Power plants are one of the largest sources of air pollution in America, but the solutions are at hand to create cleaner, healthier air while also building a stronger clean energy economy. EPA's commitment to address the dangerous, climate-disrupting pollution from power plants through common sense national standards will provide important environmental protections and will create economic certainty for vibrant new investments. This is a step that will allow us to protect our children's health and our prosperity." 

    Earthjustice which represented the EDF and Sierra Club in a 2006 lawsuit challenging EPA's most recent power plant standards and represents Sierra Club, NRDC, and the Environmental Integrity Project in a 2008 lawsuit that led to the latest agreement on the timetable for refinery standards said, "The EPA has a legal duty to respond to the very real dangers of global warming pollution by setting strong limits on carbon pollution from power plants and refineries. These are the nation's biggest industrial sources of global warming pollution and deserve top priority."  

 

    Access the December 23 EPA release on  the settlement agreement and link to the settlements (click here). Access the December 23 release from EPA (click here). Access the December 20 release from EPA (click here). Access specific information on the three December 17 actions (click here). Access links to complete information on EPA's GHG Tailoring Rule and related information (click here). Access more information on the GHG Reporting Program (click here). Access the two releases from API (click here) & (click here). Access two release from NPRA (click here); and (click here). Access statements from NRDC (click here); EDF (click here); and Earthjustice (click here).

California Adopts Cap-And-Trade Regulation To Drive Green Jobs

Dec 16: The California Air Resources Board (CARB), following a 10-hour meeting voted 9-1 to approve a cap-and-trade regulation, marking a significant milestone toward reducing California's greenhouse gas emissions under its AB 32 law. CARB's cap-and-trade regulation, along with several complementary measures which they say will drive the development of green jobs and set the state on track to a clean energy future. The regulation is a key measure to achieve the greenhouse gas reduction goals of AB 32, California's pioneering climate change law signed by Governor Schwarzenegger in 2006.

    CARB Chairman Mary Nichols said, "This program is the capstone of our climate policy, and will accelerate California's progress toward a clean energy economy. It rewards efficiency and provides companies with the greatest flexibility to find innovative solutions that drive green jobs, clean our environment, increase our energy security and ensure that California stands ready to compete in the booming global market for clean and renewable energy."

 

    The regulation sets a Statewide limit on the emissions from sources responsible for 80 percent of California's greenhouse gas emissions and establishes a price signal needed to drive long-term investment in cleaner fuels and more efficient use of energy.  The program is designed to provide covered entities the flexibility to seek out and implement the lowest-cost options to reduce emissions. The cap-and-trade program also works in concert with other measures, such as standards for cleaner vehicles, low-carbon fuels, renewable electricity and energy efficiency, and complements and supports California's existing efforts to reduce smog-forming and toxic air pollutants.

    According to a release from CARB, "The cap-and-trade program and the other measures to reduce greenhouse gases provide a model for action that can be used at the Federal, state and regional levels. As climate policies are being addressed worldwide, California's early actions are positioning its economy to reap the benefits on the world stage and are catalyzing action throughout the country and the world." Nichols added, "The cap-and-trade program provides California with the opportunity to fill the growing global demand for the projects, patents and products needed to move away from fossil fuels and to cleaner energy sources."

    The regulation will cover 360 businesses representing 600 facilities and is divided into two broad phases: an initial phase beginning in 2012 that will include all major industrial sources along with utilities; and, a second phase that starts in 2015 and brings in distributors of transportation fuels, natural gas and other fuels.

    Companies are not given a specific limit on their greenhouse gas emissions but "must supply a sufficient number of allowances" (each covering the equivalent of one ton of carbon dioxide) to cover their annual emissions. Each year, the total number of allowances issued in the State drops, requiring companies to find the most cost-effective and efficient approaches to reducing their emissions. By the end of the program in 2020 there will be a 15 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared to today, reaching the same level of emissions as the state experienced in 1990, as required under AB 32.
 
    To ensure a gradual transition, CARB will provide significant free allowances to all industrial sources during the initial period (2012-2014). Companies that need additional allowances to cover their emissions can purchase them at regular quarterly auctions CARB will conduct, or buy them on the market. Electric utilities will also be given allowances and they will be required to sell those allowances and dedicate the revenue generated for the benefit of their ratepayers and to help achieve AB 32 goals. 

    Also, eight percent of a company's emissions can be covered using credits from "compliance-grade offset projects," promoting the development of beneficial environmental projects in the forestry and agriculture sectors. Included in the regulation are four protocols, or systems of rules, covering carbon accounting rules for offset credits in forestry management, urban forestry, dairy methane digesters, and the destruction of existing banks of ozone-depleting substances in the U.S. (mostly in the form of refrigerants in older refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment).

    There are also provisions to develop international offset programs that could include the preservation of international forests.  A Memorandum of Understanding has already been signed with Chiapas, Mexico, and Acre, Brazil, at the Governor's Global Climate Summit 3 to establish these offset programs. The regulation is designed so that California may link up with programs in other states or provinces within the Western Climate Initiative, including New Mexico, British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec. Efforts are also underway to link the WCI with other regional climate programs, such as the Midwest Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord and the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative which covers the power generation emissions of 10 northeastern states. 

 

    Governor Schwarzenegger said in a presentation thanking the CARB Board, ". . .one thing we know for sure is that AB 32 was challenged, you know, by outside oil companies and by industries, coal mines and different companies that challenged it, put millions of dollars behind it in the last election. And Proposition 23, which was meant to take out AB 32, was defeated overwhelmingly -- not by 5 percent, not by 10 percent but by 22 percent. So that just shows to you -- a huge majority of Californians are big believers in AB 32. And they are big believers not just because of the global climate change because, let's be honest, not everyone believes in that. There are some people that believe in it and some people don't. . .  I know today, even though we are 10 years away from 2020 but I know today that we will have a reduction of 25 percent of greenhouse gases by the year 2020, only because I have such an excellent team here. . ."

 

    Kristin Eberhard, Legal Director of Natural Resources Defense Council's (NRDC's) Western Energy and Climate Projects issued a statement saying, "The adoption of this unprecedented carbon market to reduce pollution is a key milestone that will enable California to forge ahead with a clean energy economy. The Air Board today responded to the strong message delivered by California voters on November 2nd when they voted for a clean energy economy by resoundingly rejecting Proposition 23, the largest public referendum in history on climate and clean energy policy. The Air Board's action demonstrates that California continues to lead in pioneering smart, clean energy policies that make sense for the environment, public health and our economy. This is an economically sound program that will send a steady market signal driving innovation in clean energy, reducing pollution and mitigating oil price shocks while creating jobs and promoting economic growth."

 

    Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) said, "California is turbo charging its already fast-growing clean energy economy by creating incentives and a market for pollution reducing technologies. The state is leading a new industrial revolution that will give U.S. companies an edge over foreign competitors in a global market opportunity valued at $2.3 trillion." Derek Walker, director of the California Climate Initiative at EDF said, "The next great economy will be in energy technology, presenting huge opportunities for investments, manufacturing and jobs. California is leading America's charge to fight climate change by capping pollution and starting a domestic clean tech revolution that'll help us more effectively compete against China, India and Europe."

 

    In a statement on December 10, prior to the hearing the California Manufacturers & Technology Association (CMTA) said, "There are still many unknowns with the proposal. CMTA has long-advocated for implementing AB 32 in a way that allows California to reach the GHG reduction emission goals while at the same time maintaining the competitiveness of the state. Unfortunately, because of missing information and unfinished regulation, it is nearly impossible for regulated industries to estimate the potential costs and other impacts of the cap-and-trade regulation on their operations. In the proposal, free allocation of allowances for all industrial sectors is allowed for the first compliance period but not for the second and third. CMTA has asked that the free allowances, up to the output-based benchmark for each sector, be applied to all periods up to 2020. We believe that AB 32 does not authorize CARB to raise revenue for purposes unrelated to administration of the program. In addition, imposing a broader auction in the second and third periods will only increase leakage (companies moving out of the state) by imposing higher costs on industry."

    Access a release from CARB (click here). Access extensive information and staff presentations from the CARB meeting (click here). Access the CARB Cap-and-Trade website (click here). Access a statement from Governor Schwarzenegger (click here). Access the statement from NRDC (click here). Access a blog post from NRDC with more information (click here). Access a statement and link to more information from EDF (click here). Access a statement from CMTA and link to more information on CMTA's concerns (click here).

State Department Briefing On Cancun Climate Change Conference

Dec 14: Todd Stern, the Department of State Special Envoy for Climate Change, who just returned from the major UN Climate Change Conference in Cancún, Mexico, that ended on Saturday provided a press briefing in Washington, DC. Over the last two weeks, representatives from more than 190 nations met in Cancun for the 16th Conference of the Parties of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP16) with the goal of reaching new agreements to advance the collective efforts to meet this challenge [See WIMS 12/13/10]. In the early morning hours of Saturday in Cancun, Stern said, "the parties largely achieved that goal. This result was fundamentally consistent with U.S. objectives. Throughout the year, our strategic vision was to consolidate and elaborate on the progress made last year in Copenhagen by many of the world's leaders, including President Obama, and to have such outcome fully endorsed by the Conference of the Parties, all the nations to the Climate Treaty, as the Copenhagen Accord obviously was not."

 

    Stern continued, "The resulting Cancun agreement advances each of the core elements of the Copenhagen Accord. Specifically, it anchors the accord's mitigation pledges by both developed and developing countries in a parallel manner. It outlines a system of transparency with substantial detail and content, including international consultations and analysis; that was the negotiated phrase from the Copenhagen Accord. And this will provide confidence that a country's pledges are being carried out and help the world keep track of the track that we're on in terms of reducing emissions. The agreement in Cancun also launches a new Green Climate Fund with a process for setting it up, creates a framework to reduce deforestation in developing countries, establishes a so-called technology mechanism which includes -- will include a new technology executive committee and a climate technology center and network, and it will also set up a framework and committee to promote international cooperation and action on adaptation.

 

    In response to a question stating that the Cancun meeting basically punted the hardest issue, mandatory emissions caps until next year, Stern said, "The issue that was rolled over to next year is what happens in the Kyoto Protocol track. . . there are simultaneously two negotiating tracks going forward. One is the Kyoto Protocol track, which doesn't involve the United States, because we're not part of it. And the issue there is will there be a second so-called commitment period of Kyoto, the first being 2008-12. . . Kyoto is not the larger agreement that covers -- that includes emission commitments from the U.S., China, India, Brazil, et cetera. On that track, at the moment, while there may be something -- some kind of legal treaty down the road, that's not happening, I think, anytime soon for the reason that we're not prepared to enter into legally binding commitments to reduce our emissions unless China, India, and so forth, are also prepared to do that. And at the moment, they're not. . ."

    In response to a question regarding India's role at Cancun, how it went and all, Stern said, "I think India played, actually, a particularly constructive role in Cancun. I think that India was very much faithful to its own national interests and faithful to its role in the G-77, but at the same time creatively looking for solutions to difficult issues in the negotiation in a way that could bring in both developing countries -- and by the way, developing countries are not a monolithic group at this point, there's all sorts of different -- there's the large ones, there's Africans and least developed nations and island states and so forth. I think India really played a particularly constructive role in trying to find solutions that would bring everybody to the table. And one good example of that is on the issue of transparency, which was very important. . ."

 

    In response to a question that a U.K. scientists said "there has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995," Stern said, "Well, I'm not a scientist, so I'm not going to comment on it and I'm not familiar with exactly what he said. I think that if you look at the warming that has been recorded on a steady basis for over the last 20 years or so, you will see a very significant rise in temperatures over time. We have -- and I think if you look at the last 20 years, you have something like the 15 or 18 warmest years in history having happened during that period. So. . . I think there is a very, very broad consensus of scientists who see a marked warming trend, and again, a very large percentage of scientists who study in this area who attribute that to human activity."

 

    In response to a question about what does the U.S. need to do in the next year to move the process forward in light of the fact that a number of senators have expressed concern about even "modest international financing commitments by the U.S.," Stern said, "With respect to financing, look, the financial promises that were made in the first instance in Copenhagen and continued in the Cancun agreements are extremely important. I mean, they're – they are a core part of the deal. Obviously, the fiscal situation is exceedingly tough in the U.S. It's tough in Europe and other places as well. And we are going to have to do the best we possibly can to carry out, to make good on the – in the first instance, the fast start pledge that was part of Copenhagen and reiterated here. In the second instance, to work with parties to set up a good structure of the good architecture for the new Green Fund that has been agreed on. And then in the slightly longer-term front, to continue thinking through how sources can be put together for the $100 billion – the commitment to the goal of mobilizing that money from all sources, public and private, that we made by 2020. . ."

   

    In response to a question about the U.S. position on China's involvement in the negotiations, Stern said, "Our position on China is that China needs to make significant reductions in its emissions. But for China or other developing countries, at this stage, those are going to be relative reductions. . . whether it's China or India or others, are growing at 6, 8, 10 percent, you can't slam the brakes on completely and say you've got to be making absolute reductions tomorrow. It just – it couldn't work. . . the critical direction that we need to move on is to separate growth from the path of emissions, so that growth goes up but emissions can still go down. . . We're not calling -- I mean, it's not so much that we're calling on China or India to make legally binding commitments right now. What we're saying is we will do legally binding commitments only if they are symmetrical, if the emerging market countries do that also. If they're not ready to do it, it's not so much that we're criticizing that, it's just that we say in that – if that's where we are globally, then we need to push forward in the kind of politically binding structure that we're doing now. . ." 

 

    Access the complete State Department briefing (click here).