May 8: At the fourth meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP 4) of the Stockholm Convention, meeting in Geneva from May 4-9, the Governments adopted amendments to include nine new persistent organic pollutants (POPs) [See WIMS 5/6/09]. Over 160 Governments have concluded the one-week conference with "practical decisions" which they say will strengthen a global effort to eradicate some of the most toxic chemicals known to humankind. For the first time, the Convention was amended to include new chemicals, many of these are still widely used as pesticides, flame retardants and in a number of other commercial uses.
The nine new chemicals added to the list are: Alpha hexachlorocyclohexane; Beta hexachlorocyclohexane; Hexabromodiphenyl ether and heptabromodiphenyl ether; Tetrabromodiphenyl ether and pentabromodiphenyl ether; Chlordecone; Hexabromobiphenyl; Lindane; Pentachlorobenzene; Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid, its salts and perfluorooctane sulfonyl fluoride.
UN Under-Secretary General and UNEP Executive, Achim Steiner said, “This meeting in Geneva has culminated in a momentous day for the Stockholm Convention. Its significance cannot be under-estimated. We now have a clear signal that Governments around the world take seriously the risks posed by such toxic chemicals. The tremendous impact of these substances on human health and the environment has been acknowledged today by adding nine new chemicals to the Convention. This shift reflects international concern on the need to reduce and eventually eliminate such substances throughout the global community.”
In another move, a groundbreaking decision on synergies was unanimously adopted, marking the collaboration between the Stockholm Convention and its sister treaties on hazardous chemicals and wastes, the Rotterdam and Basel Conventions. This momentum will gather pace at the UNEP Governing Council Special Session of the Global Ministers Environment Forum slated for February 2010, when an Extraordinary COP will follow immediately afterwards. For the first time, the expanded Working Group will be comprised of the three chemicals and wastes treaties in sequential COPs.
A landmark decision was also reached on the endorsement of the DDT global partnership. While DDT is targeted for eventual elimination, the Convention recognizes that some countries will continue to use this pesticide to protect their citizens from malaria and other diseases. Additionally, the PCB Elimination Network was also endorsed. Countries have now strengthened efforts to phase out polychlorinated biphenyls or PCBs through a cooperative framework to support countries in the environmentally sound management and disposal of these harmful substances. The Network will be tasked with establishing key data and evaluating whether the use of PCBs is indeed declining.
The Conference also reviewed the process for evaluating the Convention’s effectiveness in reducing POPs over time. A global monitoring program building on various national and regional monitoring systems will produce a worldwide picture of trends in the quantity and types of POPs in the environment and in the human body.
Access a release from the Convention (click here). Access the COP 4 meeting website for the agenda, background documents and complete coverage (click here). Access the Stockholm Convention website for complete information on POPs (click here). Access the extensive list and links to COP 4 documents (click here). Access complete day-by-day coverage and summary from IISD Reporting Service (click here).
Monday, May 11, 2009
Friday, May 08, 2009
DOI Salazar Keeps Controversial Bush-Era 4(d) Polar Bear Rule
May 8: Department of Interior (DOI) Secretary Ken Salazar announced that he will retain a controversial special rule issued in December under the Bush Administration for protecting the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act. But DOI said it will closely monitor the implementation of the rule to determine if additional measures are necessary to conserve and recover the polar bear and its habitat. Salazar said, “To see the polar bear’s habitat melting and an iconic species threatened is an environmental tragedy of the modern age. This administration is fully committed to the protection and recovery of the polar bear. I have reviewed the current rule, received the recommendations of the Fish and Wildlife Service, and concluded that the best course of action for protecting the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act is to wisely implement the current rule, monitor its effectiveness, and evaluate our options for improving the recovery of the species.”
Salazar's action follows his receipt of a letter from 53 law professors from around the country urging him to rescind the “special rule” created by the Bush administration which they say sharply limits protections for the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act. David Hunter, director of the environmental law program at American University’s Washington College of Law said, “The polar bear deserves the same protections all other endangered species receive. Secretary Salazar should use authority granted to him by Congress to rescind the special rule for the polar bear.” Noah Greenwald, biodiversity program director at the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) said, "For Salazar to adopt Bush's polar bear extinction plan is confirming the worst fears of his tenure as Secretary of the Interior. Secretary Salazar would apparently prefer to please Sarah Palin than to protect polar bears. It makes little sense for Salazar to rescind Bush's national policy barring consideration of global warming impacts to endangered species in general, but keep that exact policy in place for the one species most endangered by global warming -- the polar bear." [See WIMS 3/4/09]
Salazar's action follows his receipt of a letter from 53 law professors from around the country urging him to rescind the “special rule” created by the Bush administration which they say sharply limits protections for the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act. David Hunter, director of the environmental law program at American University’s Washington College of Law said, “The polar bear deserves the same protections all other endangered species receive. Secretary Salazar should use authority granted to him by Congress to rescind the special rule for the polar bear.” Noah Greenwald, biodiversity program director at the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) said, "For Salazar to adopt Bush's polar bear extinction plan is confirming the worst fears of his tenure as Secretary of the Interior. Secretary Salazar would apparently prefer to please Sarah Palin than to protect polar bears. It makes little sense for Salazar to rescind Bush's national policy barring consideration of global warming impacts to endangered species in general, but keep that exact policy in place for the one species most endangered by global warming -- the polar bear." [See WIMS 3/4/09]
The polar bear is listed as a threatened species under the Act [See WIMS 5/15/08], meaning it is at risk of becoming an endangered species throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The law provides civil and criminal penalties for actions that kill or injure bears and bars Federal agencies from taking actions that are likely to jeopardize the species or adversely modify its critical habitat. In addition, the polar bear is protected by the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), which provides equal and in some cases more stringent protections, and international treaties such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).
DOI says Section 4(d) of the ESA, the "special rule," allows the Fish and Wildlife Service "to tailor regulatory prohibitions for threatened species as deemed necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the species." Thomas Strickland, assistant secretary for fish and wildlife and parks said, “In our judgment, keeping the rule is the best course of action for the polar bear. We will continue to reach out and listen to the public and a wide range of stakeholders as we monitor the rule, and will not hesitate to take additional steps if necessary to protect this iconic species.” The rule also states that incidental take of polar bears resulting from activities outside the bear’s range, such as emission of greenhouse gases (GHG), will not be prohibited under the ESA.
Salazar said, “We must do all we can to help the polar bear recover, recognizing that the greatest threat to the polar bear is the melting of Arctic sea ice caused by climate change. However, the Endangered Species Act is not the proper mechanism for controlling our nation’s carbon emissions. Instead, we need a comprehensive energy and climate strategy that curbs climate change and its impacts -- including the loss of sea ice. Both President Obama and I are committed to achieving that goal.”
DOI indicated that under the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009, Congress granted Salazar authority until May 10 to revoke the 4(d) rule. If Salazar had decided to withdraw the 4(d) rule, a virtually identical “interim” 4(d) rule issued by the previous Administration when the polar bear was first listed as a threatened species would be put back in place. Salazar said, “Revoking the current 4(d) rule would return us to an interim rule that would offer no more protections for the polar bear and would result in uncertainty and confusion about the management of the species.”
CBD said that Salazar ignored strong criticism of the rule and requests to revoke it from more than 1,300 scientists, more than 50 prominent legal experts, dozens of lawmakers, more than 130 conservation organizations and hundreds of thousands of members of the public. They said the rule severely undermines protection for the polar bear by exempting all activities that occur outside of the polar bears range from review -- "The polar bear, however, is endangered precisely because of activities occurring outside the Arctic, namely emission of greenhouse gases and resulting warming that is leading to the rapid disappearance of summer sea ice."
CBD also indicated that the special rule also reduces the protections the bear would otherwise receive in Alaska from oil industry activities in its habitat. Greenwald said, “Salazar’s decision today is a gift to Big Oil and an affirmation of the pro-industry/ anti-environmental policies of the Bush administration. This is not the change Obama promised.” The Center for Biological Diversity and other organizations are challenging the polar bear special rule in court. Oil-industry organizations, trade associations, and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin have intervened in the court case to defend the rule. CBD argues that, "Addressing greenhouse gas emissions under the Endangered Species Act is no different than addressing any other pollutants that have been effectively addressed under the Act for years, such as DDT and other pesticides that had severe impacts to the bald eagle and other species."
The law professors indicated in their letter, "We have three primary concerns with these exemptions. First, the exemption for all activities outside the current range of the species is overly broad, exempting whole classes of activities that harm polar bears. For example, the majority of contaminants, ranging from petroleum hydrocarbons, persistent organic pollutants, and heavy metals that negatively impact polar bears come from outside the current range of the species. 73 Fed. Reg. 28212, 28290. Second, exemption of all greenhouse emissions outside of the current range of the polar bear from potential regulation under Section 9 undermines the
survival and recovery of the polar bear because such emissions are the primary threat to the continued existence of the polar bear.
"Finally, the take provisions of the MMPA provide less protection for the polar bear because unlike the ESA, the MMPA’s definition of 'take' does not include the term 'harm.' Compare 16 U.S.C. § 1532(19) with 16 U.S.C. § 1362(13). Under the ESA, the 'harm' prohibition has been interpreted to include habitat modification, which significantly impairs 'essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering.' 50 C.F.R § 17.3. In eliminating the 'harm' prohibition for polar bears, the special rule potentially undermines effective protections for the polar bear’s habitat from both direct and indirect impacts."
DOI pointed out in its release that President Obama’s Fiscal Year 2010 budget request includes a significant new commitment to helping conserve the polar bear. The budget request includes an increase of $7.4 million for polar bear conservation, of which $3.2 million will be invested through the Fish and Wildlife Service. The new commitment includes a $1.5 million increase for the Endangered Species program specifically to address new and reinitiated interagency consultations on oil and gas projects and to prepare for a range-wide Polar Bear Conservation Plan to guide U.S. and international work to conserve and improve the status of the species. An increase of $1.7 million will allow the FWS Marine Mammal program to intensify work with partners to prepare, review, and publish population assessments, conservation plans, and incidental take regulations.
Access a release from DOI and link to a Section 4(d) Q&A document (click here). Access a release from CBD with links to the letters from more than 1,300 scientists, 53 law professors, eight senators, U.S. representatives, California legislators and more than 130 conservation organizations (click here). Access the DOI Polar Bear Conservation and Management website (click here). Access the CBD Polar Bear website for more information (click here).
DOI says Section 4(d) of the ESA, the "special rule," allows the Fish and Wildlife Service "to tailor regulatory prohibitions for threatened species as deemed necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the species." Thomas Strickland, assistant secretary for fish and wildlife and parks said, “In our judgment, keeping the rule is the best course of action for the polar bear. We will continue to reach out and listen to the public and a wide range of stakeholders as we monitor the rule, and will not hesitate to take additional steps if necessary to protect this iconic species.” The rule also states that incidental take of polar bears resulting from activities outside the bear’s range, such as emission of greenhouse gases (GHG), will not be prohibited under the ESA.
Salazar said, “We must do all we can to help the polar bear recover, recognizing that the greatest threat to the polar bear is the melting of Arctic sea ice caused by climate change. However, the Endangered Species Act is not the proper mechanism for controlling our nation’s carbon emissions. Instead, we need a comprehensive energy and climate strategy that curbs climate change and its impacts -- including the loss of sea ice. Both President Obama and I are committed to achieving that goal.”
DOI indicated that under the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009, Congress granted Salazar authority until May 10 to revoke the 4(d) rule. If Salazar had decided to withdraw the 4(d) rule, a virtually identical “interim” 4(d) rule issued by the previous Administration when the polar bear was first listed as a threatened species would be put back in place. Salazar said, “Revoking the current 4(d) rule would return us to an interim rule that would offer no more protections for the polar bear and would result in uncertainty and confusion about the management of the species.”
CBD said that Salazar ignored strong criticism of the rule and requests to revoke it from more than 1,300 scientists, more than 50 prominent legal experts, dozens of lawmakers, more than 130 conservation organizations and hundreds of thousands of members of the public. They said the rule severely undermines protection for the polar bear by exempting all activities that occur outside of the polar bears range from review -- "The polar bear, however, is endangered precisely because of activities occurring outside the Arctic, namely emission of greenhouse gases and resulting warming that is leading to the rapid disappearance of summer sea ice."
CBD also indicated that the special rule also reduces the protections the bear would otherwise receive in Alaska from oil industry activities in its habitat. Greenwald said, “Salazar’s decision today is a gift to Big Oil and an affirmation of the pro-industry/ anti-environmental policies of the Bush administration. This is not the change Obama promised.” The Center for Biological Diversity and other organizations are challenging the polar bear special rule in court. Oil-industry organizations, trade associations, and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin have intervened in the court case to defend the rule. CBD argues that, "Addressing greenhouse gas emissions under the Endangered Species Act is no different than addressing any other pollutants that have been effectively addressed under the Act for years, such as DDT and other pesticides that had severe impacts to the bald eagle and other species."
The law professors indicated in their letter, "We have three primary concerns with these exemptions. First, the exemption for all activities outside the current range of the species is overly broad, exempting whole classes of activities that harm polar bears. For example, the majority of contaminants, ranging from petroleum hydrocarbons, persistent organic pollutants, and heavy metals that negatively impact polar bears come from outside the current range of the species. 73 Fed. Reg. 28212, 28290. Second, exemption of all greenhouse emissions outside of the current range of the polar bear from potential regulation under Section 9 undermines the
survival and recovery of the polar bear because such emissions are the primary threat to the continued existence of the polar bear.
"Finally, the take provisions of the MMPA provide less protection for the polar bear because unlike the ESA, the MMPA’s definition of 'take' does not include the term 'harm.' Compare 16 U.S.C. § 1532(19) with 16 U.S.C. § 1362(13). Under the ESA, the 'harm' prohibition has been interpreted to include habitat modification, which significantly impairs 'essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering.' 50 C.F.R § 17.3. In eliminating the 'harm' prohibition for polar bears, the special rule potentially undermines effective protections for the polar bear’s habitat from both direct and indirect impacts."
DOI pointed out in its release that President Obama’s Fiscal Year 2010 budget request includes a significant new commitment to helping conserve the polar bear. The budget request includes an increase of $7.4 million for polar bear conservation, of which $3.2 million will be invested through the Fish and Wildlife Service. The new commitment includes a $1.5 million increase for the Endangered Species program specifically to address new and reinitiated interagency consultations on oil and gas projects and to prepare for a range-wide Polar Bear Conservation Plan to guide U.S. and international work to conserve and improve the status of the species. An increase of $1.7 million will allow the FWS Marine Mammal program to intensify work with partners to prepare, review, and publish population assessments, conservation plans, and incidental take regulations.
Access a release from DOI and link to a Section 4(d) Q&A document (click here). Access a release from CBD with links to the letters from more than 1,300 scientists, 53 law professors, eight senators, U.S. representatives, California legislators and more than 130 conservation organizations (click here). Access the DOI Polar Bear Conservation and Management website (click here). Access the CBD Polar Bear website for more information (click here).
Thursday, May 07, 2009
Ag Committee Chair Peterson Won't Support Climate Bill
May 6: Just as the House Energy & Commerce Committee is engaged in a very fragile political negotiation on the Waxman-Markey draft American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES) and the President has urged House Democrats to work toward a compromise bill [See WIMS 5/6/09], House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-MN) has dealt what could be a crushing blow to the negotiations.At the first legislative hearing on President Obama's biofuels initiatives and proposed Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), Peterson became so distraught that he vowed not to support "any kind of climate change bill." Other Democrats including Earl Pomeroy of North Dakota and Tim Holden, Pennsylvania said they and others agreed with Peterson.
In further comments (not necessarily in order), Peterson said, "I want this message sent back down the street. I will not support any climate change bill. . . You are going to kill off the biofuels industry before it gets started. You are in bed with the oil industry. . . If they think anyone is going to invest in next-generation ethanol, given what's going on, they are kidding themselves. . . By the time it gets down to the agency, what the hell is going to come out of it? ... This thing is out of control. . . I don't care. Even if you fix this. I don't trust anybody anymore . . . This thing is out of control, I've had it."
The uproar occurred at a hearing of the Agriculture Committee, Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Energy and Research, Chaired by Representative Holden. The hearing was held to review the impact of the indirect land use and renewable biomass provisions in the renewable fuel standard. Witnesses from the Administration included: Dr. Joe Glauber, Chief Economist, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and Ms. Margo Oge, Director, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. EPA. Other witnesses included representatives of: the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University; Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture; New Fuels Alliance; National Biodiesel Board; Platinum Ethanol; and the American Forest Foundation.
USDA testified that, "The feedstock limitations associated with the exclusion of some sources of renewable biomass as defined in [Energy Security and Independence Act of 2007 (EISA)] -- particularly with respect to cellulosic materials from both private and public forest lands-may serve to limit the opportunity to replace fossil fuels. In the future, ethanol produced from cellulosic sources, including wood biomass, has the potential to cut life cycle GHG emissions by up to 86 percent relative to gasoline (Wang et al. 2007)." USDA testified further on how biofuel production affects land use in the United States and the rest of the world, and will discuss what is meant by emissions associated with land use change.
EPA testified that the Administrator had signed a notice of proposed rulemaking for the Renewable Fuel Standard included in EISA, commonly called "RFS2." The Agency said the proposed rule "provides EPA an opportunity to present our work to the public and formally incorporate the advice and input we will receive over the coming months." EPA said, "A central aspect of the RFS2 program is its focus on the lifecycle greenhouse gas impact of renewable fuels. EISA created the first U.S. mandatory lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction thresholds for renewable fuels used in the U.S. . .
"EPA, working with experts from across the Federal government, including experts from the Departments of Agriculture and Energy as well as outside experts, has spent the last year and a half creating a robust and scientifically supported methodology that identifies direct and indirect emissions, including those resulting from international land use change. This methodology meets our statutory obligations under EISA. Just as importantly, it recognizes that to account for the climate-related effects of renewable fuels, the direct emissions associated with fuel production and combustion as well as the indirect emissions must be taken into account. . ."
EPA said, ". . .we understand that some have concerns that the state of the science regarding the assessment of GHG emissions related to international land changes is so immature, and potentially subject to error, that EPA should disregard or deemphasize such emissions, and calculate renewable fuel lifecycle GHG emissions assuming that there are no GHG emissions associated with predicted international land use changes. We believe such an approach would introduce far more error into lifecycle GHG assessment than the EPA proposal, which is based on reasoned application of the best available science and data. The result of disregarding land use changes would be to ignore the developing science in this area, and to overstate, perhaps dramatically, the GHG benefits of renewable fuels. . ."
The environmental organization, Friends of the Earth (FOE) issued a release on the meeting calling Chairman Peterson's comments an "embarrassing hissy fit." FOE said, "It’s pretty stunning that less than two years ago, Peterson voted for the law requiring the EPA to account for this pollution, but he apparently now wants the EPA to break the law he voted for. The EPA indicated yesterday that it plans to follow that law instead of doing Peterson’s bidding, so now he throws a temper tantrum. It’s embarrassing.”
The Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) indicated when the new RFS proposed rule was announced that it would "engage EPA. . . over the issue of lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions related to the production and use of ethanol." RFA said, "EPA has also attempted to calculate indirect emissions that occur as a result of purported land use changes and other factors occurring domestically as well as internationally. The controversial notion of indirect land use changes impacts, including those happening outside the U.S., are thought to greatly reduce ethanol’s GHG benefit. The RFA welcomes the debate over these issues." RFA has prepared a 5-page document entitled, Understanding the International Indirect Land Use Penalty on Biofuels.
In a release posted on May 7, Subcommittee Chairman Tim Holden of Pennsylvania said, “We are very upset with the path EPA has taken us down and sent that message back loud and clear in today’s hearing. If we continue with these provisions in EISA, we will not only harm the biofuels industry but also shortchange a large part of the country before we even get started. We need to expand the reach of biofuels, not hamper the farmer and forest owner.” Subcommittee Ranking Member Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) said, “The arbitrary restrictions in the renewable fuel standard will limit the potential biomass to meet the renewable fuels mandate. I am in favor of the development of advanced renewable fuels, but more importantly I am in favor of developing a policy that allows the market to develop next generation renewable energy." The Subcommittee indicated, "The provisions discussed today were last minute additions to EISA that were never debated, and members of the Committee have worked to get them changed for the past two years."
Access various media reports on Chairman Peterson's comments (click here); (click here); and (click here). Access the Subcommittee hearing website and link to all testimony (click here). Access a release from Friends of the Earth release (click here). Access more information from RFA including their release and the document referenced above (click here). Access the Subcommittee release (click here).
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
Resolving Climate Change With House Dems Is Critical Turning Point
May 5: President Obama met for about an hour and half with Democratic members of the House Energy & Commerce Committee, Chaired by Chaired by Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) to discuss two key pieces of legislation which the Committee is currently considering -- the draft comprehensive energy legislation, the Waxman-Markey draft American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES) [See WIMS 5/4/09] and health care reform. Washington insiders report that the President was well informed on the climate change issue and encouraged the House Democrats to work out their differences and move quickly to meet their deadline of a Committee-approved bill by Memorial Day.
In a press briefing responding to questions about the meeting, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said, "The President said the transitioning -- to include energy economy -- would create clean-energy jobs and provide America with a major growth driver for the years to come, helping to move us from a bubble-and-bust economy. The President outlined core principles that he believed should guide the energy legislation as the committee finalizes it. The President believes that consumers and communities should be compensated if during the transition period there are any additional costs associated with reducing carbon emissions. He believes there should be predictability and certainty in the market so that entrepreneurs can make major private sector investments in clean-energy innovation. He also believes regional impact should be taken into account and addressed and that our trade-sensitive industries need to be protected.
"The President also made clear that we have been discussing health care reform for decades and he hears from Americans every day that now is the moment for action. With millions of Americans out of work we cannot afford for any American to be denied health care coverage because of a preexisting condition."
There were conflicting reports from Chairman Waxman about whether the Committee will move the bill forward in the Subcommittee or go directly to the full Committee. With time running short, consideration in the full Committee could expedite the mark up process. No meetings had been announced at press time today.
Major issues that still have Democrats divided include the timing of the cap and trade program; the use of emission "offsets"; the distribution (free and/or by auction) of emission "allowances"; and requirements for a national Renewable Electric Standard (RES).
Considering the broad diversity of the Democrats on the full Committee (i.e. Midwest, South, Oil States, Coal States, etc.), there is a feeling that if Democrats can resolve their differences and agree to a compromise bill it could increase the chances for approval in the Senate.
In response to further questions regarding the meeting and the President's feelings about getting a bill on climate change passed in time for the global warming talks in December in Copenhagen, Gibbs said, ". . .obviously you heard the President on a number of occasions mention that his three most important priorities are health care, energy independence and education; that those three present an important foundation for creating long-term economic growth. So I think clearly it’s a major priority of the President's. And I think he believes that the meeting was productive, that progress was made, and that discussions continue in Congress on moving this bill forward. We're hopeful to get something done this year. Obviously, as I said, it is a strong priority of the President's. . . I think the meeting today denotes both his interest and his activity level on this in trying to move a solution forward."
On the Senate side, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, recently announced what she called "the first set of global warming working groups in order to reach out to Senate colleagues and build support for climate change legislation." Boxer said, We are moving forward on a solid footing with dedicated Senators taking the lead on these critical issues." She announced the formation of five working groups including: Regional Issues; Cost Containment; Targets and Timetables; Market Oversight; and Coal Research and Technology. She appointed key Democrats to work on each of the issues.
Access the complete White House press briefing transcript (click here). Access a release from Senator Boxer on the working groups (click here). Access various media reports on the White House meeting (click here).
In a press briefing responding to questions about the meeting, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said, "The President said the transitioning -- to include energy economy -- would create clean-energy jobs and provide America with a major growth driver for the years to come, helping to move us from a bubble-and-bust economy. The President outlined core principles that he believed should guide the energy legislation as the committee finalizes it. The President believes that consumers and communities should be compensated if during the transition period there are any additional costs associated with reducing carbon emissions. He believes there should be predictability and certainty in the market so that entrepreneurs can make major private sector investments in clean-energy innovation. He also believes regional impact should be taken into account and addressed and that our trade-sensitive industries need to be protected.
"The President also made clear that we have been discussing health care reform for decades and he hears from Americans every day that now is the moment for action. With millions of Americans out of work we cannot afford for any American to be denied health care coverage because of a preexisting condition."
There were conflicting reports from Chairman Waxman about whether the Committee will move the bill forward in the Subcommittee or go directly to the full Committee. With time running short, consideration in the full Committee could expedite the mark up process. No meetings had been announced at press time today.
Major issues that still have Democrats divided include the timing of the cap and trade program; the use of emission "offsets"; the distribution (free and/or by auction) of emission "allowances"; and requirements for a national Renewable Electric Standard (RES).
Considering the broad diversity of the Democrats on the full Committee (i.e. Midwest, South, Oil States, Coal States, etc.), there is a feeling that if Democrats can resolve their differences and agree to a compromise bill it could increase the chances for approval in the Senate.
In response to further questions regarding the meeting and the President's feelings about getting a bill on climate change passed in time for the global warming talks in December in Copenhagen, Gibbs said, ". . .obviously you heard the President on a number of occasions mention that his three most important priorities are health care, energy independence and education; that those three present an important foundation for creating long-term economic growth. So I think clearly it’s a major priority of the President's. And I think he believes that the meeting was productive, that progress was made, and that discussions continue in Congress on moving this bill forward. We're hopeful to get something done this year. Obviously, as I said, it is a strong priority of the President's. . . I think the meeting today denotes both his interest and his activity level on this in trying to move a solution forward."
On the Senate side, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, recently announced what she called "the first set of global warming working groups in order to reach out to Senate colleagues and build support for climate change legislation." Boxer said, We are moving forward on a solid footing with dedicated Senators taking the lead on these critical issues." She announced the formation of five working groups including: Regional Issues; Cost Containment; Targets and Timetables; Market Oversight; and Coal Research and Technology. She appointed key Democrats to work on each of the issues.
Access the complete White House press briefing transcript (click here). Access a release from Senator Boxer on the working groups (click here). Access various media reports on the White House meeting (click here).
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
President Announces Biofuels Initiatives & Proposed RFS
May 5: President Obama announced steps to further his Administration’s commitment to advance biofuels research and commercialization. Specifically, he signed a Presidential Directive establishing a Biofuels Interagency Working Group, announced additional Recovery Act funds for renewable fuel projects, and announced the Administration's notice of a Proposed Rulemaking on the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). President Obama said, "We must invest in a clean energy economy that will lead to new jobs, new businesses and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. The steps I am announcing today help bring us closer to that goal. If we are to be a leader in the 21st century global economy, then we must lead the world in clean energy technology. Through American ingenuity and determination, we can and will succeed."
The Biofuels Interagency Working Group (BIWG), to be co-chaired by the Secretaries of Agriculture and Energy and the Administrator of U.S EPA will work with the National Science and Technology Council's Biomass Research and Development Board in undertaking its work. Among other items outlined, the BIWG will develop the nation’s first comprehensive biofuel market development program to identify new policies to support the development of next-generation biofuels, increase flexible fuel vehicle use, and assist in retail marketing efforts; coordinate infrastructure policies impacting the supply, secure transport, and distribution of biofuels; and identify new policy options to promote the environmental sustainability of biofuels feedstock production, taking into consideration land use, habitat conservation, crop management practices, water efficiency and water quality, as well as lifecycle assessments of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding of $786.5 million will be provided to accelerate advanced biofuels research and development and expand commercialization by providing additional funding for commercial biorefineries. A mix of new funding opportunities and additional funding for existing projects will be allocated across four main areas: $480 million solicitation for integrated pilot- and demonstration-scale biorefineries; $176.5 million for commercial-scale biorefinery projects; $110 million for fundamental research in key program areas; and $20 million for ethanol research.
On the Renewable Fuel Standard, EPA will issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking outlining the strategy for increasing the supply of renewable fuels, poised to reach 36 billion gallons by 2022, as mandated by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA). EISA will establish four categories of renewable fuels including: Cellulosic biofuels; Biomass-based diesel; Advanced biofuels; and Total renewable fuel. The proposal would require 36 billion gallons annually of renewable fuels, of which 16 billion gallons must be cellulosic biofuels; and 1 billion gallons must be of biomass-based diesel. At most 15 billion gallons of the renewable fuel mandate can be met with conventional biofuels, including corn-based ethanol.
For the first time, some renewable fuels must achieve greenhouse gas emission reductions compared to the gasoline and diesel fuels they displace. Refiners will be required to meet the requirements to receive credit toward meeting the new standards.EPA also will conduct peer reviews on the lifecycle-analysis (GHG emissions over the life of the fuels) methodology and the results for various fuels and feed-source combinations. A 60-day public comment period on the proposed rule will begin upon publication in the Federal Register.
Access a release from the White House (click here). Access a prepublication copy of the 549-page proposed rule (click here). Access a 9-page summary of the RFS proposal (click here). Access EPA's RFS website for complete information including fact sheets, 822-page regulatory impact analysis and more (click here). Access a release from EPA (click here). Access a release from USDA (click here). Access a release from DOE (click here).
The Biofuels Interagency Working Group (BIWG), to be co-chaired by the Secretaries of Agriculture and Energy and the Administrator of U.S EPA will work with the National Science and Technology Council's Biomass Research and Development Board in undertaking its work. Among other items outlined, the BIWG will develop the nation’s first comprehensive biofuel market development program to identify new policies to support the development of next-generation biofuels, increase flexible fuel vehicle use, and assist in retail marketing efforts; coordinate infrastructure policies impacting the supply, secure transport, and distribution of biofuels; and identify new policy options to promote the environmental sustainability of biofuels feedstock production, taking into consideration land use, habitat conservation, crop management practices, water efficiency and water quality, as well as lifecycle assessments of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding of $786.5 million will be provided to accelerate advanced biofuels research and development and expand commercialization by providing additional funding for commercial biorefineries. A mix of new funding opportunities and additional funding for existing projects will be allocated across four main areas: $480 million solicitation for integrated pilot- and demonstration-scale biorefineries; $176.5 million for commercial-scale biorefinery projects; $110 million for fundamental research in key program areas; and $20 million for ethanol research.
On the Renewable Fuel Standard, EPA will issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking outlining the strategy for increasing the supply of renewable fuels, poised to reach 36 billion gallons by 2022, as mandated by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA). EISA will establish four categories of renewable fuels including: Cellulosic biofuels; Biomass-based diesel; Advanced biofuels; and Total renewable fuel. The proposal would require 36 billion gallons annually of renewable fuels, of which 16 billion gallons must be cellulosic biofuels; and 1 billion gallons must be of biomass-based diesel. At most 15 billion gallons of the renewable fuel mandate can be met with conventional biofuels, including corn-based ethanol.
For the first time, some renewable fuels must achieve greenhouse gas emission reductions compared to the gasoline and diesel fuels they displace. Refiners will be required to meet the requirements to receive credit toward meeting the new standards.EPA also will conduct peer reviews on the lifecycle-analysis (GHG emissions over the life of the fuels) methodology and the results for various fuels and feed-source combinations. A 60-day public comment period on the proposed rule will begin upon publication in the Federal Register.
Access a release from the White House (click here). Access a prepublication copy of the 549-page proposed rule (click here). Access a 9-page summary of the RFS proposal (click here). Access EPA's RFS website for complete information including fact sheets, 822-page regulatory impact analysis and more (click here). Access a release from EPA (click here). Access a release from USDA (click here). Access a release from DOE (click here).
Monday, May 04, 2009
Tricky Politics On House Waxman-Markey Climate Change Bill
May 4: House Democrats are engaged in some tricky behind the scenes negotiations attempting to gain support for the Waxman-Markey draft American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES) [See WIMS 4/28/09]. Republicans are still pressing for more details and an additional hearing on the bill. While the 13 Republicans members on the House Energy and Commerce Committee Subcommittee, led by Ranking member Fred Upton (D-MI), are assumed to oppose the bill; there is also concern being expressed by some of the 21 Democratic members of the Subcommittee.
Last week's markup was delayed because of both Republican and Democrats concerns. Full Committee Chairman, Henry Waxman (D-CA) has pledged to have the bill approved by the Committee by Memorial Day and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has said she want a House vote by August.
The twenty-one Democratic Members of the Subcommittee Chaired by Ed Markey(D-MA) include: Mike Doyle, PA; Jay Inslee, WA; G. K. Butterfield, NC, Vice Chair; Charlie Melancon, LA; Baron P. Hill, IN; Doris O. Matsui, CA; Jerry McNerney, CA; Peter Welch, VT; John D. Dingell, MI; Rick Boucher, VA; Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ; Eliot L. Engel, NY; Gene Green, TX; Lois Capps, CA; Jane Harman, CA; Charles A. Gonzalez, TX; Tammy Baldwin, WI; Mike Ross, AR; Jim Matheson, UT; John Barrow, GA; and Henry A. Waxman, CA (ex officio).
In addition to concerns expressed by Subcommittee Democrats G. K. Butterfield, NC; Charles A. Gonzalez, TX; and Gene Green, TX; concerns have also been raised by Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen (D-MD); Dennis Cardoza (D-CA) a member of the moderate group of Democrats known as the Blue Dog Coalition; and Majority Whip Jim Clyburn of South Carolina.
Reportedly, some Democratic leaders are worried that some freshmen Democrats will be forced to vote on the controversial issue which may jeopardize their reelection chances. Other Southern Democrats are negotiating to get more emphasis on nuclear power in the bill and including nuclear and hydroelectric as "renewable" energy sources.
Additionally, Representative Green has reportedly said, “I can’t vote for a bill unless my refineries (are protected) because of the nature of my district, it’s a job base and a tax base”; and others are concerned about the bill’s impact on low-income Americans. Democrats on the Committee are reportedly scheduled to meet with White House officials on Tuesday to discuss the concerns and the Subcommittee is expected to meet further this week to consider the bill.
Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), one of those that has expressed concerns, is Co-Chair of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus and describes himself as a leading supporter of Congressional efforts to address global climate change. Van Hollen introduced his own Cap and Dividend Act of 2009 (H.R. 1862) on April 1. Van Hollen's legislation sets targets for emissions reductions OF 25 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 85 percent below 2005 levels by 2050 for covered emissions, auctions 100 percent of carbon permits, and returns all auction proceeds to consumers in the form of a monthly dividend.
Van Hollen said, “The science of climate change can be complicated, but the legislative solution doesn’t have to be. The strength of cap and dividend lies in its simplicity and durability. All permits are sold at auction, and all proceeds are given back to the American people. As the price of energy rises, the monthly dividends will keep American consumers whole. At its core, any successful climate change bill cannot just reduce carbon emissions. It must attract and retain the long-term, popular support of the American people. I believe the cap and dividend approach offers the best chance to get the job done.”
In an interview with The Hill on April 27, Van Hollen said, "The first thing we need to do is see whether we can come together around a consensus position in the committees in the House, and that’s what we’re working on. And then, of course, if we were able to arrive at that, the question is whether you would take it to the floor, or do you wait to see if anything develops on the Senate side."
Representative Upton, expressed the Republican position on the bill in a lengthy release on April 22. Upton said, "The statistics are startling. According to an MIT model of a 100 percent auction cap and tax, the American people will be taxed $366 billion in 2015 – four times as much as the President's estimate of $80.3 billion for that year. Job losses under such a plan could be greater than 6 million. Increased energy costs would near $1 trillion in 2030. Increases in electricity costs could be greater than 100 percent. A family of four could expect to pay as much as $4,560 in additional costs in 2015. In written testimony, OMB Director Peter Orszag stated that the average household cost would be $1,300 for a 15 percent cut in emissions – this administration is seeking an 80 percent cut. Not quite the prescription our economic maladies desperately require."
Access links to a number of various media reports including Politico, Wall Street Journal, The Hill and more (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 1862 (click here). Access Rep. Upton's complete statement (click here). [*Climate]
Last week's markup was delayed because of both Republican and Democrats concerns. Full Committee Chairman, Henry Waxman (D-CA) has pledged to have the bill approved by the Committee by Memorial Day and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has said she want a House vote by August.
The twenty-one Democratic Members of the Subcommittee Chaired by Ed Markey(D-MA) include: Mike Doyle, PA; Jay Inslee, WA; G. K. Butterfield, NC, Vice Chair; Charlie Melancon, LA; Baron P. Hill, IN; Doris O. Matsui, CA; Jerry McNerney, CA; Peter Welch, VT; John D. Dingell, MI; Rick Boucher, VA; Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ; Eliot L. Engel, NY; Gene Green, TX; Lois Capps, CA; Jane Harman, CA; Charles A. Gonzalez, TX; Tammy Baldwin, WI; Mike Ross, AR; Jim Matheson, UT; John Barrow, GA; and Henry A. Waxman, CA (ex officio).
In addition to concerns expressed by Subcommittee Democrats G. K. Butterfield, NC; Charles A. Gonzalez, TX; and Gene Green, TX; concerns have also been raised by Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen (D-MD); Dennis Cardoza (D-CA) a member of the moderate group of Democrats known as the Blue Dog Coalition; and Majority Whip Jim Clyburn of South Carolina.
Reportedly, some Democratic leaders are worried that some freshmen Democrats will be forced to vote on the controversial issue which may jeopardize their reelection chances. Other Southern Democrats are negotiating to get more emphasis on nuclear power in the bill and including nuclear and hydroelectric as "renewable" energy sources.
Additionally, Representative Green has reportedly said, “I can’t vote for a bill unless my refineries (are protected) because of the nature of my district, it’s a job base and a tax base”; and others are concerned about the bill’s impact on low-income Americans. Democrats on the Committee are reportedly scheduled to meet with White House officials on Tuesday to discuss the concerns and the Subcommittee is expected to meet further this week to consider the bill.
Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), one of those that has expressed concerns, is Co-Chair of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus and describes himself as a leading supporter of Congressional efforts to address global climate change. Van Hollen introduced his own Cap and Dividend Act of 2009 (H.R. 1862) on April 1. Van Hollen's legislation sets targets for emissions reductions OF 25 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 85 percent below 2005 levels by 2050 for covered emissions, auctions 100 percent of carbon permits, and returns all auction proceeds to consumers in the form of a monthly dividend.
Van Hollen said, “The science of climate change can be complicated, but the legislative solution doesn’t have to be. The strength of cap and dividend lies in its simplicity and durability. All permits are sold at auction, and all proceeds are given back to the American people. As the price of energy rises, the monthly dividends will keep American consumers whole. At its core, any successful climate change bill cannot just reduce carbon emissions. It must attract and retain the long-term, popular support of the American people. I believe the cap and dividend approach offers the best chance to get the job done.”
In an interview with The Hill on April 27, Van Hollen said, "The first thing we need to do is see whether we can come together around a consensus position in the committees in the House, and that’s what we’re working on. And then, of course, if we were able to arrive at that, the question is whether you would take it to the floor, or do you wait to see if anything develops on the Senate side."
Representative Upton, expressed the Republican position on the bill in a lengthy release on April 22. Upton said, "The statistics are startling. According to an MIT model of a 100 percent auction cap and tax, the American people will be taxed $366 billion in 2015 – four times as much as the President's estimate of $80.3 billion for that year. Job losses under such a plan could be greater than 6 million. Increased energy costs would near $1 trillion in 2030. Increases in electricity costs could be greater than 100 percent. A family of four could expect to pay as much as $4,560 in additional costs in 2015. In written testimony, OMB Director Peter Orszag stated that the average household cost would be $1,300 for a 15 percent cut in emissions – this administration is seeking an 80 percent cut. Not quite the prescription our economic maladies desperately require."
Access links to a number of various media reports including Politico, Wall Street Journal, The Hill and more (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 1862 (click here). Access Rep. Upton's complete statement (click here). [*Climate]
Friday, May 01, 2009
USGS Study Tracks Mercury Emissions From Asia To Seafood
May 1: According to a release from the Department of Interior (DOI), a new landmark study published today documents for the first time the process in which increased mercury emissions from human sources across the globe, and in particular from Asia, make their way into the North Pacific Ocean and as a result contaminate tuna and other seafood. Because much of the mercury that enters the North Pacific comes from the atmosphere, scientists have predicted an additional 50 percent increase in mercury in the Pacific by 2050 if mercury emission rates continue as projected.
DOI Secretary Ken Salazar said, “This unprecedented USGS study is critically important to the health and safety of the American people and our wildlife because it helps us understand the relationship between atmospheric emissions of mercury and concentrations of mercury in marine fish. We have always known that mercury can pose a risk, now we need to reduce the mercury emissions so that we can reduce the ocean mercury levels.” EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson commented, "This study gives us a better understanding of how dangerous levels of mercury move into our air, our water, and the food we eat, and shines new light on a major health threat to Americans and people all across the world. With this information in hand, plus our own mercury efforts, we have an even greater opportunity to continue working with our international partners to significantly cut mercury pollution in the years ahead and protect the health of millions of people.”
Water sampling cited in the study shows that mercury levels in 2006 were approximately 30 percent higher than those measured in the mid-1990s. The study documents for the first time the formation of methylmercury in the North Pacific Ocean. It shows that methylmercury is produced in mid-depth ocean waters by processes linked to the “ocean rain.” Algae, which are produced in sunlit waters near the surface, die quickly and “rain” downward to greater water depths. At depth, the settling algae are decomposed by bacteria and the interaction of this decomposition process in the presence of mercury results in the formation of methylmercury. Many steps up the food chain later, predators like tuna receive methylmercury from the fish they consume. One unexpected finding from this study is the significance of long-range transport of mercury within the ocean that originates in the western Pacific Ocean, off the coast of Asia.
USGS scientist and coauthor David Krabbenhoft said, “Mercury researchers typically look skyward to find a mercury source from the atmosphere due to emissions from land-based combustion facilities. In this study, however, the pathway of the mercury was a little different. Instead, it appears the recent mercury enrichment of the sampled Pacific Ocean waters is caused by emissions originating from fallout near the Asian coasts. The mercury-enriched waters then enter a long-range eastward transport by large ocean circulation currents."
Scientists sampled Pacific Ocean water from 16 different sites between Honolulu, Hawaii and Kodiak, Alaska. In addition, the scientists constructed a computer simulation that links atmospheric emissions, transport and deposition of mercury, and an ocean circulation model.
USGS said that in the United States, about 40 percent of all human exposure to mercury is from tuna harvested in the Pacific Ocean. Methylmercury is a highly toxic form of mercury that rapidly accumulates in the food chain to levels that can cause serious health concerns for those who consume the seafood. Pregnant women who consume mercury can pass on life-long developmental effects to their children. That is why in 2004 EPA and FDA issued the landmark Joint Guidance on the Consumption of Fish specifically targeted towards pregnant women and nursing mothers. Previous studies show that 75 percent of human exposure worldwide to mercury is from the consumption of marine fish and shell fish.
DOI indicated that scientists have known for some time that mercury deposited from the atmosphere to freshwater ecosystems can be transformed (methylated) into methylmercury, but identifying the analogous cycles in marine systems has remained elusive. As a result of this study researchers now know more about the process which leads to the transformation of mercury into methylmercury. The paper, Mercury sources, distribution and bioavailability in the North Pacific Ocean: Insights from data and models, appeared today in Global Biogeochemical Cycles, which is published by the American Geophysical Union.
Access a release from DOI (click here). Access more information on USGS mercury research (click here). Access a report summary and links to obtaining the complete article (click here).
DOI Secretary Ken Salazar said, “This unprecedented USGS study is critically important to the health and safety of the American people and our wildlife because it helps us understand the relationship between atmospheric emissions of mercury and concentrations of mercury in marine fish. We have always known that mercury can pose a risk, now we need to reduce the mercury emissions so that we can reduce the ocean mercury levels.” EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson commented, "This study gives us a better understanding of how dangerous levels of mercury move into our air, our water, and the food we eat, and shines new light on a major health threat to Americans and people all across the world. With this information in hand, plus our own mercury efforts, we have an even greater opportunity to continue working with our international partners to significantly cut mercury pollution in the years ahead and protect the health of millions of people.”
Water sampling cited in the study shows that mercury levels in 2006 were approximately 30 percent higher than those measured in the mid-1990s. The study documents for the first time the formation of methylmercury in the North Pacific Ocean. It shows that methylmercury is produced in mid-depth ocean waters by processes linked to the “ocean rain.” Algae, which are produced in sunlit waters near the surface, die quickly and “rain” downward to greater water depths. At depth, the settling algae are decomposed by bacteria and the interaction of this decomposition process in the presence of mercury results in the formation of methylmercury. Many steps up the food chain later, predators like tuna receive methylmercury from the fish they consume. One unexpected finding from this study is the significance of long-range transport of mercury within the ocean that originates in the western Pacific Ocean, off the coast of Asia.
USGS scientist and coauthor David Krabbenhoft said, “Mercury researchers typically look skyward to find a mercury source from the atmosphere due to emissions from land-based combustion facilities. In this study, however, the pathway of the mercury was a little different. Instead, it appears the recent mercury enrichment of the sampled Pacific Ocean waters is caused by emissions originating from fallout near the Asian coasts. The mercury-enriched waters then enter a long-range eastward transport by large ocean circulation currents."
Scientists sampled Pacific Ocean water from 16 different sites between Honolulu, Hawaii and Kodiak, Alaska. In addition, the scientists constructed a computer simulation that links atmospheric emissions, transport and deposition of mercury, and an ocean circulation model.
USGS said that in the United States, about 40 percent of all human exposure to mercury is from tuna harvested in the Pacific Ocean. Methylmercury is a highly toxic form of mercury that rapidly accumulates in the food chain to levels that can cause serious health concerns for those who consume the seafood. Pregnant women who consume mercury can pass on life-long developmental effects to their children. That is why in 2004 EPA and FDA issued the landmark Joint Guidance on the Consumption of Fish specifically targeted towards pregnant women and nursing mothers. Previous studies show that 75 percent of human exposure worldwide to mercury is from the consumption of marine fish and shell fish.
DOI indicated that scientists have known for some time that mercury deposited from the atmosphere to freshwater ecosystems can be transformed (methylated) into methylmercury, but identifying the analogous cycles in marine systems has remained elusive. As a result of this study researchers now know more about the process which leads to the transformation of mercury into methylmercury. The paper, Mercury sources, distribution and bioavailability in the North Pacific Ocean: Insights from data and models, appeared today in Global Biogeochemical Cycles, which is published by the American Geophysical Union.
Access a release from DOI (click here). Access more information on USGS mercury research (click here). Access a report summary and links to obtaining the complete article (click here).
Thursday, April 30, 2009
$3.55 Trillion FY 2010 Budget Approved By Democrats
Apr 29: In a solid showing of unity, not one Republican voted for the final approval to the fiscal year 2010 budget conference agreement (S.Con.Res. 13). In the House 233 Democrats voted in the 233-193 passage; and in the Senate 53 Democrats voted in the 53-43 passage. According to a Senate Democratic release, the five-year fiscal plan preserves the major priorities in President Obama’s budget plan. It makes investments in energy, education and health care. It provides significant middleclass tax relief for those making under $250,000. And it cuts the deficit by two-thirds by 2014.
Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) said, “Passage of this budget sends a clear signal that Congress, working in concert with President Obama, is moving forward on a new agenda for the country. The public spoke last November with their vote for change. Elected leaders spoke today with their vote for changing the nation’s priorities. We have adopted the President’s priorities of reducing our dependence on foreign energy, promoting excellence in education, and setting the stage for fundamental health care reform.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said, "In terms of energy, in this first 100 days, an article in Fortune magazine of April 29th states that, ‘this is the greenest budget ever.’ The Obama $3.55 trillion dollar budget is a one-two punch for clean-tech. It boosts funding for renewables while slashing tax breaks for fossil fuels. Obama’s wish list -- now this is another organization called ‘Climate Progress’ — ‘Climate Progress’ calls the Obama wish list the ‘first sustainable budget in U.S. history.’ This is in addition to the initiative that was passed early on in the recovery package, known as the stimulus package -- it’s called ‘Greener Stimulus.’ Signed in February, the stimulus package is chalk full of clean-tech goodies with $43 billion dollars in grants for clean power, extensions of tax credits for solar wind, geothermal and energy efficiency programs, smart-grid funding, weatherization programs, and a new tax credit for clean-tech hardware manufacturing."
House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) spoke on the House floor in opposition of Democrats’ $3.6 trillion budget which he said, "spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much from future generations." He said, "...What we see before us is a budget resolution that is nothing short of the most audacious move to a big socialist government in Washington, D.C., than anything I could have ever dreamed about before I ran for Congress, or for that matter, anytime over the last 18 years that I’ve been here. Budgets are supposed to be about tough decisions, and there are no tough decisions in this budget, because when you look at the document, what it does, it’s real simple. It spends an awful lot of money, it raises a lot of taxes, and it puts all of this debt on the backs of our kids and our grandkids. This is not the American way. . ."
U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) made a statement regarding the Democrats’ budget saying, “While families across the country are tightening their belts and carefully watching every dollar, Congress is on a trillion-dollar spending spree. . . Americans don’t understand how a giant expansion of government will help create or preserve jobs, or why the same Democrats who showed strong support on the Senate floor for Republican proposals to protect small businesses and middle class taxpayers, dropped those proposals once behind closed doors. Massive spending and crushing debt are not the answers to a recession, and neither are tax hikes on working families and job creators.”
Access a 4-page overview of the conference agreement (click here). Access the complete 48-page conference agreement (click here). Access links to extensive information on the budget conference agreement (click here). Access a statement from Senator Conrad (click here). Access a statement from Speaker Pelosi (click here). Access a House Democratic release with links to information and videos (click here). Access the floor speech and video from Republican Leader Boehner (click here). Access the statement from Senate Republican Leader McConnell (click here). Access the Senate roll call vote (click here). Access the House roll call vote (click here). Access legislative details for S.Con.Res. 13 (click here).
Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) said, “Passage of this budget sends a clear signal that Congress, working in concert with President Obama, is moving forward on a new agenda for the country. The public spoke last November with their vote for change. Elected leaders spoke today with their vote for changing the nation’s priorities. We have adopted the President’s priorities of reducing our dependence on foreign energy, promoting excellence in education, and setting the stage for fundamental health care reform.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said, "In terms of energy, in this first 100 days, an article in Fortune magazine of April 29th states that, ‘this is the greenest budget ever.’ The Obama $3.55 trillion dollar budget is a one-two punch for clean-tech. It boosts funding for renewables while slashing tax breaks for fossil fuels. Obama’s wish list -- now this is another organization called ‘Climate Progress’ — ‘Climate Progress’ calls the Obama wish list the ‘first sustainable budget in U.S. history.’ This is in addition to the initiative that was passed early on in the recovery package, known as the stimulus package -- it’s called ‘Greener Stimulus.’ Signed in February, the stimulus package is chalk full of clean-tech goodies with $43 billion dollars in grants for clean power, extensions of tax credits for solar wind, geothermal and energy efficiency programs, smart-grid funding, weatherization programs, and a new tax credit for clean-tech hardware manufacturing."
House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) spoke on the House floor in opposition of Democrats’ $3.6 trillion budget which he said, "spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much from future generations." He said, "...What we see before us is a budget resolution that is nothing short of the most audacious move to a big socialist government in Washington, D.C., than anything I could have ever dreamed about before I ran for Congress, or for that matter, anytime over the last 18 years that I’ve been here. Budgets are supposed to be about tough decisions, and there are no tough decisions in this budget, because when you look at the document, what it does, it’s real simple. It spends an awful lot of money, it raises a lot of taxes, and it puts all of this debt on the backs of our kids and our grandkids. This is not the American way. . ."
U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) made a statement regarding the Democrats’ budget saying, “While families across the country are tightening their belts and carefully watching every dollar, Congress is on a trillion-dollar spending spree. . . Americans don’t understand how a giant expansion of government will help create or preserve jobs, or why the same Democrats who showed strong support on the Senate floor for Republican proposals to protect small businesses and middle class taxpayers, dropped those proposals once behind closed doors. Massive spending and crushing debt are not the answers to a recession, and neither are tax hikes on working families and job creators.”
Access a 4-page overview of the conference agreement (click here). Access the complete 48-page conference agreement (click here). Access links to extensive information on the budget conference agreement (click here). Access a statement from Senator Conrad (click here). Access a statement from Speaker Pelosi (click here). Access a House Democratic release with links to information and videos (click here). Access the floor speech and video from Republican Leader Boehner (click here). Access the statement from Senate Republican Leader McConnell (click here). Access the Senate roll call vote (click here). Access the House roll call vote (click here). Access legislative details for S.Con.Res. 13 (click here).
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Parties Conclude Major Economies Meeting "A Bit More Optimistic"
Apr 29: U.S. negotiators; Todd Stern, Special Envoy for Climate Change and Michael Froman, Deputy National Security Advisor for International Economic Affairs; were cautious at a press briefing in discussing the progress made during the first of three preparatory session of the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate held in Washington on April 27-28 [See WIMS 4/28/09]. The "leaders’ representatives" preparatory meetings are being held in advance of a "leaders' meeting" of the Major Economies in La Maddalena, Italy, in July 2009.
The forum of the 17 "Major Economies" included: Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Denmark, in its capacity as host of the of the December 2009 Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Copenhagen, and the United Nations also participated in the meetings.
Todd Stern, responding to a question summarized the meeting saying, "The question that was asked of me was whether I came out of the meeting somewhat more optimistic than I went in. And I believe what I said is I came out a bit more optimistic, because it was a discussion in which people were not -- were neither refusing to, you know, engage past their kind of canned remarks; where the atmosphere, unlike some other past meetings run by other people, were not head-butting exercises; where people were engaged in trying to work through issues. I’m not -- believe, me, I’m not trying to oversell. I described myself a bit more optimistic, because, and as Mike said, to a person, everybody -- the Chinese, the Indians, the Brazilians, everybody -- came out of that room feeling -- I think, feeling more optimistic than they went into the room, frankly. So -- but I also said. . . I would not downplay or underestimate the difficulty of getting an agreement in Copenhagen in the first instance, and the enormous difficulty of wrestling this problem to the ground, because it is. . ."
According to the brief Chairman's Summary of the meeting, "Participants agreed that the Forum is not an alternative to the UN Framework Convention process, but could inform and complement and make a major contribution to success in the UN negotiations in Copenhagen, as well as implementation of the Bali Roadmap. Participants shared the view that climate change is a clear and present danger to our world that demands immediate attention from all countries, and that the Major Economies Leaders Meeting in July should send a strong political signal to add momentum to the Copenhagen process and to collective efforts to achieve a low-carbon future. It was noted that all major economies are already taking actions in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities." There was wide support for considering how best the Major Economies Forum can contribute to a successful outcome at the UN climate negotiations in Copenhagen in December.
The summary indicated, participants agreed to continue discussions on mitigation, finance, adaptation and related issues at their next meeting (scheduled for Paris in May), including exploring shared assumptions. "The discussions underscored the need for near term ambitious actions for all, as well as pathways, and the development of mid-term goals for developed countries. . .
"Many in the group noted that the forum could provide valuable support and impetus at a political level for the development of critical technologies and supported exploring cooperation on innovation and policies to enable deployment of technologies, including carbon capture and storage, clean coal, buildings, energy efficiency, solar energy and biofuels, among others. The role of legal and regulatory systems in facilitating enabling environments was also raised."
On the subject of "midterm targets" (i.e. greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions by 2020) a question was asked at the press briefing -- What reaction did you get, if any, from countries regarding the comments you’ve made several times that for the United States midterm targets going 25 to 40 below 1990 levels is not going to be feasible? Stern gave an indirect response saying, We had quite an extensive conversation about the whole subject of mitigation, and to include the question of midterm targets, to include the question of what the United States is talking about. So yes, those discussions came up. People expressed their views. We expressed our views. Some people agreed with us, some people pushed back with – on us, we pushed back on them. It was a good conversation. There were plenty of people there who – I mean, there were all different views represented, and it was, I think, again, a very constructive conversation. It’s very much what we wanted. We wanted to not be dodging things."
The issue of midterm targets was also a point of contention at the recent meetings of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Bonn, Germany [See WIMS 4/9/09], which concluded with wide disparities and no agreement on interim targets for industrialized countries for the year 2020. Experts say the interim targets are critical to reversing the growth in emissions. The European Union has called for interim targets of 20-30% less than 1990 levels; Australia (minus 4-14%); Canada (+2%); Japan (+4% to – 25%); Russia (not available); and the Obama Administration has said it would reduce GHG levels to 1990 levels by 2020 or a 0% reduction from 1990 levels.
Access the Chairman's Summary from the First Preparatory Meeting of the Major Economies Forum (click here). Access the transcript of the Special Briefing at the conclusion of the Major Economies Forum (click here). Access the State Department Climate Change website for additional information (click here). [*Energy, *Climate]
The forum of the 17 "Major Economies" included: Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Denmark, in its capacity as host of the of the December 2009 Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Copenhagen, and the United Nations also participated in the meetings.
Todd Stern, responding to a question summarized the meeting saying, "The question that was asked of me was whether I came out of the meeting somewhat more optimistic than I went in. And I believe what I said is I came out a bit more optimistic, because it was a discussion in which people were not -- were neither refusing to, you know, engage past their kind of canned remarks; where the atmosphere, unlike some other past meetings run by other people, were not head-butting exercises; where people were engaged in trying to work through issues. I’m not -- believe, me, I’m not trying to oversell. I described myself a bit more optimistic, because, and as Mike said, to a person, everybody -- the Chinese, the Indians, the Brazilians, everybody -- came out of that room feeling -- I think, feeling more optimistic than they went into the room, frankly. So -- but I also said. . . I would not downplay or underestimate the difficulty of getting an agreement in Copenhagen in the first instance, and the enormous difficulty of wrestling this problem to the ground, because it is. . ."
According to the brief Chairman's Summary of the meeting, "Participants agreed that the Forum is not an alternative to the UN Framework Convention process, but could inform and complement and make a major contribution to success in the UN negotiations in Copenhagen, as well as implementation of the Bali Roadmap. Participants shared the view that climate change is a clear and present danger to our world that demands immediate attention from all countries, and that the Major Economies Leaders Meeting in July should send a strong political signal to add momentum to the Copenhagen process and to collective efforts to achieve a low-carbon future. It was noted that all major economies are already taking actions in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities." There was wide support for considering how best the Major Economies Forum can contribute to a successful outcome at the UN climate negotiations in Copenhagen in December.
The summary indicated, participants agreed to continue discussions on mitigation, finance, adaptation and related issues at their next meeting (scheduled for Paris in May), including exploring shared assumptions. "The discussions underscored the need for near term ambitious actions for all, as well as pathways, and the development of mid-term goals for developed countries. . .
"Many in the group noted that the forum could provide valuable support and impetus at a political level for the development of critical technologies and supported exploring cooperation on innovation and policies to enable deployment of technologies, including carbon capture and storage, clean coal, buildings, energy efficiency, solar energy and biofuels, among others. The role of legal and regulatory systems in facilitating enabling environments was also raised."
On the subject of "midterm targets" (i.e. greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions by 2020) a question was asked at the press briefing -- What reaction did you get, if any, from countries regarding the comments you’ve made several times that for the United States midterm targets going 25 to 40 below 1990 levels is not going to be feasible? Stern gave an indirect response saying, We had quite an extensive conversation about the whole subject of mitigation, and to include the question of midterm targets, to include the question of what the United States is talking about. So yes, those discussions came up. People expressed their views. We expressed our views. Some people agreed with us, some people pushed back with – on us, we pushed back on them. It was a good conversation. There were plenty of people there who – I mean, there were all different views represented, and it was, I think, again, a very constructive conversation. It’s very much what we wanted. We wanted to not be dodging things."
The issue of midterm targets was also a point of contention at the recent meetings of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Bonn, Germany [See WIMS 4/9/09], which concluded with wide disparities and no agreement on interim targets for industrialized countries for the year 2020. Experts say the interim targets are critical to reversing the growth in emissions. The European Union has called for interim targets of 20-30% less than 1990 levels; Australia (minus 4-14%); Canada (+2%); Japan (+4% to – 25%); Russia (not available); and the Obama Administration has said it would reduce GHG levels to 1990 levels by 2020 or a 0% reduction from 1990 levels.
Access the Chairman's Summary from the First Preparatory Meeting of the Major Economies Forum (click here). Access the transcript of the Special Briefing at the conclusion of the Major Economies Forum (click here). Access the State Department Climate Change website for additional information (click here). [*Energy, *Climate]
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
One More ACES Climate & Energy Bill Hearing Before Markup
Apr 27: Following three days of testimony and one day of Member statements last week [See WIMS 4/27/09], House Energy & Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Chair Representative Ed Markey (D-MA) sent a brief memorandum to members of the Energy and Commerce Committee regarding the Subcommittee markup schedule for the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES).
The memo indicates, "We wanted to report that we viewed last week's hearings, with 68 witnesses over three days, as very helpful in airing the issues associated with the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. The hearings have spurred productive discussions between members on the legislation, which are continuing this week. We will schedule markup of the bill in the Subcommittee for next week, with the precise date to be advised shortly." Additionally, the two Democratic Chairmen sent a 5-page letter to Ranking Members Joe Barton (R-TX) and Fred Upton (R-MI) in response to a letter regarding hearings on the ACES.
In their letter, Waxman and Markey indicate, "This letter responds to the April 24, 2009, request from you and your Republican colleagues on the Committee for additional day of hearings on the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES). Your request was surprising given the extensive hearings the Committee has held on energy policy and legislation. Our extensive hearings and the many accommodations we have provided to the minority far surpass the process you provided Democrats when you and your Republican predecessors controlled the Committee. In the past two and a half years, this Committee has held dozens of hearings on energy and climate change policy that have informed the development of the ACES text and built a detailed factual record regarding the need for action on this matter." The letter listed some 36 hearings from February 2007 through March 2009. The listing did not include the 4 days of hearings that were just completed.
Waxman and Markey said, "In total, the Committee has held over 40 days of hearings on energy and climate change policy over the past two Congresses. During these hearings, over 300 witnesses testified, including 130 in this year alone. These hearings have included testimony from numerous minority witnesses and have involved accommodations for the minority that are not required under House or Committee rules. For example, 14 witnesses requested by the minority testified in the legislative hearings on ACES from April 22 to 24, 2009. On both April 22 and 24, the Committee scheduled new panels during the middle of the day to accommodate last-minute minority witness requests, pushing majority witness panels into the evening hours on those days. Our approach to this legislation stands in stark contrast to the approach you and your Republican predecessors adopted in previous Congresses on legislation that affected millions of Americans and involved expenditure of substantial taxpayer dollars."
The two Chairmen listed five examples and said, "These are just a few of many examples of how Republicans abdicated regular order when they controlled this Committee. This track record makes it particularly difficult to see any reasonable basis for Committee Republican complaints about the thorough, fair, and deliberate process we are employing to consider the ACES measure. Nevertheless, we want to continue to take into consideration issues raised by all members of the Committee as we proceed with this measure. We therefore will provide for an additional day of Committee hearings on the ACES draft on Friday, May 1,2009."
In their letter requesting additional hearings, Ranking Member Joe Barton and the other Republican members of the committee, asked Waxman and Markey to call witnesses selected by the Republicans under Rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. They said, “As you know, this legislation will raise the price of gasoline, electricity, and every commodity and service that requires energy for its production or transport. Rising prices will lead to significant job losses that will not be offset by any small number of low-paying green jobs. This legislation will export our jobs and our manufacturing sectors overseas. And this bill will do nothing to decrease our dependence on foreign oil.
“Hasty decisions on incomplete legislation never seem to produce the desired outcome, and we had hoped that we would not have to assert traditional minority rights under the House Rules to request a day on which we might all hear from some who have not been permitted to testify." The Republicans said the Committee heard from 54 Democratic witnesses and 14 Republican witnesses last week.
Access the Memo to Committee members (click here). Access the letter from Waxman-Markey (click here). Access the request letter from Republican members (click here). [*Energy, *Climate]
The memo indicates, "We wanted to report that we viewed last week's hearings, with 68 witnesses over three days, as very helpful in airing the issues associated with the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. The hearings have spurred productive discussions between members on the legislation, which are continuing this week. We will schedule markup of the bill in the Subcommittee for next week, with the precise date to be advised shortly." Additionally, the two Democratic Chairmen sent a 5-page letter to Ranking Members Joe Barton (R-TX) and Fred Upton (R-MI) in response to a letter regarding hearings on the ACES.
In their letter, Waxman and Markey indicate, "This letter responds to the April 24, 2009, request from you and your Republican colleagues on the Committee for additional day of hearings on the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES). Your request was surprising given the extensive hearings the Committee has held on energy policy and legislation. Our extensive hearings and the many accommodations we have provided to the minority far surpass the process you provided Democrats when you and your Republican predecessors controlled the Committee. In the past two and a half years, this Committee has held dozens of hearings on energy and climate change policy that have informed the development of the ACES text and built a detailed factual record regarding the need for action on this matter." The letter listed some 36 hearings from February 2007 through March 2009. The listing did not include the 4 days of hearings that were just completed.
Waxman and Markey said, "In total, the Committee has held over 40 days of hearings on energy and climate change policy over the past two Congresses. During these hearings, over 300 witnesses testified, including 130 in this year alone. These hearings have included testimony from numerous minority witnesses and have involved accommodations for the minority that are not required under House or Committee rules. For example, 14 witnesses requested by the minority testified in the legislative hearings on ACES from April 22 to 24, 2009. On both April 22 and 24, the Committee scheduled new panels during the middle of the day to accommodate last-minute minority witness requests, pushing majority witness panels into the evening hours on those days. Our approach to this legislation stands in stark contrast to the approach you and your Republican predecessors adopted in previous Congresses on legislation that affected millions of Americans and involved expenditure of substantial taxpayer dollars."
The two Chairmen listed five examples and said, "These are just a few of many examples of how Republicans abdicated regular order when they controlled this Committee. This track record makes it particularly difficult to see any reasonable basis for Committee Republican complaints about the thorough, fair, and deliberate process we are employing to consider the ACES measure. Nevertheless, we want to continue to take into consideration issues raised by all members of the Committee as we proceed with this measure. We therefore will provide for an additional day of Committee hearings on the ACES draft on Friday, May 1,2009."
In their letter requesting additional hearings, Ranking Member Joe Barton and the other Republican members of the committee, asked Waxman and Markey to call witnesses selected by the Republicans under Rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. They said, “As you know, this legislation will raise the price of gasoline, electricity, and every commodity and service that requires energy for its production or transport. Rising prices will lead to significant job losses that will not be offset by any small number of low-paying green jobs. This legislation will export our jobs and our manufacturing sectors overseas. And this bill will do nothing to decrease our dependence on foreign oil.
“Hasty decisions on incomplete legislation never seem to produce the desired outcome, and we had hoped that we would not have to assert traditional minority rights under the House Rules to request a day on which we might all hear from some who have not been permitted to testify." The Republicans said the Committee heard from 54 Democratic witnesses and 14 Republican witnesses last week.
Access the Memo to Committee members (click here). Access the letter from Waxman-Markey (click here). Access the request letter from Republican members (click here). [*Energy, *Climate]
Monday, April 27, 2009
Climate Change Debate Heats Up
Apr 27: The last two weeks have seen a major turning point on the legislative, political and regulatory elements of the climate change debate. On April 17, U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson announced the Agency was issuing its proposed finding proposed finding that greenhouse gases contribute to air pollution that may endanger public health or welfare. From April 21-24, the House Energy & Commerce Committee, Chaired by Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) and its Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Chaired by Representative Ed Markey (D-MA) held four days of must-see hearings on the American Clean Energy Security Act Of 2009.
On Earth Day, April 22, President Obama delivered a major speech on energy that included the Administration's reaffirmation to move forward with its cap and trade program. Finally, on the international front as the week commences and following the recent Bonn meeting [See WIMS 4/9/09], the leaders of 17 "Major Economies" and the Secretary General of the United Nations are participating in a major energy and climate change session at the Department of State on April 27-28 in Washington, DC, at the invite of the President.
On April 17, Administrator Jackson announced the long awaited, "endangerment finding" which was the subject to intense controversy during the Bush Administration [See WIMS 7/25/08]. Jackson said, "This finding confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations. Fortunately, it follows President Obama’s call for a low carbon economy and strong leadership in Congress on clean energy and climate legislation. This pollution problem has a solution -- one that will create millions of green jobs and end our country’s dependence on foreign oil.” The proposed endangerment finding states, “In both magnitude and probability, climate change is an enormous problem. The greenhouse gases that are responsible for it endanger public health and welfare within the meaning of the Clean Air Act.”
EPA’s proposed endangerment finding is based on peer-reviewed scientific analysis of six gases -- carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride -- that have been the subject of intensive analysis by scientists around the world. EPA said the science "clearly shows that concentrations of these gases are at unprecedented levels as a result of human emissions, and these high levels are very likely the cause of the increase in average temperatures and other changes in our climate."
The scientific analysis also confirms that climate change impacts human health in several ways including: higher concentrations of ground-level ozone; increased drought; more heavy downpours and flooding; more frequent and intense heat waves and wildfires; greater sea level rise; more intense storms; and harm to water resources, agriculture, wildlife and ecosystems; and more. The analysis also finds that climate change has serious national security implications.
The "endangerment finding" responds to the April 2, 2007, 5-4 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court which decided the historic case about global warming (Massachusetts, et al. v. EPA, et al., No. 05-1120), and ruled that EPA has existing authority under the Federal Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from motor vehicles. EPA had previously refused to regulate such gases, arguing it lacked statutory authority [See WIMS 4/2/07]. The Supreme Court ruled that EPA does have authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. The Court also held that the Agency could not refuse to use that authority based on the Agency’s policy preferences. Instead, the EPA would have to decide, based on the science, whether it believed that greenhouse gas emissions were posing dangers to public health or welfare. If the Agency determined that "endangerment" was occurring, the Agency would have to start the process of setting emission standards for greenhouse gases.
For four straight days (April 21-24), Chairmen Waxman and Markey held perhaps the most comprehensive set of hearings ever on alternative energy and climate change issues as contained within the draft American Clean Energy Security Act Of 2009 (ACES). The testimony and videos from the hearing are must-see and read for all those interested in the science and politics of climate change. Waxman and Markey released their draft of ACES on March 31 [See WIMS 3/31/09]. The hearings included statements from Committee and Subcommittee members which demonstrated the stark differences between Democrats and Republicans on the issue; major testimony from Administration officials from EPA, the Department of Energy and Transportation; extensive testimony and questioning of former VP Al Gore, former Senator John Warner (R-VA); former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich; and major environmental, industry, state and local government officials, and others.
Al Gore's testimony reminded that, "Our country is at risk on three fronts. The economic crisis is clear. Our national security remains at risk so long as we remain dangerously dependent on flows of foreign oil from reserves owned by sovereign states that are vulnerable to disruption. The rate of new discoveries, as you know, is falling even as demand elsewhere in the world is rising. Most importantly, of course, we are -- along with the rest of humanity -- facing the dire and growing threat of the climate crisis."
Newt Gingrich responded saying he had concluded, ". . . this is the wrong bill. This bill is wrong for our national security. This bill is wrong for our economy. This bill is wrong for government of, by, and for the people. He challenged Gore's assumption that we face energy shortages, and said, ". . .Vice President Gore’s analysis was wrong. . . The United States government blocks the development of new energy sources and inhibits the use of existing energy and then explains that we will have a shortage of energy. It is an artificial, government imposed shortage not a naturally occurring phenomenon. . ."
Gore, Warner, Gingrich and others commented on the news story that broke on the day of their testimony in the New York Times indicating that new internal documents released in legal proceedings demonstrated that in 1995, the industry-financed group, Global Climate Coalition, did not reveal scientific information from its own experts that indicated that, "The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied."
The industry report also said that, "Given the limitations of climate models and other information on this question, current claims that a human impact on climate has already been detected, are unjustified. However, assessment of whether human activities have already affected climate may be possible when improved climate models are available. Alternatively, a large, short term change in climate consistent with model predictions could be taken as proof of a human component of climate change [See links to the complete report below].
On Earth Day, President Obama delivered an energy and climate change speech in Newton, Iowa at a manufacturing plant building towers for windmill turbines. He said, "America has always led the world in producing and harnessing new forms of energy. . . the choice we face is not between saving our environment and saving our economy. The choice we face is between prosperity and decline. We can remain the world's leading importer of oil, or we can become the world's leading exporter of clean energy. We can allow climate change to wreak unnatural havoc across the landscape, or we can create jobs working to prevent its worst effects. . ."
While most of the President's speech focused on alternative energy issues, he used the opportunity to again discuss his plans for climate change and a cap and trade program. He said, ". . .last week, in response to a mandate from the United States Supreme Court, the Environmental Protection Agency determined that carbon dioxide and other tailpipe emissions are harmful to the health and well-being of our people. So there's no question that we have to regulate carbon pollution in some way; the only question is how we do it. I believe the best way to do it is through legislation that places a market-based cap on these kinds of emissions. And today, key members of my administration are testifying in Congress on a bill that seeks to enact exactly this kind of market-based approach. My hope is that this will be the vehicle through which we put this policy in effect."
Finally, today and tomorrow (April 27 & 28), the U.S. is hosting a forum of the 17 "Major Economies" including: Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Denmark, in its capacity as the President of the December 2009 Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and the United Nations have also been invited to participate in this dialogue.
According to information from the State Department, the meeting will take place at the "level of leaders’ representatives." U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern will lead U.S. participation in the Major Economies Forum, and Deputy National Security Advisor for International Economic Affairs Michael Froman will serve as Chair. The Forum is intended to facilitate a candid dialogue among major developed and developing economies; help generate the political leadership necessary to achieve a successful outcome at the December UN climate change conference in Copenhagen; and advance the exploration of concrete initiatives and joint ventures that increase the supply of clean energy while cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
In a press briefing on April 24, Froman said Major Economies represent 75 percent of global emissions. He said, ". . .we believe that it is critical that those 17 be able to make progress on the outstanding issues and reach political consensus if there is to be a deal in Copenhagen, as well as to make progress on the transformational technologies that are necessary to develop if we’re going to solve the climate change problem. This is part of the President’s overall effort to build a clean energy economy, to create green jobs, and to create greater energy independence. We plan to have three working sessions of the Major Economies Forum over the next few months in preparation for a leaders meeting that will take place on the margins of the G-8 meeting in Italy in July. We’re looking forward to having this dialogue this week. This is the beginning of a process, and we kept the dialogue relatively small in order to facilitate open and intensive discussion."
Access EPA's announcement on the endangerment finding (click here). Access the endangerment finding published in the Federal Register on 4/24/09 (click here). Access the ACES summary (click here). Access the ACES full text (click here). Access an overview of the four-day ACES hearing schedule(click here). Access the Day 1 ACES hearing (click here). Access the Day 2 ACES hearing (click here). Access the Day 3 ACES hearing (click here). Access the Day 4 ACES hearing (click here). Access the NYT's article (click here). Access the actual industrial 25-page document (click here). Access the President's Obama's Earth Day energy speech (click here). Access the press briefing on the Major Economies Forum (click here).[*Energy, *Climate]
On Earth Day, April 22, President Obama delivered a major speech on energy that included the Administration's reaffirmation to move forward with its cap and trade program. Finally, on the international front as the week commences and following the recent Bonn meeting [See WIMS 4/9/09], the leaders of 17 "Major Economies" and the Secretary General of the United Nations are participating in a major energy and climate change session at the Department of State on April 27-28 in Washington, DC, at the invite of the President.
On April 17, Administrator Jackson announced the long awaited, "endangerment finding" which was the subject to intense controversy during the Bush Administration [See WIMS 7/25/08]. Jackson said, "This finding confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations. Fortunately, it follows President Obama’s call for a low carbon economy and strong leadership in Congress on clean energy and climate legislation. This pollution problem has a solution -- one that will create millions of green jobs and end our country’s dependence on foreign oil.” The proposed endangerment finding states, “In both magnitude and probability, climate change is an enormous problem. The greenhouse gases that are responsible for it endanger public health and welfare within the meaning of the Clean Air Act.”
EPA’s proposed endangerment finding is based on peer-reviewed scientific analysis of six gases -- carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride -- that have been the subject of intensive analysis by scientists around the world. EPA said the science "clearly shows that concentrations of these gases are at unprecedented levels as a result of human emissions, and these high levels are very likely the cause of the increase in average temperatures and other changes in our climate."
The scientific analysis also confirms that climate change impacts human health in several ways including: higher concentrations of ground-level ozone; increased drought; more heavy downpours and flooding; more frequent and intense heat waves and wildfires; greater sea level rise; more intense storms; and harm to water resources, agriculture, wildlife and ecosystems; and more. The analysis also finds that climate change has serious national security implications.
The "endangerment finding" responds to the April 2, 2007, 5-4 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court which decided the historic case about global warming (Massachusetts, et al. v. EPA, et al., No. 05-1120), and ruled that EPA has existing authority under the Federal Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from motor vehicles. EPA had previously refused to regulate such gases, arguing it lacked statutory authority [See WIMS 4/2/07]. The Supreme Court ruled that EPA does have authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. The Court also held that the Agency could not refuse to use that authority based on the Agency’s policy preferences. Instead, the EPA would have to decide, based on the science, whether it believed that greenhouse gas emissions were posing dangers to public health or welfare. If the Agency determined that "endangerment" was occurring, the Agency would have to start the process of setting emission standards for greenhouse gases.
For four straight days (April 21-24), Chairmen Waxman and Markey held perhaps the most comprehensive set of hearings ever on alternative energy and climate change issues as contained within the draft American Clean Energy Security Act Of 2009 (ACES). The testimony and videos from the hearing are must-see and read for all those interested in the science and politics of climate change. Waxman and Markey released their draft of ACES on March 31 [See WIMS 3/31/09]. The hearings included statements from Committee and Subcommittee members which demonstrated the stark differences between Democrats and Republicans on the issue; major testimony from Administration officials from EPA, the Department of Energy and Transportation; extensive testimony and questioning of former VP Al Gore, former Senator John Warner (R-VA); former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich; and major environmental, industry, state and local government officials, and others.
Al Gore's testimony reminded that, "Our country is at risk on three fronts. The economic crisis is clear. Our national security remains at risk so long as we remain dangerously dependent on flows of foreign oil from reserves owned by sovereign states that are vulnerable to disruption. The rate of new discoveries, as you know, is falling even as demand elsewhere in the world is rising. Most importantly, of course, we are -- along with the rest of humanity -- facing the dire and growing threat of the climate crisis."
Newt Gingrich responded saying he had concluded, ". . . this is the wrong bill. This bill is wrong for our national security. This bill is wrong for our economy. This bill is wrong for government of, by, and for the people. He challenged Gore's assumption that we face energy shortages, and said, ". . .Vice President Gore’s analysis was wrong. . . The United States government blocks the development of new energy sources and inhibits the use of existing energy and then explains that we will have a shortage of energy. It is an artificial, government imposed shortage not a naturally occurring phenomenon. . ."
Gore, Warner, Gingrich and others commented on the news story that broke on the day of their testimony in the New York Times indicating that new internal documents released in legal proceedings demonstrated that in 1995, the industry-financed group, Global Climate Coalition, did not reveal scientific information from its own experts that indicated that, "The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied."
The industry report also said that, "Given the limitations of climate models and other information on this question, current claims that a human impact on climate has already been detected, are unjustified. However, assessment of whether human activities have already affected climate may be possible when improved climate models are available. Alternatively, a large, short term change in climate consistent with model predictions could be taken as proof of a human component of climate change [See links to the complete report below].
On Earth Day, President Obama delivered an energy and climate change speech in Newton, Iowa at a manufacturing plant building towers for windmill turbines. He said, "America has always led the world in producing and harnessing new forms of energy. . . the choice we face is not between saving our environment and saving our economy. The choice we face is between prosperity and decline. We can remain the world's leading importer of oil, or we can become the world's leading exporter of clean energy. We can allow climate change to wreak unnatural havoc across the landscape, or we can create jobs working to prevent its worst effects. . ."
While most of the President's speech focused on alternative energy issues, he used the opportunity to again discuss his plans for climate change and a cap and trade program. He said, ". . .last week, in response to a mandate from the United States Supreme Court, the Environmental Protection Agency determined that carbon dioxide and other tailpipe emissions are harmful to the health and well-being of our people. So there's no question that we have to regulate carbon pollution in some way; the only question is how we do it. I believe the best way to do it is through legislation that places a market-based cap on these kinds of emissions. And today, key members of my administration are testifying in Congress on a bill that seeks to enact exactly this kind of market-based approach. My hope is that this will be the vehicle through which we put this policy in effect."
Finally, today and tomorrow (April 27 & 28), the U.S. is hosting a forum of the 17 "Major Economies" including: Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Denmark, in its capacity as the President of the December 2009 Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and the United Nations have also been invited to participate in this dialogue.
According to information from the State Department, the meeting will take place at the "level of leaders’ representatives." U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern will lead U.S. participation in the Major Economies Forum, and Deputy National Security Advisor for International Economic Affairs Michael Froman will serve as Chair. The Forum is intended to facilitate a candid dialogue among major developed and developing economies; help generate the political leadership necessary to achieve a successful outcome at the December UN climate change conference in Copenhagen; and advance the exploration of concrete initiatives and joint ventures that increase the supply of clean energy while cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
In a press briefing on April 24, Froman said Major Economies represent 75 percent of global emissions. He said, ". . .we believe that it is critical that those 17 be able to make progress on the outstanding issues and reach political consensus if there is to be a deal in Copenhagen, as well as to make progress on the transformational technologies that are necessary to develop if we’re going to solve the climate change problem. This is part of the President’s overall effort to build a clean energy economy, to create green jobs, and to create greater energy independence. We plan to have three working sessions of the Major Economies Forum over the next few months in preparation for a leaders meeting that will take place on the margins of the G-8 meeting in Italy in July. We’re looking forward to having this dialogue this week. This is the beginning of a process, and we kept the dialogue relatively small in order to facilitate open and intensive discussion."
Access EPA's announcement on the endangerment finding (click here). Access the endangerment finding published in the Federal Register on 4/24/09 (click here). Access the ACES summary (click here). Access the ACES full text (click here). Access an overview of the four-day ACES hearing schedule(click here). Access the Day 1 ACES hearing (click here). Access the Day 2 ACES hearing (click here). Access the Day 3 ACES hearing (click here). Access the Day 4 ACES hearing (click here). Access the NYT's article (click here). Access the actual industrial 25-page document (click here). Access the President's Obama's Earth Day energy speech (click here). Access the press briefing on the Major Economies Forum (click here).[*Energy, *Climate]
Friday, April 10, 2009
CBO Report Adds More Questions To The Benefits Of Ethanol From Corn
Subscribers & Readers Notice:
We are beginning our Spring publication break next week.
We resume publication on Monday, April 27, 2009.
We are beginning our Spring publication break next week.
We resume publication on Monday, April 27, 2009.
Apr 9: Following on the heels of a major scientific study of biofuels’ impact on the global environment that questioned the value of ethanol production from both corn and cellulosic sources [See WIMS 4/7/09], the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has come to similar conclusions and provides new information on the costs of ethanol production from corn.
The CBO study released April 9 -- The Impact of Ethanol Use on Food Prices and Greenhouse-Gas Emissions -- finds that ethanol from corn has contributed to a 10-15 percent increase in food prices between April 2007 and April 2008 [Correction: accounted for about 10 percent to 15 percent of the rise in food prices between April 2007 and April 2008]; would add $600-$900 million to the Food Stamp program in fiscal year 2009; and would reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector by less than 1 percent. CBO also notes that land use changes resulting from increased production of ethanol could more than offset any reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions. The scientific study goes further and indicates that, “The policy of using ethanol to reduce reliance on the fossil fuels that cause global warming is self-defeating because ethanol production actually increases net greenhouse gas emissions.”
While the CBO study indicated that the use of cellulosic ethanol, made from wood, grasses, and agricultural plant wastes rather than corn, might reduce greenhouse-gas emissions more substantially; the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) study even questioned the value of cellulosic production. Robert Howarth, professor of ecology and environmental biology at Cornell University and the Project Chair for the SCOPE study said, “The SCOPE report agrees the cellulosic ethanol is better, but not better enough. The efficiency of making the ethanol is simply too low, requiring too much land and too much input of material.” The report suggests that biomass that does not compete with food production can be used much more efficiently (and therefore with less environmental impact) through direct combustion to generate electricity and heat, rather than being converted to liquid fuels such as ethanol.
The CBO report indicates that the use of ethanol in gasoline has increased substantially over the past decade. Currently, most ethanol in the United States is produced from domestically grown corn, and the rapid rise in the fuel’s production and usage means that roughly one-quarter of all corn grown in the United States is now used to produce ethanol. U.S. consumption of ethanol last year exceeded 9 billion gallons -- a record high. Mandates for increased usage included in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) are slated to keep ethanol production high in the future and call for ramping up to 36 billion gallons per year by 2022.
The CBO report also indicates the costs relating to federal subsidies for ethanol production. According to the report since 1978, firms that blend ethanol with gasoline have received a tax incentive from the federal government. The incentive has been adjusted periodically; today, ethanol blenders receive a tax credit of 45 cents for each gallon of ethanol blended into the supply of gasoline. The subsidy has helped keep ethanol competitive with gasoline, even when prices for corn are high. In 2007, the cost of the credit in forgone federal tax revenues was $3 billion.
The CBO report relies on research conducted at Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) to compare the life cycle of ethanol v. gasoline. CBO says that research, which has been widely accepted by federal agencies, found that the use of corn ethanol as it is
currently produced -- using coal-fired and natural gas-fired plants -- reduces life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions by about 20 percent when compared with the use of gasoline. Calculated on the basis of the volume of ethanol used in the United States last year, that percentage reduction is equivalent to about 14 million metric tons of carbon dioxide and equivalent gases, or CO2e. That amount is about 0.7 percent of the total greenhouse-gas emissions generated in the transportation sector during 2008.
Access the complete 26-page CBO analysis (click here). Access a recent Senate hearing website for links to opening statements, all testimony and a webcast on the Renewable Fuels Standard (click here). Access the SCOPE report preface, and links to an executive summary, and individual chapters of the report (click here). [*Energy/Biofuels]
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Bonn Climate Talks Stall On GHG 2020 Reduction Targets
Apr 8: While many of the parties agree that greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets for 2050 should be in the 70%-90% range over 1990 levels, the latest meetings of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Bonn, Germany, working toward a revised Kyoto Protocol, concluded with wide disparities and no agreement on interim targets for industrialized countries for the year 2020, which the experts say is critical to reversing the growth in emissions.
To indicated the disparities between various developed countries, Greenpeace released a table on April 6, summarizing various countries announced or discussed GHG reduction targets over 1990 levels by the year 2020. According to the table some of the key targets are as follows: Australia (minus 4-14%); Canada (+2%); European Union (minus 20-30%); Japan (+4% to – 25%); Russia (not available); United States (0%) [See WIMS 4/7/09].
With just 241 days until the Copenhagen meeting in December, significant pressure is now on an upcoming UNFCCC meeting in June to begin narrowing the differences and refining the reduction targets. In addition, President Obama has invited the leaders of 17 "major economies" and the Secretary General of the United Nations to participate in a preparatory session at the Department of State on April 27-28 in Washington, DC [See WIMS 3/30/09].
According to the official press release from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) the talks captured "the essential elements of strengthened international climate change action to be reflected in first negotiating texts for the next round of talks in June." Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of UNFCCC said, "Countries have narrowed gaps in many practical areas, for example on how to strengthen action for adapting to the impacts of climate change. They now have the necessary clarity to move into intensified negotiations based on texts. The negotiating texts for the Climate Change Talks in June will further pinpoint the details of cooperative international climate change action, as well as focus work on the financial support needed to unleash action in developing countries. This is important progress given the very limited time negotiators have to get to an agreed outcome in Copenhagen in December this year."
Briefing journalists on the final day of the Bonn Talks, de Boer reported that solid progress had been made. He said the meeting had given important guidance on what a Copenhagen agreement must contain, and a first round of discussions had been held on what legal form an agreed outcome might take. However, he emphasized that with regard to emission targets for industrialized countries, the numbers discussed so far "fell well short" of the 25-40% reduction over 1990 levels by 2020 range recommended by the IPCC, and stressed the need for these countries to show "greater ambition." He pointed out that developing countries were willing to undertake mitigation actions if the promised financial and technical support were delivered, while some already had climate change strategies in place.
The Bonn Talks incorporated the 5th session of the Ad hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA 5) and the 7th session of the Ad hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP 7). Under the AWG-LCA, countries discussed how to strengthen international cooperation on reducing emissions, including from deforestation; adapting to climate change impacts; financing action and the governance of finances.
Michael Zammit Cutajar, Chair of the AWG-LCA, noted that, "These Climate Change Talks have been increasingly tactical in nature. There have been positive discussions on a range of issues, including on technology cooperation between industrialized and developing countries, as well as on the specificities of reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries." Preparing for what he called the "real negotiations" in June [June 1-12 in Bonn], Cutajar indicated that countries have the opportunity to provide input to the draft negotiating text and must provide their input to the climate change secretariat by April 24, 2009, so that their views can be incorporated.
Discussions under the Kyoto Protocol on emissions reductions to be achieved by industrialized countries after 2012 focused on issues such as the scale of the reductions, improvements to emissions trading and the project-based mechanisms, and on options for the treatment of land use, land-use change and forestry. UNFCCC said agreement was reached to provide the Chair of the group with a mandate to prepare negotiating texts on emission reductions to be achieved by industrialized countries after 2012, as well as on other issues such as improvements to the project-based mechanisms. Harald Dovland, Chair of the AWG-KP said, "I am extremely pleased that we have agreement to prepare these texts. Things are certainly moving forward. The June session will finalize these negotiating texts, which will be proposals for amendments to the Kyoto Protocol."
The World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) representing some 200 companies from 35 countries issued a report -- Towards a Low Carbon Economy -- on April 7, recommending among several other recommendations that, "A future framework must enable countries to collectively work towards a low-carbon economy with the urgency needed. This includes emissions reduction targets for developed countries and supporting infrastructure to enhance the financial and technology flows to developing countries to slow emissions growth and work towards net emission reductions in the longer term."
Carroll Muffett, Greenpeace USA deputy campaigns director said, “The diplomats and negotiators in Bonn have been treading water for two weeks, while back in the real world ice caps have continued to melt at alarming rates and flash floods have devastated parts of Australia. As it stands, this exact same meeting will be repeated in June. Heads of State must now inject leadership and direction into the talks in order to avert catastrophic climate change. . . the United States must come back to the process with solid proposals in June and the rest of the industrialized world must knuckle down and close the gap between what is on the table and what is needed." Greenpeace is calling on developed countries to agree to an aggregate emissions reduction target of 40 percent by 2020 and provide $140 billion annually to assist the developing world tackle climate change.
Keya Chatterjee, deputy director of the climate program at World Wildlife Fund (WWF), issued a statement saying “The urgency of a global response to climate change has never been greater. As negotiations have continued since Bali in December 2007 and Poznan last year, the Earth has continued to warm and the impacts of climate change -- from the South Pole to the North Pole -- have become more apparent. In just the last two weeks, a chunk of ice the size of Connecticut broke off of Antarctica [See WIMS 4/6/09] and NASA announced that this winter’s Arctic sea ice was thinner than at any point in recorded history [See WIMS 4/3/09].
"The good news is we are seeing positive movement. Energy legislation with a draft climate change section was released in the House last week by Chairmen Waxman and Markey [See WIMS 3/31/09]. It is vital that Congress move quickly in passing a strengthened cap and trade bill that will stabilize our climate and enable a global climate deal while laying the foundation for a secure, sustainable and prosperous clean energy economy. . . Resolving these issues prior to the December meeting in Copenhagen will require strong and determined leadership. For the sake of future generations and vulnerable communities and ecosystems, I hope the U.S. is ready, willing and able to lead that charge.”
In concluding remarks at the Bonn meeting, U.S. Deputy Special Envoy for Climate Change Jonathan Pershing, said, "There is a wide range of views among Parties on basic issues, and it is our hope that June will be a time when views start to converge. But time is short, and we must reach agreement in Copenhagen. We must be pragmatic, because it does not seem clear that we will be able to manage these issues if we wait until Copenhagen to find areas of commonality. . .
"As our presentation in the mitigation workshop noted, the United States will be taking a whole range of actions to further the climate effort; at the core of our effort we seek an economy-wide cap-and-trade system that will establish a mandatory target through the year 2050, when emissions will be reduced by 80%. . ." Pershing did not discuss targets for 2020.
Access a release from UNFCCC (click here). Access the Bonn UNFCCC meeting website for complete information and documents (click here). Access a release from WBCSD and link to their latest report (click here). Access a release from Greenpeace (click here). Access a release from WWF (click here). Access the IISD daily reporting from the Bonn meeting with a final summary expected to be posted on April 11 (click here). Access the Greenpeace target table (click here). Access the concluding comments from Jonathan Pershing (click here). Access links to various media reports on the Bonn meetings (click here). [*Climate]
To indicated the disparities between various developed countries, Greenpeace released a table on April 6, summarizing various countries announced or discussed GHG reduction targets over 1990 levels by the year 2020. According to the table some of the key targets are as follows: Australia (minus 4-14%); Canada (+2%); European Union (minus 20-30%); Japan (+4% to – 25%); Russia (not available); United States (0%) [See WIMS 4/7/09].
With just 241 days until the Copenhagen meeting in December, significant pressure is now on an upcoming UNFCCC meeting in June to begin narrowing the differences and refining the reduction targets. In addition, President Obama has invited the leaders of 17 "major economies" and the Secretary General of the United Nations to participate in a preparatory session at the Department of State on April 27-28 in Washington, DC [See WIMS 3/30/09].
According to the official press release from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) the talks captured "the essential elements of strengthened international climate change action to be reflected in first negotiating texts for the next round of talks in June." Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of UNFCCC said, "Countries have narrowed gaps in many practical areas, for example on how to strengthen action for adapting to the impacts of climate change. They now have the necessary clarity to move into intensified negotiations based on texts. The negotiating texts for the Climate Change Talks in June will further pinpoint the details of cooperative international climate change action, as well as focus work on the financial support needed to unleash action in developing countries. This is important progress given the very limited time negotiators have to get to an agreed outcome in Copenhagen in December this year."
Briefing journalists on the final day of the Bonn Talks, de Boer reported that solid progress had been made. He said the meeting had given important guidance on what a Copenhagen agreement must contain, and a first round of discussions had been held on what legal form an agreed outcome might take. However, he emphasized that with regard to emission targets for industrialized countries, the numbers discussed so far "fell well short" of the 25-40% reduction over 1990 levels by 2020 range recommended by the IPCC, and stressed the need for these countries to show "greater ambition." He pointed out that developing countries were willing to undertake mitigation actions if the promised financial and technical support were delivered, while some already had climate change strategies in place.
The Bonn Talks incorporated the 5th session of the Ad hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA 5) and the 7th session of the Ad hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP 7). Under the AWG-LCA, countries discussed how to strengthen international cooperation on reducing emissions, including from deforestation; adapting to climate change impacts; financing action and the governance of finances.
Michael Zammit Cutajar, Chair of the AWG-LCA, noted that, "These Climate Change Talks have been increasingly tactical in nature. There have been positive discussions on a range of issues, including on technology cooperation between industrialized and developing countries, as well as on the specificities of reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries." Preparing for what he called the "real negotiations" in June [June 1-12 in Bonn], Cutajar indicated that countries have the opportunity to provide input to the draft negotiating text and must provide their input to the climate change secretariat by April 24, 2009, so that their views can be incorporated.
Discussions under the Kyoto Protocol on emissions reductions to be achieved by industrialized countries after 2012 focused on issues such as the scale of the reductions, improvements to emissions trading and the project-based mechanisms, and on options for the treatment of land use, land-use change and forestry. UNFCCC said agreement was reached to provide the Chair of the group with a mandate to prepare negotiating texts on emission reductions to be achieved by industrialized countries after 2012, as well as on other issues such as improvements to the project-based mechanisms. Harald Dovland, Chair of the AWG-KP said, "I am extremely pleased that we have agreement to prepare these texts. Things are certainly moving forward. The June session will finalize these negotiating texts, which will be proposals for amendments to the Kyoto Protocol."
The World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) representing some 200 companies from 35 countries issued a report -- Towards a Low Carbon Economy -- on April 7, recommending among several other recommendations that, "A future framework must enable countries to collectively work towards a low-carbon economy with the urgency needed. This includes emissions reduction targets for developed countries and supporting infrastructure to enhance the financial and technology flows to developing countries to slow emissions growth and work towards net emission reductions in the longer term."
Carroll Muffett, Greenpeace USA deputy campaigns director said, “The diplomats and negotiators in Bonn have been treading water for two weeks, while back in the real world ice caps have continued to melt at alarming rates and flash floods have devastated parts of Australia. As it stands, this exact same meeting will be repeated in June. Heads of State must now inject leadership and direction into the talks in order to avert catastrophic climate change. . . the United States must come back to the process with solid proposals in June and the rest of the industrialized world must knuckle down and close the gap between what is on the table and what is needed." Greenpeace is calling on developed countries to agree to an aggregate emissions reduction target of 40 percent by 2020 and provide $140 billion annually to assist the developing world tackle climate change.
Keya Chatterjee, deputy director of the climate program at World Wildlife Fund (WWF), issued a statement saying “The urgency of a global response to climate change has never been greater. As negotiations have continued since Bali in December 2007 and Poznan last year, the Earth has continued to warm and the impacts of climate change -- from the South Pole to the North Pole -- have become more apparent. In just the last two weeks, a chunk of ice the size of Connecticut broke off of Antarctica [See WIMS 4/6/09] and NASA announced that this winter’s Arctic sea ice was thinner than at any point in recorded history [See WIMS 4/3/09].
"The good news is we are seeing positive movement. Energy legislation with a draft climate change section was released in the House last week by Chairmen Waxman and Markey [See WIMS 3/31/09]. It is vital that Congress move quickly in passing a strengthened cap and trade bill that will stabilize our climate and enable a global climate deal while laying the foundation for a secure, sustainable and prosperous clean energy economy. . . Resolving these issues prior to the December meeting in Copenhagen will require strong and determined leadership. For the sake of future generations and vulnerable communities and ecosystems, I hope the U.S. is ready, willing and able to lead that charge.”
In concluding remarks at the Bonn meeting, U.S. Deputy Special Envoy for Climate Change Jonathan Pershing, said, "There is a wide range of views among Parties on basic issues, and it is our hope that June will be a time when views start to converge. But time is short, and we must reach agreement in Copenhagen. We must be pragmatic, because it does not seem clear that we will be able to manage these issues if we wait until Copenhagen to find areas of commonality. . .
"As our presentation in the mitigation workshop noted, the United States will be taking a whole range of actions to further the climate effort; at the core of our effort we seek an economy-wide cap-and-trade system that will establish a mandatory target through the year 2050, when emissions will be reduced by 80%. . ." Pershing did not discuss targets for 2020.
Access a release from UNFCCC (click here). Access the Bonn UNFCCC meeting website for complete information and documents (click here). Access a release from WBCSD and link to their latest report (click here). Access a release from Greenpeace (click here). Access a release from WWF (click here). Access the IISD daily reporting from the Bonn meeting with a final summary expected to be posted on April 11 (click here). Access the Greenpeace target table (click here). Access the concluding comments from Jonathan Pershing (click here). Access links to various media reports on the Bonn meetings (click here). [*Climate]
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
