Jan 7: U.S. EPA proposed the strictest health standards to date for ground-level ozone or smog. EPA said ground-level ozone, is linked to a number of serious health problems, ranging from aggravation of asthma to increased risk of premature death in people with heart or lung disease. Ozone can even harm healthy people who work and play outdoors. The Agency is proposing to replace the standards set by the previous administration, which many believe were not protective enough of human health [See WIMS 3/13/08]. EPA is proposing a rule to set the “primary” standard, which protects public health, at a level between 0.060 and 0.070 parts per million (ppm) measured over eight hours. The current primary 8-hour standard is 0.075 ppm. EPA said it will issue final standards by August 31, 2010.
EPA said that children are at the greatest risk from ozone, because their lungs are still developing, they are most likely to be active outdoors, and they are more likely than adults to have asthma. Adults with asthma or other lung diseases, and older adults are also sensitive to ozone. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said, “EPA is stepping up to protect Americans from one of the most persistent and widespread pollutants we face. Smog in the air we breathe poses a very serious health threat, especially to children and individuals suffering from asthma and lung disease. It dirties our air, clouds our cities, and drives up our health care costs across the country. Using the best science to strengthen these standards is a long overdue action that will help millions of Americans breathe easier and live healthier.”
EPA is also proposing to set a separate “secondary” standard to protect the environment, especially plants and trees. This seasonal standard is designed to protect plants and trees from damage occurring from repeated ozone exposure, which can reduce tree growth, damage leaves, and increase susceptibility to disease. EPA is proposing to set the level of the secondary standard
within the range of 7-15 ppm-hours. The current secondary standard is the same as the primary standard -- 0.075 ppm. EPA said the new secondary standard should be a cumulative, seasonal standard expressed as an annual index of the sum of weighted hourly concentrations, cumulated over 12 hours per day (8:00 am to 8:00 pm) during the consecutive 3-month period within the O3 season with the maximum index value, set at a level within the range of 7 to 15 ppm-hours.
In September 2009 Administrator Jackson announced that EPA would reconsider the existing ozone standards, set at 0.075 ppm in March 2008 [See WIMS 9/16/09]. As part of its reconsideration, EPA conducted a review of the science that guided the 2008 decision, including more than 1,700 scientific studies and public comments from the 2008 rulemaking process. EPA also reviewed the findings of the independent Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, which recommended standards in the ranges that EPA has proposed.
EPA said that depending on the level of the final standard, the proposal would yield health benefits between $13 billion and $100 billion. This proposal would help reduce premature deaths, aggravated asthma, bronchitis cases, hospital and emergency room visits and days when people miss work or school because of ozone-related symptoms. Estimated costs of implementing this proposal range from $19 billion to $90 billion. Ground-level ozone forms when emissions from industrial facilities, power plants, landfills and motor vehicles react in the sun. EPA will take public comment for 60 days after the proposed rule is published in the Federal Register. The Agency will hold three public hearings on the proposal: Feb. 2, 2010 in Arlington, VA and in Houston; and Feb. 4, 2010 in Sacramento.
The American Petroleum Institute (API) issued a statement on EPA’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the 2008 ozone standard saying, “The action lacks scientific justification. EPA acknowledges the newer studies on ozone ‘do not materially change any of the broad scientific conclusions regarding the health effects of exposure’. Given that conclusion, there is absolutely no basis for EPA to propose changing the ozone standards promulgated by the EPA Administrator in 2008. To do so is an obvious politicization of the air quality standard setting process that could mean unnecessary energy cost increases, job losses and less domestic oil and natural gas development and energy security."
Cal Baier-Anderson, Ph.D., a toxicologist with Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) said, "EPA's proposed standards promise clean air protections that reach from the nation's urban neighborhoods and communities to our rural forests and croplands. Children are especially vulnerable to ozone air pollution. For millions of children, high pollution days make it difficult to attend school, to play outside and to simply breathe." EDF said the Agency's new action reverses a 2008 decision under the Bush EPA and follows the recommendations of expert scientists.
The new proposal from EPA is consistent with recommendations of EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) which unanimously advised the previous EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson that the nation's health standard should be between 0.060 to 0.070 parts per million. Additionally, the National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) which represents the state and local air quality agencies in 53 states and territories and over 165 metropolitan areas across the country supported the CASAC’s recommendation and had also advocated a distinct, cumulative seasonal secondary standard."
Access a release from EPA (click here). Access links to extensive background information including a fact sheet and the prepublication copy of the proposed rule (click here). Access the API statement (click here). Access a release from EDF (click here).
Thursday, January 07, 2010
Wednesday, January 06, 2010
EPA Decisions On Two Mountaintop Coal Mining Operations
Jan 5: U.S. EPA announced what they called "a path forward" on two mountaintop coal mining operations in West Virginia. EPA said it is informing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that it supports issuing a Clean Water Act (CWA) permit for the Hobet 45 mine in Lincoln County, operated by Hobet Mining, LLC. EPA said it made the decision after extensive discussions between EPA and the company resulted in additional significant protections against environmental impacts.
In a second action, the Federal District Court in Southern West Virginia will extend the court-established deadline to respond to the company's earlier request to end the litigation on the proposed Spruce No. 1 mine in Logan County. EPA and the mining operator, Mingo Logan Mining Company, a subsidiary of Arch Coal, agreed to ask for the extension in order to continue discussions to determine if a revised mining plan can be developed that will comply with the Clean Water Act. After close study, EPA determined that the proposed mine raised significant environmental and water quality concerns.
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said, “These are important examples of EPA’s work to bring clarity to this process. Our role, along with the Army Corps of Engineers, is to ensure that mining companies avoid environmental degradation and protect water quality so that Appalachian communities don’t have to choose between jobs and their health. Working closely with mining companies, our federal and state partners, and the public, our goal is to ensure Americans living in coal country are protected from environmental, health and economic damage.”
EPA noted that Appalachian coal mining has buried an estimated 2,000 miles of streams in states including West Virginia. Scientific studies have increasingly identified significant water quality problems below surface coal mining operations that can contaminate surface waters for hundreds of years. Data from coalfield communities also indicate that coal mining is responsible for causing fish kills and contaminating fish and wildlife. EPA has committed to use its Clean Water Act regulatory authorities to reduce environmental and water quality impacts associated with surface coal mining [See WIMS 6/11/09].
A release from the Sierra Club, including reactions from a number of organizations, Bill Price, environmental justice organizer for the Sierra Club in West Virginia said, "While we understand that this short term deal means more mining and destruction but also the extension of employment to mine workers, we know that mountaintop removal coal mining is not a long-term economic strategy for Appalachia. As Senator Byrd of West Virginia said last month, it is mechanization and the demand for coal that have eliminated jobs in West Virginia, and it's time to adapt to change and to embrace clean energy solutions."
Patriot Coal Corporation Chief Executive Officer Richard Whiting issued a statement saying, "We are encouraged that, through a constructive process of engagement and discussion, we have reached agreement with EPA on a mine plan that minimizes impact to the environment. In light of the importance of the Hobet 45 permit to our operations and our employees, we are hopeful that we can begin work in the permit area in the very near future." The Hobet surface mine is part of the Company's Corridor G mining complex in southern West Virginia. The company said at full production capability, the complex produces nearly four million tons of thermal coal annually.
Access a lengthy release from EPA with links to further details (click here). Access EPA's Mountaintop Mining website for background (click here). Access a release from Sierra Club (click here). Access a release from Patriot Coal Corporation (click here).
In a second action, the Federal District Court in Southern West Virginia will extend the court-established deadline to respond to the company's earlier request to end the litigation on the proposed Spruce No. 1 mine in Logan County. EPA and the mining operator, Mingo Logan Mining Company, a subsidiary of Arch Coal, agreed to ask for the extension in order to continue discussions to determine if a revised mining plan can be developed that will comply with the Clean Water Act. After close study, EPA determined that the proposed mine raised significant environmental and water quality concerns.
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said, “These are important examples of EPA’s work to bring clarity to this process. Our role, along with the Army Corps of Engineers, is to ensure that mining companies avoid environmental degradation and protect water quality so that Appalachian communities don’t have to choose between jobs and their health. Working closely with mining companies, our federal and state partners, and the public, our goal is to ensure Americans living in coal country are protected from environmental, health and economic damage.”
EPA noted that Appalachian coal mining has buried an estimated 2,000 miles of streams in states including West Virginia. Scientific studies have increasingly identified significant water quality problems below surface coal mining operations that can contaminate surface waters for hundreds of years. Data from coalfield communities also indicate that coal mining is responsible for causing fish kills and contaminating fish and wildlife. EPA has committed to use its Clean Water Act regulatory authorities to reduce environmental and water quality impacts associated with surface coal mining [See WIMS 6/11/09].
A release from the Sierra Club, including reactions from a number of organizations, Bill Price, environmental justice organizer for the Sierra Club in West Virginia said, "While we understand that this short term deal means more mining and destruction but also the extension of employment to mine workers, we know that mountaintop removal coal mining is not a long-term economic strategy for Appalachia. As Senator Byrd of West Virginia said last month, it is mechanization and the demand for coal that have eliminated jobs in West Virginia, and it's time to adapt to change and to embrace clean energy solutions."
Patriot Coal Corporation Chief Executive Officer Richard Whiting issued a statement saying, "We are encouraged that, through a constructive process of engagement and discussion, we have reached agreement with EPA on a mine plan that minimizes impact to the environment. In light of the importance of the Hobet 45 permit to our operations and our employees, we are hopeful that we can begin work in the permit area in the very near future." The Hobet surface mine is part of the Company's Corridor G mining complex in southern West Virginia. The company said at full production capability, the complex produces nearly four million tons of thermal coal annually.
Access a lengthy release from EPA with links to further details (click here). Access EPA's Mountaintop Mining website for background (click here). Access a release from Sierra Club (click here). Access a release from Patriot Coal Corporation (click here).
Tuesday, January 05, 2010
UNEP Ongoing Climate Strategy & COP 15 Day-By-Day Analysis
Dec 30: The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) announced it is formulating a rapidly evolving strategy in response to the needs of Member States and the growing number of requests on how best to realize a low carbon, resource efficient Green Economy for the 21st century. The strategy identifies three priority areas that match calls for international guidance, the urgent need for action at a national level on climate change and the organization's skill set, experience and mandate.
UNEP said it is now widely recognized that healthy ecosystems from coral reefs and wetlands to mangroves and fertile soils are a key to successfully adapting to climate change. Their management and maintenance is a buffer and an insurance policy against extreme weather events and a rapidly changing climate. In light of such emerging evidence, UNEP is supporting Member States to implement demonstration projects and said it is ready to support Member States in gearing up their economies to overcome policy and financial barriers and to incorporate ecosystem adaptation measures into national climate, development and sectoral strategies.
Secondly, UNEP indicates that emissions linked with deforestation and forest degradation may account for close to 20 per cent of current global greenhouse gas emissions. Against this backdrop, UNEP is part of the international effort to prepare developing economies for a REDD regime [Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries]. Through the UN-REDD Programme, a partnership between UNEP, the Food and Agricultural Organization and UNEP, nine countries are being made ready for REDD. The Programme is supporting those countries through appropriate methodologies, monitoring and verification systems and safeguards in order to ensure REDD delivers value not only in climate and national economic terms but in terms of livelihoods for local communities. REDD should soon allow farmers and landowners to benefit from carbon sequestration of different farming and land management regimes including agroforestry.
Thirdly, UNEP notes that although many low-carbon technologies are already commercially viable, transferring them to new markets and mainstreaming their use globally remains a challenge. To bridge the gap, UNEP and its collaborative partners are already delivering clean tech via smart market mechanisms. In India, for example, UNEP in collaboration with the United Nations Foundation, the Shell Foundation and Indian banks have brought down the cost of solar technology loans. Within a matter of a few years, 100,000 people have accessed solar electricity in rural areas and the initiative is now self-financing. UNEP has launched an effort to help more than 35 countries determine the specific low greenhouse gas technologies best able to meet their development needs and prepare national plans to acquire and use those technologies.
UNEP also said that in terms of catalyzing a set of global norms and standards, it is currently working in four sectors: energy efficiency in building, vehicle fuel efficiency, efficient lighting, and biofuels. UNEP said that in partnership with others it is ready to support Member States in gearing up their economies to incorporate clean tech and renewable energies into national climate, development and sectoral strategies on the road to a low-carbon future.
Finally, the Paris-based IDDRI research organization has issued an informative day-by-day, play-by-play summary of the Copenhagen UNFCCC COP 15 meeting [See WIMS 12/21/09 & 12/18/09] entitled, The Copenhagen Accord: What happened? Is it a good deal? Who wins and who loses? What is next? In and overview, IDDRI indicates, "The two weeks of negotiations in Copenhagen (7-18 December 2009) have been full of twists and turns. The outcome of the first phase, when heads of delegations and Ministers had the leadership, is a set of draft decisions, heavily bracketed, and not recognized by all Parties – especially the US – as a basis for negotiations. It proves the difficulty – if not the impossibility – of making progress towards an agreement through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and Kyoto Protocol (KP) process. The lack of clarity of the Bali Roadmap – setting a two-track process, one under the UNFCCC and one under the KP, but leaving open the form and legal nature of the final outcome – and the lack of skill of the Danish Presidency, did not help.
"The outcome of the second phase, when a small group – around 30 – heads of State took the lead, is a minimalist agreement, disappointing in substance, and hectic in process. It proves that the pileup of countries redlines did not leave room for an ambitious agreement: the agreement found is somehow the lowest common denominator. This is not the deal we hoped, but given the context, and especially given the perception that States had of their own national interests, this was probably the best possible deal."
On December 21, in a United Nations announcement from New York, UN General Assembly President Ali Treki said while most countries are not happy with the outcome of this month's summit on climate change in Copenhagen, "really good progress" was made towards a binding agreement "to save the world," with the United Nations leading the way to possible adoption at next year's meeting in Mexico. He said, "There are complaints that some countries have not been dealt with carefully, other countries believe it was not democratic, other groups believe that the matter has been out of the hand of the UN and they would like also that UN would take over this problem again. But I think we should be realistic that what happened there, it is really something positive. I think that the conclusion of a certain agreement was really good progress and we have to follow that up. We all agree that the United Nations should take the lead and we'll continue to take the lead and we will have certainly the summit of Mexico. We'll finish what we have started in Copenhagen."
Following the Copenhagen summit’s end, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has made calls to leaders from countries such as China, the United States, Ethiopia, the Maldives, Grenada, France, Brazil and Australia. He told reporters in NYC on December 30, While I am satisfied that we sealed a deal, I am aware that the outcome of the Copenhagen conference, including the Copenhagen Accord, did not go as far as many have hoped.” He said, "I urge countries to ensure that the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund becomes fully operational as soon as possible. I urge all governments to formally sign on to the Copenhagen Accord by registering their support through the UNFCCC. The faster we have all the signatures, the more momentum we can build. . . During the coming months I will continue my work with world leaders to increase their level of ambition."
Access a lengthy release from UNEP with links to extensive information (click here). Access the 10-page IDDRI document (click here). Access the IDDRI website for additional information (click here). Access a release on the December 21 press briefing in NYC (click here). Access the December 30 press briefing of the UN Secretary-General (click here).
UNEP said it is now widely recognized that healthy ecosystems from coral reefs and wetlands to mangroves and fertile soils are a key to successfully adapting to climate change. Their management and maintenance is a buffer and an insurance policy against extreme weather events and a rapidly changing climate. In light of such emerging evidence, UNEP is supporting Member States to implement demonstration projects and said it is ready to support Member States in gearing up their economies to overcome policy and financial barriers and to incorporate ecosystem adaptation measures into national climate, development and sectoral strategies.
Secondly, UNEP indicates that emissions linked with deforestation and forest degradation may account for close to 20 per cent of current global greenhouse gas emissions. Against this backdrop, UNEP is part of the international effort to prepare developing economies for a REDD regime [Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries]. Through the UN-REDD Programme, a partnership between UNEP, the Food and Agricultural Organization and UNEP, nine countries are being made ready for REDD. The Programme is supporting those countries through appropriate methodologies, monitoring and verification systems and safeguards in order to ensure REDD delivers value not only in climate and national economic terms but in terms of livelihoods for local communities. REDD should soon allow farmers and landowners to benefit from carbon sequestration of different farming and land management regimes including agroforestry.
Thirdly, UNEP notes that although many low-carbon technologies are already commercially viable, transferring them to new markets and mainstreaming their use globally remains a challenge. To bridge the gap, UNEP and its collaborative partners are already delivering clean tech via smart market mechanisms. In India, for example, UNEP in collaboration with the United Nations Foundation, the Shell Foundation and Indian banks have brought down the cost of solar technology loans. Within a matter of a few years, 100,000 people have accessed solar electricity in rural areas and the initiative is now self-financing. UNEP has launched an effort to help more than 35 countries determine the specific low greenhouse gas technologies best able to meet their development needs and prepare national plans to acquire and use those technologies.
UNEP also said that in terms of catalyzing a set of global norms and standards, it is currently working in four sectors: energy efficiency in building, vehicle fuel efficiency, efficient lighting, and biofuels. UNEP said that in partnership with others it is ready to support Member States in gearing up their economies to incorporate clean tech and renewable energies into national climate, development and sectoral strategies on the road to a low-carbon future.
Finally, the Paris-based IDDRI research organization has issued an informative day-by-day, play-by-play summary of the Copenhagen UNFCCC COP 15 meeting [See WIMS 12/21/09 & 12/18/09] entitled, The Copenhagen Accord: What happened? Is it a good deal? Who wins and who loses? What is next? In and overview, IDDRI indicates, "The two weeks of negotiations in Copenhagen (7-18 December 2009) have been full of twists and turns. The outcome of the first phase, when heads of delegations and Ministers had the leadership, is a set of draft decisions, heavily bracketed, and not recognized by all Parties – especially the US – as a basis for negotiations. It proves the difficulty – if not the impossibility – of making progress towards an agreement through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and Kyoto Protocol (KP) process. The lack of clarity of the Bali Roadmap – setting a two-track process, one under the UNFCCC and one under the KP, but leaving open the form and legal nature of the final outcome – and the lack of skill of the Danish Presidency, did not help.
"The outcome of the second phase, when a small group – around 30 – heads of State took the lead, is a minimalist agreement, disappointing in substance, and hectic in process. It proves that the pileup of countries redlines did not leave room for an ambitious agreement: the agreement found is somehow the lowest common denominator. This is not the deal we hoped, but given the context, and especially given the perception that States had of their own national interests, this was probably the best possible deal."
On December 21, in a United Nations announcement from New York, UN General Assembly President Ali Treki said while most countries are not happy with the outcome of this month's summit on climate change in Copenhagen, "really good progress" was made towards a binding agreement "to save the world," with the United Nations leading the way to possible adoption at next year's meeting in Mexico. He said, "There are complaints that some countries have not been dealt with carefully, other countries believe it was not democratic, other groups believe that the matter has been out of the hand of the UN and they would like also that UN would take over this problem again. But I think we should be realistic that what happened there, it is really something positive. I think that the conclusion of a certain agreement was really good progress and we have to follow that up. We all agree that the United Nations should take the lead and we'll continue to take the lead and we will have certainly the summit of Mexico. We'll finish what we have started in Copenhagen."
Following the Copenhagen summit’s end, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has made calls to leaders from countries such as China, the United States, Ethiopia, the Maldives, Grenada, France, Brazil and Australia. He told reporters in NYC on December 30, While I am satisfied that we sealed a deal, I am aware that the outcome of the Copenhagen conference, including the Copenhagen Accord, did not go as far as many have hoped.” He said, "I urge countries to ensure that the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund becomes fully operational as soon as possible. I urge all governments to formally sign on to the Copenhagen Accord by registering their support through the UNFCCC. The faster we have all the signatures, the more momentum we can build. . . During the coming months I will continue my work with world leaders to increase their level of ambition."
Access a lengthy release from UNEP with links to extensive information (click here). Access the 10-page IDDRI document (click here). Access the IDDRI website for additional information (click here). Access a release on the December 21 press briefing in NYC (click here). Access the December 30 press briefing of the UN Secretary-General (click here).
Monday, January 04, 2010
EPA To Establish First-Time “Chemicals Of Concern” List
Dec 30: U.S. EPA announced a series of actions including developing Chemical Action Plans (CAPs) on four chemicals which they said raise serious health or environmental concerns, including phthalates. For the first time, EPA intends to establish a “Chemicals of Concern” list and is beginning a process that "may lead to regulations requiring significant risk reduction measures to protect human health and the environment." EPA said the actions represent its "determination to use its authority under the existing Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to the fullest extent possible, recognizing EPA’s strong belief that the 1976 law is both outdated and in need of reform."
In addition to phthalates, the chemicals EPA is addressing are short-chain chlorinated paraffins; polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs); and perfluorinated chemicals, including PFOA. EPA said the chemicals are used in the manufacture of a wide array of products and have raised a range of health and environmental concerns. EPA also recently announced that three U.S. companies agreed to phase out DecaBDE, a widely used fire retardant chemical that may potentially cause cancer and may impact brain function [See WIMS 12/18/09].
Administrator Jackson said, “The American people are understandably concerned about the chemicals making their way into our products, our environment and our bodies. We will continue to use our authority under existing law to protect Americans from exposure to harmful chemicals and to highlight chemicals we believe warrant concern. At the same time, I will continue to fight for comprehensive reform of the nation’s outdated chemical management laws that ensures a full assessment of the safety of chemicals on the market today and effective actions to reduce risks where chemicals do not meet the safety standard. Chemical safety is an issue of utmost importance, especially for children, and this will remain a top priority for me and our agency going forward.”
On September 29, 2009, Jackson outlined a set of agency principles to help inform legislative reform and announced that EPA would act on a number of widely studied chemicals that may pose threats to human health [See WIMS 9/30/09]. EPA noted that when TSCA was passed in 1976, there were 60,000 chemicals on the inventory of existing chemicals. Since that time, EPA has only successfully restricted or banned five existing chemicals and has only required testing on another two hundred existing chemicals. An additional 20,000 chemicals have entered the marketplace for a total of more than 80,000 chemicals on the TSCA inventory.
The actions announced include: (1) Adding phthalates and PBDE chemicals to the concern list; (2) Beginning a process that could lead to risk reductions actions under section 6 of TSCA for several phthalates, short-chain chlorinated paraffins, and perfluorinated chemicals; and, (3) Reinforcing the DecaBDE phaseout -- which will take place over three years -- with requirements to ensure that any new uses of PBDEs are reviewed by EPA prior to returning to the market. EPA also indicated that chemicals currently in the action plan development process also include: Benzidine dyes and pigments; and Bisphenol A.
This is the first time EPA has used TSCA’s authority to list chemicals that “may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health and the environment.” EPA said the decision to list the chemicals further signals the Administration’s commitment to aggressively use the tools at its disposal under TSCA. Inclusion on the list publicly signals EPA’s strong concern about the risks that those chemicals pose and the agency’s intention to manage those risks. Once listed, chemical companies can provide information to the Agency if they want to demonstrate that their chemical does not pose an unreasonable risk.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) issued a release indicating that although it supports EPA’s effort to outline possible Agency actions for prioritized chemicals under the existing Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), ACC and its member companies are disappointed that the initial set of chemicals seem to have been selected based on little more than their current “high-profile” nature.
Cal Dooley, ACC President and CEO, said, “In exercising its authority under TSCA, EPA should prioritize chemicals for the CAP program based on scientific criteria that reflect available hazard, use and exposure information provided to the agency. Unfortunately, until today, there has been little transparency, and significant uncertainty, over the scientific basis for the selection of these chemicals. The action plans released today include references to scientific studies that the agency believes make the case for restrictive action, but the agency should maintain their responsibility to review the weight of evidence for all scientific studies, even those that lead to a different conclusion. The chemical industry supports modernizing the way chemicals are managed in commerce, but the CAP process to date provides no evidence of a systematic, science-based approach to chemicals management. It is vital that this be addressed.”
“ACC members are proud of our products. Chemicals are critical in life saving vaccines, solar panels and energy efficient products, clean water, and so many other uses that improve quality of life, safety, and the environment. ACC members will continue to work with consumer, government and scientific organizations to understand the impacts of chemicals on human health and the environment.”
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), in a blog post said that EPA deserved an “A for effort.” EDF said, in response to ACC's claims that “the initial set of chemicals seem to have been selected based on little more than their current ‘high-profile’ nature; that "back when it [EPA] announced its enhanced program, EPA pretty clearly stated the basis for selecting the first group of chemicals:" EPA said, "The initial chemicals selected for action plan development were chosen on the basis of multiple factors, including chemicals identified as persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic; high production volume chemicals; chemicals in consumer products; chemicals of particular potential concern for children’s health because of reproductive or developmental toxicity; chemicals subject to review and potential action in international forums; chemicals found in human blood in biomonitoring programs; and chemicals in categories generally identified as being of potential concern in the new chemicals program." EDF said further that, "each individual plan provides substantial documentation as to why EPA selected the chemical, including detailed hazard and exposure data."
Access a release from EPA (click here). Access more information on EPA’s legislative reform principles, a fact sheet on the complete set of actions on the four chemicals, the CAPs and additional information (click here). Access a release from ACC with links to additional information (click here). Access the blog post from EDF (click here).
In addition to phthalates, the chemicals EPA is addressing are short-chain chlorinated paraffins; polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs); and perfluorinated chemicals, including PFOA. EPA said the chemicals are used in the manufacture of a wide array of products and have raised a range of health and environmental concerns. EPA also recently announced that three U.S. companies agreed to phase out DecaBDE, a widely used fire retardant chemical that may potentially cause cancer and may impact brain function [See WIMS 12/18/09].
Administrator Jackson said, “The American people are understandably concerned about the chemicals making their way into our products, our environment and our bodies. We will continue to use our authority under existing law to protect Americans from exposure to harmful chemicals and to highlight chemicals we believe warrant concern. At the same time, I will continue to fight for comprehensive reform of the nation’s outdated chemical management laws that ensures a full assessment of the safety of chemicals on the market today and effective actions to reduce risks where chemicals do not meet the safety standard. Chemical safety is an issue of utmost importance, especially for children, and this will remain a top priority for me and our agency going forward.”
On September 29, 2009, Jackson outlined a set of agency principles to help inform legislative reform and announced that EPA would act on a number of widely studied chemicals that may pose threats to human health [See WIMS 9/30/09]. EPA noted that when TSCA was passed in 1976, there were 60,000 chemicals on the inventory of existing chemicals. Since that time, EPA has only successfully restricted or banned five existing chemicals and has only required testing on another two hundred existing chemicals. An additional 20,000 chemicals have entered the marketplace for a total of more than 80,000 chemicals on the TSCA inventory.
The actions announced include: (1) Adding phthalates and PBDE chemicals to the concern list; (2) Beginning a process that could lead to risk reductions actions under section 6 of TSCA for several phthalates, short-chain chlorinated paraffins, and perfluorinated chemicals; and, (3) Reinforcing the DecaBDE phaseout -- which will take place over three years -- with requirements to ensure that any new uses of PBDEs are reviewed by EPA prior to returning to the market. EPA also indicated that chemicals currently in the action plan development process also include: Benzidine dyes and pigments; and Bisphenol A.
This is the first time EPA has used TSCA’s authority to list chemicals that “may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health and the environment.” EPA said the decision to list the chemicals further signals the Administration’s commitment to aggressively use the tools at its disposal under TSCA. Inclusion on the list publicly signals EPA’s strong concern about the risks that those chemicals pose and the agency’s intention to manage those risks. Once listed, chemical companies can provide information to the Agency if they want to demonstrate that their chemical does not pose an unreasonable risk.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) issued a release indicating that although it supports EPA’s effort to outline possible Agency actions for prioritized chemicals under the existing Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), ACC and its member companies are disappointed that the initial set of chemicals seem to have been selected based on little more than their current “high-profile” nature.
Cal Dooley, ACC President and CEO, said, “In exercising its authority under TSCA, EPA should prioritize chemicals for the CAP program based on scientific criteria that reflect available hazard, use and exposure information provided to the agency. Unfortunately, until today, there has been little transparency, and significant uncertainty, over the scientific basis for the selection of these chemicals. The action plans released today include references to scientific studies that the agency believes make the case for restrictive action, but the agency should maintain their responsibility to review the weight of evidence for all scientific studies, even those that lead to a different conclusion. The chemical industry supports modernizing the way chemicals are managed in commerce, but the CAP process to date provides no evidence of a systematic, science-based approach to chemicals management. It is vital that this be addressed.”
“ACC members are proud of our products. Chemicals are critical in life saving vaccines, solar panels and energy efficient products, clean water, and so many other uses that improve quality of life, safety, and the environment. ACC members will continue to work with consumer, government and scientific organizations to understand the impacts of chemicals on human health and the environment.”
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), in a blog post said that EPA deserved an “A for effort.” EDF said, in response to ACC's claims that “the initial set of chemicals seem to have been selected based on little more than their current ‘high-profile’ nature; that "back when it [EPA] announced its enhanced program, EPA pretty clearly stated the basis for selecting the first group of chemicals:" EPA said, "The initial chemicals selected for action plan development were chosen on the basis of multiple factors, including chemicals identified as persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic; high production volume chemicals; chemicals in consumer products; chemicals of particular potential concern for children’s health because of reproductive or developmental toxicity; chemicals subject to review and potential action in international forums; chemicals found in human blood in biomonitoring programs; and chemicals in categories generally identified as being of potential concern in the new chemicals program." EDF said further that, "each individual plan provides substantial documentation as to why EPA selected the chemical, including detailed hazard and exposure data."
Access a release from EPA (click here). Access more information on EPA’s legislative reform principles, a fact sheet on the complete set of actions on the four chemicals, the CAPs and additional information (click here). Access a release from ACC with links to additional information (click here). Access the blog post from EDF (click here).
Monday, December 21, 2009
Update On The Copenhagen Accord; UN Calls For 2010 Final Deal
- Subscribers & Readers Note: Although we are on our Christmas-New Year's holiday break, we are issuing this special report to provide an update on the Copenhagen Accord completed early Saturday morning in Copenhagen.
Dec 21: Acknowledging that the climate change deal reached over the weekend in Copenhagen was not ideal for all nations, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon exhorted world leaders to act in concert to ensure that a legally binding treaty is reached next year. The "political" agreement was struck in the Danish capital on Saturday morning after negotiations had come to a standstill, with Secretary-General Ban intervening at the last minute to assuage nations which felt they had been excluded from parts of the negotiations.
The agreement, now known as the Copenhagen Accord, includes an agreement to working towards curbing global temperature rise to below 2 degrees Celsius, efforts to reduce or limit emissions, and pledges to mobilize $100 billion a year for developing countries to combat climate change. According to a UN release, "The leaders were united in purpose, but they were not united in action." Ban told reporters today in New York today (December 21), “While I am satisfied that we sealed a deal, I am aware that the outcome of the Copenhagen conference, including the Copenhagen Accord, did not go as far as many have hoped.” The two-week-long United Nations conference in Copenhagen, attended by 128 heads of State and government, was marked by interruptions in negotiations due to divisions between States over transparency and other issues.
Ban outlined five key points of the Accord saying, "First, it commits countries to work to limit global temperature rise to below 2 degrees Celsius. It also says that they will review this commitment in 2015 to take account of new scientific evidence. (He noted that the IPCC is going to try to release their fifth assessment report in 2014). Second, the Accord includes mid-term mitigation targets by developed countries and mid-term mitigation actions by developing countries.
"Third, countries have agreed on the importance of acting to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. This means we have finally brought the source of nearly one fifth of global emissions into the emerging climate regime. Fourth, the Accord agrees to provide comprehensive support to the most vulnerable to cope with climate change. Fifth, the deal is backed by money and the means to deliver it. You know that already $30 billion have been committed until 2012, and after that $100 billion annually up to 2020."
UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer said, "We now have a package to work with and begin immediate action. However, we need to be clear that it is a letter of intent and is not precise about what needs to be done in legal terms. So the challenge is now to turn what we have agreed politically in Copenhagen into something real, measurable and verifiable."
The Accord specifies that industrialized countries will commit to implement, individually or jointly, quantified economy-wide emissions targets from 2020, to be listed in the accord before January 31, 2010. Additionally, a number of developing countries, including major emerging economies, agreed to communicate their efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions every two years, also listing their voluntary pledges before the January 31, 2010.
Following his involvement in the agreement, President Obama issued a brief statement and answered a few questions at a press briefing. The President said, "Today we've made meaningful and unprecedented -- made a meaningful and unprecedented breakthrough here in Copenhagen. For the first time in history all major economies have come together to accept their responsibility to take action to confront the threat of climate change. . .
"Because of the actions we're taking we came here to Copenhagen with an ambitious target to reduce our emissions. We agreed to join an international effort to provide financing to help developing countries, particularly the poorest and most vulnerable, adapt to climate change. And we reaffirmed the necessity of listing our national actions and commitments in a transparent way. These three components -- transparency, mitigation and finance -- form the basis of the common approach that the United States and our partners embraced here in Copenhagen. . .
"In addition to our close allies who did so much to advance this effort, I worked throughout the day with Prime Minister Meles of Ethiopia, who was representing Africa, as well as Premier Wen of China, Prime Minister Singh of India, President Lula of Brazil, and President Zuma of South Africa, to achieve what I believe will be an important milestone. . .
"The time has come for us to get off the sidelines and to shape the future that we seek. That's why I came to Copenhagen today, and that's why I'm committed to working in common effort with countries from around the globe. That's also why I believe what we have achieved in Copenhagen will not be the end but rather the beginning, the beginning of a new era of international action. . ."
The next annual UN Climate Change Conference will take place towards the end of 2010 in Mexico City, preceded by a major two week negotiating session in Bonn, Germany, scheduled May 31 to June 11.
Access a release from the UN Secretary-General (click here). Access the official Copenhagen Accord posted by the UNFCCC (click here). Access the UNFCCC final press release (click here). Access the President's statement and press briefing following the deal (click here). Access pictures and a blog post of the President in Copenhagen (click here). Access the U.S. Department of State Copenhagen website for text and video of U.S. press briefings and various releases (click here). Access the UNFCCC website for links to all documents and videos of all press briefings (click here).
Friday, December 18, 2009
Obama: "I Come Here Today -- Not To Talk, But To Act"
- Note: As we wrap up 2009, President Obama is still in Copenhagen attempting to reach an agreement and reports are just coming in that some sort of a deal with China and others has been reached. A news conference is expected soon (4:15 pm EST). We will be taking a few days off for our annual Christmas/New Year's break and return on Monday, January 4, 2010, to begin our 30th year of environmental news services. We wish all of our subscribers and readers a happy and safe holiday season and wish you well in the coming new year. Thank you all for your continuing support.
Dec 18: President Obama delivered brief remarks at the morning plenary session of the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP15) High-level session. The session included 119 heads of state and government representing countries that account for 89% of the world's GDP, 82% of the world's population and 86% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Included in the 119 countries are the 20 largest economies and the top 15 greenhouse gas emitters in the world.
President Obam summarized the current situation as follows, "After months of talk, after two weeks of negotiations, after innumerable side meetings, bilateral meetings, endless hours of discussion among negotiators, I believe that the pieces of that accord should now be clear.
"First, all major economies must put forward decisive national actions that will reduce their emissions, and begin to turn the corner on climate change. I'm pleased that many of us have already done so. Almost all the major economies have put forward legitimate targets, significant targets, ambitious targets. And I'm confident that America will fulfill the commitments that we have made: cutting our emissions in the range of 17 percent by 2020, and by more than 80 percent by 2050 in line with final legislation.
"Second, we must have a mechanism to review whether we are keeping our commitments, and exchange this information in a transparent manner. These measures need not be intrusive, or infringe upon sovereignty. They must, however, ensure that an accord is credible, and that we're living up to our obligations. Without such accountability, any agreement would be empty words on a page.
"I don't know how you have an international agreement where we all are not sharing information and ensuring that we are meeting our commitments. That doesn't make sense. It would be a hollow victory.
"Number three, we must have financing that helps developing countries adapt, particularly the least developed and most vulnerable countries to climate change. America will be a part of fast-start funding that will ramp up to $10 billion by 2012. And yesterday, Secretary Hillary Clinton, my Secretary of State, made it clear that we will engage in a global effort to mobilize $100 billion in financing by 2020, if -- and only if -- it is part of a broader accord that I have just described.
"Mitigation. Transparency. Financing. It's a clear formula -- one that embraces the principle of common but differentiated responses and respective capabilities. And it adds up to a significant accord -- one that takes us farther than we have ever gone before as an international community."
The President continued, "We know the fault lines because we've been imprisoned by them for years. These international discussions have essentially taken place now for almost two decades, and we have very little to show for it other than an increased acceleration of the climate change phenomenon. The time for talk is over. This is the bottom line: We can embrace this accord, take a substantial step forward, continue to refine it and build upon its foundation. We can do that, and everyone who is in this room will be part of a historic endeavor -- one that makes life better for our children and our grandchildren.
"Or we can choose delay, falling back into the same divisions that have stood in the way of action for years. And we will be back having the same stale arguments month after month, year after year, perhaps decade after decade, all while the danger of climate change grows until it is irreversible.
"Ladies and gentlemen, there is no time to waste. America has made our choice. We have charted our course. We have made our commitments. We will do what we say. Now I believe it's the time for the nations and the people of the world to come together behind a common purpose.
"We are ready to get this done today -- but there has to be movement on all sides to recognize that it is better for us to act than to talk; it’s better for us to choose action over inaction; the future over the past -- and with courage and faith, I believe that we can meet our responsibility to our people, and the future of our planet."
On December 17, House Speaker Pelosi, Leader Steny Hoyer, Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, and Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming Chairman Edward Markey held a press briefing at the Bella Center in Copenhagen (see link below).
At approximately 8:00 PM, Copenhagen time, a draft agreement was emerging from the negotiators.
Update: In the early evening, U.S. time, a "deal" -- the Copenhagen Accord -- was announced which President Obama called a, "meaningful and unprecedented breakthrough here in Copenhagen." See link to the President's statement and press briefing following the deal below.
Access the full text of the President's address (click here). Access a current report of the progress from the New York Times includes latest, still draft agreement (click here). Access the official Copenhagen Accord posted by the UNFCCC (click here). Access the President's statement and press briefing following the deal (click here). Access pictures and a blog post of the President in Copenhagen (click here). Access the transcript from the House press conference and a video (click here). Access the U.S. Department of State Copenhagen website for text and video of U.S. press briefings and various releases (click here). Access the UNFCCC website for links to all documents and videos of all press briefings (click here).
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Secy. Clinton Says Lack Of Transparency Is "Kind Of A Dealbreaker"
Dec 17: At yesterday's Department of State press briefing it was announced that Secretary Hillary Clinton would be traveling to Copenhagen, Denmark to participate in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), COP 15/CMP 5 meeting. It was stated that, "She and the President decided that she could play a useful role in helping close gaps in the -- our climate talks there by traveling to Copenhagen and personally participating." Today, Secretary Clinton is attending some of the events that are intended for leaders, such as the gala dinner tonight and will attend events in advance of the President, who arrives Friday morning (December 18). She is conducting a number of bilateral meetings.
At a press briefing today, she said, "We have now reached the critical juncture in these negotiations. I understand that the talks have been difficult. I know that our team, along with many others, are working hard and around the clock to forge a deal. And we will continue doing all that we can do. But the time is at hand for all countries to reach for common ground and take an historic step that we can all be proud of. There is a way forward based on a number of core elements: decisive national actions, an operational accord that internationalizes those actions, assistance for nations that are the most vulnerable and least prepared to meet the effects of climate change, and standards of transparency that provide credibility to the entire process. The world community should accept no less."
In an important announcement relating to developed countries providing funding for developing countries. She emphasized that the effort is designed to assist "the poorest and most vulnerable" countries, implying that the funding is not intended for major developing countries link China, India and Brazil. She said, ". . .we also recognize that an agreement must provide generous financial and technological support for developing countries, particularly the poorest and most vulnerable, to help them reduce emissions and adapt to climate change. That’s why we joined an effort to mobilize fast-start funding that will ramp up to $10 billion in 2012 to support the adaptation and mitigation efforts of countries in need.
"And today I’d like to announce that, in the context of a strong accord in which all major economies stand behind meaningful mitigation actions and provide full transparency as to their implementation, the United States is prepared to work with other countries toward a goal of jointly mobilizing $100 billion a year by 2020 to address the climate change needs of developing countries. We expect this funding will come from a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources of finance. This will include a significant focus on forestry and adaptation, particularly, again I repeat, for the poorest and most vulnerable among us."
She concluded, "Over the next two days, we will be discussing these issues further. This problem is not going away, even when we leave Copenhagen. But neither is our resolve. We must try to overcome the obstacles that remain. We must not only seize this moment, but raise our oars together and row in the same direction toward our common destination and destiny. And the United States is ready to do our part."
In response to a question asking whether the U.S. would walk away from the agreement if China does not commit to transparency, incorporating their commitments into an international treaty that the U.S. is asking; she said, "It would be hard to imagine, speaking for the United States, that there could be the level of financial commitment that I have just announced in the absence of transparency from the second biggest emitter - and now I guess the first biggest emitter, and now nearly, if not already, the second biggest economy."
In response to a question regarding what standards the U.S. would expect China and other major developing nations to meet in order for there to be a deal in which the U.S. could go ahead with a financial commitment; she said, "Well, we have presented and discussed numerous approaches to transparency with a number of countries and there are many ways to achieve transparency that would be credible and acceptable. But there has to be a willingness to move toward transparency in whatever form we finally determine is appropriate. So, if there is not even a commitment to pursue transparency, that’s kind of a dealbreaker for us. . . there have been occasions in this past year when all the major economies have committed to transparency. Now that we are trying to define what transparency means and how we would both implement it and observe it, there is a backing away from transparency. And, you know, that to us is something that undermines the whole effort that we’re engaged in."
In response to a question on details of the funding commitments for developing countries, it was mentioned that the EU has committed about 10 billion dollars, Japan 15 billion and so what the U.S. offering; she responded briefly, "We are committed to the fast funding start, and we are going to do our proportion of it. .."
Following Secretary Clinton's comments, the Associated Press reported later in the day that "China says it is willing to provide details about its actions to control carbon emissions, moving to meet a key US demand for verification of China's promises to fight global warming." AP quoted Vice Foreign Minister He Yafei as saying China is ready for "dialogue and cooperation that is not intrusive, that does not infringe on China's sovereignty."
Access the complete transcript of Secretary Clinton's statement and press briefing (click here). Access the U.S. Department of State Copenhagen website for text and video of U.S. press briefings and various releases (click here). Access the UNFCCC website for links to all documents and videos of all press briefings (click here). Access the AP report (click here).
At a press briefing today, she said, "We have now reached the critical juncture in these negotiations. I understand that the talks have been difficult. I know that our team, along with many others, are working hard and around the clock to forge a deal. And we will continue doing all that we can do. But the time is at hand for all countries to reach for common ground and take an historic step that we can all be proud of. There is a way forward based on a number of core elements: decisive national actions, an operational accord that internationalizes those actions, assistance for nations that are the most vulnerable and least prepared to meet the effects of climate change, and standards of transparency that provide credibility to the entire process. The world community should accept no less."
In an important announcement relating to developed countries providing funding for developing countries. She emphasized that the effort is designed to assist "the poorest and most vulnerable" countries, implying that the funding is not intended for major developing countries link China, India and Brazil. She said, ". . .we also recognize that an agreement must provide generous financial and technological support for developing countries, particularly the poorest and most vulnerable, to help them reduce emissions and adapt to climate change. That’s why we joined an effort to mobilize fast-start funding that will ramp up to $10 billion in 2012 to support the adaptation and mitigation efforts of countries in need.
"And today I’d like to announce that, in the context of a strong accord in which all major economies stand behind meaningful mitigation actions and provide full transparency as to their implementation, the United States is prepared to work with other countries toward a goal of jointly mobilizing $100 billion a year by 2020 to address the climate change needs of developing countries. We expect this funding will come from a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources of finance. This will include a significant focus on forestry and adaptation, particularly, again I repeat, for the poorest and most vulnerable among us."
She concluded, "Over the next two days, we will be discussing these issues further. This problem is not going away, even when we leave Copenhagen. But neither is our resolve. We must try to overcome the obstacles that remain. We must not only seize this moment, but raise our oars together and row in the same direction toward our common destination and destiny. And the United States is ready to do our part."
In response to a question asking whether the U.S. would walk away from the agreement if China does not commit to transparency, incorporating their commitments into an international treaty that the U.S. is asking; she said, "It would be hard to imagine, speaking for the United States, that there could be the level of financial commitment that I have just announced in the absence of transparency from the second biggest emitter - and now I guess the first biggest emitter, and now nearly, if not already, the second biggest economy."
In response to a question regarding what standards the U.S. would expect China and other major developing nations to meet in order for there to be a deal in which the U.S. could go ahead with a financial commitment; she said, "Well, we have presented and discussed numerous approaches to transparency with a number of countries and there are many ways to achieve transparency that would be credible and acceptable. But there has to be a willingness to move toward transparency in whatever form we finally determine is appropriate. So, if there is not even a commitment to pursue transparency, that’s kind of a dealbreaker for us. . . there have been occasions in this past year when all the major economies have committed to transparency. Now that we are trying to define what transparency means and how we would both implement it and observe it, there is a backing away from transparency. And, you know, that to us is something that undermines the whole effort that we’re engaged in."
In response to a question on details of the funding commitments for developing countries, it was mentioned that the EU has committed about 10 billion dollars, Japan 15 billion and so what the U.S. offering; she responded briefly, "We are committed to the fast funding start, and we are going to do our proportion of it. .."
Following Secretary Clinton's comments, the Associated Press reported later in the day that "China says it is willing to provide details about its actions to control carbon emissions, moving to meet a key US demand for verification of China's promises to fight global warming." AP quoted Vice Foreign Minister He Yafei as saying China is ready for "dialogue and cooperation that is not intrusive, that does not infringe on China's sovereignty."
Access the complete transcript of Secretary Clinton's statement and press briefing (click here). Access the U.S. Department of State Copenhagen website for text and video of U.S. press briefings and various releases (click here). Access the UNFCCC website for links to all documents and videos of all press briefings (click here). Access the AP report (click here).
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Without Developing World Commitment, A Solution Is Impossible
Dec 15: Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton urged international negotiators in Copenhagen to reach a "broad operational agreement to combat climate change." In an op-ed published by the International Herald Tribune, the Secretary laid out a way forward that will promote sustainable development by moving the world toward a low-carbon economy. Secretary Clinton is currently on her way to Copenhagen to attend the climate change conference. The so-called "high level segment" of the conference began on December 15.
In her op-ed she said, "A successful agreement depends upon a number of core elements, but two are shaping up to be essential: first, that all major economies set forth strong national actions and resolve to implement them; and second, that they agree to a system that enables full transparency and creates confidence that national actions are in fact being implemented."
She said further, "Our world is on an unsustainable path that threatens not only our environment, but our economies and our security. It is time to launch a broad operational accord on climate change that will set us on a new course. . . It is no secret that the United States turned a blind eye to climate change for too long. But now, under President Obama’s leadership, we are taking responsibility and taking action.
"Already, the Obama administration has done more at home to promote clean energy and address climate change than ever before in our history. We are investing more than $80 billion in clean energy and working with Congress to advance comprehensive climate and energy legislation. And we have announced our intention to cut our emissions in the range of 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and ultimately in line with final climate and energy legislation. In light of the president’s goals, the expected pathway in pending legislation would extend those cuts to 30 percent by 2025, 42 percent by 2030, and more than 80 percent by 2050. These are the kind of strong national actions that a successful agreement requires.
"So there should be no doubt about our commitment. We have come to Copenhagen ready to take the steps necessary to achieve a comprehensive and operational new agreement that will provide a foundation for long-term, sustainable economic growth. This needs to be a common effort. All major economies, developed and developing, need to take robust and transparent action to reduce their carbon emissions. Of course, the actions required of the developed and major developing countries will not be identical, but we must all do our part.
The simple fact is that nearly all of the growth in emissions in the next 20 years will come from the developing world. Without their participation and commitment, a solution is impossible. Some are concerned that a strong agreement on climate change will undermine the efforts of developing nations to build their economies, but the opposite is true. This is an opportunity to drive investment and job creation around the world, while bringing energy services to hundreds of millions of the world’s poor.
"That is why United States is supporting an accord that both complements and promotes sustainable development by moving the world toward a low-carbon economy. The accord we seek will provide generous financial and technological support for developing countries, particularly the poorest and most vulnerable, to help them reduce emissions and adapt to climate change. And we are prepared to join an effort to mobilize fast-start funding that will ramp up to $10 billion in 2012 to support the adaptation and mitigation efforts of countries in need.
"We can all see the way forward that has emerged from months of negotiations: decisive national action, an operational accord that internationalizes those commitments, assistance for nations that are the most vulnerable and least prepared to meet the effects of climate change, and standards of transparency that provide credibility to the entire process. The United States is ready to embrace this path, and we hope that the rest of the world will rally around it this week."
At yesterday's (December 15) press briefing in Copenhagen by Todd Stern, Special Envoy for Climate Change and Head of the United States Delegation, in response to a question stating that the "U.S. wouldn’t sign up to Kyoto or Kyoto with another name. Is that still your position?" Stern responded, "That is definitely still our position. That doesn’t mean that there are – that there aren’t some elements of the Kyoto Protocol that would still be relevant. I mean there’s some really important elements of the Kyoto Protocol that the United States wrote, even though we didn’t end up in the agreement. So all of the whole architecture of emissions trading and the so-called clean development mechanism, which is - you know, allows the purchase of offsets from developing countries. All of those are ideas and provisions that were created by the U.S. and which actually, interestingly, although this is past history, but which the EU fought quite hard against back in 1997. Then, of course, the U.S. went in another direction and then didn’t end up there, and the EU, to its credit did, and put in place emissions trading and a lot of other things. So, there are provisions, certainly, from Kyoto that we’d be very comfortable with. But in terms of the overall Kyoto architecture, no."
In response to a question regarding how does the U.S. reconcile it's commitment to greenhouse gas reduction of 17% below 2005 levels with scientists’ recommendations, who say that developed countries need to reduce emission by 25 to 40 %, relative to 1990? And the U.S. commitment is equivalent to a 3% reduction from 1990.
Stern responded, "I actually absolutely can reconcile it, and here’s the reason. I think that the 25 to 40 % reduction below 1990 was included in what has become a kind of iconic chart in the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC, the scientific body. And that sets forth a good pathway for essentially holding emissions to around 450 parts per million, which is designed to give us a decent chance of holding temperature increases to 2 degrees above preindustrial. It’s not the only pathway, at all. There are a whole lot of other pathways that can get you there. We have -- our proposal and the legislation that’s pending in Congress would take us, decade by decade -- about 20% every decade -- to an 80% reduction. Actually, 80% below 1990, 83% below 2005 -- which would be right on target with what we would need to do. There is all kinds of scientific work that -- the President’s science advisor, John Holdren is actually here; I’m sure [he] would be happy to talk to you about this in Copenhagen -- has laid out a whole set of other pathways that can get you where you need to go. The difference -- just so you can sort of again have the frame in mind -- the difference between the pathway that the U.S. has charted and the pathway that would involve starting at that 25 to 40 % below 1990 -- the difference between that and what we’re doing is about 1 part per million in 2050. So I think that we’re on a very good path."
On the critical question regarding commitments from China, the question was asked: "It seems as though one of the real potential showstoppers here is between the U.S. and China. And I’m wondering if you could sort of help us think of a way to get out of the fact that China seems resolutely not wanting to put in paper – in writing – its domestic announcement. And the U.S. is obviously resolutely insisting upon that as a condition of an agreement here."
Stern responded, "It is an issue. It’s a big issue. You know, I’m not quite sure what to tell you. I think that from our point of view, you can’t even begin to have an environmentally-sound agreement without the adequate and significant participation of China. Look, I have said on many occasions about China and many of the other major developing countries that I think they are doing a great deal. If you go to China you will see a really significant amount of activity, a significant amount of engagement on this issue. But if we are going to have an international agreement, as opposed to a bunch of individual countries doing their own domestic thing, but an international agreement where countries come together to work together, then they have got to be prepared to put what they are doing into that international agreement. I actually think that we’re going to get there with China, but you know -- don’t know for sure yet. But it is a tough issue. But it is just one that I think is necessary in order to have an environmentally-sound agreement."
Access the full text of Secretary Clinton's op-ed (click here). Access the complete and very informative press briefing with Todd Stern (click here). Access the UNFCCC website for links to all documents and videos of all press briefings (click here). Access the U.S. Department of State Copenhagen website for text and video of U.S. press briefings and various releases (click here).
In her op-ed she said, "A successful agreement depends upon a number of core elements, but two are shaping up to be essential: first, that all major economies set forth strong national actions and resolve to implement them; and second, that they agree to a system that enables full transparency and creates confidence that national actions are in fact being implemented."
She said further, "Our world is on an unsustainable path that threatens not only our environment, but our economies and our security. It is time to launch a broad operational accord on climate change that will set us on a new course. . . It is no secret that the United States turned a blind eye to climate change for too long. But now, under President Obama’s leadership, we are taking responsibility and taking action.
"Already, the Obama administration has done more at home to promote clean energy and address climate change than ever before in our history. We are investing more than $80 billion in clean energy and working with Congress to advance comprehensive climate and energy legislation. And we have announced our intention to cut our emissions in the range of 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and ultimately in line with final climate and energy legislation. In light of the president’s goals, the expected pathway in pending legislation would extend those cuts to 30 percent by 2025, 42 percent by 2030, and more than 80 percent by 2050. These are the kind of strong national actions that a successful agreement requires.
"So there should be no doubt about our commitment. We have come to Copenhagen ready to take the steps necessary to achieve a comprehensive and operational new agreement that will provide a foundation for long-term, sustainable economic growth. This needs to be a common effort. All major economies, developed and developing, need to take robust and transparent action to reduce their carbon emissions. Of course, the actions required of the developed and major developing countries will not be identical, but we must all do our part.
The simple fact is that nearly all of the growth in emissions in the next 20 years will come from the developing world. Without their participation and commitment, a solution is impossible. Some are concerned that a strong agreement on climate change will undermine the efforts of developing nations to build their economies, but the opposite is true. This is an opportunity to drive investment and job creation around the world, while bringing energy services to hundreds of millions of the world’s poor.
"That is why United States is supporting an accord that both complements and promotes sustainable development by moving the world toward a low-carbon economy. The accord we seek will provide generous financial and technological support for developing countries, particularly the poorest and most vulnerable, to help them reduce emissions and adapt to climate change. And we are prepared to join an effort to mobilize fast-start funding that will ramp up to $10 billion in 2012 to support the adaptation and mitigation efforts of countries in need.
"We can all see the way forward that has emerged from months of negotiations: decisive national action, an operational accord that internationalizes those commitments, assistance for nations that are the most vulnerable and least prepared to meet the effects of climate change, and standards of transparency that provide credibility to the entire process. The United States is ready to embrace this path, and we hope that the rest of the world will rally around it this week."
At yesterday's (December 15) press briefing in Copenhagen by Todd Stern, Special Envoy for Climate Change and Head of the United States Delegation, in response to a question stating that the "U.S. wouldn’t sign up to Kyoto or Kyoto with another name. Is that still your position?" Stern responded, "That is definitely still our position. That doesn’t mean that there are – that there aren’t some elements of the Kyoto Protocol that would still be relevant. I mean there’s some really important elements of the Kyoto Protocol that the United States wrote, even though we didn’t end up in the agreement. So all of the whole architecture of emissions trading and the so-called clean development mechanism, which is - you know, allows the purchase of offsets from developing countries. All of those are ideas and provisions that were created by the U.S. and which actually, interestingly, although this is past history, but which the EU fought quite hard against back in 1997. Then, of course, the U.S. went in another direction and then didn’t end up there, and the EU, to its credit did, and put in place emissions trading and a lot of other things. So, there are provisions, certainly, from Kyoto that we’d be very comfortable with. But in terms of the overall Kyoto architecture, no."
In response to a question regarding how does the U.S. reconcile it's commitment to greenhouse gas reduction of 17% below 2005 levels with scientists’ recommendations, who say that developed countries need to reduce emission by 25 to 40 %, relative to 1990? And the U.S. commitment is equivalent to a 3% reduction from 1990.
Stern responded, "I actually absolutely can reconcile it, and here’s the reason. I think that the 25 to 40 % reduction below 1990 was included in what has become a kind of iconic chart in the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC, the scientific body. And that sets forth a good pathway for essentially holding emissions to around 450 parts per million, which is designed to give us a decent chance of holding temperature increases to 2 degrees above preindustrial. It’s not the only pathway, at all. There are a whole lot of other pathways that can get you there. We have -- our proposal and the legislation that’s pending in Congress would take us, decade by decade -- about 20% every decade -- to an 80% reduction. Actually, 80% below 1990, 83% below 2005 -- which would be right on target with what we would need to do. There is all kinds of scientific work that -- the President’s science advisor, John Holdren is actually here; I’m sure [he] would be happy to talk to you about this in Copenhagen -- has laid out a whole set of other pathways that can get you where you need to go. The difference -- just so you can sort of again have the frame in mind -- the difference between the pathway that the U.S. has charted and the pathway that would involve starting at that 25 to 40 % below 1990 -- the difference between that and what we’re doing is about 1 part per million in 2050. So I think that we’re on a very good path."
On the critical question regarding commitments from China, the question was asked: "It seems as though one of the real potential showstoppers here is between the U.S. and China. And I’m wondering if you could sort of help us think of a way to get out of the fact that China seems resolutely not wanting to put in paper – in writing – its domestic announcement. And the U.S. is obviously resolutely insisting upon that as a condition of an agreement here."
Stern responded, "It is an issue. It’s a big issue. You know, I’m not quite sure what to tell you. I think that from our point of view, you can’t even begin to have an environmentally-sound agreement without the adequate and significant participation of China. Look, I have said on many occasions about China and many of the other major developing countries that I think they are doing a great deal. If you go to China you will see a really significant amount of activity, a significant amount of engagement on this issue. But if we are going to have an international agreement, as opposed to a bunch of individual countries doing their own domestic thing, but an international agreement where countries come together to work together, then they have got to be prepared to put what they are doing into that international agreement. I actually think that we’re going to get there with China, but you know -- don’t know for sure yet. But it is a tough issue. But it is just one that I think is necessary in order to have an environmentally-sound agreement."
Access the full text of Secretary Clinton's op-ed (click here). Access the complete and very informative press briefing with Todd Stern (click here). Access the UNFCCC website for links to all documents and videos of all press briefings (click here). Access the U.S. Department of State Copenhagen website for text and video of U.S. press briefings and various releases (click here).
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Sen. Murkowski's Disapproval Resolution On Endangerment Finding
Dec 14: U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), announced her intention to file a disapproval resolution to stop U.S. EPA from regulating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the Clean Air Act. Murkowski’s resolution comes in the wake of the agency’s recent endangerment finding, which she said will result in "damaging new regulations that endanger America’s economy." The Senator's announced disapproval came one day before EPA's endangerment finding was officially published in the Federal Register [74 FR 66495-66546, 12/15/09]. The endangerment finding was announced by EPA on December 7 [See WIMS 12/8/09].
Murkowski said, “I remain committed to reducing emissions through a policy that will protect our environment and strengthen our economy, but EPA’s backdoor climate regulations achieve neither of those goals. EPA regulation must be taken off the table so that we can focus on more responsible approaches to dealing with global climate change.” Murkowski indicated that while the Administration claims the endangerment finding is merely an affirmation of the science behind global climate change, she said "that aspect is just the tip of the iceberg."
She said further, “The EPA administrator’s move has thrown open the door to expensive and intrusive government regulation -- as far from a market-based solution as we can possibly imagine. The endangerment finding is aptly named. It endangers jobs, it endangers economic growth, and it endangers American competitiveness, while setting the stage for backdoor bureaucratic intrusion into the lives of Americans on an unprecedented scale. The EPA has taken these actions despite the fact that Congress is continuing to work on climate legislation. I find that highly counter-productive, especially as our nation struggles to regain its economic footing. The endangerment finding must be stopped so that Congress can pass responsible legislation that is sound on its own merits, and not merely a defense against the threat of damaging regulations.”
Murkowski warned those who believe EPA action will prod Congress to act faster that such a strategy is likely to fail and carry with it unintended consequences. She said, “Make no mistake -- Congress is being threatened in a misguided attempt to move a climate bill forward. But this strategy is highly flawed because it assumes Congress will pass economically damaging legislation in order to stave off economically damaging regulations. That’s a false choice and it should be rejected outright. “This administration should be able to work with this Congress to pass needed, common-sense, and transparent reforms to our energy and environmental policies. Until the administration stops playing Russian roulette with the economy and decides to reach across the aisle, however, it will be difficult to do anything but oppose the irresponsible decisions that are being made.”
In a release, Murkowski indicated she will file her disapproval resolution pursuant to the provisions of the Congressional Review Act (CRA). Senators Don Nickles (R-OK) and Harry Reid (D-NV), were the principal sponsors of the CRA, incorporated into the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996, and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. Upon introduction, a disapproval resolution is referred to the committee of jurisdiction, which in this case will be the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW). If the committee does not favorably report the resolution within 20 calendar days, it may be discharged upon petition by 30 Senators. Once a disapproval resolution is placed on the Senate calendar, it is then subject to expedited consideration on the Senate floor, and not subject to filibuster.
Access a release from Senator Murkowski (click here). Access a video of the Senator's floor speech (click here). Access the full text of the floor speech (click here).
Murkowski said, “I remain committed to reducing emissions through a policy that will protect our environment and strengthen our economy, but EPA’s backdoor climate regulations achieve neither of those goals. EPA regulation must be taken off the table so that we can focus on more responsible approaches to dealing with global climate change.” Murkowski indicated that while the Administration claims the endangerment finding is merely an affirmation of the science behind global climate change, she said "that aspect is just the tip of the iceberg."
She said further, “The EPA administrator’s move has thrown open the door to expensive and intrusive government regulation -- as far from a market-based solution as we can possibly imagine. The endangerment finding is aptly named. It endangers jobs, it endangers economic growth, and it endangers American competitiveness, while setting the stage for backdoor bureaucratic intrusion into the lives of Americans on an unprecedented scale. The EPA has taken these actions despite the fact that Congress is continuing to work on climate legislation. I find that highly counter-productive, especially as our nation struggles to regain its economic footing. The endangerment finding must be stopped so that Congress can pass responsible legislation that is sound on its own merits, and not merely a defense against the threat of damaging regulations.”
Murkowski warned those who believe EPA action will prod Congress to act faster that such a strategy is likely to fail and carry with it unintended consequences. She said, “Make no mistake -- Congress is being threatened in a misguided attempt to move a climate bill forward. But this strategy is highly flawed because it assumes Congress will pass economically damaging legislation in order to stave off economically damaging regulations. That’s a false choice and it should be rejected outright. “This administration should be able to work with this Congress to pass needed, common-sense, and transparent reforms to our energy and environmental policies. Until the administration stops playing Russian roulette with the economy and decides to reach across the aisle, however, it will be difficult to do anything but oppose the irresponsible decisions that are being made.”
In a release, Murkowski indicated she will file her disapproval resolution pursuant to the provisions of the Congressional Review Act (CRA). Senators Don Nickles (R-OK) and Harry Reid (D-NV), were the principal sponsors of the CRA, incorporated into the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996, and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. Upon introduction, a disapproval resolution is referred to the committee of jurisdiction, which in this case will be the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW). If the committee does not favorably report the resolution within 20 calendar days, it may be discharged upon petition by 30 Senators. Once a disapproval resolution is placed on the Senate calendar, it is then subject to expedited consideration on the Senate floor, and not subject to filibuster.
Access a release from Senator Murkowski (click here). Access a video of the Senator's floor speech (click here). Access the full text of the floor speech (click here).
Monday, December 14, 2009
Final Week Of Turbulent Copenhagen Climate Change Meeting
Dec 14: At the start of what he called "the most critical week in global efforts to forge a new deal to curb climate change," UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon speaking to reporters from the UN Headquarters in New York City, warned that the world stood at "the crossroads between a sustainable future and a path to catastrophe." He said, “Now is the moment to act. Seldom in history has a choice been so clear. We can move toward a future of sustainable green growth, or we can continue down the road to ruin. We can act on climate change now, or we can leave it to our children and grandchildren -- a debt that can never be paid, a poisoned legacy that threatens our planet and its people. I call on the world’s leaders to lead. Time is running out. There is no time left for posturing or blaming. Every country must do its part to seal a deal in Copenhagen.”
New draft negotiating texts were released on Friday, December 11, at the climate change conference under way in Copenhagen. The drafts are designed to move the talks forward; however, the United Nations stressed that they do not presuppose either a final outcome or its legal form. The texts released included: Chair’s Proposed Draft Text on the Outcome of the Work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long Term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA, 7-pages); and Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP, 27-pages).
According to a release from the UN, "the texts seek to promote discussion on the broader picture of a possible outcome to arise from the gathering in the Danish capital before high-level government officials start arriving as early as tomorrow." Negotiators are currently examining the new texts and will decided this evening whether they are a useful basis for their further work. Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) said that "considerable progress has been made in areas including technology, adaptation and the prevention of deforestation." He said, “It is now also time to begin to focus on the big picture."
De Boer said he welcomed the announcement by leaders of the European Union (EU) to provide €7.2 billion over the next three years to help developing countries take action on climate change. He indicated that the amount pledged by the EU is nearly one-third of the $30 billion needed from 2010-2012 to help poorer nations cope with the impacts of global warming and plan for low-emissions growth. He said, "One of the things that has been holding [the Copenhagen] process back is lack of clarity on how short-term financial support is going to be provided to developing countries and the fact that Europe has now very clearly put a figure on the table will, I think, be a huge encouragement to the process.”
Among many other items the AWG-LCA draft calls for a long term vision saying, "a. Parties shall cooperate to avoid dangerous climate change, in keeping with the ultimate objective of the Convention, recognizing [the broad scientific view] that the increase in global average temperature above pre-industrial levels ought not to exceed [2degreesC][1.5degreesC]; b. Parties should collectively reduce global emissions by at least [50] [85] [95] per cent from 1990 levels by 2050 and should ensure that global emissions continue to decline thereafter: (c) Developed country Parties as a group should reduce their greenhouse gas emissions
by [75–85] [at least 80–95] [more than 95] per cent from 1990 levels by 2050. . ."
Regarding mid-term targets, the draft says, "Developed country Parties shall undertake, individually or jointly, legally binding nationally appropriate mitigation commitments or actions, [including][expressed as] quantified economywide emission reduction objectives with a view to reducing the collective greenhouse gas emissions of developed country Parties by at least [25–40] [in the order of 30] [40] [45] per cent from 1990 levels by 2020;" Note: numbers in brackets indicate options being considered.
Further the draft indicates, "Developed country Parties shall provide adequate, predictable and sustainable financial resources, technology and capacity-building to support the implementation of adaptation action in developing country Parties. . ."
After reviewing the LCA draft, Todd Stern, Special Envoy on Climate Change and Head of the U.S. Delegation said at a press conference that the U.S. agreed with some parts of the draft and didn't agree with other parts; however, he said, the "mitigation" section could not serves as a basis of negotiation because, "the U.S. will not do a deal without the major developing countries stepping up and taking major actions. It [the draft text] calls for developed countries to have legally binding commitments to Kyoto-type targets, but does not in any sense call upon major developing countries to set forth their own actions or stand behind them -- this is a basic element of a deal for the United States."
Access a release from the UN on the beginning of the final week (click here). Access a release from the UN on the release of the draft texts (click here). Access the AWG-LCA draft (click here). Access the AWG-KP draft (click here). Access a video of the complete Todd Stern press conference (click here). Access the UNFCCC website for links to all documents and press briefings (click here).
New draft negotiating texts were released on Friday, December 11, at the climate change conference under way in Copenhagen. The drafts are designed to move the talks forward; however, the United Nations stressed that they do not presuppose either a final outcome or its legal form. The texts released included: Chair’s Proposed Draft Text on the Outcome of the Work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long Term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA, 7-pages); and Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP, 27-pages).
According to a release from the UN, "the texts seek to promote discussion on the broader picture of a possible outcome to arise from the gathering in the Danish capital before high-level government officials start arriving as early as tomorrow." Negotiators are currently examining the new texts and will decided this evening whether they are a useful basis for their further work. Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) said that "considerable progress has been made in areas including technology, adaptation and the prevention of deforestation." He said, “It is now also time to begin to focus on the big picture."
De Boer said he welcomed the announcement by leaders of the European Union (EU) to provide €7.2 billion over the next three years to help developing countries take action on climate change. He indicated that the amount pledged by the EU is nearly one-third of the $30 billion needed from 2010-2012 to help poorer nations cope with the impacts of global warming and plan for low-emissions growth. He said, "One of the things that has been holding [the Copenhagen] process back is lack of clarity on how short-term financial support is going to be provided to developing countries and the fact that Europe has now very clearly put a figure on the table will, I think, be a huge encouragement to the process.”
Among many other items the AWG-LCA draft calls for a long term vision saying, "a. Parties shall cooperate to avoid dangerous climate change, in keeping with the ultimate objective of the Convention, recognizing [the broad scientific view] that the increase in global average temperature above pre-industrial levels ought not to exceed [2degreesC][1.5degreesC]; b. Parties should collectively reduce global emissions by at least [50] [85] [95] per cent from 1990 levels by 2050 and should ensure that global emissions continue to decline thereafter: (c) Developed country Parties as a group should reduce their greenhouse gas emissions
by [75–85] [at least 80–95] [more than 95] per cent from 1990 levels by 2050. . ."
Regarding mid-term targets, the draft says, "Developed country Parties shall undertake, individually or jointly, legally binding nationally appropriate mitigation commitments or actions, [including][expressed as] quantified economywide emission reduction objectives with a view to reducing the collective greenhouse gas emissions of developed country Parties by at least [25–40] [in the order of 30] [40] [45] per cent from 1990 levels by 2020;" Note: numbers in brackets indicate options being considered.
Further the draft indicates, "Developed country Parties shall provide adequate, predictable and sustainable financial resources, technology and capacity-building to support the implementation of adaptation action in developing country Parties. . ."
After reviewing the LCA draft, Todd Stern, Special Envoy on Climate Change and Head of the U.S. Delegation said at a press conference that the U.S. agreed with some parts of the draft and didn't agree with other parts; however, he said, the "mitigation" section could not serves as a basis of negotiation because, "the U.S. will not do a deal without the major developing countries stepping up and taking major actions. It [the draft text] calls for developed countries to have legally binding commitments to Kyoto-type targets, but does not in any sense call upon major developing countries to set forth their own actions or stand behind them -- this is a basic element of a deal for the United States."
Access a release from the UN on the beginning of the final week (click here). Access a release from the UN on the release of the draft texts (click here). Access the AWG-LCA draft (click here). Access the AWG-KP draft (click here). Access a video of the complete Todd Stern press conference (click here). Access the UNFCCC website for links to all documents and press briefings (click here).
Thursday, December 10, 2009
UN Hopes For Best But Backstage Rumblings At Copenhagen
Dec 9: While the United Nations continues to put a positive spin on the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, behind the scenes there is considerable controversy over several issues including the hacked emails and the underpinnings of climate science; the level of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction commitments from major developed nations, particularly the United States; calls for binding agreements and funding assistance from the most vulnerable island nations; the lack of binding commitments from major developing countries like China and India; and general tensions between developed and developing nations.
The UN reports that the negotiations have entered the drafting phase towards reaching a final agreement. The two-week summit in the Danish capital entered its fourth day, and negotiators have only a few days to wrap up their work before the start of the high-level segments next week, which will draw government ministers and heads of State. UNFCCC says it has noted an "eagerness among the parties to the talks to sit down and complete as much work as possible before the arrival of high-level government officials next week."
Yvo de Boer, the UNFCCC’s Executive Secretary, underscored that the issue of finance must be resolved, both in the short- and longer-term. He said, “I hope indeed that this conference can even decide what mechanism will be put in place, first of all, to mobilize those financial resources, and secondly to spend them once they’ve been mobilized in a way that countries see as being equitable.”
Over 34,000 people -- mostly from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) -- have registered to attend the conference, but the Bella Centre in which it is taking place can only hold 15,000. The UN said this is “clearly a testimony to the great interest generated” by the summit. A system has been set up to allow NGO delegates into the building based on a quota system. Additionally, 7,000 kilometres of cables, long enough to stretch from Copenhagen to Prague, have been laid at the Bella Centre.
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon emphasized that the outcome of Copenhagen gathering will have "reverberations for the future of humanity and the planet." Speaking to reporters in New York he said, “We’ve come a long way in just two years’ time, but what we do now over the next two weeks [in Copenhagen] will determine how we fare." He expressed optimism that an immediately effective “robust” agreement -- which will include specific recommendations on mitigation, adaptation, finance and technology -- will be reached. He said, “Copenhagen can and must be a turning point in the world’s efforts to prevent runaway climate change."
In the wake of the release of the hacked emails now referred by climate skeptics as "Climategate" [See WIMS 12/4/09], the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Ecofys, Climate Analytics, the Sustainability Institute, the European Climate Foundation and ClimateWorks issued a joint statement regarding the underlying climate science.
The statement indicates that, "Recent independent analyses of current mitigation proposals on the table in Copenhagen by Nicholas Stern, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Ecofys, Climate Analytics, the Sustainability Institute (C-ROADS), the European Climate Foundation and ClimateWorks (Project Catalyst) all point to the same conclusion: the negotiations must deliver the high-end of current proposals, and stretch beyond them, if the world is to have a reasonable chance of containing warming to below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, or the 1.5°C goal of many developing nations."
A release from UNEP indicates that, "There is a narrow window of opportunity to have the possibility of achieving the global political and scientific consensus of avoiding a global warming of more than 2°C above pre-industrial levels or the 1.5°C goal of 100 developing nations. The concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is increasing everyday and, without significant reductions in emissions, will soon reach levels at which the consequent changes in the Earth's climate will have very serious, and potentially disastrous and irreversible, impacts. Research papers and analysis released in the past few days by several of the leading independent authorities on the question have looked at the impact of the current proposals made by countries at the Copenhagen Climate Summit. While there are differences in the details of the findings, the overall messages from these studies are clear. . .
"A deal that puts us on the path to having a good chance of avoiding warming of 2 degrees, is possible -- but the proposals on the table are not quite there. We need to capture the high-end of those proposals and more in Copenhagen, and then continue to ratchet-up commitments over time. We have a historic opportunity in Copenhagen to increase climate security and economic security for the world for generations to come."
Access a release from the UN (click here). Access a release from the UNEP with the joint statement and climate science summary (click here). Access links to daily reporting and Copenhagen update previously reported by WIMS on 12/7/09 (click here). Access the Danish Government Copenhagen website for report on some of the recent climate change controversy (click here).
The UN reports that the negotiations have entered the drafting phase towards reaching a final agreement. The two-week summit in the Danish capital entered its fourth day, and negotiators have only a few days to wrap up their work before the start of the high-level segments next week, which will draw government ministers and heads of State. UNFCCC says it has noted an "eagerness among the parties to the talks to sit down and complete as much work as possible before the arrival of high-level government officials next week."
Yvo de Boer, the UNFCCC’s Executive Secretary, underscored that the issue of finance must be resolved, both in the short- and longer-term. He said, “I hope indeed that this conference can even decide what mechanism will be put in place, first of all, to mobilize those financial resources, and secondly to spend them once they’ve been mobilized in a way that countries see as being equitable.”
Over 34,000 people -- mostly from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) -- have registered to attend the conference, but the Bella Centre in which it is taking place can only hold 15,000. The UN said this is “clearly a testimony to the great interest generated” by the summit. A system has been set up to allow NGO delegates into the building based on a quota system. Additionally, 7,000 kilometres of cables, long enough to stretch from Copenhagen to Prague, have been laid at the Bella Centre.
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon emphasized that the outcome of Copenhagen gathering will have "reverberations for the future of humanity and the planet." Speaking to reporters in New York he said, “We’ve come a long way in just two years’ time, but what we do now over the next two weeks [in Copenhagen] will determine how we fare." He expressed optimism that an immediately effective “robust” agreement -- which will include specific recommendations on mitigation, adaptation, finance and technology -- will be reached. He said, “Copenhagen can and must be a turning point in the world’s efforts to prevent runaway climate change."
In the wake of the release of the hacked emails now referred by climate skeptics as "Climategate" [See WIMS 12/4/09], the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Ecofys, Climate Analytics, the Sustainability Institute, the European Climate Foundation and ClimateWorks issued a joint statement regarding the underlying climate science.
The statement indicates that, "Recent independent analyses of current mitigation proposals on the table in Copenhagen by Nicholas Stern, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Ecofys, Climate Analytics, the Sustainability Institute (C-ROADS), the European Climate Foundation and ClimateWorks (Project Catalyst) all point to the same conclusion: the negotiations must deliver the high-end of current proposals, and stretch beyond them, if the world is to have a reasonable chance of containing warming to below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, or the 1.5°C goal of many developing nations."
A release from UNEP indicates that, "There is a narrow window of opportunity to have the possibility of achieving the global political and scientific consensus of avoiding a global warming of more than 2°C above pre-industrial levels or the 1.5°C goal of 100 developing nations. The concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is increasing everyday and, without significant reductions in emissions, will soon reach levels at which the consequent changes in the Earth's climate will have very serious, and potentially disastrous and irreversible, impacts. Research papers and analysis released in the past few days by several of the leading independent authorities on the question have looked at the impact of the current proposals made by countries at the Copenhagen Climate Summit. While there are differences in the details of the findings, the overall messages from these studies are clear. . .
"A deal that puts us on the path to having a good chance of avoiding warming of 2 degrees, is possible -- but the proposals on the table are not quite there. We need to capture the high-end of those proposals and more in Copenhagen, and then continue to ratchet-up commitments over time. We have a historic opportunity in Copenhagen to increase climate security and economic security for the world for generations to come."
Access a release from the UN (click here). Access a release from the UNEP with the joint statement and climate science summary (click here). Access links to daily reporting and Copenhagen update previously reported by WIMS on 12/7/09 (click here). Access the Danish Government Copenhagen website for report on some of the recent climate change controversy (click here).
Wednesday, December 09, 2009
API Says EPA Endangerment Finding "Clearly Politically Motivated"
Dec 7: As WIMS reported yesterday, U.S. EPA's endangerment finding announced on December 7 [See WIMS 12/7/09, 12/08/09] has resulted in the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) announcing it will file suit in Federal court to overturn finding and various mixed reactions from interest groups and politicians. Also, in a harshly critical statement, Jack Gerard, President of the American Petroleum Institute said there was no pressing reason for the finding and EPA’s action was "clearly politically motivated."
Gerard said, “This action poses a threat to every American family and business if it leads to regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Such regulation would be intrusive, inefficient, and excessively costly. It could chill job growth and delay business expansion. The Clean Air Act was meant to control traditional air pollution, not greenhouse gases that come from every vehicle, home, factory and farm in America. A fit-for-purpose climate law is a much preferred solution.
“There was no compelling deadline that forced EPA’s hand on this decision. It is a decision that is clearly politically motivated to coincide with the start of the Copenhagen climate summit. EPA’s finding is inadequate, unsupported by the record and fails to demonstrate a significant risk of harm to public health or welfare. API members are reducing greenhouse gas emissions and investing in technology to reduce them further. Between 2000 and 2008, U.S.-based oil and natural gas companies invested $58 billion in low-carbon energy technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, more than either the federal government or all other U.S.-based private industry combined.”
In a related action, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) Vice President of Energy & Resources Policy Keith McCoy also issued a statement saying, "The NAM is concerned that the EPA did not seriously take into consideration any of the thousands of comments manufacturers made on this proposal. The endangerment finding will have a cascading effect on the ability of all manufacturers to grow and prosper. By declaring GHG emissions a threat to public health and welfare through its endangerment finding, the EPA is paving the way to begin regulating carbon emissions across the board, including large stationary sources such as manufacturing plants, hospitals and libraries under the Clean Air Act.
"Let me be clear: the NAM supports cost-effective efforts to address climate change but believes the appropriate authority to address this should be Congress. The EPA is moving forward with an agenda that will put additional burdens on manufacturers, cost jobs and drive up the price of energy. This finding comes when unemployment is hovering at 10 percent, and many manufacturers are struggling to stay in business. It is doubtful that this endangerment finding will achieve its stated goal, but it is certain to come at a huge cost to the economy. Our nation needs a comprehensive federal policy that will achieve environmental results without inflicting unnecessary economic harm. This is a complex issue that deserves a rigorous, public and transparent debate in Congress."
NAM acknowledged that EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson indicated that she would prefer Congress address this issue. But said, "therefore, we are disappointed the EPA chose this power grab move. We will continue to work with Congress to address this important issue and urge the EPA to think about the economic harm it is inflicting before moving forward with additional rules."
In announcing the endangerment finding, EPA noted that its "findings do not in and of themselves impose any emission reduction requirements but rather allow EPA to finalize the GHG standards proposed earlier this year for new light-duty vehicles as part of the joint rulemaking with the Department of Transportation." EPA indicated in a release that "President Obama and Administrator Jackson have publicly stated that they support a legislative solution to the problem of climate change and Congress’ efforts to pass comprehensive climate legislation. However, climate change is threatening public health and welfare, and it is critical that EPA fulfill its obligation to respond to the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that determined that greenhouse gases fit within the Clean Air Act definition of air pollutants."
EPA issued the proposed findings in April 2009 [See WIMS 4/27/09] and held a 60-day public comment period. The agency received more than 380,000 comments, which it said "were carefully reviewed and considered during the development of the final findings."
Access the statement from API (click here). Access the statement from NAM (click here). Access a release from EPA on the finding (click here). Access EPA's Endangerment website for complete information and background (click here).
Gerard said, “This action poses a threat to every American family and business if it leads to regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Such regulation would be intrusive, inefficient, and excessively costly. It could chill job growth and delay business expansion. The Clean Air Act was meant to control traditional air pollution, not greenhouse gases that come from every vehicle, home, factory and farm in America. A fit-for-purpose climate law is a much preferred solution.
“There was no compelling deadline that forced EPA’s hand on this decision. It is a decision that is clearly politically motivated to coincide with the start of the Copenhagen climate summit. EPA’s finding is inadequate, unsupported by the record and fails to demonstrate a significant risk of harm to public health or welfare. API members are reducing greenhouse gas emissions and investing in technology to reduce them further. Between 2000 and 2008, U.S.-based oil and natural gas companies invested $58 billion in low-carbon energy technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, more than either the federal government or all other U.S.-based private industry combined.”
In a related action, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) Vice President of Energy & Resources Policy Keith McCoy also issued a statement saying, "The NAM is concerned that the EPA did not seriously take into consideration any of the thousands of comments manufacturers made on this proposal. The endangerment finding will have a cascading effect on the ability of all manufacturers to grow and prosper. By declaring GHG emissions a threat to public health and welfare through its endangerment finding, the EPA is paving the way to begin regulating carbon emissions across the board, including large stationary sources such as manufacturing plants, hospitals and libraries under the Clean Air Act.
"Let me be clear: the NAM supports cost-effective efforts to address climate change but believes the appropriate authority to address this should be Congress. The EPA is moving forward with an agenda that will put additional burdens on manufacturers, cost jobs and drive up the price of energy. This finding comes when unemployment is hovering at 10 percent, and many manufacturers are struggling to stay in business. It is doubtful that this endangerment finding will achieve its stated goal, but it is certain to come at a huge cost to the economy. Our nation needs a comprehensive federal policy that will achieve environmental results without inflicting unnecessary economic harm. This is a complex issue that deserves a rigorous, public and transparent debate in Congress."
NAM acknowledged that EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson indicated that she would prefer Congress address this issue. But said, "therefore, we are disappointed the EPA chose this power grab move. We will continue to work with Congress to address this important issue and urge the EPA to think about the economic harm it is inflicting before moving forward with additional rules."
In announcing the endangerment finding, EPA noted that its "findings do not in and of themselves impose any emission reduction requirements but rather allow EPA to finalize the GHG standards proposed earlier this year for new light-duty vehicles as part of the joint rulemaking with the Department of Transportation." EPA indicated in a release that "President Obama and Administrator Jackson have publicly stated that they support a legislative solution to the problem of climate change and Congress’ efforts to pass comprehensive climate legislation. However, climate change is threatening public health and welfare, and it is critical that EPA fulfill its obligation to respond to the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that determined that greenhouse gases fit within the Clean Air Act definition of air pollutants."
EPA issued the proposed findings in April 2009 [See WIMS 4/27/09] and held a 60-day public comment period. The agency received more than 380,000 comments, which it said "were carefully reviewed and considered during the development of the final findings."
Access the statement from API (click here). Access the statement from NAM (click here). Access a release from EPA on the finding (click here). Access EPA's Endangerment website for complete information and background (click here).
Tuesday, December 08, 2009
Lawsuit & Mixed Reactions On EPA's Endangerment Finding
Dec 7: The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) announced it will file suit in Federal court to overturn U.S. EPA's endangerment finding announced December 7 [See WIMS 12/7/09], on the grounds that EPA has "ignored major scientific issues, including those raised recently in the Climategate fraud scandal." [See WIMS 12/4/09]. Sam Kazman, CEI General Counsel said, “EPA is clinging for dear life to the notion that the global climate models are holding up. In reality, those models are about to sink under the growing weight of evidence that they are fabrications.”
Marlo Lewis, CEI Senior Fellow said, “Today’s decision by EPA will trigger costly and time-consuming permitting requirements for tens of thousands of previously unregulated small businesses under the Clean Air Act. A more potent Anti-Stimulus Package would be hard to imagine. The sensible solution would be for Congress to pass legislation, such as that proposed by Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee that would pre-empt the EPA from regulating carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions.”
In announcing its findings, EPA said that "after a thorough examination of the scientific evidence and careful consideration of public comments it has determined that greenhouse gases (GHGs) threaten the public health and welfare of the American people. EPA also finds that GHG emissions from on-road vehicles contribute to that threat." EPA noted that its "findings do not in and of themselves impose any emission reduction requirements but rather allow EPA to finalize the GHG standards proposed earlier this year for new light-duty vehicles as part of the joint rulemaking with the Department of Transportation. EPA indicated that on-road vehicles contribute more than 23 percent of total U.S. GHG emissions."
EPA’s final findings respond to the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision that GHGs fit within the Clean Air Act definition of air pollutants. 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. Under the Bush Administration, EPA had refused to regulate such gases, arguing it lacked statutory authority [See WIMS 4/2/07].
In other reactions to the EPA's findings, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) issued a statement saying, "The EPA has thoroughly reviewed the scientific literature on climate change, which spans decades of research across a breadth of disciplines and across the globe. The science is clear: global warming is real, its impacts are being felt around the world, and carbon emissions present a danger to public health and the economy worldwide. As the United Nations Climate Change Conference begins in Copenhagen today [See WIMS 12/7/09], those who fear EPA regulation of global warming pollution will find the answer in the American Clean Energy and Security Act passed by the House this year. This legislation will give businesses both certainty and flexibility, help to minimize costs to companies and consumers as we transition to clean energy, reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil, and stimulate investments that will create millions of clean energy jobs."
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, issued a statement saying, "The endangerment finding released today confirms what we have been told by America's top scientists and leading scientists of the world --that unchecked global warming is perilous to human health and our environment. After the Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that global warming pollution is covered under the Clean Air Act, the Bush EPA laid the groundwork for this endangerment finding, which has been completed by the Obama EPA. It is now clear that if we take our responsibility seriously to protect and defend our people from this threat, the Senate has a duty to act on climate change legislation that includes major components of the work done by the Energy and Environment Committees. In light of the EPA endangerment finding, the President's appearance in Copenhagen will carry even more weight, because it shows that America is taking this issue very seriously and is moving forward."
Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works issued a statement and video saying, "The Administration's endangerment finding will lead to a wave of new regulations and bureaucracy that will wreak havoc on the American economy, destroy millions of jobs, and force consumers to pay more for electricity and gasoline. This bureaucratic nightmare is based on flawed science. Lisa Jackson, Obama's EPA Administrator, admitted to me publicly that EPA based its action today in good measure on the findings of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC. She told me that EPA accepted those findings without any serious, independent analysis to see whether they were true. Of course, we now have thousands of emails showing several of the UN's top scientists apparently evading laws requiring transparency, defaming scientists with opposing viewpoints, and manipulating data to fit preconceived opinions. They cooked the science. . . "
He continued saying, "I agree with Sen. Joe Lieberman, who said of climategate, "We ought to be demanding that that be cleaned up. We ought to be angry about it. The endangerment finding also will have virtually no impact on global warming. That's because India and China, two of the world's leading emitters of CO2, are left out. . . So today the American people are getting a raw deal: all cost with no benefit. Yet, the Obama Administration is moving forward anyway. . ."
Earthjustice President Trip Van Noppen issued a statement saying, "What scientists have long known is now official U.S. policy: global warming pollution is real and has dangerous impacts on public health and the environment. The Obama administration's announcement today acknowledges that our nation must move quickly and efficiently to achieve the cuts in carbon dioxide and other global warming pollution needed to stave off catastrophic climate change. The time for talking is over; now is the time for taking action. EPA has based this decision under the Clean Air Act on overwhelming scientific evidence that global warming poses a significant threat. We will look to the administration to continue along this path and take the next important step of adopting strong rules that limit global warming pollution from motor vehicles and industrial polluters. . ."
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-West Chester) issued a statement saying, "Today’s EPA announcement paves the way for Washington Democrats’ ‘cap-and-trade’ national energy tax, a bureaucratic nightmare that would make households, small businesses and family farms pay higher prices for electricity, gasoline, food and virtually every product made in America. One independent analysis determined that this national energy tax would cost our economy millions of jobs each year for the foreseeable future. What’s more, the timing of this announcement is yet another indication President Obama is preparing to unilaterally commit the United States to mandatory emissions cuts at the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. If the President truly believes these job-killing mandates are in the nation’s best interests, he should slow down and first seek the advice and consent of the people’s elected representatives."
Access a release from CEI (click here). Access a release from EPA on the finding (click here). Access EPA's Endangerment website for complete information and background (click here). Access a lengthy release from Speaker Pelosi with links to related information (click here). Access the statement from Senator Boxer (click here). Access the statement from Senator Inhofe (click here). Access a release from Earthjustice (click here). Access the statement from Representative Boehner (click here).
Marlo Lewis, CEI Senior Fellow said, “Today’s decision by EPA will trigger costly and time-consuming permitting requirements for tens of thousands of previously unregulated small businesses under the Clean Air Act. A more potent Anti-Stimulus Package would be hard to imagine. The sensible solution would be for Congress to pass legislation, such as that proposed by Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee that would pre-empt the EPA from regulating carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions.”
In announcing its findings, EPA said that "after a thorough examination of the scientific evidence and careful consideration of public comments it has determined that greenhouse gases (GHGs) threaten the public health and welfare of the American people. EPA also finds that GHG emissions from on-road vehicles contribute to that threat." EPA noted that its "findings do not in and of themselves impose any emission reduction requirements but rather allow EPA to finalize the GHG standards proposed earlier this year for new light-duty vehicles as part of the joint rulemaking with the Department of Transportation. EPA indicated that on-road vehicles contribute more than 23 percent of total U.S. GHG emissions."
EPA’s final findings respond to the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision that GHGs fit within the Clean Air Act definition of air pollutants. 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. Under the Bush Administration, EPA had refused to regulate such gases, arguing it lacked statutory authority [See WIMS 4/2/07].
In other reactions to the EPA's findings, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) issued a statement saying, "The EPA has thoroughly reviewed the scientific literature on climate change, which spans decades of research across a breadth of disciplines and across the globe. The science is clear: global warming is real, its impacts are being felt around the world, and carbon emissions present a danger to public health and the economy worldwide. As the United Nations Climate Change Conference begins in Copenhagen today [See WIMS 12/7/09], those who fear EPA regulation of global warming pollution will find the answer in the American Clean Energy and Security Act passed by the House this year. This legislation will give businesses both certainty and flexibility, help to minimize costs to companies and consumers as we transition to clean energy, reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil, and stimulate investments that will create millions of clean energy jobs."
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, issued a statement saying, "The endangerment finding released today confirms what we have been told by America's top scientists and leading scientists of the world --that unchecked global warming is perilous to human health and our environment. After the Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that global warming pollution is covered under the Clean Air Act, the Bush EPA laid the groundwork for this endangerment finding, which has been completed by the Obama EPA. It is now clear that if we take our responsibility seriously to protect and defend our people from this threat, the Senate has a duty to act on climate change legislation that includes major components of the work done by the Energy and Environment Committees. In light of the EPA endangerment finding, the President's appearance in Copenhagen will carry even more weight, because it shows that America is taking this issue very seriously and is moving forward."
Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works issued a statement and video saying, "The Administration's endangerment finding will lead to a wave of new regulations and bureaucracy that will wreak havoc on the American economy, destroy millions of jobs, and force consumers to pay more for electricity and gasoline. This bureaucratic nightmare is based on flawed science. Lisa Jackson, Obama's EPA Administrator, admitted to me publicly that EPA based its action today in good measure on the findings of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC. She told me that EPA accepted those findings without any serious, independent analysis to see whether they were true. Of course, we now have thousands of emails showing several of the UN's top scientists apparently evading laws requiring transparency, defaming scientists with opposing viewpoints, and manipulating data to fit preconceived opinions. They cooked the science. . . "
He continued saying, "I agree with Sen. Joe Lieberman, who said of climategate, "We ought to be demanding that that be cleaned up. We ought to be angry about it. The endangerment finding also will have virtually no impact on global warming. That's because India and China, two of the world's leading emitters of CO2, are left out. . . So today the American people are getting a raw deal: all cost with no benefit. Yet, the Obama Administration is moving forward anyway. . ."
Earthjustice President Trip Van Noppen issued a statement saying, "What scientists have long known is now official U.S. policy: global warming pollution is real and has dangerous impacts on public health and the environment. The Obama administration's announcement today acknowledges that our nation must move quickly and efficiently to achieve the cuts in carbon dioxide and other global warming pollution needed to stave off catastrophic climate change. The time for talking is over; now is the time for taking action. EPA has based this decision under the Clean Air Act on overwhelming scientific evidence that global warming poses a significant threat. We will look to the administration to continue along this path and take the next important step of adopting strong rules that limit global warming pollution from motor vehicles and industrial polluters. . ."
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-West Chester) issued a statement saying, "Today’s EPA announcement paves the way for Washington Democrats’ ‘cap-and-trade’ national energy tax, a bureaucratic nightmare that would make households, small businesses and family farms pay higher prices for electricity, gasoline, food and virtually every product made in America. One independent analysis determined that this national energy tax would cost our economy millions of jobs each year for the foreseeable future. What’s more, the timing of this announcement is yet another indication President Obama is preparing to unilaterally commit the United States to mandatory emissions cuts at the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. If the President truly believes these job-killing mandates are in the nation’s best interests, he should slow down and first seek the advice and consent of the people’s elected representatives."
Access a release from CEI (click here). Access a release from EPA on the finding (click here). Access EPA's Endangerment website for complete information and background (click here). Access a lengthy release from Speaker Pelosi with links to related information (click here). Access the statement from Senator Boxer (click here). Access the statement from Senator Inhofe (click here). Access a release from Earthjustice (click here). Access the statement from Representative Boehner (click here).
Monday, December 07, 2009
COP15 Copenhagen Climate Change Kick-Off & Links
Dec 7: It's finally here. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), fifteenth Conference of the Parties (COP 15) and the fifth Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (COP/MOP 5). The 2-week meeting will take place from December 7 to 18 2009 in the Bella Center in Copenhagen, Denmark.
The Conference marks the culmination of a two-year negotiating process in an attempt to follow-up on the "Bali Roadmap," adopted by COP 13 in December 2007. The Copenhagen meeting follows a series of recent contentious international negotiating sessions including: The G-8 and "Major Economies Forum (MEF) in L’Aquila, Italy in July [See WIMS 7/13/09]; UNFCCC meeting in Bonn, Germany in August [See WIMS 8/14/09]; the UN Climate Change Summit in New York City [See WIMS 9/24/09]; UNFCCC meeting in Bangkok (September 28 to October 9) [See WIMS 10/09/09]; UNFCCC meeting in Barcelona, Spain in November [See WIMS 11/6/09]. Most of the meetings ended in intense disagreement between developed and developing countries over the setting of appropriate mid-term target emission reductions for developed countries and the establishment of an international monetary fund to provide assistance to developing countries.
As the Copenhagen Conference begins, the latest expectation appears to be obtaining a "political" agreement with an appropriate level of detail, followed by an commitment to translate and finalize the agreement into a legally binding treaty within the first six months of 2010. Late Friday, the White House announced that President Obama who was originally scheduled to go to Copenhagen on December 9, will now be attending during the important closing sessions when other world leaders will be in attendance on December 18.
According to a release from UNFCCC, "The highly anticipated conference marks an historic turning point on how the world confronts climate change, an issue with profound implications for the health and prosperity of all people." Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen announced that 110 heads of state and government will attend the conference at its conclusion. The meeting brings together the 193 Parties to the UNFCCC and the 189 Parties to the Kyoto Protocol. More than 15,000 participants, including government delegates and representatives from business and industry, environmental organizations and research institutions, are attending the gathering.
The Danish Prime Minister pointed to the fact that climate change knows no borders saying, "It does not discriminate, it affects us all. And we are here today because we are all committed to take action. That is our common point of departure. The magnitude of the challenge before us is to translate this political will into a strong political approach."
UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer said there was unprecedented political momentum for a deal. "World leaders are calling for an agreement that offers serious emission limitation goals and that captures the provision of significant financial and technological support to developing countries. At the same time, Copenhagen will only be a success if it delivers significant and immediate action that begins the day the conference ends." UNFCCC indicated that negotiators must focus on solid and practical proposals that will unleash prompt action on mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology, reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries and capacity-building.
De Boer outlined three layers of action that governments must agree to by the end of the conference: (1) fast and effective implementation of immediate action on climate change; (2) ambitious commitments to cut and limit emissions, including start-up funding and a long-term funding commitment; and (3) a long-term shared vision on a low-emissions future for all. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) indicates that an aggregate emission reduction by industrialized countries of between minus 25% and 40% over 1990 levels would be required by 2020 in order to stave off the worst effects of climate change. If total global emissions can be reduced by at least 50% by 2050, there would be only a 50% chance of avoiding the most catastrophic consequences.
The UNFCCC working groups starting Monday will have six days to conclude negotiations before the Ministerial High Level Segment starts December 16. Ministers will then in turn have two days to take any unresolved issues forward before the more than 100 world leaders that begin arriving the evening of December 17. This means a total of eight negotiating days to prepare a workable package that consists of both immediate and long-term components which leaders can endorse on December 18.
In a related important development, as the COP15 conference begins and while climate skeptics are claiming the international scientific community has falsified climate change science [See WIMS 12/4/09], the U.S. EPA announced that "after a thorough examination of the scientific evidence and careful consideration of public comments it has determined that greenhouse gases (GHGs) threaten the public health and welfare of the American people. EPA also finds that GHG emissions from on-road vehicles contribute to that threat."
EPA indicated in a release that President Obama and Administrator Jackson have publicly stated that they support a legislative solution to the problem of climate change and Congress’ efforts to pass comprehensive climate legislation. However, climate change is threatening public health and welfare, and it is critical that EPA fulfill its obligation to respond to the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that determined that greenhouse gases fit within the Clean Air Act definition of air pollutants. EPA issued the proposed findings in April 2009 [See WIMS 4/27/09] and held a 60-day public comment period. The agency received more than 380,000 comments, which it said were carefully reviewed and considered during the development of the final findings.
The following are some important links to follow the 2-weeks of what will likely be intense negotiations:
UNFCCC Website - Complete information and documents including all COP15 events live and on demand (click here).
IISD Daily Reporting - The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) providing daily coverage from Copenhagen with The Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB) daily reports and online high-resolution digital photos from inside the negotiations and ENB on the Side (ENBOTS) daily reports featuring coverage of selected side events (click here).
BNA World Climate Change Report - BNA is providing complimentary, real-time reporting and analysis of the landmark COP15 event. BNA will offer open access to its World Climate Change Report(R), which contains expert climate change analysis as well as live coverage of COP15, December 4-21, 2009 [registration required] (click here).
U.S State Department COP15 Website - The U.S. Department of State has established a special website to follow the U.S. activities in Copenhagen. Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern will lead the U.S. delegation during the two-week conference. Other U.S. departments and agencies will join the Department of State on the delegation, including the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Interior, Transportation, and Treasury; the U.S. Agency for International Development; U.S. EPA; the U.S. Trade Representative; and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The U.S. delegation will also include officials from the National Security Council and the White House Council on Environmental Quality; and Members of Congress (click here).
Copenhagen, Denmark COP 15 Website - The website of Denmark and the city of Copenhagen hosting the 15th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP15) taking place at Bella Center in Copenhagen from the 7th to the 18th of December, 2009 (click here).
WIMS Climate Change Issue Website - Waste Information & Management Services, Inc. (WIMS), EcoBizPort, Climate Change issue website for extensive links to important climate change information and resources (click here).
Access a release from UNFCCC (click here). Access a video press briefing from Yvo de Boer (click here). Access links to UNFCCC webcasts, live and on demand (click here). Access a release from EPA (click here). Access EPA's Endangerment website for complete information and background (click here).
The Conference marks the culmination of a two-year negotiating process in an attempt to follow-up on the "Bali Roadmap," adopted by COP 13 in December 2007. The Copenhagen meeting follows a series of recent contentious international negotiating sessions including: The G-8 and "Major Economies Forum (MEF) in L’Aquila, Italy in July [See WIMS 7/13/09]; UNFCCC meeting in Bonn, Germany in August [See WIMS 8/14/09]; the UN Climate Change Summit in New York City [See WIMS 9/24/09]; UNFCCC meeting in Bangkok (September 28 to October 9) [See WIMS 10/09/09]; UNFCCC meeting in Barcelona, Spain in November [See WIMS 11/6/09]. Most of the meetings ended in intense disagreement between developed and developing countries over the setting of appropriate mid-term target emission reductions for developed countries and the establishment of an international monetary fund to provide assistance to developing countries.
As the Copenhagen Conference begins, the latest expectation appears to be obtaining a "political" agreement with an appropriate level of detail, followed by an commitment to translate and finalize the agreement into a legally binding treaty within the first six months of 2010. Late Friday, the White House announced that President Obama who was originally scheduled to go to Copenhagen on December 9, will now be attending during the important closing sessions when other world leaders will be in attendance on December 18.
According to a release from UNFCCC, "The highly anticipated conference marks an historic turning point on how the world confronts climate change, an issue with profound implications for the health and prosperity of all people." Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen announced that 110 heads of state and government will attend the conference at its conclusion. The meeting brings together the 193 Parties to the UNFCCC and the 189 Parties to the Kyoto Protocol. More than 15,000 participants, including government delegates and representatives from business and industry, environmental organizations and research institutions, are attending the gathering.
The Danish Prime Minister pointed to the fact that climate change knows no borders saying, "It does not discriminate, it affects us all. And we are here today because we are all committed to take action. That is our common point of departure. The magnitude of the challenge before us is to translate this political will into a strong political approach."
UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer said there was unprecedented political momentum for a deal. "World leaders are calling for an agreement that offers serious emission limitation goals and that captures the provision of significant financial and technological support to developing countries. At the same time, Copenhagen will only be a success if it delivers significant and immediate action that begins the day the conference ends." UNFCCC indicated that negotiators must focus on solid and practical proposals that will unleash prompt action on mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology, reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries and capacity-building.
De Boer outlined three layers of action that governments must agree to by the end of the conference: (1) fast and effective implementation of immediate action on climate change; (2) ambitious commitments to cut and limit emissions, including start-up funding and a long-term funding commitment; and (3) a long-term shared vision on a low-emissions future for all. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) indicates that an aggregate emission reduction by industrialized countries of between minus 25% and 40% over 1990 levels would be required by 2020 in order to stave off the worst effects of climate change. If total global emissions can be reduced by at least 50% by 2050, there would be only a 50% chance of avoiding the most catastrophic consequences.
The UNFCCC working groups starting Monday will have six days to conclude negotiations before the Ministerial High Level Segment starts December 16. Ministers will then in turn have two days to take any unresolved issues forward before the more than 100 world leaders that begin arriving the evening of December 17. This means a total of eight negotiating days to prepare a workable package that consists of both immediate and long-term components which leaders can endorse on December 18.
In a related important development, as the COP15 conference begins and while climate skeptics are claiming the international scientific community has falsified climate change science [See WIMS 12/4/09], the U.S. EPA announced that "after a thorough examination of the scientific evidence and careful consideration of public comments it has determined that greenhouse gases (GHGs) threaten the public health and welfare of the American people. EPA also finds that GHG emissions from on-road vehicles contribute to that threat."
EPA indicated in a release that President Obama and Administrator Jackson have publicly stated that they support a legislative solution to the problem of climate change and Congress’ efforts to pass comprehensive climate legislation. However, climate change is threatening public health and welfare, and it is critical that EPA fulfill its obligation to respond to the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that determined that greenhouse gases fit within the Clean Air Act definition of air pollutants. EPA issued the proposed findings in April 2009 [See WIMS 4/27/09] and held a 60-day public comment period. The agency received more than 380,000 comments, which it said were carefully reviewed and considered during the development of the final findings.
The following are some important links to follow the 2-weeks of what will likely be intense negotiations:
UNFCCC Website - Complete information and documents including all COP15 events live and on demand (click here).
IISD Daily Reporting - The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) providing daily coverage from Copenhagen with The Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB) daily reports and online high-resolution digital photos from inside the negotiations and ENB on the Side (ENBOTS) daily reports featuring coverage of selected side events (click here).
BNA World Climate Change Report - BNA is providing complimentary, real-time reporting and analysis of the landmark COP15 event. BNA will offer open access to its World Climate Change Report(R), which contains expert climate change analysis as well as live coverage of COP15, December 4-21, 2009 [registration required] (click here).
U.S State Department COP15 Website - The U.S. Department of State has established a special website to follow the U.S. activities in Copenhagen. Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern will lead the U.S. delegation during the two-week conference. Other U.S. departments and agencies will join the Department of State on the delegation, including the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Interior, Transportation, and Treasury; the U.S. Agency for International Development; U.S. EPA; the U.S. Trade Representative; and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The U.S. delegation will also include officials from the National Security Council and the White House Council on Environmental Quality; and Members of Congress (click here).
Copenhagen, Denmark COP 15 Website - The website of Denmark and the city of Copenhagen hosting the 15th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP15) taking place at Bella Center in Copenhagen from the 7th to the 18th of December, 2009 (click here).
WIMS Climate Change Issue Website - Waste Information & Management Services, Inc. (WIMS), EcoBizPort, Climate Change issue website for extensive links to important climate change information and resources (click here).
Access a release from UNFCCC (click here). Access a video press briefing from Yvo de Boer (click here). Access links to UNFCCC webcasts, live and on demand (click here). Access a release from EPA (click here). Access EPA's Endangerment website for complete information and background (click here).
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
