Copenhagen Climate Deal Shifts To Keeping The Pressure On

Nov 16: United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urged countries to seize the opportunity presented at the climate change conference in Copenhagen to clinch a "political" agreement that will help chart the way forward on a new "legally" binding pact to combat global warming. Ban said, “Opportunity is knocking. It is up to you to open the door.” He was issuing a statement at a two-day closed meeting in the Danish capital to climate negotiators from nearly 40 countries who are preparing ahead of the UN Climate Change Conference set to begin on December 7, and run through December 18. The Secretary-General's message was delivered by Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary, UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Now that the pressure appears to be off to negotiate a "legally binding" agreement, and instead settle for a "politically binding" framework [See WIMS 11/16/09], the parties are beginning to be concerned about keeping the negotiating momentum on to reach a legal agreement by some near future deadline. On behalf of the Secretary-General, de Boer said, "Copenhagen will mark a milestone in international efforts to build a more sustainable relationship with our planet. We must seize this opportunity to create a safer and more prosperous future for all, to reduce the emissions that are causing climate change, and to help the most vulnerable adapt to impacts that are already under way. From all corners of the globe, we see unprecedented momentum for governments to act quickly and decisively. Heads of State and Government are now directly involved in climate change discussions to a degree previously unimaginable even a few short years ago."

De Boer outlined what the Secretary-General indicated are the "essential elements of a Copenhagen deal" which he said there is "growing support from the highest levels of government" including: Enhanced action to help the poorest and most vulnerable to adapt; Ambitious emission reduction targets for industrialized countries; Nationally appropriate mitigation actions by developing countries with the necessary support; Significantly scaled-up financial and technological resources; and An equitable governance structure. He said, such a deal "can safeguard our common future while ushering in powerful new opportunities today for economic growth, enhanced security, and sustainable, climate-resilient development."

He said to the ministers gathered at the meeting, "The world is looking to you to transform those expressions of global political will into tangible outcomes in Copenhagen. The science, the future of the global economy, and the fate of the planet require no less. I applaud the progress that you have made in the negotiations to date. But core political issues remain unresolved. As Ministers, you have a key role to play. We need political agreement on the outline of a deal in Copenhagen to ensure that specific mitigation and adaptation actions can be swiftly implemented as of 2010."

He concluded, "The UN system, for its part, will continue to support governments in achieving an ambitious outcome. Similarly, the United Nations stands ready to “deliver as one” in helping Member States to implement adaptation and mitigation actions on the ground, drawing on the UN's global expertise in energy, water, development and other relevant areas. Let us work together. Let us seize this moment to make Copenhagen the success the world wants and needs it to be."

According to reports from Copenhagen, de Boer is pushing for a treaty to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012, within six months after the COP15 conference ends. Other observers and participants are fearful that negotiations may stagnate and drag on for years. According to media reports, some are saying negotiations may go on for years and years; citing for example the Doha negotiations on liberating global trade that after eight years of talks have still not come to a conclusion. Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists told Reuters in an interview, "It raises the specter of having a stalemate on the legally binding part lingering for years to come." He says Copenhagen must set a firm deadline for negotiating a treaty text.

On November 17, Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen speaking to the Ministers at the pre-COP consultations said, "Hard work and political will is the only way forward -- and it is not over yet. I am just back from a meeting with leaders gathered for the APEC Summit in Singapore. We had a very encouraging discussion. And we reminded ourselves of the mandates and the deadline set at Bali. I presented the vision for an ambitious, binding agreement in Copenhagen. An agreement providing for immediate and strong action within all areas of the Bali mandates. And setting us on track for a comprehensive legal framework. I am pleased with the positive response I got. Also the American President endorsed our approach, implying that all developed countries will need to bring strong reduction targets to the negotiating table in Copenhagen."

He continued saying, "My focus remains the real commitments we can obtain for strong and specific action, both in the short and in the longer term. Thus: Real action and a strong mandate and a time frame for further work on the legal framework to be concluded as soon as possible. . . The Copenhagen Agreement should be concrete and binding on countries committing to reach targets, to undertake actions, and to provide agreed finance. Of course, developed countries must take lead by delivering substantial reductions and finance. We need numbers on the table in Copenhagen."

The Prime Minister said, "So why not a legally binding text in Copenhagen? Because the time and the diverging positions of the parties, as well as the number of possible outstanding issues to be resolved, will not allow for it to happen. But that must not be an excuse for inaction. . . What about Kyoto? Is Denmark ready to sacrifice it? Again, the answer is no. Denmark is a party to the Kyoto Protocol and will remain so."

He emphasized a two-part process and said, "Denmark has set out the vision of “one Agreement – two purposes.” Firstly, the Copenhagen Agreement should have a solid content covering all the Bali building blocks: shared vision, mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology and capacity building. This will provide a strong impetus and guidance to further negotiations on a legal framework. Secondly, the agreement should provide for immediate action in all areas, including mitigation, adaptation and finance. Significant up-front finance should support early adaptation and mitigation efforts as well as capacity building and technology cooperation."

UPDATE: Obama & Hu Call For Comprehensive Copenhagen Agreement

Nov 17: In a joint press statement by President Obama and President Hu of China issued from the Great Hall in Beijing, President Hu said, "We agreed to expand our cooperation on climate change, energy, and environment. We also agreed to act on the basis of the principle of the common but differentiated responsibilities and consistent with our respective capabilities to work with other parties concerned to help produce positive outcomes out of the Copenhagen conference. The complementing departments of China and the United States have already signed a number of cooperation agreements, including the MOU to enhanced cooperation on climate change, energy and environment. The two sides have also officially launched the initiative of developing a China-U.S. clean energy research center."

President Obama said, "We meet here at a time when the relationship between the United States and China has never been more important to our collective future. The major challenges of the 21st century, from climate change to nuclear proliferation to economic recovery, are challenges that touch both our nations, and challenges that neither of our nations can solve by acting alone. . . President Hu and I also made progress on the issue of climate change. As the two largest consumers and producers of energy, there can be no solution to this challenge without the efforts of both China and the United States. That's why we've agreed to a series of important new initiatives in this area. As President Hu indicated, we are creating a joint clean energy research center, and have achieved agreements on energy efficiency, renewable energy, cleaner uses of coal, electric vehicles, and shale gas.

"We also agreed to work toward a successful outcome in Copenhagen. Our aim there, in support of what Prime Minister Rasmussen of Denmark is trying to achieve, is not a partial accord or a political declaration, but rather an accord that covers all of the issues in the negotiations, and one that has immediate operational effect. This kind of comprehensive agreement would be an important step forward in the effort to rally the world around a solution to our climate challenge. And we agreed that each of us would take significant mitigation actions and stand behind these commitments."

In the official U.S.-China Statement that was released, Item V indicates in part, "Regarding the upcoming Copenhagen Conference, both sides agree on the importance of actively furthering the full, effective and sustained implementation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in accordance with the Bali Action Plan. The United States and China, consistent with their national circumstances, resolve to take significant mitigation actions and recognize the important role that their countries play in promoting a sustainable outcome that will strengthen the world’s ability to combat climate change. The two sides resolve to stand behind these commitments.

"In this context both sides believe that, while striving for final legal agreement, an agreed outcome at Copenhagen should, based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, include emission reduction targets of developed countries and nationally appropriate mitigation actions of developing countries. The outcome should also substantially scale up financial assistance to developing countries, promote technology development, dissemination and transfer, pay particular attention to the needs of the poorest and most vulnerable to adapt to climate change, promote steps to preserve and enhance forests, and provide for full transparency with respect to the implementation of mitigation measures and provision of financial, technology and capacity building support. The two sides are committed to working together and with other countries in the weeks ahead for a successful outcome at Copenhagen."

Access a release from the UN (click here). Access the full text of the Secretary-General's comments (click here). Access a report from the Danish COP15 website on a possible stalemate in the negotiations and links to related articles (click here). Access the complete text of the Prime Minister's address (click here). Access the complete joint Obama-Hu press statement (click here). Access the official U.S.-China Statement (click here).

Copenhagen Climate Agreement Expectations Taking Shape

Nov 16: The Danish government website for the upcoming United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP 15) in Copenhagen, December 7-18, 2009, now just 20 days away, and Bloomberg news are both reporting that "What has been evident for some time was confirmed this weekend by world leaders gathered in Singapore. The UN climate conference in Copenhagen (COP15) three weeks from now will not yield a legally binding treaty, but a comprehensive political agreement at best."

President Obama and other leaders gathered for the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum (APEC) reportedly backed a two-step approach proposed by Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen the host of the COP15 meeting. According to Bloomberg report, Rasmussen said, "Even if we may not hammer out the last dots of a legally binding instrument, I do believe a political binding agreement with specific commitment to mitigation and finance provides a strong basis for immediate action in the years to come." The report indicates that Rasmussen suggested the outcome in Copenhagen should be a five-to-eight page document with "precise language of a comprehensive political agreement." Negotiations to come up with a binding legal treaty would then continue into 2010 or possibly even beyond that.

In a Declaration entitled, "Sustaining Growth, Connecting the Region," adopted by the APEC forum, whose member account for about half the world’s economy, they said, "We welcome the Declaration of the Leaders of the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate in L’Aquila and the Leaders’ Statement at the G-20 Pittsburgh Summit [See WIMS 7/9/09, WIMS 9/28/09], and reaffirm our commitment to tackle the threat of climate change and work towards an ambitious outcome in Copenhagen, within the objective, provisions and principles of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Global action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will need to be accompanied by measures, including financial assistance and technology transfer to developing economies for their adaptation to the adverse impact of climate change.

"We recall our Declaration on Climate Change, Energy Security and Clean Development in Sydney in 2007, which set out an APEC-wide aspirational target of reducing energy intensity by at least 25 percent by 2030. We applaud the efforts made by individual APEC economies that have unilaterally undertaken measures to reduce emissions. Sustainable forest management plays an important role in mitigating global emissions. We will enhance work on meeting the aspirational goal in the Sydney Declaration of increasing forest cover in the region by at least 20 million hectares of all types of forests by 2020. We support efforts in the UNFCCC negotiations to agree on actions to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) in developing economies. We recognize the role of the oceans in mitigating climate change, and the impact of climate change on oceans and coastal areas, and welcome the Manado Ocean Declaration.

"Responding to climate change through transition to green economies also offers opportunities. We will ensure that efforts to address climate change are consistent with our international trade obligations. A key thrust in APEC’s sustainable growth agenda is the APEC Environmental Goods and Services (EGS) Work Programme, under which we will develop and implement a set of concrete actions to support sustainable growth in the region, advance work to increase utilization and dissemination of EGS, reduce existing barriers and refrain from introducing new barriers to trade and investment in EGS, and enhance capabilities of economies to develop their EGS sectors. We also commit to rationalize and phase out over the medium term fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption, while recognizing the importance of providing those in need with essential energy services. We will review progress on this at our meeting in 2010. We will also take steps to facilitate the diffusion of climate-friendly technologies, including through economic and technical cooperation (ECOTECH) and capacity building activities.

"We will advance work on sharing best practices in energy efficiency with a view to deploying cleaner and more efficient technologies, and welcome the implementation of the voluntary APEC Peer Review on Energy Efficiency. We recognize the role of renewable energy in reducing emissions and encourage its development in the APEC region. We will encourage publication on a regular basis, timely, accurate, and complete data on oil production, consumption, refining and stock levels as appropriate."

The APEC leaders also issued a separate Statement entitled, "A New Growth Paradigm For a Connected Asia-Pacific in the 21st Century," which covered many of the same points in the Declaration, and also said, "Future growth must be compatible with global efforts to protect the environment and mitigate climate change. At the same time, efforts to address climate change must be consistent with our international trade obligations."

APEC’s 21 members account for more than 40% of the world’s population, approximately 54.2% of the world’s Growth Domestic Product (GDP) and 43.7% of the world trade. The APEC members include: Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, People's Republic of China, Hong Kong, China; Indonesia, Japan, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Peru, The Philippines, Russia, Singapore, Chinese Taipei, Thailand, United States, and Viet Nam.

Access the complete APEC 2009 Declaration (click here). Access the APEC 2009 website for links to additional information including videos, transcripts, releases, photos and more (click here). Access the main APEC website for more information and background (click here). Access the Access the Danish government COP15 website report (click here). Access the Bloomberg report (click here).

OIG: Unregistered Pesticides May Re-Enter U.S. Food Chain

Nov 12: The U.S. EPA Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a report entitled, EPA Needs to Comply with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and Improve Its Oversight of Exported Never-Registered Pesticides (No. 10-P-0026, November 10, 2009. OIG initiated the review to evaluate whether EPA has properly implemented Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Section 17(a) with respect to the Foreign Purchaser Acknowledgement Statements, and whether controls are in place to ensure the safety of imported foods.

Pesticides not registered for use in the United States may be manufactured domestically and exported abroad. FIFRA Section 17(a) requires that before an unregistered pesticide is exported, the foreign purchaser must sign a Foreign Purchaser Acknowledgement Statement (FPAS) acknowledging awareness that the pesticide is not registered and cannot be sold for use in the United States.

OIG said it found that, "EPA is not complying with FIFRA Section 17(a) which is, in part, intended to notify the government of an importing country that a potentially hazardous pesticide was imported into that country. Specifically, EPA does not comply with requirements to provide notice to all countries importing unregistered pesticides. EPA does not ensure manufacturer compliance with FIFRA Section 17(a) notification requirements. Consequently, there is no assurance EPA is receiving the entire universe of export notifications in any given year. Finally, export data on unregistered pesticides are insufficient for tracking and analysis."

OIG said export notification practices and data requirements are insufficient to monitor for the potential re-entry of never-registered pesticides on imported foods or to determine whether a dietary risk to U.S. consumers exists. The safety of unregistered pesticides intended solely for export is not evaluated by EPA. Therefore, the risk associated with never-registered pesticides is unknown. OIG said, "EPA does not know the pesticide class, volume, use, or final destination of unregistered U.S. pesticide exports. EPA also cannot provide the Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture with information needed to monitor and detect pesticide residues from pesticides that have never been registered for use in the United States. Therefore, the extent of dietary risk from never-registered pesticide residues on imported foods is unknown."

OIG concludes, "We recommend that EPA comply with statutory mandates, implement management controls, and establish procedures for identifying and mitigating any dietary risk to consumers from never-registered pesticides. The Agency stated that it had now checked the specific subset of FPASs highlighted in the report. The Agency concluded that since it did not find a problem after reviewing these Fiscal Year 2007 FPASs, there is no basis for change in procedures or further analysis. The Agency comments were nonresponsive to the findings and recommendations. The Agency addressed neither its compliance with FIFRA Section 17(a) requirements nor the insufficient control process to monitor for potential re-entry of never-registered pesticides. All recommendations are undecided."

Access the complete 36-page OIG report (click here). Access a legal analysis entitled, "The EPA's Pesticide Export Policy: Why The United States Should Restrict The Export Of Unregistered Pesticides To Developing Countries" by attorney Michael Holley (click here).

UN Head Ban Ki-moon Urges Congressional Action On Climate Change

Nov 11: Just 24 days before the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP 15) in Copenhagen, December 7-18, 2009, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon met with Congressional leaders in Washington, DC to make a continuing pitch to "seal the deal" by enacting a global climate change agreement. However, following the disappointing results of the last major negotiation session in Barcelona, Spain [See WIMS 11/6/09], even the Secretary-General is beginning to temper his words in describing the possible outcomes in Copenhagen..

On November 9, the Director of Ban’s Climate Change Support Team, Janos Pasztor, told a news conference in New York that, “The Secretary-General is confident that governments will reach agreement in Copenhagen on the fundamental issues that will form the substance of a legally binding international agreement which is the end goal for guiding action on climate change.” But, the statement was qualified and indicated further that, "Although in all likelihood it will not be possible to complete all the work needed for a legally binding agreement at Copenhagen, the meeting should make clear what needs to be done in the three core fundamental issues that remain unresolved -- ambitious mitigation targets in the developed countries; how to consider mitigation actions in developing countries; and financing."

Pasztor said, “Those are the three key issues where there still needs to be agreement, and they are precisely the issues where heads of State and heads of government need to be engaged because those issues are so important for the overall economic development of the countries that you cannot expect the negotiators themselves to make a move.”

In DC, on Veterans Day, at a media briefing, flanked by U.S. Senators John Kerry (D-MA), Richard Lugar (R-IN) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT), the Secretary-General said, “No country is more important than the United States in resolving this climate change issue. All eyes of the world are looking to the United States and to this august body, the US Senate.” Ban urged the United States to take a leading role in forging a new international pact to combat global warming, warning that the consequences of failure outweigh the cost of tackling climate change.

Ban indicated that the world leaders meeting in Copenhagen, must conclude “a robust, global agreement that can serve as a foundation for a climate treaty.” He said, “From what I heard today, there is great support in the Senate for action on climate change. But for some, there are lingering doubts about whether we can afford to take action during this hard economic crisis.” Acknowledging that there is a price to pay in battling climate change, Ban stressed that the costs are insignificant compared with the cost of not taking action. He said, “Inaction will mean a weakened economic recovery, a loss of global competitiveness, increased global instability and further human suffering. A global agreement on the other hand will unleash investments that will do more than any single other action could do to jumpstart and sustain global economic recovery.”

Ban voiced appreciation for the U.S. Government, particularly President Barack Obama, in showing their initiative, leadership and commitment in addressing a climate change bill, as well as for Mr. Obama signaling a willingness to participate in Copenhagen. On November 10, President Obama reportedly told Reuters news service in an interview, "If I am confident that all of the countries involved are bargaining in good faith and we are on the brink of a meaningful agreement and my presence in Copenhagen will make a difference in tipping us over edge then certainly that's something that I will do." Ban said, “Copenhagen offers us all an unprecedented opportunity. We must use our time before that historic gathering for maximum effort.”

Reuters reported that President Obama said, "The key now is for the United States and China, the two largest emitters in the world, is to be able to come up with a framework that, along with other big emitters like the Europeans and those countries that are projected to be large emitters in the future, like India, can all buy into."

A report from the Washington Post on the press briefing indicates that Senator Lugar, the Ranking Member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said, "I don't see any climate bill on the table right now that I can support. We really have to start from scratch again." Senator Lieberman reportedly said, "We are going to try to move the Senate as far as we can before Copenhagen."

On November 10, the Senate Finance Committee, Chaired by Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) held a hearing entitled, “Climate Change Legislation: Considerations for Future Jobs.” Witnesses testifying at the hearing included representative of the: International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, Department of Government Affairs; Nuclear Energy Institute; American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research; American Council for Capital Formation; and Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

In an opening statement, Chairman Baucus who has already said he thinks the 20% greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction target by 2020 (from a 2005 base), contained in the Kerry-Boxer bill is too high, said, "I am committed to passing meaningful, balanced climate‐change legislation. I am committed to legislation that will protect our land and those whose livelihood depends on it. . . So I’m going to work to pass climate‐change legislation that is both meaningful and that can muster enough votes to become law." Baucus said he convened the hearing to address competing claims that the legislation will either stimulate or impede job creation, in order to better determine what the Finance Committee might do to facilitate job growth as it develops energy and carbon emissions reduction legislation.

He said, “What America needs now is jobs. And while there are differing views on the climate issue, we have an opportunity to retool energy to support domestic production and cut damaging pollutants and dependence on foreign sources, while creating jobs in the process. We need to find ways to help make that happen.”

Access a Nov. 9 UN release (click here). Access a Nov. 11 UN release (click here). Access the Reuters article on the interview with the President (click here). Access a report on the press briefing from the Washington Post (click here). Access a webcast of the Finance Committee hearing (click here). Access the hearing website for links to all testimony and opening statements (click here).

Major Study Shows Toxic Chemicals In Fish Tissue Nationwide

Nov 10: A new EPA study shows concentrations of toxic chemicals in fish tissue from lakes and reservoirs in nearly all 50 U.S. states. For the first time, EPA is able to estimate the percentage of lakes and reservoirs nationwide that have fish containing potentially harmful levels of chemicals such as mercury and PCBs. Peter Silva, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Water said, “These results reinforce Administrator Jackson’s strong call for revitalized protection of our nation’s waterways and long-overdue action to protect the American people. EPA is aggressively tackling the issues the report highlights. Before the results were even finalized, the agency initiated efforts to further reduce toxic mercury pollution and strengthen enforcement of the Clean Water Act – all part of a renewed effort to protect the nation’s health and environment.”

The data showed mercury concentrations in game fish exceeding EPA’s recommended levels at 49 percent of lakes and reservoirs nationwide, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in game fish at levels of potential concern at 17 percent of lakes and reservoirs. These findings are based on a comprehensive national study using more data on levels of contamination in fish tissue than any previous study. EPA said that burning fossil fuels, primarily coal, accounts for nearly half of mercury air emissions caused by human activity in the U.S., and those emissions are a significant contributor to mercury in water bodies. From 1990 through 2005, emissions of mercury into the air decreased by 58 percent. EPA is committed to developing a new rule to substantially reduce mercury emissions from power plants, and the Obama Administration is actively supporting a new international agreement that will reduce mercury emissions worldwide.

The study also confirms the widespread occurrence of PCBs and dioxins in fish, illustrating the need for federal, state and local government to continue efforts to reduce the presence of these harmful chemicals in our lakes and reservoirs and ensure that fish advisory information is readily available. EPA said it is important that women of child-bearing age and children continue to follow the advice of EPA and the Food and Drug Administration on fish consumption as it relates to mercury. The study is also a strong message to state and local governments to redouble their efforts in looking for opportunities to reduce mercury discharges, as well as developing fish advisories, especially to reach those in sensitive and vulnerable populations.

Results from the four-year National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue show that mercury and PCBs are widely distributed in U.S. lakes and reservoirs. Mercury and PCBs were detected in all of the fish samples collected from the nationally representative sample of 500 lakes and reservoirs in the study. Because these findings apply to fish caught in lakes and reservoirs, it is particularly important for recreational and subsistence fishers to follow their state and local fish advisories.

EPA said it is conducting other statistically based national aquatic surveys that include assessment of fish contamination, such as the National Rivers and Streams Assessment and the National Coastal Assessment. Sampling for the National Rivers and Streams Assessment is underway, and results from this two-year study are expected to be available in 2011. Collection of fish samples for the National Coastal Assessment will begin in 2010.

Access a release from EPA (click here). Access EPA's National Lake Fish Tissue Study website for complete information (click here). Access more information on local fish advisories (click here).

House Passes Chemical & Water Security Act (H.R. 2868)

Nov 6: The House of Representatives passed by a vote of 230 to 193 the Chemical and Water Security Act of 2009 (H.R. 2868) [See WIMS 10/23/09]. According to a release from the Energy and Commerce Committee, the bill strengthens security at America's chemical plants and drinking water and wastewater facilities by establishing risk-based and reasonable security standards for these critical assets. H.R. 2868 reauthorizes the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) program, which is slated to expire October 2010, and improves the program in many ways. It also authorizes U.S. EPA to establish similar security programs for drinking water and wastewater facilities.

Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA), Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee said, "I am pleased that the House has acted to close the critical security gap at drinking water facilities and to strengthen security requirements for chemical facilities. The Chemical and Water Security Act of 2009 will reduce the risk that chemicals used by our own chemical facilities are turned against us through terrorist attack and other intentional acts. This bill will make our country safer."

Representative Edward Markey (D-MA), Chairman of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee said, "Today the House took decisive action to secure our nation's chemical plants and drinking water facilities from a potential terrorist attack. This bill will help shore up a potential vulnerability in our defenses, as the same chemicals that help purify our water and make the microchips used in our computers could potentially be turned into weapons of mass destruction. The bill contains language that I have championed for five years that provides authority to require the riskiest facilities to use safer chemicals or processes when they are technologically and economically feasible. This is central to protecting the millions of Americans that live near these facilities -- since terrorists cannot blow up what is no longer there."

According to a summary from the Committee, the Chemical and Water Security Act of 2009: (1) Makes the DHS CFATS program permanent. The legislation strengthens the chemical security program by requiring the review and, in some cases, the implementation of safer technologies, adding enforcement tools, and protecting the right of workers to participate in developing and implementing chemical facility security plans. (2) Authorizes EPA to create a risk-based, performance-based program for the water sector similar to the one established by DHS for chemical plants. This gives effect to the regulatory approach that the Obama Administration supports. (3) Requires the riskiest chemical facilities, drinking water facilities, and water treatment works to assess and, when appropriate, implement methods to reduce the consequences of a terrorist attack (also known as inherently safer technologies [ISTs]). (4) Strengthens the enforcement of the CFATS program by allowing citizens to bring suit against the Secretary of DHS for failure to perform non-discretionary obligations.

The American Chemistry Council (ACC) President and CEO, Cal Dooley, released a statement saying, “The legislation approved by the House today is an important step toward building upon the ongoing success of the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) by making them permanent. While ACC is unable to endorse the bill due primarily to concerns over the potential impact of the authority granted to DHS to mandate the implementation of IST, we appreciate the efforts by both the House Energy & Commerce and Homeland Security Committee to seek our input to improve the legislation. Specifically, we were encouraged by changes that ensure proper protections for sensitive information and a civil lawsuit provision that bolsters oversight while still protecting private companies from frivolous lawsuits.

“We look forward to working with Senate in the same spirit to pass legislation that takes an aggressive but smart approach to regulating chemical security and ensures DHS has the resources to help us protect our facilities, our employees, the communities in which we operate, and the vital products we supply everyday to the nation.”

Rick Hind, legislative director of Greenpeace USA indicated, “Although it’s a compromise, this bill represents a historic first step toward protecting the 100 million Americans living in the shadow of high-risk chemical plants. Attempts by House Republicans to weaken the legislation were voted down. “The day after a terrorist attack at a chemical plant kills thousands of Americans, any suggestion that we should not require the use of safer chemicals at these plants will be considered totally crazy. Republicans should have been offering amendments to strengthen this modest legislation instead of trying to cripple it.”

Greenpeace cited the recent announcement from the Clorox Company which indicated it plans to convert all of their U.S. facilities from ultra-hazardous chlorine gas to liquid bleach to “strengthen our operations and add another layer of security,” according to their CEO Don Knauss. Clorox also indicated that these changes “won’t affect the size of the company’s workforce." Hind from Greenpeace added, “by leading the way in eliminating the potential consequences of a catastrophic terrorist attack or accident, Clorox provided Congress with compelling new evidence to enact chemical plant security legislation.”

Access a release from the Energy & Commerce Committee and link to the bill text (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 2868 including the roll call vote (click here). Access the statement from ACC and link to additional information (click here). Access the ACC position and more on ISTs (click here). Access a lengthy release from Greenpeace (click here).

Barcelona UNFCCC Climate Change Talks Breakdown

Nov. 6: The last negotiating session before the historic UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference (UNFCCC) in Copenhagen in December concluded Friday in Barcelona, Spain. More than 4,500 participants, including delegates from 181 countries, took part in the Barcelona UN Climate Change Talks. The UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen will take place from December 7 to 18.

Based on contentious discussion in Barcelona and what appears to be a deepening of division between developing and developed countries; it now seems impossible that any legally binding agreement will be reached in Copenhagen. If that is the case, then the question turns to whether some alternative process to resolve major differences can be agreed to; or whether the differences, trust, goodwill and confidence of the parties may be so broken that even an agreement to proceed will be difficult.

Speaking at a press conference in Barcelona, UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer reiterated that Copenhagen must result in a strong international climate change deal. He said, “Copenhagen can and must be the turning point in the international fight against climate change -- nothing has changed my confidence in that. A powerful combination of commitment and compromise can and must make this happen."

De Boer said in terms of specific he cited, progress on adaptation, technology cooperation, reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries and mechanisms to disburse funds for developing countries was made in Barcelona. He said, “It is essential that practical action is swiftly implemented after Copenhagen to assist developing countries in their fight against climate change.”

However, de Boer indicated little progress was made on the two key issues of mid-term emission reduction targets of developed countries and finance that would allow developing countries to limit their emissions growth and adapt to the inevitable effects of climate change. He said, “Without these two pieces of the puzzle in place, we will not have a deal in Copenhagen. So leadership at the highest level is required to unlock the pieces."

He reminded that at a summit in New York earlier this year, heads of state and government pledged to clinch a deal in Copenhagen that provides clarity on: ambitious emission reduction targets of industrialized countries; nationally appropriate mitigation actions by developing countries with the necessary support; significantly scaled-up financial and technological resources and an equitable governance structure for these resources. De Boer said, “I look to industrialized countries to raise their ambitions to meet the scale of the challenge we face. And I look to industrialized nations for clarity on the amount of short and long-term finance they will commit.”

According to de Boer, developed countries would need to provide fast-track funding on the order of at least $10 billion USD to enable developing countries to immediately develop low emission growth and adaptation strategies and to build internal capacity.
At the same time, developed countries will need to indicate how they intend to raise predictable and sustainable long-term financing and what there longer-term commitments will be.

De Boer also reminded that according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 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, with global emissions falling by at least 50% by 2050. Even under this scenario, there would be an only a 50% chance of avoiding the most catastrophic consequences. He concluded, “Negotiators must deliver a final text at Copenhagen which presents a strong, functioning architecture to kick start rapid action in the developing world. And between now and Copenhagen, governments must deliver the clarity required to help the negotiators complete their work.”

The U.S. appeared to take a much stronger position as evidenced by the press conference of Jonathan Pershing , Deputy Special Envoy for Climate Change at the conclusion of the Barcelona meetings. Pershing reiterated that the U.S. interested in "strongest possible agreement." However, indicated frustration with developing countries who he said want the U.S. to agree to a fixed dollar amount of assistance and fixed emission reduction targets; yet, they (developing countries) do not want to make reasonable commitments on their part.

Pershing said, "We are looking for parallelism not imbalance;" meaning the U.S. expects similar commitments from all countries based upon their individual abilities or capacities to achieve such commitments. For example, he said, "we expect more from Brazil" than of very poor African or South American countries. He said he was "somewhat disappointed" that the U.S. is having such a hard time getting agreement on what seems like a straight forward concept.

However, just as the U.S. and other developed countries are frustrated -- so are large blocks of developing countries. Those countries are saying that the developed countries want to "abandon the Kyoto Protocol and seek a new agreement which they are opposed to. They also point out what they call as the "low level of ambition" from developed countries, i.e. their commitments to mid-term greenhouse reduction targets which they say are inadequate and unacceptable. They also say that the developed countries are attempting to "shift responsibility to developing countries" by requiring them make specific commitments.

Developing countries are also raising question about developed countries using new undefined terms like "advanced developing countries" which have not been agreed to. Also, they say that developed country commitments on financing "were not adequate or forthcoming." They say there is a need for at least commitments of $400 billion per year. Finally, they say there is no central body to deal with technology transfer, and their are many loose ends dealing with research and development, models, intellectual property concerns, etc.

Access a release from Yvo de Boer (click here). Access the Pershing press briefing (click here). Access the South Centre press briefing representing 51 developing countries (click here). Access the UNFCCC website for links to press briefings and documents (click here). Access various media reports on the Barcelona meetings (click here).

Senate EPW Committee Passes S.1733 Without Republicans

Nov 5: Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW), Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), again made a brief appearance as the only Republican before the Committee and again reiterated the same Republican request for a complete economic analysis of S. 1733 before proceeding with the scheduled markup of the bill. He expressed strong opposition to reports that the Committee was considering the so-called "nuclear option," (i.e. moving the bill without at least two Republicans present for the vote. Senator Inhofe left following his brief statement.

The Committee then proceeded to vote to approve the Chairman's mark of the bill, without amendment. Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) voted "no" and explained that he supports climate change legislation; however, he could not vote for the bill as is. He indicated his primary objection was that he felt the 20% greenhouse gas reduction from 2005 levels was too strict and said he preferred a "trigger" mechanism the would be activated if other countries demonstrated that they were reducing emissions as required. The bill passed the committee on a vote of 11-1, with all seven Republican members absent.

A number of Democratic members of the Committee expressed their support for Chairman Boxer's decision to move the bill forward. It was again pointed out that at least 5-6 other Senate committees will be considering related bills and amendments. It was also again emphasized that the U.S. EPA testified that additional economic modeling at this time, as demanded by Republicans, would not indicate any significant changes and would be costly and time consuming. It was also noted the Senator Kerry, Lieberman and Graham will be attempting to craft a bill that can obtain 60 votes for passage.

Chairman Barbara Boxer said the vote to send the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act to the floor of the Senate was in full accordance with longstanding Committee and Senate Rules. She said, "We did it for three reasons. S. 1733 addresses a crucial issue of our time and advancing the bill is a necessary step on the road to garnering the 60 votes we need for a comprehensive bill that will be melded together from various Committees and Senators from different regions of the country. This bill is already being worked on by Senators Kerry, Lieberman, Graham and others.

"We found, after questioning the EPA extensively, that the Republicans’ demand for another EPA analysis now would be duplicative and a waste of taxpayer dollars. The absence of the Republicans during the EPA’s presentation was a clear message that their criticism of the EPA analysis was not a substantive one. Indeed, the EPA said their economic analysis was 'unprecedented' in scope and was never done for any other energy or climate bill at this stage of the process.

"The Committee and Senate rules that have been in place during Republican and Democratic majorities are there to be used when the Majority feels it is in the best interest of their states and of the nation to act. A majority of the Committee believes that S. 1733, and the efforts that will be built upon it, will move us away from foreign oil imports that cost Americans one billion dollars a day, it will protect our children from pollution, create millions of clean energy jobs, and stimulate billions of dollars of private investment. We are pleased that despite the Republican boycott, we have been able to move the bill.”

Access the hearing website for a webcast (click here). Access the statement from Senator Boxer and link to the Chairman's mark of S. 1733 (click here).

Republicans Continue Boycott Of Kerry-Boxer (S. 1733) Markup

Nov 4: Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW), Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), made a brief appearance as the only Republican before the Committee and reiterated the same Republican request for a complete economic analysis of S. 1733 before proceeding with the scheduled markup of the bill. Following his statement, Senator Inhofe left the meeting [See WIMS 10/3/09].

In part, Senator Inhofe said, "Madam Chairman, I want to be very clear about what the Republicans want: we want a markup of this bill. And we have a pathway to get there, if only we had your cooperation. That's why I'm here today. Madam Chairman, this is in your hands now. I have the letter Sen. Voinovich wrote to Administrator Jackson yesterday. This letter outlines exactly what we're looking for. It outlines the agreement Sen. Voinovich has with EPA. EPA can start today to complete this analysis. But Madam Chairman, the way we see it, you are standing in the way. So I'm asking you this morning to work with us; let EPA do its analysis, so we can get to a markup. It's really that simple. Madam Chairman, choosing the other course would be unwise. Choosing to set aside the committee's longstanding rules would jeopardize our ability to work together on other issues. Again, I'm asking you not to violate the committee rules. You and I have a lot of work to do: the highway bill, the WRDA bill, and many others. We can't render the EPW Committee irrelevant."

Following Senator Inhofe's departure, the remaining Democratic members commented on the Republican position and reiterated that U.S. EPA had testified yesterday (November 3) that the extensive economic analysis that has been prepared to date, based on economic models, would not change significantly if it were rerun. Additionally, it was indicated that the energy portion of the bill that was previously passed out of the Senate Energy & Natural Resources (ENR) Committee, Chaired by Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) in June [See WIMS 6/17/09] was not subject to any economic modeling. It is the Democratic leadership plan to combine Kerry-Boxer, following markup; with the ENR-passed energy bill, and then complete a new economic modeling analysis. Republicans are insistent that the analysis be done now and have refused to participate unless it is completed at this point in the process.

Chairman Boxer indicated that the EPW Committee will continue meeting and will be briefed by staff on the Kerry-Boxer bill until the Republican members return to the Committee for the markup. The meeting was recessed until 3:00 PM. A briefing resumed at 3:00 PM.

Access the hearing website for a webcast (click here). Access Senator Inhofe's statement (click here). Access the statement from Senator Voinovich which details the Republican demands (click here).

Republicans Plea For Delay & Walk Out Of Kerry-Boxer Markup

Nov 3: Late November 2, 2009, U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, responded to a letter from six Ranking Members of Senate Committees (Murkowski, Chambliss, Grassley, Lugar, Hutchison, and Inhofe) regarding analysis of S. 1733, the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act. Chairman Boxer indicated that she would delay the markup of the bill and scheduled a November 3, 2:30 PM hearing time for further consideration of the EPA economic analysis.

In her letter Senator Boxer said, "Thank you for your letter dated November 2, 2009, in which you ask me to ensure there is a 'satisfactory analysis' of the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (S.1733) before the Environment and Public Works Committee proceeds with its markup of the legislation.

"I want to make sure you are aware that EPA has confirmed that the extensive analysis and supporting materials provided to the Committee are totally sufficient and appropriate for our legislative process. In fact, EPA reports that the analysis provided on the Kerry-Boxer bill and Chairman’s Mark exceeds the analysis typically conducted prior to a markup. EPA has also indicated that this economic analysis reflects hundreds of thousands of pages of backup documentation. It is far more analysis than the 10,000 pages of documentation on the Clear Skies bill that this Committee received in a prior Congress before markup of that legislation.

"In addition, I want to point out that Republican members of the House fully participated in the Waxman-Markey climate change bill mark-up, even though a five-week analysis on the bill under consideration was not undertaken until after the bill was voted out of Committee. To meet your concerns, however, and in the spirit of collegiality, I have arranged for a recess of the markup to take place Tuesday, November 3, at 2:30 PM, so that EPA can be available to answer questions from EPW members on its analysis. In addition, we are offering to extend the deadline for first-degree amendments on the Minority side until close of business tomorrow. Of course, we will follow the rules of the Committee and the Senate as we proceed."

Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the EPW Committee issued a statement on behalf of the minority in response to Chairman Boxer's announcement on the legislative process saying, "We welcome Chairman Boxer's announcement to delay today's business meeting. The Republicans want to have a markup of the Kerry-Boxer bill. So the question before us is how the committee proceeds. There are five weeks until the Copenhagen meetings begin, which, according to the EPA Administrator, leaves enough time for Chairman Boxer to work with us and the EPA to conduct a full economic analysis of Kerry-Boxer. We hope Chairman Boxer accommodates this request so we can move forward to markup with a complete analysis of Kerry-Boxer's impact on jobs, consumers, ratepayers, families, and small businesses."

The morning session of the meeting was open for EPW members to make statements and ask questions. Senator George Voinovich (R-OH) made an impassioned plea for further delays to allow for EPA to develop a "complete" economic analysis. Other Republican members did not attend and following his statement all Senator Voinovich left the meeting, leaving only the Democratic members.

Chairman Boxer and other Democrat members of the EPW responded that the existing EPA analysis was adequate for "the task at hand" (i.e. marking up the bill and considering amendments). It was pointed out that Kerry-Boxer is not even the complete bill and that other parts of the bill will be added following review by other Senate committees. It was also mentioned that various amendments will be considered which could also affect the economic analysis and that the EPW Committee cannot stop and have a new economic analysis after every amendment is considered. Democrats indicated that a full and complete final economic analysis will be completed when the entire bill is complete and amendments are added.

Following several Democratic statements, expressing dismay at the Republican boycott, the meeting was temporarily adjourned so members could attend a joint session of the House and Senate to hear an address from German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The EPW meeting was resumed following the Merkel address for additional statements and again with no Republican members present. Chairman Boxer continued the meeting by herself, waiting for Republicans to show up, until about 12:20 PM and indicated she would resume the meeting to hear EPA's economic analysis testimony at 2:30 PM. Following the EPA presentation she said the Committee would begin the bill markup.

At 2:30 PM the business meeting was temporarily adjourned to receive testimony and for a discussion of the economic analysis. Senator Boxer said that Republicans have one complaint and that is that the economic study is not "satisfactory." However, the Republican members did not show up to question EPA regarding the economic study that was completed. Following the EPA testimony and questions, and with no Republican members present, Chairman Boxer announced at approximately 4:00 PM, that the Committee would be in recess subject to call by the Chair. At 4:17 PM, Chairman Boxer announced the recess would continue until 10:00 AM, November 4. She indicated she would be holding a press briefing this afternoon.

Access the statement and letter from Senator Boxer (click here). Access a release from Senate Ranking Members and link to the letter to Senator Boxer (click here). Access the statement from Senator Inhofe (click here). Access a new 959-page revised Kerry-Boxer, S. 1733 Chairman's Mark (click here). Access the hearing website for a webcast and link to the Voinovich statement (click here). Access various media report on the Republican boycott (click here).

Barcelona Climate Talks Begin; Last Stop Until Copenhagen

Nov 2: The resumed ninth session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP) and the resumed seventh session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA) began today (November 2) and will continue through November 6, in Barcelona, Spain. This is the last round of negotiations before COP 15 in Copenhagen, Denmark on December 7-18, 2009. More than 4,000 participants, including delegates from 181 countries, have registered for the UN Climate Change Talks in Barcelona.

The meeting in Barcelona follows on the UN Climate Change Talks in Bangkok (September 28 to October 9), which UNFCCC says, "saw increasing convergence, streamlining of negotiating text and narrowing down of options for a comprehensive, fair and effective international climate change deal." However, as others reported there was extensive tension and turmoil between the parties at the Bangkok meetings [See WIMS 10/09/09]. UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer said, “The Barcelona talks need to make clear progress and put in place a solid foundation for success at Copenhagen. We have only five days to achieve this, only five days to further narrow down options and come up with working texts. But I am convinced that it can be done.

Alluding to a meeting of around 35 Environment Ministers ahead of the Barcelona talks, Danish Minister for Climate and Energy Connie Hedegaard said, “Ministers promised to instruct negotiators to be flexible and constructive towards a Copenhagen outcome. Striking a deal is not easy now. But it will not be easer next year or the year after.”

Specifically, progress on adaptation, technology cooperation, action to reduce emissions from deforestation in developing countries and enhanced capacity building is expected in Barcelona. De Boer said, “Workable middle ground options have emerged on these items that can be taken forward and concretized. The good work needs to be continued, especially in view of preparing the ground for prompt implementation now and up to 2012.”

UNFCCC indicated in a release that a beacon to guide discussions is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s finding that an aggregate emission reduction by industrialized countries of between minus 25% and 40% over 1990 levels would be required by 2020, and that global emissions would need to be reduced by at least 50% by 2050, in order to stave off the worst effects of climate change. De Boer said, “The targets of industrialized countries that are presently on the table are clearly not ambitious enough. We therefore need more ambitious targets on an individual basis and urgent progress on the negotiations under the Kyoto Protocol.” The U.S. for example is proposing only 17% reduction from 2005 under the House-passed Waxman-Markey bill (H.R. 2454); and 20% reduction from 2005 under the Senate proposed Kerry-Boxer (S. 1733). Despite the international desire for a greater commitment from the U.S., it is highly unlikely that U.S. can commit to additional reductions considering the political resistance to the already proposed reductions.

In opening remarks in Barcelona, U.S. negotiators said they are committed to an "ambitious" global climate change agreement in Copenhagen. The U.S. said there must be "robust" reductions from developed countries; commitments to reduce emissions from "major developing countries" (e.g. China and India); and "low carbon growth plans" but no commitments from "least developed" and "other developing countries." They said they are putting forth new proposals for transparency in monitoring commitments, a global fund for climate and a new technology hub to assist developing countries in adopting new technologies.

Access a release from UNFCCC (click here). Access links to webcasts of all November 2 press briefings (click here). Access the UNFCCC website for links to information and documents for the meetings (click here).

Kerry-Boxer (S. 1733) Hearing & Testimony Guide

Oct 30: Following three days of extensive testimony in the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Chaired by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), on the Chairman's Mark of the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (S. 1733, i.e. Kerry-Boxer bill), the mark up by the full Committee is scheduled to begin on November 3, 2009. The following is a listing and links to all testimony and videos of each day's hearing.

Day 1: Senator John Kerry (D-MA); Department of Energy; Department of Transportation; Department of the Interior; U.S. EPA; Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; and Department of Agriculture. Webcast, October 27.

Day 2: Infinia Corporation; Google; Blue Green Alliance; City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Apollo Alliance; Valero Energy Corp; Virginia Manufacturers Association; former Senator John Warner; United States Department of Defense; Center for Naval Analyses; Major General Robert H. Scales (Ret.); Truman National Security Project; The Heritage Foundation; NRG Energy, Inc.; Public Service Enterprise Group Incorporated (PSEG); Long Island Power Authority; Environmental Defense Fund; ICF International; Association of Missouri Electric Cooperatives; South Dakota Public Utilities Commission; Maryland Department of the Environment; California Association of Sanitation Agencies; Union of Concerned Scientists; National Wildlife Federation; Quinault Indian Nation; Western Business Roundtable; and American Enterprise Institute. Webcast, October 28.

Day 3: Rio Tinto; Exelon Corporation; University of Delaware; International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Local 11; Environmental Defense Fund; Ohio Coal Association; American Farm Bureau Federation; Former Representative Sherwood Boehlert, Bipartisan Policy Center’s National Transportation Policy Project; American Public Transportation Association; Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG); Hahn Transportation, Inc.; Center for American Progress Action Fund; Center for Clean Air Policy; World Resources Institute; Competitive Enterprise Institute; California Environmental Protection Agency; Laborers' International Union of North America (LIUNA); VantagePoint Venture Partners; Natural Resources Defense Council; United Mine Workers of America; CountryMark; and Industrial Energy Consumers of America. Webcast, October 29.

Access a release from Senator Boxer (click here). Access a 4-page Summary of Allowance Allocations for S. 1733 (click here). Access a 2-page summary of Key Changes in the Chairman’s Mark (click here). Access the 925-page complete Chairman's Mark of S. 1733 (click here). Access EPA's 38-page economic analysis of S. 1733 (click here). Access legislative details for S. 1733 (click here).

Deutsche Bank Global Climate Change Policy Tracker

Oct 26: Deutsche Bank has released a report it calls, Global Climate Change Policy Tracker: An Investor's Assessment (Climate Tracker), that provides investors with an analysis of climate change policies and assigns a risk rating to 109 countries, states and regions based on key government mandates and supporting policy frameworks. The report was produced by DBCCA [Deutsche Bank Climate Change Advisors], working with the Columbia Climate Center at the Earth Institute, Columbia University.

The "Climate Tracker" is the first publicly-available analysis of its kind. It incorporates results of a model prepared by Columbia Climate Center researchers that estimates the impacts on carbon emissions of each of 270 major climate policies, and aggregates them at country, regional and global levels. The "Climate Tracker" provides a risk rating of countries and regions based on their relative attractiveness to investors. It is designed to help investors identify the best risk-adjusted returns in climate change investment opportunities around the world.

Highlights of the research include the following: (1) Even if current and select proposed policies were to make their maximum possible impact, emissions in 2020 would still exceed the amount needed to limit the average world temperature increase to 2 degrees C. To meet such a goal, emissions would need to be reduced further, by an amount equivalent to the current annual emissions of the U.S. economy. (2) More capital is required to mobilize climate change industries, and more action by government is required to attract capital. Investors are most attracted to countries and regions with comprehensive, integrated government plans that are supported by strong incentives, such as feed-in tariffs. (3) Governments must create transparent, long-term, and certain policies to attract capital. While the carbon markets may offer long term solutions, at present investors are driven by on-the-ground mandates and incentives. (4) Energy efficiency could help deliver significant reductions in emissions. Since efficiency provides savings in the long-term, it is essential that governments tackle market failures to encourage capital deployment in this area.

An opening editorial by two DB executives indicates, "This quantitative picture of what is currently being done or proposed provides a reference for policies to be discussed in the upcoming negotiations in Copenhagen. We believe that as a comprehensive exercise at both a policy and country level, this is the only publicly available study of its kind."

The editorial continues, "What investors want is Transparency, Longevity and Certainty – “TLC” – in policy regimes to mobilize capital. As a starting point, we have made what we believe is a unique aggregate risk rating of countries based on key mandates and supporting policy frameworks. While actual capital flows do not follow our rating for every country over the past few years, we believe that investors will become increasingly concerned about regulatory risk and thus countries that deploy a
transparent, long-lived, comprehensive and consistent set of policies will attract global capital. We find that the Major Economies Forum [MEF] on Energy and Climate countries with a lower-risk rating include: Australia, Brazil, China, France,
Germany and Japan.

"A lower-risk rating relies on a comprehensive and integrated government plan, supported by strong incentives, among them feed-in tariffs. We believe that appropriately-designed and budgeted feed-in tariffs have demonstrated their ability to deliver renewable energy at scale. Many major emitters such as the US do not have enough “TLC” in their policy frameworks. Importantly, recent studies have shown that energy efficiency can deliver significant emissions reductions. Since efficiency provides economic savings in the long-term, it is essential that governments incentivize deployment of capital in this area."

DB reports that, "Among the MEF countries, China, Germany, France and Australia all have lower risk profiles for climate change investments. This is because they have strong incentives in place, along with a consistent approach, demonstrated through well-considered plans. All other countries in the MEF are moderate risk, with the exception of Italy, which has struggled to develop a coherent set of policies that would enable it to achieve its targets.

"Notably, the US, UK and Canada are moderate risk as they rely on a more volatile market incentive approach and in the case of the US, have suffered from a stop-start approach in some areas, such as the production tax credit (PTC). However,
when we correlate our ratings against actual capital flows over the past decade, these countries have been strong in absolute dollar terms. This reflects in the large size of their capital and energy markets overall, and in the US and Canada the existence of encouraging state level opportunities."

DB indicates, "The results for the world overall in the context of the forthcoming Copenhagen negotiations provide indeed a sobering picture. The Columbia Climate Center of the Earth Institute, Columbia University has derived a measure of the Business-as-Usual trajectory, which is based on the energy mix and policy regime as of 2007, and shows emissions rising from 47 Gt in 2007 to 59 Gt CO2 equivalents in 2020. Even with the recent economic downturn and a projected slowdown from 2014 – 2020 in emerging market growth, there is still enough growth in Business-as-Usual (BAU) from 2007 – 2020 to leave a 13 to 15 gigaton (Gt) overshoot in emissions over and above the 44 to 46 Gt needed to hit the 450 ppm pathway chosen for this analysis, as outlined by the OECD World Environment Outlook, which scientists hope would limit temperature increases to 2 degrees C. Then the key question was: How far would current announced mandates and emissions targets reduce this excess? We found that even the maximum combination of the most aggressive current mandates and emissions targets, including some proposals such as the American Clean Energy Security Act (ACES), still leaves a 5 to 73 Gt emissions overshoot from a 450 ppm pathway by 2020. If growth does not slow down after 2014, as the IEA assumes and as we have used in our modeling, then this could add another 7 Gt to the task.

"But all is not lost. The world can still get on the right pathway. The IEA has conducted a study of energy technology deployment needed to get from their reference scenario to the 450 ppm pathway in the energy sector. Their analysis indicates that up to 60% of the solution in 2020 can come from energy efficiency – both at power plants, and in end use. Adding this to action on land-use through avoided deforestation creates the possibility of getting close to the 450 ppm scenario. This represents an opportunity to invest to create jobs and growth, and not just a cost. However, it requires a strong deal at Copenhagen, but most importantly, strong follow-through at a sector and industry policy level to create Transparency, Longevity and Certainty."

Access links to an Executive Summary [36-pages], a Detailed Summary of Targets by Region & Country [38-pages], and Detailed Analysis of Targets by Region & Country [378-pages, with extensive links and references] (click here).

House Hearing On IT Procurement And E-Waste Disposal

Oct 27: The House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform, Subcommittee on Government Management, Organization and Procurement, Chaired by Representative Diane Watson (D-CA) held a hearing entitled, IT Procurement and Disposal: Application of the Federal Government’s Green Policies in the Life Cycle Management of IT Assets. Witnesses testifying included: Rep. Gene Green (D-TX); Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA); Government Accountability Office (GAO); General Services Administration; U.S. EPA; MBA Polymers; Dell, Inc.; Information Technology Industry Council; YouRenew.com; and the Green Electronics Council.

In her opening remarks, Chairman Watson indicated that the U.S. Government spends in excess of $70 billion annually on IT investments and disposes of more than 500,000 computers annually, or approximately 10,000 units each week. She said, "While the government’s recycling and disposal programs have strong attributes, I am concerned that many of the programs are voluntary and not sufficiently integrated into the agencies’ core mission. The absence of a clear set of standards and policies is perhaps most evident with the ad hoc treatment of electronic waste, or e-waste, and the fact that national standards for the disposal of electronic products are lacking."

GAO released testimony entitled, Federal Electronics Management: Federal Agencies Could Improve Participation in EPA's Initiatives for Environmentally Preferable Electronic Products (GAO-10-196T, October 27, 2009). GAO indicated that advancing technology has led to increasing sales of new electronic devices. With this increase comes the dilemma of managing them at the end of their useful lives. If discarded with common trash, a number of environmental impacts may result, ranging from the loss of valuable resources to the potential release of toxic substances, such as lead. If recycled, they may be exported to countries with waste management systems that are less protective of human health and the environment that those of the United States.

The Federal government is the world’s largest purchaser of electronics, spending nearly $75 billion on electronic products and services in 2009. U.S. EPA has helped implement several product stewardship initiatives to encourage responsible management of electronic products in all three phases of a product’s lifecycle -- procurement, operation, and end-of-life disposal. In response to a request to provide information on Federal procurement and management of electronic products, GAO’s testimony described (1) EPA’s electronic product stewardship initiatives, (2) Federal agency participation in them, and (3) opportunities for strengthening participation. GAO’s testimony was based on its prior work and updated with data from EPA.

GAO discusses two major programs. The first initiative, the electronic product environmental assessment tool (EPEAT®), was developed along the lines of EPA’s and the Department of Energy’s Energy Star program and assists federal procurement officials in comparing and selecting computers and monitors with environmental attributes that also routinely save money through reduced energy usage over the products’ lives. The second initiative -- the federal electronics challenge (FEC -- helps federal agencies realize the benefits of EPEAT-rated electronics by providing resources to help agencies extend these products’ life spans, operate them in an energy efficient way, and expand markets for recovered materials by recycling them at end of life.

GAO found that the EPEAT and FEC accomplishments are steps in the right direction, but opportunities exist to increase the breadth and depth of federal participation. First, agencies and facilities representing about two-thirds of the federal workforce are not participating in these promising initiatives, despite instructions to do so in implementing Executive Order 13423. Second, few participating agencies and facilities maximize these programs’ resources and their potential benefits.

Rep. Gene Green testified on his efforts in developing H.R. 2595, which amends the Solid Waste Disposal Act, and generally only allows exports for products that can be tracked through the refurbishment process and back to the marketplace to prevent abuse. The bill attempts to address the current problem where much of the e-waste collected in the U.S. and exported for alleged “recycling” or “reuse” is actually exported to developing nations such as China, Ghana, India, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Thailand for unsafe salvage and metals recovery.

Access the hearing website for links to all testimony and a webcast (click here).

President Announces $3.4 Billion In Smart Grid Investments

Oct 27: Speaking at Florida Power and Light’s (FPL) DeSoto Next Generation Solar Energy Center, President Barack Obama announced the largest single energy grid modernization investment in U.S. history, funding a broad range of technologies that will spur the nation’s transition to a smarter, stronger, more efficient and reliable electric system. The end result will promote energy-saving choices for consumers, increase efficiency, and foster the growth of renewable energy sources like wind and solar.

The $3.4 billion in grant awards announced are part of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, and will be matched by industry funding for a total public-private investment worth over $8 billion. Applicants state that the projects will create tens of thousands of jobs, and consumers in 49 states will benefit from these investments in a stronger, more reliable grid. DOE indicates in a release that an analysis by the Electric Power Research Institute estimates that the implementation of smart grid technologies could reduce electricity use by more than 4 percent by 2030. That would mean a savings of $20.4 billion for businesses and consumers around the country.

One-hundred private companies, utilities, manufacturers, cities and other partners received the Smart Grid Investment Grant awards. In the coming days, Cabinet Members and Administration officials will fan out to awardee sites across the country to discuss how this investment will create jobs, improve the reliability and efficiency of the electrical grid, and help bring clean energy sources from high-production states to those with less renewable generating capacity. The awards announced represent the largest group of Recovery Act awards ever made in a single day and the largest batch of Recovery Act clean energy grant awards to-date.

According to DOE, the announcements include: Empowering Consumers to Save Energy and Cut Utility Bills -- $1 billion; Making Electricity Distribution and Transmission More Efficient -- $400 million; Integrating and Crosscutting Across Different “Smart” Components of a Smart Grid -- $2 billion; and Building a Smart Grid Manufacturing Industry -- $25 million.

Among other improvements from the investments the funding will: Install more than 850 sensors - called ‘Phasor Measurement Units’ - that will cover 100 percent of the U.S. electric grid and make it possible for grid operators to better monitor grid conditions and prevent minor disturbances in the electrical system from cascading into local or regional power outages or blackouts; Install more than 200,000 smart transformers that will make it possible for power companies to replace units before they fail thus saving money and reducing power outages; Install almost 700 automated substations, representing about 5 percent of the nation’s total that will make it possible for power companies to respond faster and more effectively to restore service when bad weather knocks down power lines or causes electricity disruptions; Install more than 1 million in-home displays, 170,000 smart thermostats, and 175,000 other load control devices to enable consumers to reduce their energy use.

Additionally, DOE indicates the investments will reduce peak electricity demand by more than 1400 MW, which is the equivalent of several larger power plants and can save ratepayers more than $1.5 billion in capital costs and help lower utility bills. Since peak electricity is the most expensive energy -- and requires the use of standby power generation plants – the economic and environmental savings for even a small reduction are significant. In fact, some of the power plants for meeting peak demand operate for only a few hundred hours a year, which means the power they generate can be 5-10 times more expensive than the average price per kilowatt hour paid by most consumers.

Access a release from DOE (click here). Access the full text of the President's remarks (click here). Access the full listings of the grant awards by category and state (click here); and (click here). Access a map of the awards (click here).