Basel Action Network Launches Electronics Recycling Program

Apr 15: The Basel Action Network (BAN), the group that first documented the dumping of toxic electronic waste in China and Africa, announced the official launch of the world's first global e-waste recycler certification and the first such program backed by environmental organizations and major corporations alike. The accredited, third-party audited certification program has not only been endorsed by Greenpeace USA, the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the Electronics TakeBack Coalition and 68 other environmental organizations but has also drawn the support of major corporate "e-Stewards Enterprises" including: Apollo Group, Inc.; Bank of America; Capitol One Financial Corp.; Ind. Distributors of Electronics Assoc.; Nemours Foundation; Premier, Inc.; Premier Farnell; Resource Media; Samsung; Sprout Creation; Stokes Lawrence; and Wells Fargo.

 

    The program should not be confused with a competing program from U.S. EPA and the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc. (ISRI). On March 25, ISRI announced that its board laid out "a roadmap addressing the growing problem of the improper export of end-of-life electronic scrap." The Board voted unanimously to approve what they called "a new, aggressive policy to protect health, the environment and worker safety" which they signaled that ISRI members are behind efforts to stem possible health and environmental hazards that occur when e-scrap is not exported responsibly. ISRI said the Board's decision reinforces environmental, health and worker safety standards that closely track the EPA's Responsible Recycling (R2) program [See WIMS 3/25/10].

 

    On March 10, 2010, WIMS reported that a release from U.S. EPA regarding its sponsored R2 electronic recycling certification program did not mention what some consider to be a more restrictive and competing international certification program from the Basel Action Network (BAN) [See WIMS 3/10/10]. The EPA release indicated that through "a brand new electronics recycling certification program," the Agency "is taking steps to ensure that electronics recyclers adhere to highly protective standards for workers and the environment in processing pre-owned electronics. This new certification process also means that recycled materials will not be shipped overseas without the consent of the designated country." EPA Regional Administrator Shawn Garvin said, "This new e-cycling certification program will take the guesswork out of choosing a responsible recycler." However, the two competing programs, that are just now getting underway, are certain to cause confusion for the public, recyclers, and manufacturers.

 

    The "e-Stewards Standard," created by BAN with the advice of industry leaders and health and environmental specialists is the major feature of the program. It calls for recyclers to eliminate exports of hazardous e-wastes to developing countries; to halt the dumping of such wastes in municipal landfills or incinerators, and to cease the use of captive prison populations to manage toxic e-wastes. It also calls for strict protection of customer's private data and occupational health safeguards to ensure that workers in recycling plants are not exposed to toxic dusts and fumes.

 

    As an indication of the conflicts between the BAN program and the EPA R2 program, currently there are about 50 e-Stewards Recyclers, each of which has passed a rigorous internal review by BAN as a preliminary step to full certification. All are regarded as responsible recyclers, and each has committed to becoming fully certified by September 2011. BAN announced the names of its first fully certified companies which have passed additional, independent audits conducted by accredited certifying bodies. The first BAN Certified e-Stewards Recyclers are: Newport Computer Services, Inc. (one US location); Redemtech (all 4 US locations)

WeRecycle! (one US location). However, under the EPA R2 program only three companies nationwide have received its new "Responsible Recycling Practices Certification" designation  and include: E-structors, Inc. of Elkridge, MD; TechTurn of Austin, TX; and Waste Management of Minnesota.

    Additionally the BAN program recognizes three accredited certifying bodies including: AQA International LLC, Orion Registrar Inc., and SAI Global; while under the EPA program recyclers must apply for certification to either SGS or Perry Johnson Registrars.

 

    BAN reports that there are an additional twelve companies that are next in line, having contracted with certifying bodies to begin the process. The next-in-line companies are: A greenSpan Computer Recycling; California Electronic Asset Recovery (CEAR); CloudBlue; Creative Recycling Solutions; eGreen IT Solutions; Glezco (Mexico); Materials Processing Corporation; Metech; Nextend; Regency Technologies; Surplus Exchange; and Universal Recycling Technologies.

 

    Access a release from BAN (click here). Access the e-Stewards website for complete details on certification and related information (click here). Access a March 10 release from EPA with links to related program information (click here). Access ISRI's Electronics Recycling website for additional details (click here).

Senate & House Release TSCA Overhaul Legislation

Apr 15: U.S. Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) announced legislation designed to overhaul the "Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976" (TSCA), which he called "an antiquated law that in its current state, leaves Americans at risk of exposure to toxic chemicals." Lautenberg, who chairs the Senate Environment and Pubic Works Committee, Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics and Environmental Health, introduced the "Safe Chemicals Act of 2010" to protect the health of families and the environment.

    Senator Lautenberg said, "America's system for regulating industrial chemicals is broken. Parents are afraid because hundreds of untested chemicals are found in their children's bodies. EPA does not have the tools to act on dangerous chemicals and the chemical industry has asked for stronger laws so that their customers are assured their products are safe. My 'Safe Chemicals Act' will breathe new life into a long-dead statute by empowering EPA to get tough on toxic chemicals. Chemical safety reform is not a Democratic or Republican issue, it is a common-sense issue and I look forward to building bipartisan support for this measure."

    According to a release from Senator Lautenberg, the "Safe Chemicals Act of 2010" requires safety testing of all industrial chemicals, and puts the burden on industry to prove that chemicals are safe in order stay on the market. Under current policy, the EPA can only call for safety testing after evidence surfaces demonstrating a chemical is dangerous. As a result, EPA has been able to require testing for just 200 of the more than 80,000 chemicals currently registered in the United States and has been able to ban only five dangerous substances. The new legislation will give EPA more power to regulate the use of dangerous chemicals and require manufacturers to submit information proving the safety of every chemical in production and any new chemical seeking to enter the market.

    Over the last several months, Senator Lautenberg has chaired a series of hearings to help craft the "Safe Chemicals Act" with dozens of witnesses including business leaders, public officials, scientists, doctors, academics, and non-profit organizations [See WIMS 3/9/10, WIMS 2/4/10]. . Through the hearings, public health groups, environmentalists, industry representatives and the EPA have expressed support for reforms to our nation's toxic substance laws. The "Safe Chemicals Act of 2010" comports with the reform principles laid out by the Obama Administration, the American Chemistry Council and the Safer Chemicals Healthy Families Coalition.

 

    According to a summary provided by Senator Lautenberg, some highlights of the Safe Chemicals Act are that it:

• Provides EPA with sufficient information to judge a chemical's safety. Requires manufacturers to develop and submit a minimum data set for each chemical they produce, while also preventing duplicative or unnecessary testing. EPA will have full authority to request additional information needed to determine the safety of a chemical.
• Prioritizes chemicals based on risk. Calls on the EPA to categorize chemicals based on risk, and focus resources on evaluating those most likely to cause harm.
• Ensures safety threshold is met for all chemicals on the market. Places the burden of proof on chemical manufacturers to prove the safety of their chemicals. All uses must be identified and determined safe for the chemical to enter the market or continue to be used.
• Takes fast action to address highest risk chemicals. Requires EPA to take fast action to reduce risk from chemicals that have already been proven dangerous. In addition, the EPA Administrator is given authority to act quickly if any chemical poses an imminent hazard.
• Creates open access to reliable chemical information. Establishes a public database to catalog the information submitted by chemical manufacturers and the EPA's safety determinations. The EPA will impose requirements to ensure the information collected is reliable.
• Promotes innovation and development of green chemistry. Establishes grant programs and research centers to foster the development of safe chemical alternatives, and brings some new chemicals onto the market using an expedited review process.

    In addition to the Lautenberg bill, Representatives Bobby Rush, (D-IL) and Henry Waxman, (D-CA), introduced a parallel proposal, the Toxic Chemicals Safety Act of 2010, "discussion draft" of chemical protection reform legislation in the House. Rush and Waxman said their draft legislation reflects reasoned consideration of stakeholder and EPA priorities and recommendations. Representative Rush said, "Through the open stakeholder process that we are commencing today, I am optimistic that the discussion draft of my bill to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act will lead to a number of constructive improvements." Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Waxman said, "For decades, Congress has been told that the Toxic Substances Control Act is failing its mission and is in desperate need of reform. In order to protect all Americans from toxic exposures and the adverse effects they cause, Congress must strengthen this failing law."

 

    Daniel Rosenberg, Senior Attorney in the Natural Resources Defense Council's (NRDC's) Health and Environment Program said, "Changing the existing law would make a significant difference in peoples' lives by reducing daily exposure to toxic chemicals. These bills provide an excellent starting place to strengthen EPA's authority to protect the public. If this legislation fulfills its promise, we can hope to see a decline in cancer, learning and developmental disabilities, infertility and other disease associated with exposure to these chemicals. Reducing such health problems will improve and lengthen lives as well as reduce the costs of healthcare. Many people assume the protections these bills create already exist, but they don't and they are long overdue. Both bills will need some strengthening to ensure that the promise of meaningful reform is fulfilled and we will work with lawmakers to make that happen."

 

    American Chemistry Council (ACC) president and CEO Cal Dooley issued a statement saying, "Safety must be the primary goal of chemical regulatory reform, as it is the top priority of our industry. This is a complex issue and we compliment Senator Lautenberg, and Congressmen Waxman and Rush, for bringing focus to the need for modernization of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). While TSCA has been protective of public health and the environment in the past, we should harness the scientific and technological advances made since its passage to assess the safety of chemicals while fostering innovation and preserving hundreds of thousands of American jobs. 

    "We are encouraged that the Safe Chemicals Act (SCA) reflects some aspects of the principles that ACC released last year, which are mirrored by EPA's principles. These include the need to prioritize chemicals for evaluation, a risk-based approach to EPA safety reviews, and a reduction in animal testing. However, we are concerned that the bill's proposed decision-making standard may be legally and technically impossible to meet. The proposed changes to the new chemicals program could hamper innovation in new products, processes and technologies. In addition, the bill undermines business certainty by allowing states to adopt their own regulations and create a lack of regulatory uniformity for chemicals and the products that use them."

    The Environmental Working Group (EWG) issued a release indicating, "Lautenberg, Waxman and other members of Congress sponsored a toxic chemicals policy reform proposal known as the Kid-Safe Chemicals Act in 2005 and again in 2008, but these measures did not have the broad support that has coalesced behind the current initiative. Today, the search for environmental causes of disease is a front-burner issue for scientists, medical professionals, policy-makers and health advocates. President Obama, EPA administrator Lisa Jackson, key members of both houses of Congress, the environmental and health communities, countless citizens and the chemical industry itself agree that a new national policy must be crafted to fit the complex realities of the 21st century."

    Access a release from Senator Lautenberg (click here). Access the full text of the "Safe Chemicals Act (click here). Access a full summary of the bill (click here). Access a release from Waxman-Rush with links to the discussion draft, a section-by-section summary, and a discussion draft summary (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access the statement from ACC and link to additional information (click here). Access a release from EWG (click here).

National Academies Report On Genetically Engineered Crops

Apr 13: A report from the National Academies' National Research Council (NRC) indicates that many U.S. farmers who grow genetically engineered (GE) crops are realizing substantial economic and environmental benefits -- such as lower production costs, fewer pest problems, reduced use of pesticides, and better yields -- compared with conventional crops. However, GE crops resistant to the herbicide glyphosate -- a main component in Roundup and other commercial weed killers -- could develop more weed problems as weeds evolve their own resistance to glyphosate. GE crops could lose their effectiveness unless farmers also use other proven weed and insect management practices.

 

    The report -- Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United States -- provides the first comprehensive assessment of how GE crops are affecting all U.S. farmers, including those who grow conventional or organic crops. The new report follows several previous Research Council reports that examined the potential human health and environmental effects of GE crops.

 

    David Ervin, professor of environmental management and economics, Portland State University, and chair of the committee that wrote the report said, "Many American farmers are enjoying higher profits due to the widespread use of certain genetically engineered crops and are reducing environmental impacts on and off the farm. However, these benefits are not universal for all farmers. And as more GE traits are developed and incorporated into a larger variety of crops, it's increasingly essential that we gain a better understanding of how genetic engineering technology will affect U.S. agriculture and the environment now and in the future. Such gaps in our knowledge are preventing a full assessment of the environmental, economic, and other impacts of GE crops on farm sustainability."

 

    First introduced in 1996, genetically engineered crops now constitute more than 80 percent of soybeans, corn, and cotton grown in the United States. GE soybeans, corn, and cotton are designed to be resistant to the herbicide glyphosate, which has fewer adverse environmental effects compared with most other herbicides used to control weeds. In addition to glyphosate resistance, GE corn and cotton plants also are designed to produce Bacillus Thuringiensis (Bt), a bacterium that is deadly when ingested by susceptible insect pests.

 

    The report indicates that farmers need to adopt better management practices to ensure that beneficial environmental effects of GE crops continue. In particular, farmers who grow GE herbicide-resistant crops should not rely exclusively on glyphosate and need to incorporate a range of weed management practices, including using other herbicide mixes. To date, at least nine species of weeds in the United States have evolved resistance to glyphosate since GE crops were introduced, largely because of repeated exposure. Federal and state government agencies, technology developers, universities, and other stakeholders should collaborate to document weed resistance problems and develop cost-effective ways to control weeds in current GE crops and new types of GE herbicide-resistant plants now under development.

 

    Under the heading of environmental benefits, the report indicates that improvements in water quality could prove to be the largest single benefit of GE crops. Insecticide use has declined since GE crops were introduced, and farmers who grow GE crops use fewer insecticides and herbicides that linger in soil and waterways. In addition, farmers who grow herbicide-resistant crops till less often to control weeds and are more likely to practice conservation tillage, which improves soil quality and water filtration and reduces erosion.

 

    However, no infrastructure exists to track and analyze the effects that GE crops may have on water quality. The U.S. Geological Survey, along with other Federal and state environmental agencies, should be provided with financial resources to document effects of GE crops on U.S. watersheds. The report notes that although two types of insects have developed resistance to Bt, there have been few economic or agronomic consequences from resistance. Practices to prevent insects from developing resistance should continue, such as an EPA-mandated strategy that requires farmers to plant a certain amount of conventional plants alongside Bt plants in "refuge" areas.

 

    Under economic and social effects, the report indicates that in many cases, farmers who have adopted the use of GE crops have either lower production costs or higher yields, or sometimes both, due to more cost-effective weed and insect control and fewer losses from insect damage. Although the farmers have gained such economic benefits, more research is needed on the extent to which these advantages will change as pests adapt to GE crops, other countries adopt genetic engineering technology, and more GE traits are incorporated into existing and new crops. 

 

    The report says that the higher costs associated with GE seeds are not always offset financially by lower production costs or higher yields. For example, farmers in areas with fewer weed and pest problems may not have as much improvement in terms of reducing crop losses. Even so, studies show that farmers value the greater flexibility in pesticide spraying that GE crops provide and the increased safety for workers from less exposure to harmful pesticides. The report also says that economic effects of GE crops on farmers who grow organic and conventional crops also need further study. For instance, the Committee indicated that organic farmers are profiting by marketing their crops as free of GE traits, but their crops' value could be jeopardized if genes from GE crops flow to non-GE varieties through cross-pollination or seed mingling.

 

    The report says, Farmers have not been adversely affected by the proprietary terms involved in patent-protected GE seeds.  However, some farmers have expressed concern that consolidation of the U.S. seed market will make it harder to purchase conventional seeds or those that have only specific GE traits. With the exception of the issue of seed industry consolidation, the effects of GE crops on other social factors of farming -- such as labor dynamics, farm structure, or community viability -- have largely been overlooked. More research is needed on the range of effects GE crops have on all farmers, including those who don't grow GE crops or farmers with less access to credit. Studies also should examine impacts on industries that rely on GE products, such as the livestock industry.

 

    The Committee indicates that research institutions should receive government support to develop GE traits that could deliver valuable public benefits but provide little market incentive for the private sector to develop. Examples include plants that decrease the likelihood of off-farm water pollution or plants that are resilient to changing climate conditions. Intellectual property that has been patented in developing major crops should be made available for these purposes whenever possible.

 

    Access a release and links to the Full Report; Powerpoint Presentation; Report in Brief; and Listen to the Briefing (click here).

Senators Tout Cap-And-Dividend Technology & Jobs Benefits

Apr 12: U.S. Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Susan Collins (R-ME) said in a release that an independent study by the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University Law School concluded that their bipartisan cap-and-dividend legislation will drive technological innovations and create clean-energy jobs. The report finds that the, Carbon Limits and Energy for America's Renewal (CLEAR) Act (S. 2877) introduced by Cantwell and Collins (R-ME) late last year [See WIMS 12/15/09], would avoid large regional disparities and provide the greatest support to low-income families.

 

    Senator Cantwell said, "A well-designed climate bill will generate economic growth and job creation, not to mention finally cure our dangerous addiction to fossil fuels. This report makes clear what Senator Collins and I have been arguing all along: That a streamlined approach to reducing carbon pollution will accelerate our transition to a clean-energy economy and will put the United States in the lead in a growing, and potentially enormous, clean energy market. I'm pleased this breakthrough report validates the principles behind the CLEAR Act in determining that a simple, equitable climate policy is also the most effective way to protect consumers, combat global warming and create new family-wage jobs."

 

    Senator Collins said, "This report provides further support for clean energy legislation, which has tremendous potential to generate job growth, particularly in sectors like the construction industry that have suffered as a result of the recession. The CLEAR Act would spur critical investments in green technology and would increase consumer spending through rebates to consumers, both of which would increase domestic economic opportunity at a time when we need it most. That is why this legislation is so important, and I will continue to work with Senator Cantwell to advance our bill." 

 

    According to the release, the report -- CLEAR & the Economy: Innovation, Equity and Job Creation -- finds that the CLEAR Act's streamlined method of limiting carbon pollution will drive "innovation and investment in energy efficiency and clean energy (that) can help spur job growth in a number of important economic sectors, and help support promising nascent industries." By setting an economy-wide price on carbon, the CLEAR Act will create equal incentives for greenhouse gas reduction for all economic actors, maximizing incentives to innovate and invest across all sectors. The study found that the CLEAR Act can generate jobs through the dividend it will pay to Americans based on revenue it generates from carbon fuel producers and by spurring the shift to clean energy sources. Sectors that would see job growth include construction, wind and solar power industries, and mass transit.

 

    Michael Livermore, Executive Director of the Institute for Policy Integrity (IPI) said, "These jobs will offer relatively high wages in industries that are experiencing overcapacity and unemployment. The economic incentives in the CLEAR Act will begin to mop up some of the slack in the market. Presently unemployed construction workers will find more opportunities as green investment kicks in."

 

    The Cantwell-Collins CLEAR Act, would set up a mechanism for selling "carbon shares" to fossil fuel producers and would return most of the resulting revenue in dividends to every American. Under the legislation, 75 percent of the revenue would be refunded to every individual residing legally in the United States, with 25 percent going toward clean energy research and development. The legislation would achieve a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of 20 percent by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050.

 

    The report indicates that by setting an economy-wide price on carbon, the CLEAR Act will create equal incentives for greenhouse gas reduction for all economic actors, maximizing incentives to innovate and invest across all sectors, while rewarding the lowest-cost opportunities for the abatement of emissions. Additional benefits include: reducing overall compliance costs because it does not mute price signals by giving away free allowances; avoiding large regional disparities; providing the greatest support to low-income families, and avoiding regressive wealth transfers; and sending a strong economy-wide price signal that drives innovation and investment in energy efficiency and clean energy can help spur job growth in a number of important economic sectors, and help support promising nascent industries.

 

    The report indicates that the overall costs imposed by the CLEAR Act are modest, and are overwhelmed by the social benefits achieved by greenhouse gas reductions. In addition to short-term job creation and technological innovations, the environmental benefits of the bill are likely to greatly exceed the costs.

 

    Access a release from the Senators (click here). Access the full text of the April 2010 IPI report (click here). Access a release from IPI on the report (click here). Access extensive information on the CLEAR Act from Senator Cantwell's website including the full text, section by section summary, a video, background documents and reports (click here).

Bonn Meeting Develops Future Agenda For Climate Talks

Apr 11: The first round of UN climate change talks since the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen at the end of 2009 concluded Sunday, April 11, in Bonn with agreement to intensify the negotiating schedule in order to achieve a strong outcome in Mexico at the end of the year. The first round of UN Climate Change Talks in Bonn in 2010 (April 9-11) was attended by more than 1700 delegates from 175 countries.

 

    In addition to the negotiating sessions already scheduled for 2010, governments decided at the Bonn April meeting to hold two additional sessions of at least one week each. The additional sessions will take place between the 32nd session of the UNFCCC Convention subsidiary bodies from May 31 to June 11, 2010 and the UN Climate Change Conference in Mexico from November 29 to December 10,  2010. The Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA) invited its Chair to prepare, under her own responsibility, a text to facilitate negotiations among Parties, in time for the May/June sessions in Bonn.

 

    UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer said, "At this meeting in Bonn, I have generally seen a strong desire to make progress. However, whilst more meeting time is important, it is itself not a recipe for success." De Boer has already announced his resignation which take effect in July. The UN's top climate change official called on governments to overcome differences, and work for greater clarity on what can be decided in the course of 2010 in the UN Climate Change negotiations. He said, "We need to decide what can be agreed at the end of this year in Cancún and what can be put off until later."

 

    De Boer indicated that negotiators must tackle three categories of issues in the course of this year: (1) issues which were close to completion in Copenhagen and can be finalized at the UN Climate Change Conference in Cancún at the end of the year; (2) issues where there are still considerable differences, but on which the Copenhagen Accord can provide important political guidance; and (3) issues where governments are still far from agreement.

 

    He said, "The UN Climate Change Conference in Cancún must do what Copenhagen did not achieve: It must finalize a functioning architecture for implementation that launches global climate action, across the board, especially in developing nations. Specifically, negotiations this year need to conclude on mitigation targets and action, a package on adaptation, a new technology mechanism, financial arrangements, ways to deal with deforestation, and a capacity-building framework." He also said, there is a necessity for high level political guidance at the appropriate time -- "We must seek political guidance where and when needed."

 

    Additionally, the White House and U.S. Department of State have called for another meeting of the Major Economies Forum (MEF) for April 18-19 in Washington, DC. The 17 major economies in the MEF are: Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Additionally, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and the United Nations generally participate in the MEF dialogue.

 

    In a related matter, on April 8, the U.S. Department of State has issued a Federal Register announcement [75 FR 17989] notifying the public of the opportunity to submit comments on the draft fifth National Communication on U.S. climate change actions. The document, known as the U.S. Climate Action Report 2010, is a requirement for all Annex I Parties to UNFCCC. The U.S. released previous Climate Action Reports in 1994, 1997, 2002, and 2006.

    The draft Fifth Report provides a detailed summary of U.S. actions to address climate change. The report contains descriptions of specific measures and actions, outlines of broad policy initiatives, and descriptions of activities conducted by the U.S. since the previous report in 2006, principally at the federal level. It also explains U.S. Government efforts to increase scientific understanding of climate change, and provide foreign assistance to help other nations mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change. The comment period extends until May 6, 2010. The final report will be submitted to the U.N. Secretariat in the early summer after a review of public comments.

    Access a release from the UNEP on the climate change meeting schedule (click here). Access the UNFCCC Bonn meeting website for additional information (click here). Access an April 11, press briefing from the U.S. (click here). Access additional press briefing and webcasts from the Bonn meeting (click here). Access a Reuters article on the upcoming MEF meeting (click here). Access the FR announcement (click here). Access the draft U.S. Climate Action Report 2010 (click here).

UNFCCC Issues Reports On Copenhagen Conference

Subscribers & Readers Notice:

We are taking our Spring publication break next week
while Congress is in recess.

We'll we resume publication on Monday, April 12, 2010.

 

Mar 31: The UN Climate Change Secretariat published official reports on the results of last year's UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen (December 7-19, 2009). The reports detail the outcomes of the UNFCCC Conference of the Parties at its 15th session (COP 15) and of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol on its fifth session (CMP5). Each report is in two parts: one on formal proceedings and one on the decisions adopted by the relevant body.

    Since the closing of the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has received submissions of national pledges to cut or limit emissions of greenhouse gases by 2020 from 75 Parties, which together account for more than 80% percent of global emissions from energy use. Forty-one industrialized countries have formally communicated their economy-wide targets to the UNFCCC. 35 developing countries have communicated information on the nationally appropriate mitigation actions they are planning to take, provided they receive the appropriate support in terms of finance and technology.

    UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer who will be resigning in July said, "It is clear that while the pledges on the table are an important step towards the objective of limiting growth of emissions, they will not in themselves suffice to limit warming to below 2 degrees Celsius. The Climate Conference at the end of this year in Mexico therefore needs to put in place effective cooperative mechanisms capable of bringing about significant acceleration of national, regional and international action both to limit the growth of emissions and to prepare for the inevitable impacts of climate change."

 

    The report of the Conference of the Parties contains, among other things, the text of the Copenhagen Accord and lists the 112 Parties (111 countries and the European Union) that have indicated their support for the Accord. The next round of UNFCCC negotiations is scheduled to be held in Bonn, Germany, on April 9-11. The meeting will be followed by a two-week negotiating round which will comprise the 32nd session of the UNFCCC Convention subsidiary bodies, between May 31 and June 11, 2010. Both gatherings will take place in the Maritim Hotel in Bonn. The April UNFCCC sessions are designed to agree on the organization and methods of work in 2010. This includes the number and duration of any additional UNFCCC negotiating sessions in the second half of 2010, in the run-up to the UN Climate Change Conference in Mexico (November 29 to December 10).

 

    The article indicates that as of March 25, a total of 73 countries -- 40 Annex I and 33 non-Annex I countries (including Kazakhstan) -- have submitted targets or actions to the Secretariat. Of these, 64 have explicitly associated themselves with the Accord. An additional 35 countries have explicitly associated themselves with the Accord but have not submitted targets or actions. 13 countries -- including Brazil, Croatia, China, India, Namibia, and Palau -- have expressed support for the Accord, without "associating" with it. 4 countries, the Cook Islands, Kuwait, Nauru and Ecuador -- an interesting mix of small island and oil exporting countries -- have submitted letters to the UNFCCC "not associating with or supporting" the Accord.

    WRI reports that the BASIC countries (Brazil, South Africa, India and China)met on January 24th, 2010, shortly after COP-15 and just prior to the Accord's deadline for submissions. They acknowledged their central role in finalizing the Accord, and underscored their support for the document. According to the joint statement of the BASIC group, the countries "underlined the importance of the Accord as representing a high level political understanding among the participants on some of the contentious issues of the climate change negotiations." 

    WRI says, " It must be recalled that a number of UNFCCC parties continue to object to both the Accord's content and the process by which it was agreed. At least one party, Cuba, has formally objected, in writing to the UNFCCC Secretariat's handling of the Accord, describing the document as 'frappe de nullite' or 'null and void.' Under the UNFCCC's consensus decision-making rules one can reasonably expect that this and some of the other 90 parties to the UNFCCC that have either remained silent or have rejected the Accord as illegitimate will continue to raise procedural objections to its use in the ongoing negotiations."

    Access a lengthy release from UNEP with links to additional information (click here). Access the two reports (click here). Access the various communications from the parties (click here). Access more information on the Copenhagen Accord from the UNFCCC website (click here). Access the WRI analysis with links to related information (click here).

Administration Touts Joint Final CAFE & GHG Emission Standards

Apr 1: One day following the President's major announcement on opening up offshore drilling areas as part of a comprehensive energy policy [See WIMS 3/31/10], the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and the U.S. EPA jointly announced another part of the policy -- i.e. "historic" new Federal rules that set the first-ever national greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions standards and will significantly increase the fuel economy of all new passenger cars and light trucks sold in the United States. The agencies indicated the rules could potentially save the average buyer of a 2016 model year car $3,000 over the life of the vehicle and, nationally, will conserve about 1.8 billion barrels of oil and reduce nearly a billion tons of greenhouse gas emissions over the lives of the vehicles covered. 

    Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said, "These historic new standards set ambitious, but achievable, fuel economy requirements for the automotive industry that will also encourage new and emerging technologies. We will be helping American motorists save money at the pump, while putting less pollution in the air." EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said, "This is a significant step towards cleaner air and energy efficiency, and an important example of how our economic and environmental priorities go hand-in-hand. By working together with industry and capitalizing on our capacity for innovation, we've developed a clean cars program that is a win for automakers and drivers, a win for innovators and entrepreneurs, and a win for our planet."

    DOT and EPA received more than 130,000 public comments on the September 2009 proposed rules [See WIMS 9/15/09], with overwhelming support for the strong national policy. Manufacturers will be able to build a single, light-duty national fleet that satisfies all federal requirements as well as the standards of California and other states. The collaboration of federal agencies also allows for clearer rules for all automakers, instead of three standards (DOT, EPA, and a state standard). The rules stem from the core principles President Obama announced with automakers, the United Auto Workers, leaders in the environmental community, governors and state officials in May 2009 [See WIMS 5/19/09], and would provide coordinated national vehicle fuel efficiency and GHG emissions standards.

    The final rules, issued by DOT's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and EPA, establish increasingly stringent fuel economy standards under NHTSA's Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program and GHG emission standards under the Clean Air Act for 2012 through 2016 model-year vehicles. Starting with 2012 model year vehicles, the rules together require automakers to improve fleet-wide fuel economy and reduce fleet-wide GHG emissions by approximately five percent every year. NHTSA has established fuel economy standards that strengthen each year reaching an estimated 34.1 mpg for the combined industry-wide fleet for model year 2016.

    Because credits for air-conditioning improvements can be used to meet the EPA standards, but not the NHTSA standards, the EPA standards require that by the 2016 model-year, manufacturers must achieve a combined average vehicle emission level of 250 grams of carbon dioxide per mile. The EPA standard would be equivalent to 35.5 miles per gallon if all reductions came from fuel economy improvements.

    NHTSA and EPA expect automobile manufacturers will meet these standards by more widespread adoption of conventional technologies that are already in commercial use, such as more efficient engines, transmissions, tires, aerodynamics, and materials, as well as improvements in air conditioning systems. Although the standards can be met with conventional technologies, EPA and NHTSA also expect that some manufacturers may choose to pursue more advanced fuel-saving technologies like hybrid vehicles, clean diesel engines, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, and electric vehicles.

    In conjunction with the United States, Canada is also announcing Light Duty Vehicle GHG-Emissions regulations today. U.S. EPA and NHTSA have worked closely with Environment Canada to ensure a common North American approach. EPA noted that "climate change is the single greatest long-term global environmental challenge." Cars, SUVs, minivans, and pickup trucks are responsible for almost 60 percent of all U.S. transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions.

 

    Automakers, represented by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance), welcomed the final release of coordinated NHTSA and EPA regulations to reducing automobile fuel use and carbon emissions. On their website they point out that the simple relationship between GHG emissions and fuel economy is that burning 1 gallon of gasoline releases 19.4 pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere. Dave McCurdy, President & CEO of the Alliance said, "America needs a roadmap to reduced dependence on foreign oil and greenhouse gases, and only the federal government can play this role. Today, the federal government has laid out a course of action through 2016, and now we need to work on 2017 and beyond."

 

    The Alliance indicated that automakers are already achieving milestones. In 2010, nearly 200 models are on sale that achieve 30 miles per gallon or greater on the highway, almost a 50% increase over last year. They said as EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said in a speech at the Washington DC Auto Show in January, "2009 marked the fifth straight year we've seen increases in the average fuel economy for cars and light trucks." This final rule will ensure that this trend continues. The Alliance represents  11 car and light truck manufacturers including BMW Group, Chrysler, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Jaguar Land Rover, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz USA, Mitsubishi Motors, Porsche, Toyota and Volkswagen.

    McCurdy said, "A year ago, the auto industry faced a regulatory maze resulting from multiple sets of inconsistent fuel economy/greenhouse gas standards. NHTSA was promulgating new fuel economy standards required by Congress under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, while EPA was preparing greenhouse gas standards under the Clean Air Act. Meanwhile, California and 13 other states were planning their own state-specific greenhouse gas standards. When our engineers struggle with changing or conflicting laws, it derails efforts to introduce new technologies with long-term research and development timeframes. The national program announced today makes sense for consumers, for government policymakers and for automakers."

    The Alliance said, "The ongoing existence of a national program for motor vehicle fuel economy and greenhouse gas standards for all future model years should be the shared goal of not only the current Administration and the industry, but also Congress and the States, for the benefit of the environment, the public, and the ability of the industry to create and maintain high quality jobs."

    The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) issued a release and Roland Hwang, Transportation Program Director said, "These national emission standards represent a consensus among the state and federal governments, the automakers, the environmental community, and labor unions on effective action under the Clean Air Act to curb dangerous global warming pollution.

 

    "By completing these rules, the Obama Administration is putting our country on the road to creating thousands of clean energy jobs and cutting our dangerous dependency on oil. We look forward to working with the automakers, the unions, the administration, and the states on future standards that will ensure that the United States remains a leader in clean car technologies."

    Access a release from EPA and DOT (click here). Access a release from the Alliance (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access complete information on the joint final rule and link to a prepublication copy of the 837-page regulation, fact sheet, technical support documents, and extensive related information (click here).

President Announces Offshore Energy Proposals; Reactions Mixed

Mar 31: As part of the Administration's comprehensive energy strategy President Barack Obama and Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar announced more details of the Obama Administration's efforts to strengthen our energy security. President Obama and Secretary Salazar announced that the Administration will expand oil and gas development and exploration on specified sections of the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) which they say will "enhance the nation's energy independence while protecting fisheries, tourism, and places off U.S. coasts that are not appropriate for development." Also included in the announcement were landmark car and truck fuel standards, key efforts being carried out by the Department of Defense to enhance energy security, and an effort to green the Federal vehicle fleet. 

 

    President Obama said, "We're here to talk about America's energy security, an issue that's been a priority for my administration since the day I took office.  Already, we've made the largest investment in clean energy in our nation's history.  It's an investment that's expected to create or save more than 700,000 jobs across America -- jobs manufacturing advanced batteries for more efficient vehicles; upgrading the power grid so that it's smarter and it's stronger; doubling our nation's capacity to generate renewable electricity from sources like the wind and the sun.

    "And just a few months after taking office, I also gathered the leaders of the world's largest automakers, the heads of labor unions, environmental advocates, and public officials from California and across the country to reach a historic agreement to raise fuel economy standards in cars and trucks.  And tomorrow, after decades in which we have done little to increase auto efficiency, those new standards will be finalized, which will reduce our dependence on oil while helping folks spend a little less at the pump. So my administration is upholding its end of the deal, and we expect all parties to do the same. And I'd also point out this rule that we're going to be announcing about increased mileage standards will save 1.8 billion -- billion barrels of oil overall -- 1.8 billion barrels of oil. And that's like taking 58 million cars off the road for an entire year. . .

    "We need to make continued investments in clean coal technologies and advanced biofuels.  A few weeks ago, I announced loan guarantees to break ground on America's first new nuclear facility in three decades, a project that will create thousands of jobs. And in the short term, as we transition to cleaner energy sources, we've still got to make some tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development in ways that protect communities and protect coastlines. This is not a decision that I've made lightly. It's one that Ken and I -- as well as Carol Browner, my energy advisor, and others in my administration -- looked at closely for more than a year. But the bottom line is this: Given our energy needs, in order to sustain economic growth and produce jobs, and keep our businesses competitive, we are going to need to harness traditional sources of fuel even as we ramp up production of new sources of renewable, homegrown energy. . .

    "That's why my administration will consider potential areas for development in the mid and south Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico, while studying and protecting sensitive areas in the Arctic.  That's why we'll continue to support development of leased areas off the North Slope of Alaska, while protecting Alaska's Bristol Bay. . . I want to emphasize is that this announcement is part of a broader strategy that will move us from an economy that runs on fossil fuels and foreign oil to one that relies more on homegrown fuels and clean energy. . . drilling alone can't come close to meeting our long-term energy needs.  And for the sake of our planet and our energy independence, we need to begin the transition to cleaner fuels now.

    "So the answer is not drilling everywhere all the time.  But the answer is not, also, for us to ignore the fact that we are going to need vital energy sources to maintain our economic growth and our security.  Ultimately, we need to move beyond the tired debates of the left and the right, between business leaders and environmentalists, between those who would claim drilling is a cure all and those who would claim it has no place.  Because this issue is just too important to allow our progress to languish while we fight the same old battles over and over again. . .

    "So I'm open to proposals from my Democratic friends and my Republican friends. I think that we can break out of the broken politics of the past when it comes to our energy policy. I know that we can come together to pass comprehensive energy and climate legislation that's going to foster new energy -- new industries, create millions of new jobs, protect our planet, and help us become more energy independent.  That's what we can do. That is what we must do. And I'm confident that is what we will do."   

    The Administration's strategy calls for developing oil and gas resources in new areas, such as the Eastern Gulf of Mexico; increasing oil and gas exploration in frontier areas, such as parts of the Arctic and Atlantic Oceans; and protecting ocean areas that are simply too special to drill, such as Alaska's Bristol Bay. The strategy will guide the current 2007-2012 offshore oil and gas leasing program, as well as the new 2012-2017 program that this administration will propose. 

    In addition the White House announced that On April 1st, EPA and DOT will sign a joint final rule establishing greenhouse gas emission standards and corporate average fuel economy standards for light-duty vehicles for model years 2012-2016 [See WIMS 5/19/09]; doubling the Federal hybrid vehicle fleet and purchase the first 100 plug-in electric vehicles by the end of the year; and reducing the military's heavy reliance on fossil fuels.

 

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) issued a statement praising the parts of the Obama proposal that did not deal with offshore drilling; and regarding drilling said, "The Obama Administration's initiative regarding drilling on public lands must ensure that any offshore and onshore plan proceeds in an environmentally and fiscally responsible manner. Taxpayers who own these resources have been historically shortchanged from the huge profits received from drilling on public lands, and must receive a fair return in the future.   

 

    U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) issued a statement saying, "Today's announcement is a step in the right direction, but a small one that leaves enormous amounts of American energy off limits. And the proof of the administration's announcement will be in the implementation: will the administration actually take concrete steps to finish the studies, approve the necessary permits, and open these areas for production? Will they stand by as their allies act to delay the implementation in the courts? The American people believe that to strengthen our national and energy security we should rely more on America's energy resources, and less on those of the Middle East. It's time to put America's energy to work for the American people, without the threat of a new national energy tax." 

   

    House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) issued a statement criticizing the Obama Administration. Boehner said, "The Obama Administration continues to defy the will of the American people who strongly supported the bipartisan decision of Congress in 2008 to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling not just off the East Coast and in the Gulf of Mexico, but off the Pacific Coast and Alaskan shores as well. Opening up areas off the Virginia coast to offshore production is a positive step, but keeping the Pacific Coast and Alaska, as well as the most promising resources off the Gulf of Mexico, under lock and key makes no sense at a time when gasoline prices are rising and Americans are asking 'Where are the jobs?'

    "It's long past time for this Administration to stop delaying American energy production off all our shores and start listening to the American people who want an "all of the above" strategy to produce more American energy and create more jobs. Republicans are listening to the American people and have proposed a better solution -- the American Energy Act -- which will lower gas prices, increase American energy production, promote new clean and renewable sources of energy, and encourage greater efficiency and conservation. At the same time the White House makes today's announcement, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is plotting a new massive job-killer that the American people can't afford: a cascade of new EPA regulations that will punish every American who dares to flip on a light switch, drive a car, or buy an American product. Americans simply don't want this backdoor national energy tax that will drive up energy and manufacturing costs and destroy jobs in our states and local communities."

 

    Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Chair of the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee said, "I commend Secretary Salazar for proposing a plan that makes available for leasing much of the potential offshore oil and gas resources that the Federal government owns. I also commend him for indicating that additional studies will be undertaken before making a final decision on leasing in areas that might be environmentally sensitive. Secretary Salazar's proposed plan is generally consistent with the legislative proposals regarding our offshore national oil and gas resources that the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee reported last summer [See WIMS 6/17/09]. I hope that the Senate will address these legislative proposals in the coming weeks."

 

    Alaska Senators Lisa Murkowski (R) and Mark Begich (D) released a joint statement. Sen. Murkowski said, "I appreciate the department's decision to allow valid existing rights to explore Alaska's huge offshore oil and gas reserves to go ahead. I will work with the administration on proceeding with important future lease sales off Alaska's coast, as well as along the Atlantic coast and the Eastern Gulf of Mexico." Sen. Begich said, "Alaska's energy companies should be pleased with the green light from the Obama administration to proceed toward oil and gas development in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas under the current lease schedule. As the site of the world's largest salmon fishery, the President's proposal to curtail oil and gas development in Bristol Bay makes sense. I commend the Obama administration, and especially Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, for reaching out to Alaskans and incorporating our recommendations in today's decision."

 

    The American Petroleum Institute (API) President and CEO Jack Gerard issued a statement on the Interior Department's Five-Year Plan and said, "The announcement by President Obama and Secretary Salazar is a positive development. We look forward to reviewing the details of the proposal, and we stand ready to work with them to make this a reality. We appreciate the administration's recognition of the importance of developing our nation's oil and natural gas resources to create jobs, generate revenues and fuel our nation's economy. Exploring for and developing our nation's offshore resources could help generate more than a trillion dollars in revenues and create thousands of jobs to add to the already 9.2 million jobs supported by today's oil and natural gas industry.

 

    "As we move forward, we hope that consideration can be given to other resource-rich regions, such as the Destin Dome area of the Eastern Gulf and areas off the Pacific Coast and Alaska. We also need to ensure that the permitting processes are handled in an expeditious way. The oil and natural gas industry has a proven track record of safe oil and natural gas development and the majority of the American people recognize this by supporting greater offshore development for the benefit of their communities, their states and their nation."

 

    Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune issued a statement saying, "We're very disappointed to see important areas like the Arctic coast and the Mid and South Atlantic stay open to oil drilling. What we need is bold, decisive steps towards clean energy, like the new clean cars regulations announced this week -- not more dirty, expensive offshore drilling. The oil industry already has access to drilling on millions of acres of America's public lands and water. We don't need to hand over our last protected pristine coastal areas just so oil companies can break more profit records. Drilling areas like the Arctic threatens marine life like whales and polar bears. Where there is offshore drilling, there is a constant danger of oil spills. One oil spill is all it takes to destroy a coastal tourism economy and the jobs that depend on it. Drilling our coasts will doing nothing to lower gas prices or create energy independence. It will only jeopardize beaches, marine life, and coastal tourist economies, all so the oil industry can make a short-term profit. . ."

 

    Brendan Cummings, senior counsel at the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) said, "Today's announcement is unfortunately all too typical of what we have seen so far from President Obama -- promises of change, a year of 'deliberation,' and ultimately, adoption of flawed and outdated Bush policies as his own. Rather than bring about the change we need, this plan will further our national addiction to oil and contribute to global warming, while at the same time directly despoiling the habitat of polar bears, endangered whales, and other imperiled wildlife." CBD said, "Oil development in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas, home to all of America's polar bears, is strongly opposed by conservation groups as no technologies exist to clean up oil spills in icy waters. Oil development in the Beaufort Sea would likely also be visible from the shores of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Today's plan would allow existing leases in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas to move forward while the remainder of these areas would be subject to additional leasing following further environmental studies."

 

    Frances Beinecke, President of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) said, "We need comprehensive solutions for America's clean energy future -- and more offshore drilling in our oceans does not fit in that picture. Offshore drilling carries significant environmental risks without truly increasing our energy independence. There are many areas that are just too sensitive for offshore drilling, which threatens our oceans, sea life and coastal communities; including economic interests in these areas. America has better solutions than to drill in our pristine waters -- which needs more research and investigation -- and we should be pursuing these options. . . "In order to fully achieve a clean energy future, we need the administration and Congress to enact truly comprehensive energy and climate policies that will cut our dependence on oil, limit carbon pollution and create jobs. We now look to the Senate to advance comprehensive legislation -- that is being crafted by Senators Kerry, Graham, Lieberman and others -- to make our country stronger, safer and more secure."

 

    Access a release from the White House (click here). Access the full text of the President's speech (click here). Access more specific details on the offshore drilling plan (click here). Access more information on DoD's energy initiatives (click here).

Access the statement from Speaker Pelosi (click here). Access the statement from Senator McConnell (click here). Access the statement from Representative Boehner (click here). Access a statement from Sen. Bingaman (click here). Access a statement from Sens. Murkowski & Begich (click here). Access the API statement (click here). Access the statement from Sierra Club (click here). Access the statement from CBD (click here). Access the statement from NRDC (click here). [*Energy/OCS]

---

Conference Probes Climate Intervention Technologies & Geoengineering

Mar 29: A week-long International Conference on Climate Intervention Technologies held in Pacific Grove, CA concluded a week (March 22-26) of conversations and discussions on climate intervention and guidelines for research and experimentation. The conference was developed by Dr. Margaret Leinen of the Climate Response Fund, a non-profit based in Alexandria, VA in partnership with Guttman Initiatives. The scientific program was organized by an international scientific committee chaired by Dr. Michael MacCracken of the Climate Institute, based in Washington, DC. 

 

    According to a release, the conference marked the first broadly attended meeting by leaders in a variety of fields convened to discuss the critical issues surrounding climate intervention and remediation research. More than one hundred and fifty renowned scientists and researchers from the world's leading academic institutions joined environmental groups, philosophers, ethicists, and specialists in economics, risk, governance, business and policy to identify the risks and social implications of research into climate intervention and remediation, sometimes called geoengineering.

    Climate intervention and remediation is a new field of research, including physical and natural sciences as well as social science and humanities, born in response to the imminent threat of human-induced climate change. It involves research into the purposeful management of the global climate should societal efforts to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions ultimately fail or come too late. The presentations, plenary sessions, and small group discussions filled 12-hour days, covering a range of subjects including approaches for potentially counter-balancing at least some aspects of human-induced climate change, the legal and societal issues raised by research needed to verify the approaches, and public perception of climate change.

    In addition, there were constructive specific discussions on how to counter-balance warming, changes in precipitation, and other consequences of the ongoing emission of greenhouse gases and on the variety of approaches for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and to sequester or store it in the ocean or the land. Participants aired doubts and fears about how research could be governed and proceed and emphasized the need for transparency and consideration of all issues from local to global perspectives. Robert Socolow, Professor, Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at Princeton University said, "What will happen when we get an unambiguous signal of a climate emergency? We are not ready." He urged the group to start with "the best traditions of the scientific method," and then to push beyond to ensure that all climate intervention or remediation research be considered, measured and iterative, including discussion with those outside of the research community.

    Such sentiments inspired Paul Craig, a member of the Sierra Club's National Energy Committee and Professor Emeritus of Engineering at the University of California at Davis, to observe, "I came here expecting to see a bunch of engineering types proposing to engineer the planet. But instead I saw a different conversation in which the word 'humility' actually appeared in slides. I'm leaving with a very different view of the way that these attendees are thinking about geoengineering."

    After hearing input on its first draft, the Scientific Organizing Committee (SOC) issued a Statement summarizing its conclusions and invited other participants to join them in supporting it. Many conference participants have expressed interest in signing onto the SOC statement; their names will be added and dated as they come in. The Committee also intends to develop a document on principles for climate intervention/remediation research that will also be circulated to participants for their input and, eventually, their signature. The conference's Scientific Organizing Committee will produce a report on the proceedings, slated for release in early summer.

    The SOC Statement indicates in part, "The fact that humanity's efforts to reduce global emissions of greenhouse gases (mitigation) have been limited to date is a cause of deep concern. Additionally, uncertainties in the response of the climate system to increased greenhouse gases leave open the possibility of very large future changes. It is thus important to initiate further research in all relevant disciplines to better understand and communicate whether additional strategies to moderate future climate change are, or are not, viable, appropriate and ethical. Such strategies, which could be employed in addition to the primary strategy of mitigation, include climate intervention methods (solar radiation management) and climate remediation methods (carbon dioxide removal).

 

   "We do not yet have sufficient knowledge of the risks associated with using methods for climate intervention and remediation, their intended and unintended impacts, and their efficacy in reducing the rate of climatic change to assess whether they should or should not be implemented. Thus, further research is essential.

 

    "Recognizing that governments collectively have ultimate responsibility for decisions concerning climate intervention and remediation research and possible implementation, this conference represented a step in facilitating a process involving broader public participation. This process should ensure that research on this issue progresses in a timely, safe, ethical and transparent manner, addressing social, humanitarian and environmental issues."

 

    Access a lengthy release and links to additional information (click here). Access the SOC Statement and preliminary list of signers (click here). Access the Climate Response Fund (click here). Access the Guttman Initiatives (click here). Access the Climate Institute (click here).