By Joshua Chaffin
Published: June 26 2009 03:00
The European Commission yesterday announced plans to contribute up to €50m ($70m) to help China build a facility to test carbon capture and storage technology.
While relatively small, the commission said the investment illustrated EU commitment to speeding the transfer of green technology to developing nations to further the fight against global warming.
China, in particular, is a top priority for CCS, which aims to trap carbon emissions from power plants and industrial facilities and bury them underground.
Joshua Chaffin, Luxembourg
Full story at www.ft.com/climatechange
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
Friday, 26 June 2009
International promises on greenhouse gas emissions
The Guardian, Thursday 25 June 2009
Scientists, via the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, have said that by 2020 developed countries must make 25-40% cuts in greenhouse gas emissions compared with 1990 levels. This is to give a better than even chance of limiting the ultimate rise in global temperature to under 2C, a level seen as representing dangerous climate change.
Here's what the main players have pledged so far by 2020, compared with 1990 levels:
EU ▼ 20-30%
US ◀ ▶0%
Japan ▼ 8%
Russia ▼ 10-15%
Australia ▼ 3-24%
Canada ▼ 3%
China, India and other developing nations will be asked at the Copenhagen negotiations to commit to reducing their emissions compared with "business as usual", but none has yet made a specific pledge.
Scientists, via the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, have said that by 2020 developed countries must make 25-40% cuts in greenhouse gas emissions compared with 1990 levels. This is to give a better than even chance of limiting the ultimate rise in global temperature to under 2C, a level seen as representing dangerous climate change.
Here's what the main players have pledged so far by 2020, compared with 1990 levels:
EU ▼ 20-30%
US ◀ ▶0%
Japan ▼ 8%
Russia ▼ 10-15%
Australia ▼ 3-24%
Canada ▼ 3%
China, India and other developing nations will be asked at the Copenhagen negotiations to commit to reducing their emissions compared with "business as usual", but none has yet made a specific pledge.
Growth of global carbon emissions halved in 2008, say Dutch researchers
Recession and oil price main drivers behind fall in consumption as developing world emissions rise above 50% for first time
Duncan Clark
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 25 June 2009 17.12 BST
Duncan Clark
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 25 June 2009 17.12 BST
The growth of global carbon dioxide emissions fell by half in 2008, according to data released today. The global recession and high oil prices played a major role in reducing the rate of emissions. But measures to tackle global warming by cutting emissions such as renewable energy were only partly responsible. The data from the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (NEAA) also show that, for the first time, CO2 emissions from the developing world account for more than half of the global total.
Analysis from the NEAA draws on fossil fuel consumption figures published last week by BP. It shows that the rise in the world's emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement production in 2008 was just 1.7%, compared with 3.3% in 2007.
The slowdown in emissions growth was caused primarily by a 0.6% fall in the consumption of oil – the first decline in global oil use since 1992. This trend was unevenly distributed around the world. In China oil use continued to rise, but at only 3%, down from an average of 8% since 2001. In the US, oil consumption fell by a massive 7%.
Analysis from the NEAA draws on fossil fuel consumption figures published last week by BP. It shows that the rise in the world's emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement production in 2008 was just 1.7%, compared with 3.3% in 2007.
The slowdown in emissions growth was caused primarily by a 0.6% fall in the consumption of oil – the first decline in global oil use since 1992. This trend was unevenly distributed around the world. In China oil use continued to rise, but at only 3%, down from an average of 8% since 2001. In the US, oil consumption fell by a massive 7%.
The falling global demand reflects high prices for oil in the first half of 2008 and the economic slowdown in the second half of the year. Increasing biofuel production also helped displace a substantial volume of fossil-fuel petrol and diesel.
Jos Olivier, the NEAA researcher responsible for the new data, acknowledged that the environmental benefits of biofuels would look "less favourable" in a broader analysis considering the impact of all greenhouses gases, rather than CO2 alone. Furthermore, the data does not take into account the CO2 released by deforestation, which accounts for almost 20% of all greenhouse gas emissions and takes place overwhelmingly in the developing world.
Increasing renewable energy capacity and improving energy efficiency in many countries will also have contributed to the reduced rise in CO2 emissions. Olivier said: "The impact of energy and climate policy is hard to distinguish from those of fuel prices and the recession, but policies encouraging renewable electricity generation will have helped avoid around 500 million tonnes of CO2 from fossil-fuel power stations."
Coal consumption continued to creep up at a slower rate than in previous years, but the rise in the consumption of natural gas remained unchanged.
It is too early to determine whether the recession will lead to global emissions flattening off entirely this year. But policymakers are likely to be particularly struck by the second revelation in the NEAA analysis.
In 2008, the developing-world accounted for 50.3% of CO2 emissions, exceeding developed nations and international travel combined for the first time. With crucial UN climate negotiations over a successor to the Kyoto protocol now less than six months away, this new data will provide useful ammunition for those arguing for binding emissions targets for all nations.
Jos Olivier, the NEAA researcher responsible for the new data, acknowledged that the environmental benefits of biofuels would look "less favourable" in a broader analysis considering the impact of all greenhouses gases, rather than CO2 alone. Furthermore, the data does not take into account the CO2 released by deforestation, which accounts for almost 20% of all greenhouse gas emissions and takes place overwhelmingly in the developing world.
Increasing renewable energy capacity and improving energy efficiency in many countries will also have contributed to the reduced rise in CO2 emissions. Olivier said: "The impact of energy and climate policy is hard to distinguish from those of fuel prices and the recession, but policies encouraging renewable electricity generation will have helped avoid around 500 million tonnes of CO2 from fossil-fuel power stations."
Coal consumption continued to creep up at a slower rate than in previous years, but the rise in the consumption of natural gas remained unchanged.
It is too early to determine whether the recession will lead to global emissions flattening off entirely this year. But policymakers are likely to be particularly struck by the second revelation in the NEAA analysis.
In 2008, the developing-world accounted for 50.3% of CO2 emissions, exceeding developed nations and international travel combined for the first time. With crucial UN climate negotiations over a successor to the Kyoto protocol now less than six months away, this new data will provide useful ammunition for those arguing for binding emissions targets for all nations.
Trade Penalties Weighed in Climate Bill
By STEPHEN POWER and GREG HITT
WASHINGTON -- House Democratic leaders Thursday weighed tough trade penalties on countries that don't cap so-called greenhouse-gas emissions, while President Barack Obama sought support from wavering lawmakers ahead of a vote on a climate bill.
The trade proposal is designed to protect a half dozen trade-sensitive U.S. industries, including steel, cement and chemical manufacturers, from competitors in countries that don't cap their output of greenhouse gases.
Top House Democrats and many members of the Ways and Means Committee, which has jurisdiction over trade policy, led the negotiations and effectively signed off on details of the plan late Thursday.
The measure -- expected to be folded into the 1,200-page proposal to curb U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions -- is tougher than a provision approved last month by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. It would impose the sanctions in 2020, five years before the earlier-approved version would, and give Congress authority to levy a border fee, if the president chooses not to act, that would raise the cost of imported goods.
The inclusion of the trade-related provisions is meant to appease lawmakers from heavy industry states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan who worry that limits on U.S. emissions would put domestic industries at a disadvantage to competitors in countries like China that don't limit emissions.
Rep. Sander Levin (D., Mich.) said the changes are "designed to do no more than is necessary to ensure that this important legislation is trade neutral for our energy intensive industries."
White House aides said Thursday they were still reviewing the language on imports and were not sure it would remain in the bill that comes to a vote Friday. They declined to state the president's position on the issue.
Still short of votes, the president made personal and public appeals to wavering Democrats, making a brief statement in the Rose Garden and calling lawmakers.
The proposed border-adjustment program also includes commitments to help downstream industries that make use of products that face global competition.
As proposed, the sanctions would not take effect if the U.S. enters into a global agreement to limit emissions. The legislation establishes a series of U.S. objectives for any global agreement, including a demand that any international pact include enforcement mechanisms to shield companies from unfair competition.
China's government and some major U.S. business groups, such as the Chamber of Commerce, have warned of a trade war if the U.S. imposes tariffs on carbon-intensive imports such as steel. In a letter to Congress dated Wednesday, the Chamber warned that the provisions being considered by Ways and Means "could spark a trade war" and make U.S. companies that rely on imports less competitive.
Democratic aides and lawmakers suggested the legislation was still short of the 218 votes needed to ensure passage. It was unclear by how much, but individuals familiar with the vote-counting suggested Democrats were lacking 15 to 20 votes and perhaps more.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the legislation would have a fairly modest impact on the economy, with net annual economy-wide cost in 2020 of $22 billion -- or about $175 per household.
Republicans, and some major business groups have slammed the bill as an energy tax that would drive up the costs of goods and services and put the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage with countries that don't operate under such caps.
On Thursday, Republicans cited Bureau of Economic Analysis data showing the U.S. economy contracted at an annual rate of 5.5% in the first quarter of 2009 as further evidence for scrapping the legislation.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi met with a handful of lawmakers from timber-producing states pushing for wood byproducts to be treated as a renewable-energy source under the bill.
Democratic leaders were also looking for ways to address the concerns of a handful of lawmakers worried that a provision of the bill goes too far in toughening oversight of derivatives, congressional aides said.—Jonathan Weisman contributed to this article.
Write to Stephen Power at stephen.power@wsj.com and Greg Hitt at greg.hitt@wsj.com
WASHINGTON -- House Democratic leaders Thursday weighed tough trade penalties on countries that don't cap so-called greenhouse-gas emissions, while President Barack Obama sought support from wavering lawmakers ahead of a vote on a climate bill.
The trade proposal is designed to protect a half dozen trade-sensitive U.S. industries, including steel, cement and chemical manufacturers, from competitors in countries that don't cap their output of greenhouse gases.
Top House Democrats and many members of the Ways and Means Committee, which has jurisdiction over trade policy, led the negotiations and effectively signed off on details of the plan late Thursday.
The measure -- expected to be folded into the 1,200-page proposal to curb U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions -- is tougher than a provision approved last month by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. It would impose the sanctions in 2020, five years before the earlier-approved version would, and give Congress authority to levy a border fee, if the president chooses not to act, that would raise the cost of imported goods.
The inclusion of the trade-related provisions is meant to appease lawmakers from heavy industry states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan who worry that limits on U.S. emissions would put domestic industries at a disadvantage to competitors in countries like China that don't limit emissions.
Rep. Sander Levin (D., Mich.) said the changes are "designed to do no more than is necessary to ensure that this important legislation is trade neutral for our energy intensive industries."
White House aides said Thursday they were still reviewing the language on imports and were not sure it would remain in the bill that comes to a vote Friday. They declined to state the president's position on the issue.
Still short of votes, the president made personal and public appeals to wavering Democrats, making a brief statement in the Rose Garden and calling lawmakers.
The proposed border-adjustment program also includes commitments to help downstream industries that make use of products that face global competition.
As proposed, the sanctions would not take effect if the U.S. enters into a global agreement to limit emissions. The legislation establishes a series of U.S. objectives for any global agreement, including a demand that any international pact include enforcement mechanisms to shield companies from unfair competition.
China's government and some major U.S. business groups, such as the Chamber of Commerce, have warned of a trade war if the U.S. imposes tariffs on carbon-intensive imports such as steel. In a letter to Congress dated Wednesday, the Chamber warned that the provisions being considered by Ways and Means "could spark a trade war" and make U.S. companies that rely on imports less competitive.
Democratic aides and lawmakers suggested the legislation was still short of the 218 votes needed to ensure passage. It was unclear by how much, but individuals familiar with the vote-counting suggested Democrats were lacking 15 to 20 votes and perhaps more.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the legislation would have a fairly modest impact on the economy, with net annual economy-wide cost in 2020 of $22 billion -- or about $175 per household.
Republicans, and some major business groups have slammed the bill as an energy tax that would drive up the costs of goods and services and put the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage with countries that don't operate under such caps.
On Thursday, Republicans cited Bureau of Economic Analysis data showing the U.S. economy contracted at an annual rate of 5.5% in the first quarter of 2009 as further evidence for scrapping the legislation.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi met with a handful of lawmakers from timber-producing states pushing for wood byproducts to be treated as a renewable-energy source under the bill.
Democratic leaders were also looking for ways to address the concerns of a handful of lawmakers worried that a provision of the bill goes too far in toughening oversight of derivatives, congressional aides said.—Jonathan Weisman contributed to this article.
Write to Stephen Power at stephen.power@wsj.com and Greg Hitt at greg.hitt@wsj.com
Climate change: the world looks to Washington
Editorial
The Guardian, Friday 26 June 2009
Zoom down from the planetary perspective of climate science to the Washington committee corridors where America's climate policy gets thrashed out, and everything looks ugly. The House of Representatives today votes on the Waxman-Markey bill to establish a carbon cap-and-trade system, which shows all the signs of having been through the congressional mangle. It comes festooned with unattractive concessions to industries ranging from coal to biofuels. Worse, there is artful fuzziness on the central question of how far American emissions must fall. Unsightly - and sometimes alarming - as these blemishes are, they must not distract from the reality that the House will do something historic if it listens to the advice of Barack Obama and passes legislation that remains more ambitious than anything he promised on the campaign trail. If, as is more doubtful, the Senate does the same over the next few months, then the US can finally put a decade of denial behind it and turn up at December's Copenhagen summit in a position to give at least some sort of a lead to the world.
That meeting is charged with replacing the Kyoto protocol on greenhouse gases, which the US never ratified. Its exclusion is not the only feature that renders the framework totally inadequate today; just as serious is the lack of any meaningful obligation on developing countries, which could be ignored in the 1990s but cannot be overlooked any longer. New figures from the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency yesterday showed that the CO2 emissions from the developing world account for more than half the global total for the first time. The conversations that count in Copenhagen will be those between capitals that were never bound by Kyoto, and most particularly between Washington and Beijing. The fumes China belches out are largely generated in the course of serving the western consumer, a position that gives Beijing the right to do nothing until America demonstrates its commitment to making the first move.
Egged on by his determined climate change secretary, Ed Miliband, Gordon Brown has grasped this logic, and appreciates that if every card is clung on to until the eleventh hour, Copenhagen will go the same way as the dismal Doha trade round. He will use a speech today to set out his approach, although his voice will command little direct authority, both because the UK negotiates through the EU and because it is not Brussels - which has had carbon targets for years - but Washington that holds the key to unlocking a deal.
The arrest this week of Nasa's climate scientist, James Hansen, as he protested at a coal-processing plant in West Virginia, seemed somehow to symbolise the struggle still faced by the forces of reason within the American establishment. Even before the amendments to Waxman-Markey, the pressures were evident in a cowardly change of language - environmentalists in the administration now talk less about the (obvious) need for carbon cuts than about those fuzzy objects, carbon profiles. They were evident, too, in the decidedly nervous noises that Steven Chu, the Nobel-winning energy secretary, has been making on the prospects for addressing America's ludicrously low rate of fuel taxation. Raising pump prices during a slump might be suicidal, but there should be other ways to start to wean Americans off their oil addiction - for example, putting a floor under the price of a gallon, which could then be increased over the years.
A dozen years of New Labour has repeatedly shown how, in the absence of a progressive strategy, mere tactics fill the void. Imperfect as it is, Waxman-Markey locks America into a plan, which is why it is so essential Congress endorses it today. Yes, the US is late to the climate-change fight; true, these steps are not big enough. But Washington is at last playing catch-up - and that is cause for modest optimism.
The Guardian, Friday 26 June 2009
Zoom down from the planetary perspective of climate science to the Washington committee corridors where America's climate policy gets thrashed out, and everything looks ugly. The House of Representatives today votes on the Waxman-Markey bill to establish a carbon cap-and-trade system, which shows all the signs of having been through the congressional mangle. It comes festooned with unattractive concessions to industries ranging from coal to biofuels. Worse, there is artful fuzziness on the central question of how far American emissions must fall. Unsightly - and sometimes alarming - as these blemishes are, they must not distract from the reality that the House will do something historic if it listens to the advice of Barack Obama and passes legislation that remains more ambitious than anything he promised on the campaign trail. If, as is more doubtful, the Senate does the same over the next few months, then the US can finally put a decade of denial behind it and turn up at December's Copenhagen summit in a position to give at least some sort of a lead to the world.
That meeting is charged with replacing the Kyoto protocol on greenhouse gases, which the US never ratified. Its exclusion is not the only feature that renders the framework totally inadequate today; just as serious is the lack of any meaningful obligation on developing countries, which could be ignored in the 1990s but cannot be overlooked any longer. New figures from the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency yesterday showed that the CO2 emissions from the developing world account for more than half the global total for the first time. The conversations that count in Copenhagen will be those between capitals that were never bound by Kyoto, and most particularly between Washington and Beijing. The fumes China belches out are largely generated in the course of serving the western consumer, a position that gives Beijing the right to do nothing until America demonstrates its commitment to making the first move.
Egged on by his determined climate change secretary, Ed Miliband, Gordon Brown has grasped this logic, and appreciates that if every card is clung on to until the eleventh hour, Copenhagen will go the same way as the dismal Doha trade round. He will use a speech today to set out his approach, although his voice will command little direct authority, both because the UK negotiates through the EU and because it is not Brussels - which has had carbon targets for years - but Washington that holds the key to unlocking a deal.
The arrest this week of Nasa's climate scientist, James Hansen, as he protested at a coal-processing plant in West Virginia, seemed somehow to symbolise the struggle still faced by the forces of reason within the American establishment. Even before the amendments to Waxman-Markey, the pressures were evident in a cowardly change of language - environmentalists in the administration now talk less about the (obvious) need for carbon cuts than about those fuzzy objects, carbon profiles. They were evident, too, in the decidedly nervous noises that Steven Chu, the Nobel-winning energy secretary, has been making on the prospects for addressing America's ludicrously low rate of fuel taxation. Raising pump prices during a slump might be suicidal, but there should be other ways to start to wean Americans off their oil addiction - for example, putting a floor under the price of a gallon, which could then be increased over the years.
A dozen years of New Labour has repeatedly shown how, in the absence of a progressive strategy, mere tactics fill the void. Imperfect as it is, Waxman-Markey locks America into a plan, which is why it is so essential Congress endorses it today. Yes, the US is late to the climate-change fight; true, these steps are not big enough. But Washington is at last playing catch-up - and that is cause for modest optimism.
Democrats confident as US climate change bill vote looms
Sweeping energy and climate change bill would deliver key Obama administration promise to cut US carbon emissions
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 25 June 2009 12.10 BST
Democrats say they are confident of delivering on one of Barack Obama's defining promises tomorrow, by calling a vote in Congress on a sweeping energy and climate change bill.
The bill, produced with hands-on involvement from the White House and surrounded by an intense lobbying and PR offensive, would see the US commit for the first time to cutting back the carbon emissions that cause global warming.
After weeks of attack from Republicans, the energy reform package got an important boost yesterday when its most formidable opponent in Congress – the Democratic chair of the house agricultural committee – said he would now push for its passage.
"We think we have something here now that can work with agriculture," Collin Peterson, who led the Democratic opposition to the bill, told a conference call yesterday. "I think we will be able to get the votes to pass this."
Within the White House and in Congress, the vote is seen as a historic moment, both for Obama's political agenda and international efforts to reach a climate change treaty at Copenhagen at the end of the year.
"This legislation is a game changer of historic proportions," said Ed Markey, the Massachusetts Democrat who is one of the authors of the bill. "The whole world is waiting to see if Barack Obama can arrive in Copenhagen as a leader of attempts to reduce green house gas emissions."
The importance of the bill was underlined by the deep involvement from the White House. Obama earlier this week urged Congress to pass the bill, and aides have been closely involved in efforts to reach yesterday's compromise. The Democratic House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, took a gamble on moving up the date for a vote on the bill to tomorrow.
The gamble appeared to have paid off, with the Democratic leadership putting on a high-profile meeting yesterday with environmental, labour, war veterans and religious groups to talk up the bill's prospects.
"We are going to get this done," said Chris van Hollen, a member of the Democratic leadership in the house of representatives. "It's long overdue."
The bill, now swollen to about 1,200 pages, would bind the US to reduce the carbon emissions from burning oil and coal by 17% from 2005 levels by 2020 and more than 80% by 2050.
It also envisages a range of measures to promote clean energy – from a development bank for new technology to new, greener building codes and targets for expanding the use of solar and wind power.
The Democratic leadership is now hoping to pass the bill by a comfortable margin. Some environmental organisations have suggested that the bill might even win over a small number of Republicans, which would mean an important victory for Obama.
For the most part, however, Republicans have almost uniformly opposed the bill, and say it amounts to a hidden energy tax. They have also argued that the bill would drastically raise electricity prices – a claim debunked with the release of a cost-analysis by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office showing it would cost the average family $175 (£107) by 2020, and would save poor families about $40.
The study – together with the compromises won by Peterson – have made the bill more palatable to Democrats from coal and oil states and from the old manufacturing areas.
"We have been taking people out of the 'no' column, into the 'undecided' column, into the 'yes' column," said Mike Doyle, a Democratic member from a former steel industry town in Pennsylvania. "The momentum is coming to 'yes'."
But Peterson's support appears to have come only after wringing a number of key concessions on the bill over several days of bargaining, overseen by the White House energy and climate advisor, Carol Browner, and other Obama administration officials.
The most significant concession would give the US Department of Agriculture – and not the Environmental Protection Agency – control over a programme that would reward farmers for practices that reduce carbon emissions.
Peterson also forced a four-year delay in a separate environmental regulation that would have cut the profits of corn-based ethanol, and encouraged the development of non-food biofuels instead.
Those concessions have deepened the concerns of some environmental organisations that the bill is not aggressive enough in cutting emissions. However, Henry Waxman, who has been leading the bill through Congress, argued that the most important element of the bill had come through the hard bargaining process intact.
"We have not given away the essentials of the bill because the essentials are the reduction of carbon emissions," he said.
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 25 June 2009 12.10 BST
Democrats say they are confident of delivering on one of Barack Obama's defining promises tomorrow, by calling a vote in Congress on a sweeping energy and climate change bill.
The bill, produced with hands-on involvement from the White House and surrounded by an intense lobbying and PR offensive, would see the US commit for the first time to cutting back the carbon emissions that cause global warming.
After weeks of attack from Republicans, the energy reform package got an important boost yesterday when its most formidable opponent in Congress – the Democratic chair of the house agricultural committee – said he would now push for its passage.
"We think we have something here now that can work with agriculture," Collin Peterson, who led the Democratic opposition to the bill, told a conference call yesterday. "I think we will be able to get the votes to pass this."
Within the White House and in Congress, the vote is seen as a historic moment, both for Obama's political agenda and international efforts to reach a climate change treaty at Copenhagen at the end of the year.
"This legislation is a game changer of historic proportions," said Ed Markey, the Massachusetts Democrat who is one of the authors of the bill. "The whole world is waiting to see if Barack Obama can arrive in Copenhagen as a leader of attempts to reduce green house gas emissions."
The importance of the bill was underlined by the deep involvement from the White House. Obama earlier this week urged Congress to pass the bill, and aides have been closely involved in efforts to reach yesterday's compromise. The Democratic House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, took a gamble on moving up the date for a vote on the bill to tomorrow.
The gamble appeared to have paid off, with the Democratic leadership putting on a high-profile meeting yesterday with environmental, labour, war veterans and religious groups to talk up the bill's prospects.
"We are going to get this done," said Chris van Hollen, a member of the Democratic leadership in the house of representatives. "It's long overdue."
The bill, now swollen to about 1,200 pages, would bind the US to reduce the carbon emissions from burning oil and coal by 17% from 2005 levels by 2020 and more than 80% by 2050.
It also envisages a range of measures to promote clean energy – from a development bank for new technology to new, greener building codes and targets for expanding the use of solar and wind power.
The Democratic leadership is now hoping to pass the bill by a comfortable margin. Some environmental organisations have suggested that the bill might even win over a small number of Republicans, which would mean an important victory for Obama.
For the most part, however, Republicans have almost uniformly opposed the bill, and say it amounts to a hidden energy tax. They have also argued that the bill would drastically raise electricity prices – a claim debunked with the release of a cost-analysis by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office showing it would cost the average family $175 (£107) by 2020, and would save poor families about $40.
The study – together with the compromises won by Peterson – have made the bill more palatable to Democrats from coal and oil states and from the old manufacturing areas.
"We have been taking people out of the 'no' column, into the 'undecided' column, into the 'yes' column," said Mike Doyle, a Democratic member from a former steel industry town in Pennsylvania. "The momentum is coming to 'yes'."
But Peterson's support appears to have come only after wringing a number of key concessions on the bill over several days of bargaining, overseen by the White House energy and climate advisor, Carol Browner, and other Obama administration officials.
The most significant concession would give the US Department of Agriculture – and not the Environmental Protection Agency – control over a programme that would reward farmers for practices that reduce carbon emissions.
Peterson also forced a four-year delay in a separate environmental regulation that would have cut the profits of corn-based ethanol, and encouraged the development of non-food biofuels instead.
Those concessions have deepened the concerns of some environmental organisations that the bill is not aggressive enough in cutting emissions. However, Henry Waxman, who has been leading the bill through Congress, argued that the most important element of the bill had come through the hard bargaining process intact.
"We have not given away the essentials of the bill because the essentials are the reduction of carbon emissions," he said.
Barack Obama pleads with Congress to pass historic climate change bill
Package that would slash US emissions likely to win approval despite opposition from Republicans and Democrat rebels
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
The Guardian, Friday 26 June 2009
Democrats in Congress are poised to vote through a sweeping energy and climate change bill tomorrow that could deliver on one of Barack Obama's signature election promises and galvanise international efforts to agree action on global warming.
The vote, which for the first time could see the US commit itself to cutting back the carbon emissions that cause climate change, prompted a frenzied last-minute PR offensive, with Obama making his third appeal in 48 hours for Congress to act on energy reform.
Passage of the bill, which would reduce US greenhouse gas emissions by 17% from 2005 levels by 2020 and offer incentives for energy efficiency and the development of clean energy technology, would hand Obama a personal victory at a time when he has run into strong opposition over the trillion-dollar price tag on his other main election promise, healthcare reform.
In a speech from the White House rose garden, Obama said the bill would create millions of green jobs and lay the foundations of a stable economy.
"I can't stress enough the importance of this vote," he said. "We cannot be afraid of the future, and we cannot be a prisoner of the past."
He also said the reforms were overdue, and crucial to demonstrating US leadership on the world stage. "We have been talking about this issue for decades and now it's time to act."
In Washington and beyond, the vote is seen as a historic moment, both for Obama's political agenda and international efforts to reach a climate change treaty at Copenhagen in December.
"This legislation is a game changer of historic proportions," said Ed Markey, the Massachusetts Democrat who is one of the authors of the bill. "The whole world is waiting to see if Barack Obama can arrive in Copenhagen as a leader of attempts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions."
The bill could allow America to claim a leadership role in international negotiations, diplomats said. "If this goes through, it's a very big achievement – no question," said one diplomat.
The bill sets less aggressive targets on reducing emissions than the EU has pledged, and is more generous to polluting industries than Obama had wanted. But he said: "This is a huge ocean liner, the US economy, and the question is, can we start changing [its] direction? Ten years out, it's not going to look as if the changes are massive. Twenty years out, suddenly you start really getting huge impacts. Thirty years out, you had a transformative difference in the economy. And that's how we've got to look at it."
The interventions from Obama capped an intensive lobbying effort for the bill by the White House and administration officials, Al Gore, and a broad coalition of environmental and business groups. The run-up had seen America's oil, gas and coal industry increase its lobbying budget by 50% in the first three months of the year to try to kill the bill. The spoiler campaign has run to hundreds of millions of dollars and involves industry front groups, lobbying firms, television, print and radio advertising, and donations to pivotal members of Congress.
The last-minute push came as the Democratic house speaker, Nancy Pelosi, went over the vote-counts. The Democrats have enough representatives to win but dissidents from farm and rustbelt states needed to be won over.
Democrats grew increasingly confident of the bill's passage earlier this week when its most formidable opponent in Congress, the Democratic chair of the house agricultural committee, said he would now push for its passage after winning concessions. "We think we have something here now that can work with agriculture," said Collin Peterson, who led the Democratic opposition to the bill. "I think we will be able to get the votes to pass this."
The stakes could not be higher. A defeat would destroy the last chances of enacting crucial energy legislation before the UN treaty negotiations at Copenhagen. It could also rebound on other items on Obama's to-do list. The bill must also be passed by the Senate before Obama signs it into law, and while the Democrats face a tougher fight there, tomorrow's likely victory would give them a burst of momentum.
The bill has faced almost uniform opposition from Republicans in the house, who say it amounts to a hidden energy tax. They have also argued that the bill would dramatically raise electricity prices – a claim debunked with the release of a cost analysis by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office showing it would cost the average family a total of $175 (£107) by 2020, and would save poor families about $40.
The bill, now swollen to about 1,200 pages, would bind the US to reduce the carbon emissions from burning oil and coal by 17% from 2005 levels by 2020 and more than 80% by 2050.
It envisages measures to promote clean energy – from a development bank for new technology to new, greener building codes and targets for expanding the use of solar and wind power.
But there were concerns among environmentalists yesterday that the concessions had dangerously weakened the bill, and that the Senate could water down the green measures further.
After the reduction of the original emissions-cut target to 17% and the granting of far more free pollution permits for the cap-and-trade scheme than originally envisioned, the most significant concessions include how farmers are rewarded for practices that reduce carbon emissions, and a four-year delay in new regulations that would have cut the profits of corn-based ethanol and encouraged the development of non-food biofuels instead.
However, Henry Waxman, who has been leading the bill through Congress, argued that the most important element of the bill had come through the hard bargaining process intact.
"We have not given away the essentials of the bill because the essentials are the reduction of carbon emissions."
Most environmental organisations said the bill – though not as rigorous as they would have liked – was as stringent as could be expected from Congress and were hopeful of making improvements in the future. However, Greenpeace late yesterday said it could not support the bill, and called on Congress to defeat it.
" To support such a bill is to abandon the real leadership that is called
for at this pivotal moment in history," the organisation said.
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
The Guardian, Friday 26 June 2009
Democrats in Congress are poised to vote through a sweeping energy and climate change bill tomorrow that could deliver on one of Barack Obama's signature election promises and galvanise international efforts to agree action on global warming.
The vote, which for the first time could see the US commit itself to cutting back the carbon emissions that cause climate change, prompted a frenzied last-minute PR offensive, with Obama making his third appeal in 48 hours for Congress to act on energy reform.
Passage of the bill, which would reduce US greenhouse gas emissions by 17% from 2005 levels by 2020 and offer incentives for energy efficiency and the development of clean energy technology, would hand Obama a personal victory at a time when he has run into strong opposition over the trillion-dollar price tag on his other main election promise, healthcare reform.
In a speech from the White House rose garden, Obama said the bill would create millions of green jobs and lay the foundations of a stable economy.
"I can't stress enough the importance of this vote," he said. "We cannot be afraid of the future, and we cannot be a prisoner of the past."
He also said the reforms were overdue, and crucial to demonstrating US leadership on the world stage. "We have been talking about this issue for decades and now it's time to act."
In Washington and beyond, the vote is seen as a historic moment, both for Obama's political agenda and international efforts to reach a climate change treaty at Copenhagen in December.
"This legislation is a game changer of historic proportions," said Ed Markey, the Massachusetts Democrat who is one of the authors of the bill. "The whole world is waiting to see if Barack Obama can arrive in Copenhagen as a leader of attempts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions."
The bill could allow America to claim a leadership role in international negotiations, diplomats said. "If this goes through, it's a very big achievement – no question," said one diplomat.
The bill sets less aggressive targets on reducing emissions than the EU has pledged, and is more generous to polluting industries than Obama had wanted. But he said: "This is a huge ocean liner, the US economy, and the question is, can we start changing [its] direction? Ten years out, it's not going to look as if the changes are massive. Twenty years out, suddenly you start really getting huge impacts. Thirty years out, you had a transformative difference in the economy. And that's how we've got to look at it."
The interventions from Obama capped an intensive lobbying effort for the bill by the White House and administration officials, Al Gore, and a broad coalition of environmental and business groups. The run-up had seen America's oil, gas and coal industry increase its lobbying budget by 50% in the first three months of the year to try to kill the bill. The spoiler campaign has run to hundreds of millions of dollars and involves industry front groups, lobbying firms, television, print and radio advertising, and donations to pivotal members of Congress.
The last-minute push came as the Democratic house speaker, Nancy Pelosi, went over the vote-counts. The Democrats have enough representatives to win but dissidents from farm and rustbelt states needed to be won over.
Democrats grew increasingly confident of the bill's passage earlier this week when its most formidable opponent in Congress, the Democratic chair of the house agricultural committee, said he would now push for its passage after winning concessions. "We think we have something here now that can work with agriculture," said Collin Peterson, who led the Democratic opposition to the bill. "I think we will be able to get the votes to pass this."
The stakes could not be higher. A defeat would destroy the last chances of enacting crucial energy legislation before the UN treaty negotiations at Copenhagen. It could also rebound on other items on Obama's to-do list. The bill must also be passed by the Senate before Obama signs it into law, and while the Democrats face a tougher fight there, tomorrow's likely victory would give them a burst of momentum.
The bill has faced almost uniform opposition from Republicans in the house, who say it amounts to a hidden energy tax. They have also argued that the bill would dramatically raise electricity prices – a claim debunked with the release of a cost analysis by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office showing it would cost the average family a total of $175 (£107) by 2020, and would save poor families about $40.
The bill, now swollen to about 1,200 pages, would bind the US to reduce the carbon emissions from burning oil and coal by 17% from 2005 levels by 2020 and more than 80% by 2050.
It envisages measures to promote clean energy – from a development bank for new technology to new, greener building codes and targets for expanding the use of solar and wind power.
But there were concerns among environmentalists yesterday that the concessions had dangerously weakened the bill, and that the Senate could water down the green measures further.
After the reduction of the original emissions-cut target to 17% and the granting of far more free pollution permits for the cap-and-trade scheme than originally envisioned, the most significant concessions include how farmers are rewarded for practices that reduce carbon emissions, and a four-year delay in new regulations that would have cut the profits of corn-based ethanol and encouraged the development of non-food biofuels instead.
However, Henry Waxman, who has been leading the bill through Congress, argued that the most important element of the bill had come through the hard bargaining process intact.
"We have not given away the essentials of the bill because the essentials are the reduction of carbon emissions."
Most environmental organisations said the bill – though not as rigorous as they would have liked – was as stringent as could be expected from Congress and were hopeful of making improvements in the future. However, Greenpeace late yesterday said it could not support the bill, and called on Congress to defeat it.
" To support such a bill is to abandon the real leadership that is called
for at this pivotal moment in history," the organisation said.
Barack Obama's climate change bill will change the face of US industry
Jonathan Lash
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 25 June 2009 23.35 BST
The US House of Representatives will vote tomorrow on a bill that would change the face of America's factories, power sources, buildings, landscapes and working patterns. I have been involved in a dozen pieces of landmark US environmental legislation over the last 30 years. None has been more important than this.
Let's start with the fact that the US has never had a coherent, comprehensive energy policy, and that the American clean energy and security act (Acesa) would provide one. The bill sets out a long-term road map to shift the world's biggest economy on to a low carbon path. My institute's analysis shows that it is the strongest climate bill ever to come before Congress, setting mandatory caps on sectors responsible for 87% of US greenhouse gas emissions including electric power, oil and gas, and heavy industry.
By putting a price on greenhouse gas emissions, Acesa sends a vital message to businesses and investors that markets for low-carbon products and services are the future. The US is home to the most entrepreneurial and innovative private sector in the world. With this signal we can develop the technology to keep global warming within manageable limits.
Almost as important are the bill's international implications. With the months to the UN Copenhagen summit counting down, the world urgently awaits US leadership. The concrete greenhouse gas targets and additional carbon-cutting measures in this bill, and its provisions to help finance developing country adaptation to climate change, send a strong signal that the US is serious about negotiating a new global deal in Denmark this December.
If the house defeats the bill, it will be years before Congress returns to the subject. Meanwhile, the Copenhagen negotiations would collapse. Other nations would take Congress's failure to limit US emissions as a signal that the world economy will continue to pursue business-as-usual energy policies. And the planet continues to heat at an accelerating and dangerous rate.
Like many, I would like to see deeper cuts. But what is most important is to start changing the trajectory of the greenhouse gas-generating juggernaut that is the US economy. And the alternative is not a stronger bill, it is no bill.
Jonathan Lash is president of the World Resources Institute, based in Washington
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 25 June 2009 23.35 BST
The US House of Representatives will vote tomorrow on a bill that would change the face of America's factories, power sources, buildings, landscapes and working patterns. I have been involved in a dozen pieces of landmark US environmental legislation over the last 30 years. None has been more important than this.
Let's start with the fact that the US has never had a coherent, comprehensive energy policy, and that the American clean energy and security act (Acesa) would provide one. The bill sets out a long-term road map to shift the world's biggest economy on to a low carbon path. My institute's analysis shows that it is the strongest climate bill ever to come before Congress, setting mandatory caps on sectors responsible for 87% of US greenhouse gas emissions including electric power, oil and gas, and heavy industry.
By putting a price on greenhouse gas emissions, Acesa sends a vital message to businesses and investors that markets for low-carbon products and services are the future. The US is home to the most entrepreneurial and innovative private sector in the world. With this signal we can develop the technology to keep global warming within manageable limits.
Almost as important are the bill's international implications. With the months to the UN Copenhagen summit counting down, the world urgently awaits US leadership. The concrete greenhouse gas targets and additional carbon-cutting measures in this bill, and its provisions to help finance developing country adaptation to climate change, send a strong signal that the US is serious about negotiating a new global deal in Denmark this December.
If the house defeats the bill, it will be years before Congress returns to the subject. Meanwhile, the Copenhagen negotiations would collapse. Other nations would take Congress's failure to limit US emissions as a signal that the world economy will continue to pursue business-as-usual energy policies. And the planet continues to heat at an accelerating and dangerous rate.
Like many, I would like to see deeper cuts. But what is most important is to start changing the trajectory of the greenhouse gas-generating juggernaut that is the US economy. And the alternative is not a stronger bill, it is no bill.
Jonathan Lash is president of the World Resources Institute, based in Washington
Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband's blueprint for global warming deal
Duncan Clark, environment correspondent
The Guardian, Friday 26 June 2009
Gordon Brown will tomorrow outline Britain's blueprint for a new international deal on global warming, which world leaders are pushing to be agreed at December's critical UN talks in Copenhagen. In a speech at London Zoo, the prime minister is expected to call on all developed countries, including Britain and the US, to show greater ambition in the fight against climate change.
The new agreement is intended to replace the Kyoto protocol in setting national limits on carbon pollution, and is billed by green campaigners as the last chance to save the planet from severe and dangerous levels of warming.
Brown and Ed Miliband, the energy and climate change secretary, will publish details in the government's Road to Copenhagen document, which Miliband said was aimed at revitalising public interest in the issue.
Speaking ahead of the launch, Miliband said: "People are still not sufficiently aware of the scale of the problem this could create for them and future generations in Britain.
"People believe climate change is happening in the UK, most people don't think it's a plot or something made up, but most people don't seem to think it will happen in their area."
He said Britain, which will negotiate the new treaty as part of the EU bloc, was pushing for the new deal to force emissions from developed nations to reach a peak by 2015.
Global greenhouse gas output should peak and begin to decline by 2020, to "irreversibly break" the trend of rising emissions.
Scientists have warned that global emissions need to peak in the next few years, and then significantly shrink, to avoid dangerous rises in temperature and changes to the climate.
Miliband said: "We're talking about reversing 150 to 200 years of the growth of carbon emissions. It's difficult, there are many obstacles in the way, but it's doable with the right political will."
The UK wants the deal to include commitments in three areas – emissions cuts by developed countries, reductions by developing countries compared with what they would emit without an agreement, and finance for climate change measures.
He said various countries, including the US, Japan and the EU, had already made offers of commitments they would sign up to, while China and other developing countries wanted a deal. But he said there needed to be "greater ambition from all countries" since the world could not afford to fail on the issue.
Miliband said his department has established a "Copenhagen war room" and ministers from across Whitehall are being instructed to raise the issue on all overseas visits.
A pamphlet explaining the risks posed by climate change and the importance of a Copenhagen deal is being sent to nearly 20,000 organisations across the UK – including libraries, schools, health centres and GP surgeries, as well as Citizens Advice centres and local authorities.
Miliband said: "There's a real danger of defeatism in this debate, a danger people think 'nothing can be done, it's inevitable, let's just hide under the bedclothes'."
He said leaders needed to be in the "business of optimism" and that he was genuinely optimistic about the efforts to tackle climate change.
The announcement comes the day after new data showed the growth of global carbon dioxide emissions fell by half in 2008 as a result of the recession, high oil prices and an increase in renewable energy. In addition, the figures show that, for the first time, carbon dioxide emissions from the developing world account for more than half of the global total.
The analysis, by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, shows that the rise in the world's emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement production in 2008 was just 1.7%, compared with 3.3% in 2007.
The slowdown in emissions growth was caused primarily by a 0.6% fall in the consumption of oil – the first decline in global oil use since 1992. This trend was uneven around the world. In China, oil use continued to rise, but at only 3%, down from an average of 8% since 2001. In the US, oil consumption fell by a massive 7%.
By contrast, global coal use continued to creep up and the rise in the consumption of natural gas remained unchanged.
Increasing renewable energy capacity and improving energy efficiency in many countries also contributed to the reduced rise in carbon dioxide emissions. NEAA's Jos Olivier said: "The impact of energy and climate policy is hard to distinguish from those of fuel prices and the recession, but policies encouraging renewable electricity generation will have helped avoid around 500m tonnes of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel power stations."
It remains to be seen how the rate of emissions will change in 2009. If the recession continues to bite through the year, global emissions could flatten off entirely.
Meanwhile, policymakers are likely to be particularly struck by the revelation that, in 2008, the developing world accounted for 50.3% of carbon dioxide emissions, exceeding developed nations and international travel combined for the first time. This fact will provide ammunition for those arguing in favour of binding emissions targets for all nations, not just industrialised ones.
Furthermore, the data does not take into account the carbon dioxide released by deforestation, which accounts for almost 20% of all greenhouse gas emissions and takes place overwhelmingly in the developing world.
The Guardian, Friday 26 June 2009
Gordon Brown will tomorrow outline Britain's blueprint for a new international deal on global warming, which world leaders are pushing to be agreed at December's critical UN talks in Copenhagen. In a speech at London Zoo, the prime minister is expected to call on all developed countries, including Britain and the US, to show greater ambition in the fight against climate change.
The new agreement is intended to replace the Kyoto protocol in setting national limits on carbon pollution, and is billed by green campaigners as the last chance to save the planet from severe and dangerous levels of warming.
Brown and Ed Miliband, the energy and climate change secretary, will publish details in the government's Road to Copenhagen document, which Miliband said was aimed at revitalising public interest in the issue.
Speaking ahead of the launch, Miliband said: "People are still not sufficiently aware of the scale of the problem this could create for them and future generations in Britain.
"People believe climate change is happening in the UK, most people don't think it's a plot or something made up, but most people don't seem to think it will happen in their area."
He said Britain, which will negotiate the new treaty as part of the EU bloc, was pushing for the new deal to force emissions from developed nations to reach a peak by 2015.
Global greenhouse gas output should peak and begin to decline by 2020, to "irreversibly break" the trend of rising emissions.
Scientists have warned that global emissions need to peak in the next few years, and then significantly shrink, to avoid dangerous rises in temperature and changes to the climate.
Miliband said: "We're talking about reversing 150 to 200 years of the growth of carbon emissions. It's difficult, there are many obstacles in the way, but it's doable with the right political will."
The UK wants the deal to include commitments in three areas – emissions cuts by developed countries, reductions by developing countries compared with what they would emit without an agreement, and finance for climate change measures.
He said various countries, including the US, Japan and the EU, had already made offers of commitments they would sign up to, while China and other developing countries wanted a deal. But he said there needed to be "greater ambition from all countries" since the world could not afford to fail on the issue.
Miliband said his department has established a "Copenhagen war room" and ministers from across Whitehall are being instructed to raise the issue on all overseas visits.
A pamphlet explaining the risks posed by climate change and the importance of a Copenhagen deal is being sent to nearly 20,000 organisations across the UK – including libraries, schools, health centres and GP surgeries, as well as Citizens Advice centres and local authorities.
Miliband said: "There's a real danger of defeatism in this debate, a danger people think 'nothing can be done, it's inevitable, let's just hide under the bedclothes'."
He said leaders needed to be in the "business of optimism" and that he was genuinely optimistic about the efforts to tackle climate change.
The announcement comes the day after new data showed the growth of global carbon dioxide emissions fell by half in 2008 as a result of the recession, high oil prices and an increase in renewable energy. In addition, the figures show that, for the first time, carbon dioxide emissions from the developing world account for more than half of the global total.
The analysis, by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, shows that the rise in the world's emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement production in 2008 was just 1.7%, compared with 3.3% in 2007.
The slowdown in emissions growth was caused primarily by a 0.6% fall in the consumption of oil – the first decline in global oil use since 1992. This trend was uneven around the world. In China, oil use continued to rise, but at only 3%, down from an average of 8% since 2001. In the US, oil consumption fell by a massive 7%.
By contrast, global coal use continued to creep up and the rise in the consumption of natural gas remained unchanged.
Increasing renewable energy capacity and improving energy efficiency in many countries also contributed to the reduced rise in carbon dioxide emissions. NEAA's Jos Olivier said: "The impact of energy and climate policy is hard to distinguish from those of fuel prices and the recession, but policies encouraging renewable electricity generation will have helped avoid around 500m tonnes of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel power stations."
It remains to be seen how the rate of emissions will change in 2009. If the recession continues to bite through the year, global emissions could flatten off entirely.
Meanwhile, policymakers are likely to be particularly struck by the revelation that, in 2008, the developing world accounted for 50.3% of carbon dioxide emissions, exceeding developed nations and international travel combined for the first time. This fact will provide ammunition for those arguing in favour of binding emissions targets for all nations, not just industrialised ones.
Furthermore, the data does not take into account the carbon dioxide released by deforestation, which accounts for almost 20% of all greenhouse gas emissions and takes place overwhelmingly in the developing world.
Climate change: cap and trade
Suzanne Goldenberg
The Guardian, Thursday 25 June 2009
The core of the American Clean Energy and Security Act is a cap and trade system that would bind the US to gradually reducing its carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions, from 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 and to 83% by 2050. This is much lower than European targets. The caps would apply to 85% of polluting industries. Regulated industries will eventually need to buy permits to put carbon emissions into the atmosphere. But at the outset, 85% of those pollution licences will be distributed free to protect consumers from steep rises in their electricity bills and protect American businesses. Remaining funds would be used to support clean energy research and adaptation to climate change in developing countries.
The Guardian, Thursday 25 June 2009
The core of the American Clean Energy and Security Act is a cap and trade system that would bind the US to gradually reducing its carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions, from 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 and to 83% by 2050. This is much lower than European targets. The caps would apply to 85% of polluting industries. Regulated industries will eventually need to buy permits to put carbon emissions into the atmosphere. But at the outset, 85% of those pollution licences will be distributed free to protect consumers from steep rises in their electricity bills and protect American businesses. Remaining funds would be used to support clean energy research and adaptation to climate change in developing countries.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
