Did China Sink Copenhagen Negotations?

According to Mark Lynas, the author of Six Degrees, the answer is yes. "Copenhagen was a disaster. That much is agreed. But the truth about what actually happened is in danger of being lost amid the spin and inevitable mutual recriminations. The truth is this: China wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful "deal" so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame. How do I know this? Because I was in the room and saw it happen."

China's strategy was simple: block the open negotiations for two weeks, and then ensure that the closed-door deal made it look as if the west had failed the world's poor once again. And sure enough, the aid agencies, civil society movements and environmental groups all took the bait. The failure was "the inevitable result of rich countries refusing adequately and fairly to shoulder their overwhelming responsibility", said Christian Aid. "Rich countries have bullied developing nations," fumed Friends of the Earth International.

All very predictable, but the complete opposite of the truth. Even George Monbiot, writing in yesterday's Guardian, made the mistake of singly blaming Obama. But I saw Obama fighting desperately to salvage a deal, and the Chinese delegate saying "no", over and over again. Monbiot even approvingly quoted the Sudanese delegate Lumumba Di-Aping, who denounced the Copenhagen accord as "a suicide pact, an incineration pact, in order to maintain the economic dominance of a few countries".

Sudan behaves at the talks as a puppet of China; one of a number of countries that relieves the Chinese delegation of having to fight its battles in open sessions. It was a perfect stitch-up. China gutted the deal behind the scenes, and then left its proxies to savage it in public.

Here's what actually went on late last Friday night, as heads of state from two dozen countries met behind closed doors. Obama was at the table for several hours, sitting between Gordon
Brown and the Ethiopian prime minister, Meles Zenawi. The Danish prime minister chaired, and on his right sat Ban Ki-moon, secretary-general of the UN. Probably only about 50 or 60 people, including the heads of state, were in the room. I was attached to one of the delegations, whose head of state was also present for most of the time.

What I saw was profoundly shocking. The Chinese premier, Wen Jinbao, did not deign to attend the meetings personally, instead sending a second-tier official in the country's foreign ministry to sit opposite Obama himself. The diplomatic snub was obvious and brutal, as was the practical implication: several times during the session, the world's most powerful heads of state were forced to wait around as the Chinese delegate went off to make telephone calls to his "superiors".
Shifting the blame to those who would blame Obama and rich countries in general, know this: it was China's representative who insisted that industrialised country targets, previously agreed as an 80% cut by 2050, be taken out of the deal. "Why can't we even mention our own targets?" demanded a furious Angela Merkel. Australia's prime minister, Kevin Rudd, was annoyed enough to bang his microphone. Brazil's representative too pointed out the illogicality of China's position. Why should rich countries not announce even this unilateral cut? The Chinese delegate said no, and I watched, aghast, as Merkel threw up her hands in despair and conceded the point. Now we know why – because China bet, correctly, that Obama would get the blame for the Copenhagen accord's lack of ambition.

China, backed at times by India, then proceeded to take out all the numbers that mattered. A 2020 peaking year in global emissions, essential to restrain temperatures to 2C, was removed and replaced by woolly language suggesting that emissions should peak "as soon as possible".

The long-term target, of global 50% cuts by 2050, was also excised. No one else, perhaps with the exceptions of India and Saudi Arabia, wanted this to happen. I am certain that had the Chinese not been in the room, we would have left Copenhagen with a deal that had environmentalists popping champagne corks popping in every corner of the world.

Strong position

So how did China manage to pull off this coup? First, it was in an extremely strong negotiating position. China didn't need a deal. As one developing country foreign minister said to me: "The Athenians had nothing to offer to the Spartans." On the other hand, western leaders in particular – but also presidents Lula of Brazil, Zuma of South Africa, Calderón of Mexico and many others – were desperate for a positive outcome. Obama needed a strong deal perhaps more than anyone. The US had confirmed the offer of $100bn to developing countries for adaptation, put serious cuts on the table for the first time (17% below 2005 levels by 2020), and was obviously prepared to up its offer.

Above all, Obama needed to be able to demonstrate to the Senate that he could deliver China in any global climate regulation framework, so conservative senators could not argue that US carbon cuts would further advantage Chinese industry. With midterm elections looming, Obama and his staff also knew that Copenhagen would be probably their only opportunity to go to climate change talks with a strong mandate. This further strengthened China's negotiating hand, as did the complete lack of civil society political pressure on either China or India. Campaign groups never blame developing countries for failure; this is an iron rule that is never broken.

The Indians, in particular, have become past masters at co-opting the language of equity ("equal rights to the atmosphere") in the service of planetary suicide – and leftish campaigners and commentators are hoist with their own petard.

With the deal gutted, the heads of state session concluded with a final battle as the Chinese delegate insisted on removing the 1.5C target so beloved of the small island states and low-lying nations who have most to lose from rising seas. President Nasheed of the Maldives, supported by Brown, fought valiantly to save this crucial number. "How can you ask my country to go extinct?" demanded Nasheed. The Chinese delegate feigned great offence – and the number stayed, but surrounded by language which makes it all but meaningless. The deed was done.

China's game

All this raises the question: what is China's game? Why did China, in the words of a UK-based analyst who also spent hours in heads of state meetings, "not only reject targets for itself, but also refuse to allow any other country to take on binding targets?" The analyst, who has attended climate conferences for more than 15 years, concludes that China wants to weaken the climate regulation regime now "in order to avoid the risk that it might be called on to be more ambitious in a few years' time".

This does not mean China is not serious about global warming. It is strong in both the wind and solar industries. But China's growth, and growing global political and economic dominance, is based largely on cheap coal. China knows it is becoming an uncontested superpower; indeed its newfound muscular confidence was on striking display in Copenhagen. Its coal-based economy doubles every decade, and its power increases commensurately. Its leadership will not alter this magic formula unless they absolutely have to.

Copenhagen was much worse than just another bad deal, because it illustrated a profound shift in global geopolitics. This is fast becoming China's century, yet its leadership has displayed that multilateral environmental governance is not only not a priority, but is viewed as a hindrance to the new superpower's freedom of action. I left Copenhagen more despondent than I have felt in a long time. After all the hope and all the hype, the mobilisation of thousands, a wave of optimism crashed against the rock of global power politics, fell back, and drained away.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/22/copenhagen-climate-change-mark-lynas

Distributed Storage

It looks like Panasonic is getting into the energy storage game, with plans to market a home storage device by 2011. One question, how much?

http://www.geek.com/articles/chips/panasonic-aiming-for-battery-powered-homes-by-2011-20091228/

Negotiations Heating Up in Lead Up to Copenhagen

By Carrie Halperin and Raquel Thompson

In Congress and on the international stage, efforts to legislate limits to carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions that are linked to global warming ran into boycotts and disagreement last week, with the chances of final passage and reform still unclear.

In Congress, supporters of reform are trying to pass a bill that reduces dependence on foreign oil, increases national security, and puts America on the path towards a carbon free economy, which would help tackle the global climate problem. They are also trying to create legislation that could be used as a negotiating jumping off point in Copenhagen three weeks from today.

Last week seven Senate republicans on the Environment and Public Works committee boycotted the final three days of debate that aimed to mark-up the bill last week - refusing even to come to the table to join the negotiations.

Rejecting the need for additional economic analysis, the remaining 12 Democrats passed the bill Thursday by a vote of 11 to 1. The only no vote came from Democratic Senator Baucus of Montana who cited concerns he had with the bill were not fully addressed as reason for his vote.

The other boycott

Representatives from 181 nations met in Spain to negotiate a climate change agenda for the December 7-18 meeting in Copenhagen.

There were three major issues identified and argued from the Barcelona meetings: rich nations have to set meaningful targets for emissions reductions; poor countries have to pledge their own reductions; and a system must be established for rich nations to pay poor nations to help them adapt to climate change.

At the session last week, nearly 50 African nations walked out of the final round of international negotiations demanding that more of the remaining time in the week-long discussions be devoted to addressing the commitments in CO2 emissions reductions to be pledged by the developed countries.

"It is not in our interest to stop discussions -we cannot do that. But, we must make a standpoint, because we don't want a raw deal," said Makase Nyaphisi Coordinator and Chair of a group of the world's 49 Least Developed Countries within the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

An agreement was reportedly reached in Spain that ameliorated the African Nations and allowed negotiations to continue after a 24-hour halt.

More than 190 countries are attempting to come to consensus on the details of a new international climate treaty that will restrain global warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit).

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has warned the current of path of emissions will likely lead to a six-degree temperature increase by the end of the century, which correlates to widespread droughts, severe and erratic weather patterns, acidification of the oceans, and rising sea levels.

The contested treaty aims to achieve the 2-degree goal by having all parties sign up to curb emissions in the near and long-term according to the principle of common and differentiated responsibility. U.S. domestic climate legislation is considered integral to the ability to negotiate a strong international treaty, which is due to be finalized in Copenhagen next month.

The international community is looking at the U.S. to come to the table prepared to agree to emissions targets. And the Obama administration does not want to repeat the Clinton-era mistake of signing onto a treaty, like they had in Kyoto, that didn't have the support at home to be ratified.

US vote perceived internationally

It has been widely reported that it is growing increasingly unlikely that there will not be a climate bill in time for meetings the December climate negotiations.

This puts the administration in the embarrassing position of coming to the table at Copenhagen empty-handed.

Others are slightly more hopeful such as Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt of Sweden who has said the emissions bill being debated by a key US Senate committee was "going in the right direction" but was "not as lengthy as we would hope."

The Authors of the Senate’s legislation are slightly more optimistic, "I think this is a great signal for Copenhagen that there's a will to do what it takes to advance this issue," committee Chairman Barbara Boxer told reporters after her panel voted.

The Road ahead

In the days ahead, six committees in total must submit their drafts of their climate bill before it receives a full vote in the Chamber. The Environment and Public Works Committee bill will merge with legislation approved earlier this year by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, as well as drafts from the Agriculture, Commerce, Finance and Foreign Relations panels.

As for international negotiations, climate talks in Barcelona ended with "progress less than desirable," said John Ashe, chair of one of the two main working groups.

"We are still optimistic that maybe magic will happen and we will be able to reach an agreement," the Chinese negotiator said on the final day of talks in Barcelona.

Next month's meeting in Copenhagen represents the culmination of the two-year process of international negotiators and world leaders working together to hammer out a new international climate regime. The chair urged negotiators to continue working in the 30 days between now and then.

On Friday the EPA sent over its endangerment finding to the President’s office.

And this week Secretary General Ban-Ki-Moon made his way to Washington to lobby members of Congress to pass legislation of the Climate Bill.

New Energy Frontier-Obama moving forward through the department of the interior.

U.S. Must Lead Way in Clean Energy Technology, Agency Heads Say

Administration Officials Push for the Swift Passing of Kerry-Boxer Climate Change Legislation

By CARRIE HALPERIN

Oct. 28, 2009—

Backers of a sweeping energy and environmental bill are hoping to inject new momentum into a stalled effort to cap carbon emissions, with a major push timed around extensive hearings this week on Capitol Hill.

On Tuesday, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee held the first legislative hearing of the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act. Over the next few days, 54 witnesses on nine separate panels will testify before the committee, and proponents of the bill are hoping that skeptics will change their minds.

Otherwise known as the Kerry-Boxer bill -- the Senate version of the Waxman-Markey bill that passed the House this summer -- the legislation aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through a cap and trade system.

But the system has its critics. Proponents argue that for 22 to 30 cents a day per household, Americans will be in charge of their energy future and reduce dependence on foreign oil, but opponents counter that the bill will increase taxes and do little to avert climate change.

On Tuesday, The Environment and Public Works Committee heard statements from Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar, head of the Environmental Protection Agency, Lisa Jackson, and head of the Federal Regulatory Energy Commission, Jon Wellinghoff, all of whom pushed for swift legislation.

Fast Forward on Clean Energy

Since taking office, the Obama administration has signaled its support for a cleaner energy future, announcing billions of dollars in stimulus funding for renewable energy projects, and advocatingclimate change legislation.

President Obama was even praised for his work in combating global climate change when he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize earlier this month.

Steven Chu: U.S. Needs to Lead the Way

At the Senate hearing, Chu stressed that the United States should capitalize on the global need to cut emissions by taking the lead in renewable energy technology.

"When the starting gun sounded on the clean energy race, the United States stumbled," Chu told lawmakers. "But I remain confident that we can make up the ground."

From the $787 billion federal stimulus funds, $80 billion has already been set aside for investments in new battery technology, energy efficiency, and modernizing the electric grid.

Just Tuesday, Obama announced a $3.4 billion federal investment in "smart" electric grid technology.

"We're on the cusp of a new energy future," the president said, touting the technology, which he said will cut electricity usage by 4 percent by 2030.

Chu noted that there is a need for comprehensive climate legislation to go along with the stimulus funding.

Chu and other agency heads stressed the work their teams are doing in moving forward on Obama's clean energy agenda.

Salazar told Congress the Interior Department is involved in efforts to fast forward renewable energy projects this year.

The department has set aside 1,000 square miles for solar energy development projects.

"On those lands alone that could account for about 100,000 megawatts of power, enough to power 29 million homes, 29 percent of household needs," Salazar said.

The Interior Department is fast-tracking applications in Arizona, California, Nevada and New Mexico and expects to be able to permit 4,500 megawatts of solar power -- equivalent to about 14 or 15 coal fired power plants -- by the end of next year. Wind and Geothermal projects are also being given priority. The Interior Department expects to approve 800 megawatts of wind energy by next year. Specifically, the Interior is looking into the Atlantic Seaboard where political support is strong for renewable power.

The Federal Regulatory Energy Commission (FERC) has progressed in removing barriers to the use of "low carbon" renewable resources and encouraged greater efficiency in the electricity system and the need to put a price on carbon in the market place, Wellinghoff told senators.

But efforts to remove barriers by FERC and "the efforts of other federal and state agencies, while helpful, are not enough to efficiently stem the growing accumulation of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere," he said.

But even though Wellinghoff and his counterparts touted the Kerry-Boxer bill, not all members of Congress are on board. The committee's top Republican, James Inhofe, R-Okla., argued against the bill, saying it represents "a fundamental difference in a vision for the country."

He also said that the American people wouldn't buy the added expenses.

"This is something the American people can't tolerate and I don't think they will," Inhofe said.

Others complained the process is too hurried.

"Why are we trying to jam down this legislation now?" asked Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio. "Wouldn't it be smarter to take our time and do it right?"

350 Campaign Organizes Massive Climate Day of Action

Protests against global warming erupted around the globe Saturday as International Day of a Climate Action took hold of activists pushing to stabilize the climate at 350 part per million.

Many scientists have been warning that the current concentration of C02 in the atmosphere is of 387 parts per million is too high and in order to avoid disruptive climate patterns we must reduce the concentration of C02 in the atmosphere to the upper limit that is safe, 350 parts per million.

Organized by 350.org the days events sought to raise awareness to the issue of climate change. Over 5,200 events an181 countries participated in what is billed as the most widespread day of action against global warming in the planets history.

Events took place in all corners of the globe. From the Taj Mahal, to the Eiffel Tower, from the Great Barrier Reef, to the Himalayas from the Maldives, to Times Square people came together around the 350 number.

Protesters sought to make the number known across the planet and to let world leaders know that this is what the world should strive for at negotiations at Copenhagen, and what they see as what is in accordance with what science says is necessary to avert severe climatic disruption.

Earlier this week a survey from the Pew Center was released showing Americans were less likely to believe climate change as a man-made phenomenon than a few years ago and that only 36 percent of Americans believed global warming was man-made.

It seems the world is diverting into two parts, those who believe this is the biggest issue facing mankind, and those who deny its implications.

For some this protest was a way of fighting back against a campaign of misinformation meant to confuse people on what the causes of climate change are and how to reduce it.

Film Asks World Leaders to Agree to no more than a 2 degree temperature increase

In a solar powered tent in New York’s financial district, not far from the hole in the ground where the World Trade Center used to stand, the film the Age of Stupid premiered Monday night; simultaneously broadcast to a million people around the world to more than 600 cinemas in over 40 countries. The film is a drama-documentary hybrid about a future in which the world failed to stop climate change.

The story is told from the perspective of Pete, the founder of the Global Archive, a storage facility located in the now melted Arctic, on a post habitable planet. Pete acts as the narrator for the story, pulling together clips from the archive documentary from 1950 to 2008 showing what went wrong and why.

The story follows a string of six stories from a paleontologist who helps shell find more oil off the cost of New Orleans, a low cost airline startup in India, a woman who lives in poverty in Nigeria, a wind developer in England who fights against not in my own back yard politics, a French mountain guide who witnesses the disappearance of glaciers and a young Iraqi refugee living on the streets of Jordan.

MTV’s Gideon Yago hosted the premiere, which included a green carpet (made of recycled soda bottles), a bicycled powered performance by Moby, and a slew of celebrities and world leaders alongside with live satellite feeds from far corners of the world already affected by climate change.

What is going on today “at the UN will be the biggest conference on climate change in humanity history” Yago explained. It is no coincidence that the films world premiere came the night before.

After the film ended a discussion broke out with those in attendance. Amongst those attending was Dr. Rajendra K. Pachuri, chair of the International Panel on Climate Change, a position that awarded him the Nobel Prize alongside former Vice President Al Gore.

Among topics of discussion, was the theme within the film that showed necessity to cap emissions , and soon. “The film is correct emissions must peak by 2015 to stop temperatures from going above 2 degrees -2.4 degrees Celsius” Dr. Pachuri explained after the film.

Former Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan was also in attendance. “What is important is that everyone (at the UN meeting tomorrow) is accepting the science, and no one is saying we need more science” Annan explained.

The former Secretary General called upon those listening to send a message out to the leaders that they want to protect this planet, and provide such a shout that they cannot ignore it. “Good leaders are good followers, and if we shout loud enough it might help” Annan continued

The film’s director, Fanny Armstrong described purpose of the event being “to inspire viewers to leap into collective action before world leaders decide our fate at the crucial Climate Summit in December”. The summit has been billed as the last chance to make any substantial policy that would have an effect on the earth’s climate, and todays high level meeting at the UN is the last chance the leaders will gather before December.

Along with a discussion, live interviews were broadcast from Indonesia and the Himalayas two of the places of the world already feeling the destruction from humanity, and climate change.
Mina Susana Setra of the Indigenous Peoples Alliance was live in Indonesia, behind her, the massive deforestation that has occurred on the landscape. Mina described how “2 million hectares a year of deforestation occur in Indonesia every year”.

After the feed from Indonesia, a live shot from the Himalayas. The word Himalaya literally means “abode of snow” yet what was shown had no snow, this range had lost its glaciers.
Shekhar Kapur, a film director, stood live from where the glaciers used to stand.

“The Himalayas are retreating faster than any glaciers in the world,” Kapur explained. The Himalayas are the source of water for 1.3 billion people, and projections show that the icepack could be gone by 2025, which could leave 1.3 billion without water.

“We were standing at the blink of catastrophe, it’s not about our children, it is about us. Global warming is happening, in Asia we will not be able to sustain life any more. That is what is happening please do something about” Kapur explained.

The message of the film was simple. “We are right at the end of the time where we can still do something about climate change. The last time we can do that is at the Copenhagen summit in December.

President Nasheed of the Maldives, attended the premiere as well. President Nasheed has just committed his country to carbon neutrality within ten years, which will make the Maldives the first country in the world do this.

“Even if the Maldivians go carbon neutral, nothing is going to happen, but we thought if we did the right thing, we could die knowing we did the right thing. Climate change is very serious, in the Maldives, “the sea is taking away our land”.

There have been less fish in the Maldives; I am told that this is because the oceans are warmer than it used to be, so the Tuna stay below, if the ocean temperatures are rising, we have a serious problem with coral bleaching.

HOPES OF THE FILM

The film set out to inspire citizens and leaders that Copenhagen is a deadline that must be met. This means attempting something that has never done before, to turn around the worlds’ rise in emissions.

“The problem is that right now, the politicians are behind the science, a minister from the UK expressed at the premiere.

The Copenhagen deal is “Not a done deal by any means”. –Minister of Climate Change in the UK explained.

As the premier event ended Radiohead’s Thom Yorke-sang live via satellite. (Submerged pyramid song).

And a recorded message from kids in Copenhagen played, calling out to world leaders and telling them it is still possible, please come here to Copenhagen and don’t be stupid”.

Former Counter Terrorism Czar Richard Clarke Goes On Bill Maher and Calls Global Warming a Bigger Threat than Terrorism

On the 8th Anniversary of September 11th  former Terrorism Czar Richard Clarke went on HBO's Real Time With Bill Maher and described terrorism as a lesser threat than global warming.

Richard Clarke who served in government for over 30 years and was the chief counter-terrorism adviser on the U.S. National Security Council at the time of the September 11th attacks, was asked by Bill Maher what he thought the bigger threat to be.

"Oh it's defiantly global worming, Terrorism as apposed to global warming, it's definitely global warming.  Terrorism is a passing event" explained Clarke.

This week global warming made headlines as the massive 160,000-acre Station wildfire continued to burn near Los Angeles and Arctic sea ice disappearance opened a shipping passage that hadn't been open for hundreds of years linked trade between Asia and the West through the thawing ocean waters. 

I did notice this week LA County seemed to be on fire.  Every week there's another headline kinda a wholly shit headline on global warming situation.  We used to have a fire season out here," Explained Bill Maher.

Who killed the solar plant with storage?

Is this the sequel to "Who Killed The Electric Car"


DAGGETT • Motorists traveling from Barstow to Needles may notice a change in scenery as they pass Daggett.
At a time when companies are developing solar energy sites all over the Mojave Desert, Southern California Edison and CST Environmental — a Brea-based demolition company — are busy dismantling one of the first projects to successfully store solar energy for use on cloudy days and at night.
Solar Two, built in Daggett in 1993, was a demonstration solar project that paved the way for other projects in Arizona and Spain to use the same technology on a larger scale, said Paul Phelan, manager of engineering in technical services for SCE’s Power Production Department.
But this year Phelan said SCE requested funds from the California Public Utilities Commission to decommission the project. The site wasn’t being used and break-ins were becoming a problem, Phelan said. Also, other parties, including SunRay Energy — a solar power company located in Malta — had expressed interest in possibly building another renewable energy facility near where Solar Two currently sits, Phelan said.
“Those are currently under evaluation by Edison’s Corporate Real Estate Department,” he said.
During its operation, Solar Two put 10 megawatts — enough to power about 6,500 houses — of electricity back into California’s power grid at the peak of summer, Phelan said. Almost 2,000 mirrors converged on a central tower where salt was heated until it became liquid. Phelan said the heated salt turned water into steam, which was used to run a turbine to generate power.
“They had two storage tanks that were insulated so they could store that salt in molten form until they needed it,” Phelan said. “They could run that again through the heating cylinder during dark hours or on cloudy days.”
The technology used in the Solar Two project didn’t exist except in peoples’ minds at that point, said Thomas Mancini, concentrating solar power program manager at Sandia National Laboratories, who worked with the project’s heliostat field. A consortium of 10 to 13 agencies, including Sandia Labs, SCE and the Department of Energy, were trying to demonstrate the project at a large enough level that the next step that could be taken would be to build commercial plants and operate them, Mancini said.
“What Solar Two did was provide experience levels with molten salt enabled projects in Spain, which is operating now,” he said, adding that Solar Two’s predecessor, Solar One, a water steam-driven plant operated at the Daggett site in the 1980s, was also the first project of its kind. “There are several power tower developers out there developing steam and molten salt. (They) build off the experience we had back in the ‘80s and ‘90s.”
SCE Spokesman Paul Klein, said the materials in the solar panels will be recycled. The glass will be disposed of as waste at a licensed landfill because the mirrored backing on the glass contains small amounts of lead, he said.
“Also, where possible, equipment — such as the turbine generator — will be sold as used equipment,” he said. “Remaining scrap metal will be sold for scrap value and recycled.”
Contact the writer:(760) 256-4123 or jcejnar@desertdispatch.com

Dennis Kucinich Lays Out Why He Voted Against Clean Energy Act

Submitted by Eugmc on June 27, 2009 - 2:36pm. 

• Cleveland/Cuyahoga County
 
• Congress
• Local News
 
• News
 
• Politics
 
• U.S. Politics

Cleveland area Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) laid out the reasons he opposed and voted against H.R. 2454, The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. The vast majority of fellow Democrats voted in favor of the measure which passed the House and is on the way to the Senate for a vote. Kucinich stated in a press release:

“I oppose H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. The reason is simple. It won’t address the problem. In fact, it might make the problem worse.

“It sets targets that are too weak, especially in the short term, and sets about meeting those targets through Enron-style accounting methods. It gives new life to one of the primary sources of the problem that should be on its way out– coal – by giving it record subsidies. And it is rounded out with massive corporate giveaways at taxpayer expense. There is $60 billion for a single technology which may or may not work, but which enables coal power plants to keep warming the planet at least another 20 years.

“Worse, the bill locks us into a framework that will fail. Science tells us that immediately is not soon enough to begin repairing the planet. Waiting another decade or more will virtually guarantee catastrophic levels of warming. But the bill does not require any greenhouse gas reductions beyond current levels until 2030.

“Today’s bill is a fragile compromise, which leads some to claim that we cannot do better. I respectfully submit that not only can we do better; we have no choice but to do better. Indeed, if we pass a bill that only creates the illusion of addressing the problem, we walk away with only an illusion. The price for that illusion is the opportunity to take substantive action.

“There are several aspects of the bill that are problematic.

1. Overall targets are too weak. The bill is predicated on a target atmospheric concentration of 450 parts per million, a target that is arguably justified in the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but which is already out of date. Recent science suggests 350 parts per million is necessary to help us avoid the worst effects of global warming.

2. The offsets undercut the emission reductions. Offsets allow polluters to keep polluting; they are rife with fraudulent claims of emissions reduction; they create environmental, social, and economic unintended adverse consequences; and they codify and endorse the idea that polluters do not have to make sacrifices to solve the problem.

3. It kicks the can down the road. By requiring the bulk of the emissions to be carried out in the long term and requiring few reductions in the short term, we are not only failing to take the action when it is needed to address rapid global warming, but we are assuming the long term targets will remain intact.

4. EPA’s authority to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the short- to medium-term is rescinded. It is our best defense against a new generation of coal power plants. There is no room for coal as a major energy source in a future with a stable climate.

5. Nuclear power is given a lifeline instead of phasing it out. Nuclear power is far more expensive, has major safety issues including a near release in my own home state in 2002, and there is still no resolution to the waste problem. A recent study by Dr. Mark Cooper showed that it would cost $1.9 trillion to $4.1 trillion more over the life of 100 new nuclear reactors than to generate the same amount of electricity from energy efficiency and renewables.

6. Dirty Coal is given a lifeline instead of phasing it out. Coal-based energy destroys entire mountains, kills and injures workers at higher rates than most other occupations, decimates ecologically sensitive wetlands and streams, creates ponds of ash that are so toxic the Department of Homeland Security will not disclose their locations for fear of their potential to become a terrorist weapon, and fouls the air and water with sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, particulates, mercury, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and thousands of other toxic compounds that cause asthma, birth defects, learning disabilities, and pulmonary and cardiac problems for starters. In contrast, several times more jobs are yielded by renewable energy investments than comparable coal investments.

7. The $60 billion allocated for Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) is triple the amount of money for basic research and development in the bill. We should be pressuring China, India and Russia to slow and stop their power plants now instead of enabling their perpetuation. We cannot create that pressure while spending unprecedented amounts on a single technology that may or may not work. If it does not work on the necessary scale, we have then spent 10-20 years emitting more CO2, which we cannot afford to do. In addition, those who will profit from the technology will not be viable or able to stem any leaks from CCS facilities that may occur 50, 100, or 1000 years from now.

8. Carbon markets can and will be manipulated using the same Wall Street sleights of hand that brought us the financial crisis.

9. It is regressive. Free allocations doled out with the intent of blunting the effects on those of modest means will pale in comparison to the allocations that go to polluters and special interests. The financial benefits of offsets and unlimited banking also tend to accrue to large corporations. And of course, the trillion dollar carbon derivatives market will help Wall Street investors. Much of the benefits designed to assist consumers are passed through coal companies and other large corporations, on whom we will rely to pass on the savings.

10. The Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) is not an improvement. The 15% RES standard would be achieved even if we failed to act.

11. Dirty energy options qualify as “renewable”: The bill allows polluting industries to qualify as “renewable energy.” Trash incinerators not only emit greenhouse gases, but also emit highly toxic substances. These plants disproportionately expose communities of color and low-income to the toxics. Biomass burners that allow the use of trees as a fuel source are also defined as “renewable.” Under the bill, neither source of greenhouse gas emissions is counted as contributing to global warming.

12. It undermines our bargaining position in international negotiations in Copenhagen and beyond. As the biggest per capita polluter, we have a responsibility to take action that is disproportionately stronger than the actions of other countries. It is, in fact, the best way to preserve credibility in the international context.

13. International assistance is much less than demanded by developing countries. Given the level of climate change that is already in the pipeline, we are going to need to devote major resources toward adaptation. Developing countries will need it the most, which is why they are calling for much more resources for adaptation and technology transfer than is allocated in this bill. This will also undercut our position in Copenhagen.

“I offered eight amendments and cosponsored two more that collectively would have turned the bill into an acceptable starting point. All amendments were not allowed to be offered to the full House. Three amendments endeavored to minimize the damage that will be done by offsets, a method of achieving greenhouse gas reductions that has already racked up a history of failure to reduce emissions – increasing emissions in some cases – while displacing people in developing countries who rely on the land for their well being.

“Three other amendments would have made the federal government a force for change by requiring all federal energy to eventually come from renewable resources, by requiring the federal government to transition to electric and plug-in hybrid cars, and by requiring the installation of solar panels on government rooftops and parking lots. These provisions would accelerate the transition to a green economy.

“Another amendment would have moved up the year by which reductions of greenhouse gas emissions were required from 2030 to 2025. It would have encouraged the efficient use of allowances and would have reduced opportunities for speculation by reducing the emission value of an allowance by a third each year.

“The last amendment would have removed trash incineration from the definition of renewable energy. Trash incineration is one of the primary sources of environmental injustice in the country. It a primary source of compounds in the air known to cause cancer, asthma, and other chronic diseases. These facilities are disproportionately sited in communities of color and communities of low income. Furthermore, incinerators emit more carbon dioxide per unit of electricity produced than coal-fired power plants.

“Passing a weak bill today gives us weak environmental policy tomorrow,” said Kucinich.

House passed Climate Bill Getting It Through Senate Will Be Harder

"Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the Leadership of the House, and Chairmen Waxman and Markey have, through their leadership, secured an important bipartisan victory for the American people.

The American Clean Energy Security (ACES) Act is one of the most important pieces of legislation Congress will ever pass. This comprehensive legislation will make meaningful reductions in global warming pollution, spur investment in clean energy technology, create jobs and reduce our reliance on foreign oil.

The next step is passage of this legislation by the Senate to help restore America’s leadership in the world and begin, at long last, to put in place a truly global solution to the climate crisis.

We are at an extraordinary moment, with an historic opportunity to confront one of the world’s most serious challenges. Our actions now will be remembered by this generation and all those to follow – in our own nation and others around the world."

-Al Gore

Bonn Climate Talks

Climate Change talks kick off today in Bonn Germany, where for the next two weeks leaders will attempt to create a framework for a post-2012 agreement on climate change.

This marks the second round of four negotiations leading up to the climate conference in Copenhagen on December 7-18 2009 where a follow up to the Kyoto Protocol is set to be agreed upon . (The first took place in Bonn as from March 29, April 8, 2009.)

“The Kyoto Protocol was seen as an important first step towards a truly global emission reduction regime meant to stabilize GHG emissions, and providing the essential architecture for any future international agreement on climate change”.

The goal of the talks is to negotiate an international framework that can deliver the stringent emission reductions the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has clearly indicated are needed to avoid the worst effects of climate change.

Scientific experts believe that a temperature rise above 2-2.5 degree Celsius (450-550ppm C02 equivalent risks serious impacts. With rising temperatures the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts the frequency of heat waves, droughts, and heavy rainfall events will likely increase.

Avoiding such a future would require greenhouse gas emissions to peak within the next 10-15 years, followed by a substantial reduction of at least 60% by 2050 compared to 1990, a formidable task that requires international cooperation.

Henry Waxman may fast track climate bill

According to Politico-

Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman may fast-track his controversial climate change bill, bypassing the political hurdles of the subcommittee. 

”I’m still holding firm on my deadline to get a bill out of committee by the end of May and I believe that will probably require us to go right to the full committee and bypass the subcommittee,” Waxman told reporters. 

Waxman cautioned that "no final decisions" had been made, but he stressed that skipping the subcommittee might be the only way to keep to his deadline.

Waxman’s comments came just hours after the Democrats on the committee met with President Barack Obama in the White House. The president urged the committee to find a compromise on climate and energy legislation that’s been stuck in the subcommittee for weeks. 

Democrats on the committee said the expedited timeline was necessary to pass a bill out of committee by the Memorial Day recess – a deadline set by Waxman and encouraged by the administration, which wants the committee to be ready to move on to health care reform this summer. 

“The clocks ticking and we’re out of time,” said Rep. Mike Doyle, (D-Pa, who noted the earliest the committee could mark-up the bill was next week. “It’s already slid back to next week and that leaves you two weeks.” 

Fast tracking this bill also has some political advantages. The subcommittee is a tougher battleground than the full committee, largely due to its geographically diverse makeup and tighter margin. 

“You get a couple more margin of error if you’re talking about the votes, assuming no Republicans vote for the bill, but the dynamics are still the same,” said Doyle. 

Negotiations over the bill have been slowed by a dozen Democrats who want to cushion regional interests like steel factories, oil refiners, and coal plants from major price increases. 

Although some members of the committee have called for more hearings once the final language of the proposal is written, Waxman indicated that an additional hearing was unlikely. 

“We did have hearings on the whole framework and we also had extensive testimony on how people would like to see the allocations made, so it isn’t as if we haven’t had the input,” said Waxman.

How the electric grid works/where you get your energy!

NPR is doing a series on the electric grid which you can see online, there are also interactive features online which you can see by clicking on the link. It's always good to know where your power comes from. Check it out!

KRUGMAN ON THE CLIMATE BANDWAGON

One of Time Magazine's 100 most influencial peple this year is economist, and nobel prize winner Paul Krugman. Krugman wrote a blog taking a crack at the skeptical side of having price on carbon on April 29th, 2009 for the New York Times.  He wrote that "Opponents of a policy change generally believe that market economies are wonderful things, able to adapt to just about anything — anything, that is, except a government policy that puts a price on greenhouse gas emissions. Limits on the world supply of oil, land, water — no problem. Limits on the amount of CO2 we can emit — total disaster.

Funny how that is."  Check out the article to find out more.

Obama wants to get moving on high-speed rail

Obama wants to get moving on high-speed rail

From the LA Times Reporting from Washington — President Obama touted his plan for developing high-speed railways Thursday, detailing how $13 billion in federal money would act as a "down payment" on creating speedier passenger train service.

"High-speed rail is long overdue, and this plan lets American travelers know that they are not doomed to a future of long lines at the airports or jammed cars on the highways," Obama said. "There's no reason why we can't do this."

The proposal lists the long-planned rail corridor from Los Angeles to San Francisco as one that could receive funding, as well as a network featuring Chicago as the hub of a system reaching to Minneapolis, Detroit, Cleveland, Indianapolis and St. Louis.

"The Midwest has some good planning going on," Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said. "If you look at the Chicagoland area, the Metra system delivers thousands of people into the city every day, and obviously it's conceivable that those people could get on a high-speed rail line and go somewhere."

Also possible are high-speed rail lines in Florida, Texas and the Pacific Northwest, as well as an expansion of the nation's only existing high-speed rail system, which runs from Washington to Boston.

The plan is no surprise, with $8 billion coming from January's economic stimulus package and $5 billion potentially coming from Obama's budget over the next five years.

The administration has not announced the criteria on which it will award funding, but it aims to release money by the end of the summer.

Vukan Vuchic, a University of Pennsylvania professor of transportation engineering, agreed with Obama that federal support for high-speed rail was long overdue.

"We are, frankly, several decades behind if we compare ourselves with our peer countries," Vuchic said. "The country badly needs high-speed rail in all these regions."

At the same time, the administration plan drew some skepticism.

Creating the corridors would require massive subsidies from federal and state governments for a service that few people would use, said James Moore, professor of industrial and systems engineering at the USC.

"There's just not a lot of room for high-speed rail to compete in the U.S. market," he said.

California officials who hope to build a rail line that would whisk passengers between Los Angeles and San Francisco in 2 hours and 40 minutes welcomed Obama's enthusiasm for high-speed rail.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger declared that California was "far ahead of any other high-speed rail system in the nation" and cited voter approval of nearly $10 billion of bonds for the project.

California's proposed project would initially run between Anaheim and San Francisco at a cost of $34 billion, taking 10 years to build, and would eventually go to Sacramento and San Diego.

Although a long-discussed high-speed rail line from Las Vegas to Anaheim was not included on a White House map of those likely to receive funding, supporters said they would seek a share of the federal money to advance the project.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Finding: Greenhouse Gases Pose a Threat

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

 

EPA Finds Greenhouse Gases Pose Threat to Public Health, Welfare

 

Proposed Finding Comes in Response to 2007 Supreme Court Ruling

 

(Washington, D.C. – April 17, 2009)  After a thorough scientific review ordered in 2007 by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a proposed finding Friday that greenhouse gases contribute to air pollution that may endanger public health or welfare.

 

The proposed finding, which now moves to a public comment period, identified six greenhouse gases that pose a potential threat.

 

“This finding confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations.  Fortunately, it follows President Obama’s call for a low carbon economy and strong leadership in Congress on clean energy and climate legislation,” said Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “This pollution problem has a solution – one that will create millions of green jobs and end our country’s dependence on foreign oil.”

 

As the proposed endangerment finding states, “In both magnitude and probability, climate change is an enormous problem.  The greenhouse gases that are responsible for it endanger public health and welfare within the meaning of the Clean Air Act.”

 

EPA’s proposed endangerment finding is based on rigorous, peer-reviewed scientific analysis of six gases – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride – that have been the subject of intensive analysis by scientists around the world. The science clearly shows that concentrations of these gases are at unprecedented levels as a result of human emissions, and these high levels are very likely the cause of the increase in average temperatures and other changes in our climate.

 

The scientific analysis also confirms that climate change impacts human health in several ways. Findings from a recent EPA study titled “Assessment of the Impacts of Global Change on Regional U.S. Air Quality: A Synthesis of Climate Change Impacts on Ground-Level Ozone,” for example, suggest that climate change may lead to higher concentrations of ground-level ozone, a harmful pollutant. Additional impacts of climate change include, but are not limited to:

 

·         increased drought;

·         more heavy downpours and flooding;

·         more frequent and intense heat waves and wildfires;

·         greater sea level rise;

·         more intense storms; and

·         harm to water resources, agriculture, wildlife and ecosystems.

 

In proposing the finding, Administrator Jackson also took into account the disproportionate impact climate change has on the health of certain segments of the population, such as the poor, the very young, the elderly, those already in poor health, the disabled, those living alone and/or indigenous populations dependent on one or a few resources.

 

In addition to threatening human health, the analysis finds that climate change also has serious national security implications. Consistent with this proposed finding, in 2007, 11 retired U.S. generals and admirals signed a report from the Center for a New American Security stating that climate change “presents significant national security challenges for the United States.” Escalating violence in destabilized regions can be incited and fomented by an increasing scarcity of resources – including water. This lack of resources, driven by climate change patterns, then drives massive migration to more stabilized regions of the world.

 

The proposed endangerment finding now enters the public comment period, which is the next step in the deliberative process EPA must undertake before issuing final findings. Today’s proposed finding does not include any proposed regulations. Before taking any steps to reduce greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, EPA would conduct an appropriate process and consider stakeholder input.  Notwithstanding this required regulatory process, both President Obama and Administrator Jackson have repeatedly indicated their preference for comprehensive legislation to address this issue and create the framework for a clean energy economy.

 

More information:  http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html

 

R097