Shoe manufacturers have been busy burnishing their green credentials over the last few years, incorporating everything from reBut one company appears to be taking the green theme to an extreme, integrating recycled CDs, old sofas, and even water bottles, among other materials, into a new running shoe.
The Green Silence marathon racing shoe, made by the running gear company Brooks and scheduled for release in February 2010, sports heel cups reinforced with recycled CDs; shoelaces, mesh, lining and stitching made from discarded water bottles; outsoles made from recycled rubber; and a collar stuffed with foam from old sofas.
Although Brooks says that the shoe will have half the number of parts of similar lightweight running shoes, those parts will still be shipped from around the world, including water bottles from the United States, Taiwan and Japan, and CDs from Europe — not the sort of “local sourcing” that many environmentalists would prefer.
Still, Brooks says that transportation will account for just 5 percent to 8 percent of the shoe’s total carbon footprint. It also says the midsole of the shoe is biodegradable, although the Federal Trade Commission in the United States has recently expressed skepticism about such claims in general.
Setting aside biodegradability, Brooks said it hopes that runners will retire their used shoes to charities like Soles4Souls, which distributes used footwear to people in need. Nike’s Reuse-A-Shoe program, which takes all athletic shoes – Nike or not — and turns the soles into artificial turf and other products, is another option.
The Brooks shoe is undoubtedly part of a trend toward funkier — and more environmentally conscious — shoes for the running crowd. Another example is a recently released training shoe with toe sheaths that its manufacturer claims “deepens your connection to the earth” and is lighter than most other running shoes.
But Brooks says it’s not easy to make a shoe that will completely satisfy environmental advocates.
“We call this Whac-a-Mole,” said Derek Campbell, the company’s sustainability chief. “Once you hit one button for sustainability, three pop up.”cycled rubber soles to hemp shoelaces.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Are E.U. Climate Ambitions Being Sidelined?
As John Broder and I write in today’s New York Times and International Herald Tribune, the Europeans may be yielding their global leadership on climate policy as the United States and China – the world’s two largest carbon-dioxide polluters – display signs of seeking a bilateral deal the rest of the world might be obliged to accept.
For Europe, the prospect of marginalization in climate talks is a serious concern. European climate policies have been predicated to a far greater extent on sharing the work of reducing greenhouse gas emissions through a United Nations-brokered agreement.
In particular, Europeans could be forced to downgrade the importance of their flagship policies – including their system for capping greenhouse gases and trading emissions permits – if they lose control of the negotiating agenda over the coming months.
To bolster their Emissions Trading System, which has suffered bouts of volatility and has been criticized for ineffectiveness since its creation four years ago, the Europeans want all rich-world nations like the United States join a global carbon market by 2015, and for fast-emerging economies like China to join by 2020.
But as my colleague Andrew Revkin writes today at Dot Earth, President Obama faces significant constraints in making more ambitious offers from the Senate.
Meanwhile the Chinese are fiercely averse to capping their emissions for the foreseeable future, and that has stoked fears among Europeans that the Americans and Chinese would reach a lowest-common-denominator agreement with widely divergent goals for reducing greenhouse gases even among wealthy nations.
That, in turn, could jeopardize European efforts to link its carbon trading system with other cap-and-trade systems under development in countries like the United States and Australia.
A key concern for European negotiators is that comparatively higher demand for permits to emit carbon in Europe would push up their price, giving other regions little incentive to join an expensive system.
Some senior European officials seem to acknowledge that tussling over comparability may actually be clouding the talks — by encouraging countries to seek the lowest negotiated commitment.
“I think many countries highly underestimate their potential to take action in this field,” Michael Starbæk Christensen, a senior adviser on climate change in the Office of the Prime Minister of Denmark, told a conference in Brussels late last month. “It becomes a negotiation about numbers and it seems that the winner is the one who can get out of the negotiation with the smallest number and it shouldn’t be like that,” he said. “The dynamic should be more a competition for opportunities rather than burdens,” he said.
Climate experts warn that the tussling will become worse and that it may ultimately undermine efforts to reach a deal unless negotiators refocus the debate in the coming weeks on what countries can achieve — rather than on what is comparable.
ClimateWorks, a group based in San Francisco that helps finance projects to limit global warming, suggested that major economies should not be distracted from reaching a deal in Copenhagen by negotiations that bog down in numbers.
At a point where negotiations could be turning into a stalemate, ClimateWorks has produced a study showing that it would be possible to achieve about 70 percent of the emissions reductions by 2020 that are necessary to prevent runaway climate change, using readily available technology and implementing measures that are in nations’ economic self-interest.
The group based its study on an analysis on the potential of nations and regions to cut emissions by McKinsey Global, a consultancy.
According to ClimateWorks, building consensus around universal standards for using clean energy would be far more productive than basing negotiations on obligations for certain countries to shrink each citizen’s carbon footprint or to reduce emissions by the same, or similar, amounts.
In the study, each major polluter would reduce emissions in sectors where it would be easiest to do so and in many cases where national efforts are already underway.
China would deliver the single biggest reduction by improving industrial energy efficiency and building up its renewable energy base. Heavily forested Brazil would deliver the second largest reduction in emissions by reducing the amount of trees it cuts down.
The United States and the E.U. would put most of their effort into fostering new standards for efficient buildings and appliances.
“A global deal that obliges nations to get most of the way to bringing emissions down to levels deemed safe is not all that hard if our leaders simply agree to accelerate – and maybe turbo-charge in some cases – the existing policies that a number of key countries are already pursuing in their national interest,” said Andreas Merkl, the director of global initiatives for ClimateWorks.
By James Kanter
For Europe, the prospect of marginalization in climate talks is a serious concern. European climate policies have been predicated to a far greater extent on sharing the work of reducing greenhouse gas emissions through a United Nations-brokered agreement.
In particular, Europeans could be forced to downgrade the importance of their flagship policies – including their system for capping greenhouse gases and trading emissions permits – if they lose control of the negotiating agenda over the coming months.
To bolster their Emissions Trading System, which has suffered bouts of volatility and has been criticized for ineffectiveness since its creation four years ago, the Europeans want all rich-world nations like the United States join a global carbon market by 2015, and for fast-emerging economies like China to join by 2020.
But as my colleague Andrew Revkin writes today at Dot Earth, President Obama faces significant constraints in making more ambitious offers from the Senate.
Meanwhile the Chinese are fiercely averse to capping their emissions for the foreseeable future, and that has stoked fears among Europeans that the Americans and Chinese would reach a lowest-common-denominator agreement with widely divergent goals for reducing greenhouse gases even among wealthy nations.
That, in turn, could jeopardize European efforts to link its carbon trading system with other cap-and-trade systems under development in countries like the United States and Australia.
A key concern for European negotiators is that comparatively higher demand for permits to emit carbon in Europe would push up their price, giving other regions little incentive to join an expensive system.
Some senior European officials seem to acknowledge that tussling over comparability may actually be clouding the talks — by encouraging countries to seek the lowest negotiated commitment.
“I think many countries highly underestimate their potential to take action in this field,” Michael Starbæk Christensen, a senior adviser on climate change in the Office of the Prime Minister of Denmark, told a conference in Brussels late last month. “It becomes a negotiation about numbers and it seems that the winner is the one who can get out of the negotiation with the smallest number and it shouldn’t be like that,” he said. “The dynamic should be more a competition for opportunities rather than burdens,” he said.
Climate experts warn that the tussling will become worse and that it may ultimately undermine efforts to reach a deal unless negotiators refocus the debate in the coming weeks on what countries can achieve — rather than on what is comparable.
ClimateWorks, a group based in San Francisco that helps finance projects to limit global warming, suggested that major economies should not be distracted from reaching a deal in Copenhagen by negotiations that bog down in numbers.
At a point where negotiations could be turning into a stalemate, ClimateWorks has produced a study showing that it would be possible to achieve about 70 percent of the emissions reductions by 2020 that are necessary to prevent runaway climate change, using readily available technology and implementing measures that are in nations’ economic self-interest.
The group based its study on an analysis on the potential of nations and regions to cut emissions by McKinsey Global, a consultancy.
According to ClimateWorks, building consensus around universal standards for using clean energy would be far more productive than basing negotiations on obligations for certain countries to shrink each citizen’s carbon footprint or to reduce emissions by the same, or similar, amounts.
In the study, each major polluter would reduce emissions in sectors where it would be easiest to do so and in many cases where national efforts are already underway.
China would deliver the single biggest reduction by improving industrial energy efficiency and building up its renewable energy base. Heavily forested Brazil would deliver the second largest reduction in emissions by reducing the amount of trees it cuts down.
The United States and the E.U. would put most of their effort into fostering new standards for efficient buildings and appliances.
“A global deal that obliges nations to get most of the way to bringing emissions down to levels deemed safe is not all that hard if our leaders simply agree to accelerate – and maybe turbo-charge in some cases – the existing policies that a number of key countries are already pursuing in their national interest,” said Andreas Merkl, the director of global initiatives for ClimateWorks.
By James Kanter
Study: Geoengineering Won’t Help Oceans
A new study has concluded that geoengineering measures designed to reduce global warming will do little to reduce CO2 levels and, subsequently, ocean acidification.
CO2 that dissolves in salt water produces carbonic acid that undermines shell formation in crustations and coral. The world’s oceans absorb a quarter of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to an international oceanography research network.
“This century will see the end of coral reefs for the next tens of thousands of years,” said Ken Caldeira, a professor of environmental science in the Department of Global Ecology at the Carnegie Institution of Washington and a co-author of the paper.
Earlier this week in Britain, the filmmaker David Attenborough joined marine biologists in calling attention to the situation.
In fact, coral depletion has the potential to be a major economic disaster as well as an ecological catastrophe. An essay in the March/April issue of Foreign Affairs noted that approximately 100 million people living in coastal areas worldwide depend on coral reef ecosystems for their livelihoods. The problem is that attempts to artificially cool the atmosphere, though necessary to avert more polar melting and the release of methane trapped in sub-arctic tundra, won’t slow the build-up of greenhouse gases.
Geoengineering solutions have received a surge of attention in recent months, even though ideas for mechanically altering the atmosphere trace back to the presidency of Lyndon B. Johnson. Some scientists are experimenting with techniques to fertilize oceans so increased plankton growth will absorb excess CO2. Others have studied methods for reflecting sunlight, like seeding white clouds with sea water, launching solar reflectors or painting roofs white, as Energy Secretary Steven Chu famously suggested earlier this year.
Professor Caldeira dismissed most of these approaches as either financially unattainable or, in the case of Secretary Chu’s white roof plan, insufficient. On balance, he said the most technically straightforward and cost-effective approach involves attempts to mimic the effect of large volcanic eruptions, like Mount Pinatubo in 1991.
Sulfur-based gases can be introduced inexpensively into the upper atmosphere, where they form sulfate particles that reflect sunlight away from the earth’s surface. As the Foreign Affairs essay notes, the cost would be a fraction of emission reduction efforts that take decades to show results.
“Basically, there was cooling despite an increase in greenhouse gases,” he sad. “The earth didn’t come to an end.” But, Professor Caldeira added, these measures “only make sense in an emergency response context.”
CO2 that dissolves in salt water produces carbonic acid that undermines shell formation in crustations and coral. The world’s oceans absorb a quarter of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to an international oceanography research network.
“This century will see the end of coral reefs for the next tens of thousands of years,” said Ken Caldeira, a professor of environmental science in the Department of Global Ecology at the Carnegie Institution of Washington and a co-author of the paper.
Earlier this week in Britain, the filmmaker David Attenborough joined marine biologists in calling attention to the situation.
In fact, coral depletion has the potential to be a major economic disaster as well as an ecological catastrophe. An essay in the March/April issue of Foreign Affairs noted that approximately 100 million people living in coastal areas worldwide depend on coral reef ecosystems for their livelihoods. The problem is that attempts to artificially cool the atmosphere, though necessary to avert more polar melting and the release of methane trapped in sub-arctic tundra, won’t slow the build-up of greenhouse gases.
Geoengineering solutions have received a surge of attention in recent months, even though ideas for mechanically altering the atmosphere trace back to the presidency of Lyndon B. Johnson. Some scientists are experimenting with techniques to fertilize oceans so increased plankton growth will absorb excess CO2. Others have studied methods for reflecting sunlight, like seeding white clouds with sea water, launching solar reflectors or painting roofs white, as Energy Secretary Steven Chu famously suggested earlier this year.
Professor Caldeira dismissed most of these approaches as either financially unattainable or, in the case of Secretary Chu’s white roof plan, insufficient. On balance, he said the most technically straightforward and cost-effective approach involves attempts to mimic the effect of large volcanic eruptions, like Mount Pinatubo in 1991.
Sulfur-based gases can be introduced inexpensively into the upper atmosphere, where they form sulfate particles that reflect sunlight away from the earth’s surface. As the Foreign Affairs essay notes, the cost would be a fraction of emission reduction efforts that take decades to show results.
“Basically, there was cooling despite an increase in greenhouse gases,” he sad. “The earth didn’t come to an end.” But, Professor Caldeira added, these measures “only make sense in an emergency response context.”
Developing Nations Rebuff G-8 on Curbing Pollutants
The world’s major industrial nations and newly emerging powers failed to agree Wednesday on specific cuts in heat-trapping gases by 2050, undercutting an effort to build a global consensus to fight climate change, according to people following thAs President Obama arrived for three days of meetings, negotiators for the world’s 17 leading polluters dropped a proposal to cut global greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent by mid-century, and emissions from the most advanced economies by 80 percent. But both the G-8 and the developing countries agreed to set a goal of stopping world temperatures from rising by more than 2 degrees Celsius from pre-industrial levels.
The discussion of climate change was among the top priorities of world leaders as they gathered here for the annual summit meeting of the Group of 8 powers. Mr. Obama invited counterparts from China, India, Brazil, South Africa, Mexico and others to join the G-8 here on Thursday for a parallel “Major Economies Forum” representing the producers of 80 percent of the world’s greenhouse gases. But since President Hu Jintao of China abruptly left Italy to deal with unrest at home, the chances of making further progress seemed to evaporate.
The G-8 leaders were also grappling with the sagging global economy, development in Africa, turmoil in Iran, nuclear nonproliferation and other challenging issues. On Friday, Mr. Obama planned to unveil a $15 billion food security initiative by the G-8 to provide emergency and development aid to poor nations.
The failure to establish specific targets on climate change underscored the difficulty in bridging longstanding divisions between the most developed countries like the United States and developing nations like China and India. In the end, people close to the talks said, the emerging powers refused to agree to the specific emissions limits because they wanted industrial countries to commit to midterm goals in 2020, and to follow through on promises of financial and technological help.
“They’re saying, ‘We just don’t trust you guys,’ ” said Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists, an advocacy group based in the United States. “It’s the same gridlock we had last year when Bush was president.”
American officials said they still had made an important breakthrough because the G-8 countries within the negotiations agreed to adopt the 2050 reduction goals, even though the developing countries would not.
And they said a final agreement with developing countries, including China and India, to be sealed on Thursday would include important conceptual commitments by the emerging powers to begin reducing emissions and to set a target date. Now negotiators will have to try to quantifying those commitments in coming months.
While the nations mapped out a general agreement to limit global temperature change, there remained differences between the level of commitment from developed and developing nations. The G-8 draft statement would have the major industrial powers “recognize that global emissions should peak by 2020 and then be substantially reduced to limit the average increase in global temperature to 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels.” The statement by the developing countries would be less definitive, however, saying that scientific consensus supports such a goal.
Mr. Meyer said temperatures have already risen by 0.8 degrees and will likely rise by another 0.6 degrees just based on pollution already in the air, meaning that embracing the 2-degree goal would require major steps starting almost immediately.
While briefing reporters on Wednesday morning, Michael Froman, Mr. Obama’s deputy national security adviser and chief G-8 negotiator, declined to specify what would be in the two agreements, but said they would signal important progress heading toward a United Nations conference in Copenhagen in December to craft a worldwide climate change treaty.
“Our view is that it represents a significant step forward in terms of adding political momentum on the key issues to be dealt with in the U.N. process,” Mr. Froman said, “but that there is still a lot of work to be done and these are difficult issues and the negotiators will be meeting going forward to try and resolve them.”
European leaders and environmental activists have placed great hope that Mr. Obama would become a powerful new leader in the struggle against climate change after succeeding President George W. Bush, who long resisted more aggressive measures sought on this side of the Atlantic for fear of the economic impact. At a previous Group of 8 meeting, Mr. Bush agreed to a 50 percent cut in global greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 but not to an 80 percent reduction in those produced by industrial countries like the United States. With Mr. Obama’s support, the House recently passed legislation intended to curb emissions, although not by nearly as much as the Europeans want. And China is another challenge.
“Europe wants avant-garde legislation but China is putting up resistance, which I sampled yesterday during my one-on-one with the Chinese president,” Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi of Italy, the G-8 host, told reporters Tuesday evening.
China, India and the other developing nations are upset that commitments to provide financial and technological help made during a United Nations conference in Bali, Indonesia, in 2007 have not translated into anything more tangible in the interim.
Mr. Meyer estimated that the United States, Europe and other industrial nations need to come up with $150 billion a year in assistance by 2020 to help develop clean-energy technology for developing countries, reduce deforestation that contributes to rising temperatures and help vulnerable nations adapt to changes attributed to greenhouse gases.e talks.
The discussion of climate change was among the top priorities of world leaders as they gathered here for the annual summit meeting of the Group of 8 powers. Mr. Obama invited counterparts from China, India, Brazil, South Africa, Mexico and others to join the G-8 here on Thursday for a parallel “Major Economies Forum” representing the producers of 80 percent of the world’s greenhouse gases. But since President Hu Jintao of China abruptly left Italy to deal with unrest at home, the chances of making further progress seemed to evaporate.
The G-8 leaders were also grappling with the sagging global economy, development in Africa, turmoil in Iran, nuclear nonproliferation and other challenging issues. On Friday, Mr. Obama planned to unveil a $15 billion food security initiative by the G-8 to provide emergency and development aid to poor nations.
The failure to establish specific targets on climate change underscored the difficulty in bridging longstanding divisions between the most developed countries like the United States and developing nations like China and India. In the end, people close to the talks said, the emerging powers refused to agree to the specific emissions limits because they wanted industrial countries to commit to midterm goals in 2020, and to follow through on promises of financial and technological help.
“They’re saying, ‘We just don’t trust you guys,’ ” said Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists, an advocacy group based in the United States. “It’s the same gridlock we had last year when Bush was president.”
American officials said they still had made an important breakthrough because the G-8 countries within the negotiations agreed to adopt the 2050 reduction goals, even though the developing countries would not.
And they said a final agreement with developing countries, including China and India, to be sealed on Thursday would include important conceptual commitments by the emerging powers to begin reducing emissions and to set a target date. Now negotiators will have to try to quantifying those commitments in coming months.
While the nations mapped out a general agreement to limit global temperature change, there remained differences between the level of commitment from developed and developing nations. The G-8 draft statement would have the major industrial powers “recognize that global emissions should peak by 2020 and then be substantially reduced to limit the average increase in global temperature to 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels.” The statement by the developing countries would be less definitive, however, saying that scientific consensus supports such a goal.
Mr. Meyer said temperatures have already risen by 0.8 degrees and will likely rise by another 0.6 degrees just based on pollution already in the air, meaning that embracing the 2-degree goal would require major steps starting almost immediately.
While briefing reporters on Wednesday morning, Michael Froman, Mr. Obama’s deputy national security adviser and chief G-8 negotiator, declined to specify what would be in the two agreements, but said they would signal important progress heading toward a United Nations conference in Copenhagen in December to craft a worldwide climate change treaty.
“Our view is that it represents a significant step forward in terms of adding political momentum on the key issues to be dealt with in the U.N. process,” Mr. Froman said, “but that there is still a lot of work to be done and these are difficult issues and the negotiators will be meeting going forward to try and resolve them.”
European leaders and environmental activists have placed great hope that Mr. Obama would become a powerful new leader in the struggle against climate change after succeeding President George W. Bush, who long resisted more aggressive measures sought on this side of the Atlantic for fear of the economic impact. At a previous Group of 8 meeting, Mr. Bush agreed to a 50 percent cut in global greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 but not to an 80 percent reduction in those produced by industrial countries like the United States. With Mr. Obama’s support, the House recently passed legislation intended to curb emissions, although not by nearly as much as the Europeans want. And China is another challenge.
“Europe wants avant-garde legislation but China is putting up resistance, which I sampled yesterday during my one-on-one with the Chinese president,” Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi of Italy, the G-8 host, told reporters Tuesday evening.
China, India and the other developing nations are upset that commitments to provide financial and technological help made during a United Nations conference in Bali, Indonesia, in 2007 have not translated into anything more tangible in the interim.
Mr. Meyer estimated that the United States, Europe and other industrial nations need to come up with $150 billion a year in assistance by 2020 to help develop clean-energy technology for developing countries, reduce deforestation that contributes to rising temperatures and help vulnerable nations adapt to changes attributed to greenhouse gases.e talks.
Climate battle moves to the Senate
President Obama's landmark energy and global warming bill squeaked through the House only after the White House made dozens of concessions to coal, manufacturing and other interests.Now, as the battle moves to the Senate, Obama faces demands for even more concessions -- including pressure to open the nation's coastlines to offshore oil and gas drilling.
The Senate also will take up a series of controversial issues that were glossed over or omitted from the House legislation. Among them: giving the government sweeping powers to approve thousands of miles of new transmission lines to carry electric power to coastal cities from wind turbines in the upper Midwest and solar power generators in the Southwest, regardless of local objections.Aware of the challenge, Obama repeatedly has called attention to the House achievement and urged the Senate to keep up the momentum."There are going to be a series of tough negotiations," he said last week. "But I think the ability of the House to move forward is going to be a prod for the Senate toward action."
Even so, with Republicans forming a near-solid phalanx of opposition and many Democrats concerned about the effects of specific sections of the bill on their constituents, the prospect is for a long, slow legislative process.Senate leaders say they will benefit from lessons learned from the way House leaders built their majority. Chief among them: the need to cut specific deals to ease the effects of new emissions restrictions -- which could translate into higher costs for businesses and rising prices for consumers -- in particular parts of the country."We need to absolutely work this bill one on one," said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who chairs the Environment and Public Works Committee that is drafting emissions limits, "because everybody's got different passions about it, different feelings about it, different hopes about it, different fears about it."Making those deals is harder in the Senate than in the House, some analysts say."In the House, you can move blocks of votes," said Daniel Weiss, a senior fellow at the liberal Center for American Progress who works on global warming issues. "In the Senate, it's hand-to-hand combat."Although a climate bill is expected to be hundreds of pages long, it will boil down to an attempt to start weaning the U.S. economy from dependence on fossil fuels.The centerpiece is the so-called cap-and-trade system, which would set limits on carbon dioxide and other emissions that scientists say are a major factor in global warming. The allowed level of such emissions would decline over time. And major polluters, such as power plants and factories, would be required to obtain permits to cover their emissions as a spur to reducing pollution.The original idea was that the government would sell the permits, but the House voted to give out many of them free to ease the economic effects.The Senate bill also is likely to include a variety of provisions designed to encourage development of energy sources, including wind and solar power. Those could include financial and legal provisions to speed construction of transmission lines to move power from the remote deserts and plains -- where it's easily produced -- to coastal cities where it's needed.The quest for new energy sources is expected to reopen the politically explosive issue of offshore drilling.Looming over all the provisions is cost -- a focal point of Republican attacks."The public is especially wary of passing this during a major recession, and public skepticism is growing about the man-made climate fears," said Marc Morano, editor of the global-warming-skeptic website ClimateDepot.com.Democrats and the two independents who caucus with them control 60 Senate seats. But more than a dozen have expressed concern over costs. They include Democrats from industry-heavy Ohio and Michigan, coal-dependent Indiana and oil-rich Louisiana.Only a few Republicans appear open to emissions limits, notably two moderates from Maine -- Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe -- and Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who championed emissions limits in his presidential campaign (though he has expressed reservations about the House bill).The Senate bill will emerge from several committees -- including the finance, foreign relations, commerce and agriculture committees -- with dramatically different memberships and priorities.The energy committee already has approved its chunk with wide bipartisan support. It includes a requirement to produce more electricity from renewable sources, but also expands drilling -- a possible deal-breaker for environmentalists.Boxer's committee will center its work on cap and trade. The House bill would cut U.S. emissions by 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83% by 2050. Environmentalists expect Boxer, who said she was "looking closely" at those limits, to strengthen them.
The Senate also will take up a series of controversial issues that were glossed over or omitted from the House legislation. Among them: giving the government sweeping powers to approve thousands of miles of new transmission lines to carry electric power to coastal cities from wind turbines in the upper Midwest and solar power generators in the Southwest, regardless of local objections.Aware of the challenge, Obama repeatedly has called attention to the House achievement and urged the Senate to keep up the momentum."There are going to be a series of tough negotiations," he said last week. "But I think the ability of the House to move forward is going to be a prod for the Senate toward action."
Even so, with Republicans forming a near-solid phalanx of opposition and many Democrats concerned about the effects of specific sections of the bill on their constituents, the prospect is for a long, slow legislative process.Senate leaders say they will benefit from lessons learned from the way House leaders built their majority. Chief among them: the need to cut specific deals to ease the effects of new emissions restrictions -- which could translate into higher costs for businesses and rising prices for consumers -- in particular parts of the country."We need to absolutely work this bill one on one," said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who chairs the Environment and Public Works Committee that is drafting emissions limits, "because everybody's got different passions about it, different feelings about it, different hopes about it, different fears about it."Making those deals is harder in the Senate than in the House, some analysts say."In the House, you can move blocks of votes," said Daniel Weiss, a senior fellow at the liberal Center for American Progress who works on global warming issues. "In the Senate, it's hand-to-hand combat."Although a climate bill is expected to be hundreds of pages long, it will boil down to an attempt to start weaning the U.S. economy from dependence on fossil fuels.The centerpiece is the so-called cap-and-trade system, which would set limits on carbon dioxide and other emissions that scientists say are a major factor in global warming. The allowed level of such emissions would decline over time. And major polluters, such as power plants and factories, would be required to obtain permits to cover their emissions as a spur to reducing pollution.The original idea was that the government would sell the permits, but the House voted to give out many of them free to ease the economic effects.The Senate bill also is likely to include a variety of provisions designed to encourage development of energy sources, including wind and solar power. Those could include financial and legal provisions to speed construction of transmission lines to move power from the remote deserts and plains -- where it's easily produced -- to coastal cities where it's needed.The quest for new energy sources is expected to reopen the politically explosive issue of offshore drilling.Looming over all the provisions is cost -- a focal point of Republican attacks."The public is especially wary of passing this during a major recession, and public skepticism is growing about the man-made climate fears," said Marc Morano, editor of the global-warming-skeptic website ClimateDepot.com.Democrats and the two independents who caucus with them control 60 Senate seats. But more than a dozen have expressed concern over costs. They include Democrats from industry-heavy Ohio and Michigan, coal-dependent Indiana and oil-rich Louisiana.Only a few Republicans appear open to emissions limits, notably two moderates from Maine -- Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe -- and Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who championed emissions limits in his presidential campaign (though he has expressed reservations about the House bill).The Senate bill will emerge from several committees -- including the finance, foreign relations, commerce and agriculture committees -- with dramatically different memberships and priorities.The energy committee already has approved its chunk with wide bipartisan support. It includes a requirement to produce more electricity from renewable sources, but also expands drilling -- a possible deal-breaker for environmentalists.Boxer's committee will center its work on cap and trade. The House bill would cut U.S. emissions by 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83% by 2050. Environmentalists expect Boxer, who said she was "looking closely" at those limits, to strengthen them.
Forest fires vs. forest carbon
Should forests be thinned to reduce fires, or should they be tended to store the maximum amount of carbon in their trees to prevent global warming?
It is not a simple question, as researchers at Oregon State University explain in a new study in Ecological Applications, a professional journal.
Stephen R. Mitchell, an OSU researcher now at Duke University, and other scientists studied the Coast Range and the west side of the Cascade Mountains and found that salvage logging, understory removal, prescribed fire and other techniques can reduce fire severity. But these same techniques will almost always reduce carbon storage even if the woody products that are removed are then used to produce electricity or make cellulosic ethanol, they found.
"It had been thought for some time that if you used biofuel treatments to produce energy, you could offset the carbon emissions from this process," said Mark Harmon, an OSU professor of forest ecosystems and society and a co-author of the study. "But when you actually go through the data, it doesn't work."Harmon said that policymakers should consider using forests on the west side of the Cascades, the wetter side, for carbon sequestration, and focus fuel-reduction efforts near people, towns and infrastructure.
However, the Oregon State findings may not be applicable to other forests. "It is a fertile debate," said Andrea Tuttle, former head of the California Department of Forestry and an authority on forest carbon regulation. "But be careful what forest type you are talking about." Studies of other forests have produced different results, she explained, citing a UC Berkeley study of warmer, drier Sierran forests that found that measures to increase fire resistance were also applicable to long-term carbon sequestration.
The study comes at a time when state governments and the U.S. Congress, as well as other nations, are looking to forests to offset emissions from automobiles, power plants and other sources of carbon dioxide, which, scientists say, is heating the planet to dangerous levels. Trees suck carbon out of the atmosphere and store it for long periods. California recently enacted strict rules to govern the use of offsets for carbon sequestration in forests.
-- Margot Roosevelt
It is not a simple question, as researchers at Oregon State University explain in a new study in Ecological Applications, a professional journal.
Stephen R. Mitchell, an OSU researcher now at Duke University, and other scientists studied the Coast Range and the west side of the Cascade Mountains and found that salvage logging, understory removal, prescribed fire and other techniques can reduce fire severity. But these same techniques will almost always reduce carbon storage even if the woody products that are removed are then used to produce electricity or make cellulosic ethanol, they found.
"It had been thought for some time that if you used biofuel treatments to produce energy, you could offset the carbon emissions from this process," said Mark Harmon, an OSU professor of forest ecosystems and society and a co-author of the study. "But when you actually go through the data, it doesn't work."Harmon said that policymakers should consider using forests on the west side of the Cascades, the wetter side, for carbon sequestration, and focus fuel-reduction efforts near people, towns and infrastructure.
However, the Oregon State findings may not be applicable to other forests. "It is a fertile debate," said Andrea Tuttle, former head of the California Department of Forestry and an authority on forest carbon regulation. "But be careful what forest type you are talking about." Studies of other forests have produced different results, she explained, citing a UC Berkeley study of warmer, drier Sierran forests that found that measures to increase fire resistance were also applicable to long-term carbon sequestration.
The study comes at a time when state governments and the U.S. Congress, as well as other nations, are looking to forests to offset emissions from automobiles, power plants and other sources of carbon dioxide, which, scientists say, is heating the planet to dangerous levels. Trees suck carbon out of the atmosphere and store it for long periods. California recently enacted strict rules to govern the use of offsets for carbon sequestration in forests.
-- Margot Roosevelt
Leaders of developing nations shun plan to cut greenhouse gases in half
The world's biggest polluters failed to reach an agreement today on a plan to cut greenhouse-gas emissions in half by 2050, after developing nations decided not to sign on to the idea during an international summit here.Leaders of the Group of 8 industrial nations said they would issue a statement committing to the standard later today, pledging to cut overall emissions by 50% by the middle of the century and reducing those of industrialized nations by 80%.
But leaders of developing nations balked at the plan, according to sources who were present for the talks but asked not to be identified because they were not authorized to speak for the group.The major economies forum, which includes the world's leading greenhouse-gas emitters, will not issue such a joint declaration after its meeting Thursday, White House officials confirmed.President Obama's lead climate negotiator said the global standard is still on the table as the nations work toward a summit in Copenhagen in December and characterized the forthcoming MEF statement as "significant progress."
"I'd have been delighted to get to 80/50," climate point man Todd Stern said this afternoon. "We didn't quite get there. . . . This is a negotiation, and I hope we can get there down the road."President Barack Obama landed earlier today in this earthquake-ravaged region of Italy for a summit of the Group of 8 nations as his aides voiced confidence that leaders would maintain their support for economic stimulus strategies in the face of a global recession and said the best commitment that the United States could make on climate change lies with energy legislation moving through Congress.Obama, arriving in L'Aquila on a sun-drenched afternoon, was greeted by Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and the leaders of the other participating nations, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel.L'Aquila was the site of a devastating earthquake in April that killed 300 people and crumbled historic buildings hundreds of years old. Obama was to tour the area with Berlusconi to survey the damage later in the day.Earlier today, Obama stopped off in Rome to hold closed-door talks with Italian President Giorgio Napolitano. After their meeting, Obama praised ties between Washington and Rome, calling Italy "a great friend" of the U.S.Obama said the two nations were working together to strengthen oversight of financial institutions and were "working hand in hand in places like Afghanistan to ensure that we're isolating extremists and strengthening the forces of moderation around the world."At his side, Napolitano said that the actions and initiatives of the first six months of the Obama administration "enjoyed a broad consensus in Italian public opinion." He also expressed hope that Europe would speak with one voice, to remain an influential force in world affairs.Security has been heavily beefed up for the summit. Police officers were posted on nearly every bridge overlooking highways leading to L'Aquila, about 60 miles outside of Rome.The Italian news agency ANSA reported that the nation's military had deployed 2,500 troops, Predator drone aircraft, a NATO spy plane and a Hawk missile battery to protect the leaders who will be both staying and working in L'Aquila through Friday.Michael Froman, Obama's point man on the G-8 summit, said this morning that there is a "consensus view" among the nations' leaders that "we are still in the midst of an economic downturn," and that world leaders were not planning any mass exodus from their shared plan to stimulate recovery.Leaders have said "it's time to prepare exit strategies," Froman said, "but not necessarily to put them into place yet."World leaders gathered in L'Aquila for a noontime luncheon and then a series of meetings on issues ranging from the global economy to nuclear nonproliferation and food security.Obama presided over a side meeting of the major economies with a focus on climate issues. That summit has suffered a setback with Chinese President Hu Jintao's return home to deal with deadly rioting in Xinjiang.But White House officials said that meetings today and Thursday still can be productive, and Froman rebuffed suggestions that the Italian hosts had not put together an organized session. He denied reports that the U.S. had called an emergency meeting of the summit's "sherpas" to take charge of the session."The Italian presidency has done a terrific job preparing for the summit," Froman said. "The Italians defined an agenda early on and worked methodically" on it."The way the G-8 works," he said, is "we all do our part."On the Chinese leader's departure, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said, "It's our understanding that he's gone back to China, so it appears as if he won't be there to meet with the president, but we will have a delegation meet with their delegation."Asked about what the U.S. is willing to support as part of any G-8 commitment to combating global warming, Gibbs said: "The biggest thing . . . are the big steps that the House took only a week or so ago to put our country strongly on record as taking bold action against forces that are changing the temperature and the environment of our planet."The House has narrowly passed a bill demanding caps on greenhouse gas that industry emits, enabling polluters to purchase the rights for emissions from others to encourage the development of alternative sources of energy, such as wind and solar power. The measure faces a battle in the Senate, however, with Republicans criticizing a plan that will add to the cost of household energy bills over time as a "national energy tax.""There's important progress that we can make as a part of this in creating a market for clean energy jobs," Gibbs said. "So I think we've taken a strong step forward. ... Our biggest contribution to this is the steps that were taken by the House to put us strongly on record on this."Asked how the administration will define success on climate change at the G-8 summit, Gibbs said, "In many ways, success for us is going to be getting something through Congress and to his desk that puts in place a system, a market-based system that lessens the amount of greenhouses gases in the air."
But leaders of developing nations balked at the plan, according to sources who were present for the talks but asked not to be identified because they were not authorized to speak for the group.The major economies forum, which includes the world's leading greenhouse-gas emitters, will not issue such a joint declaration after its meeting Thursday, White House officials confirmed.President Obama's lead climate negotiator said the global standard is still on the table as the nations work toward a summit in Copenhagen in December and characterized the forthcoming MEF statement as "significant progress."
"I'd have been delighted to get to 80/50," climate point man Todd Stern said this afternoon. "We didn't quite get there. . . . This is a negotiation, and I hope we can get there down the road."President Barack Obama landed earlier today in this earthquake-ravaged region of Italy for a summit of the Group of 8 nations as his aides voiced confidence that leaders would maintain their support for economic stimulus strategies in the face of a global recession and said the best commitment that the United States could make on climate change lies with energy legislation moving through Congress.Obama, arriving in L'Aquila on a sun-drenched afternoon, was greeted by Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and the leaders of the other participating nations, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel.L'Aquila was the site of a devastating earthquake in April that killed 300 people and crumbled historic buildings hundreds of years old. Obama was to tour the area with Berlusconi to survey the damage later in the day.Earlier today, Obama stopped off in Rome to hold closed-door talks with Italian President Giorgio Napolitano. After their meeting, Obama praised ties between Washington and Rome, calling Italy "a great friend" of the U.S.Obama said the two nations were working together to strengthen oversight of financial institutions and were "working hand in hand in places like Afghanistan to ensure that we're isolating extremists and strengthening the forces of moderation around the world."At his side, Napolitano said that the actions and initiatives of the first six months of the Obama administration "enjoyed a broad consensus in Italian public opinion." He also expressed hope that Europe would speak with one voice, to remain an influential force in world affairs.Security has been heavily beefed up for the summit. Police officers were posted on nearly every bridge overlooking highways leading to L'Aquila, about 60 miles outside of Rome.The Italian news agency ANSA reported that the nation's military had deployed 2,500 troops, Predator drone aircraft, a NATO spy plane and a Hawk missile battery to protect the leaders who will be both staying and working in L'Aquila through Friday.Michael Froman, Obama's point man on the G-8 summit, said this morning that there is a "consensus view" among the nations' leaders that "we are still in the midst of an economic downturn," and that world leaders were not planning any mass exodus from their shared plan to stimulate recovery.Leaders have said "it's time to prepare exit strategies," Froman said, "but not necessarily to put them into place yet."World leaders gathered in L'Aquila for a noontime luncheon and then a series of meetings on issues ranging from the global economy to nuclear nonproliferation and food security.Obama presided over a side meeting of the major economies with a focus on climate issues. That summit has suffered a setback with Chinese President Hu Jintao's return home to deal with deadly rioting in Xinjiang.But White House officials said that meetings today and Thursday still can be productive, and Froman rebuffed suggestions that the Italian hosts had not put together an organized session. He denied reports that the U.S. had called an emergency meeting of the summit's "sherpas" to take charge of the session."The Italian presidency has done a terrific job preparing for the summit," Froman said. "The Italians defined an agenda early on and worked methodically" on it."The way the G-8 works," he said, is "we all do our part."On the Chinese leader's departure, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said, "It's our understanding that he's gone back to China, so it appears as if he won't be there to meet with the president, but we will have a delegation meet with their delegation."Asked about what the U.S. is willing to support as part of any G-8 commitment to combating global warming, Gibbs said: "The biggest thing . . . are the big steps that the House took only a week or so ago to put our country strongly on record as taking bold action against forces that are changing the temperature and the environment of our planet."The House has narrowly passed a bill demanding caps on greenhouse gas that industry emits, enabling polluters to purchase the rights for emissions from others to encourage the development of alternative sources of energy, such as wind and solar power. The measure faces a battle in the Senate, however, with Republicans criticizing a plan that will add to the cost of household energy bills over time as a "national energy tax.""There's important progress that we can make as a part of this in creating a market for clean energy jobs," Gibbs said. "So I think we've taken a strong step forward. ... Our biggest contribution to this is the steps that were taken by the House to put us strongly on record on this."Asked how the administration will define success on climate change at the G-8 summit, Gibbs said, "In many ways, success for us is going to be getting something through Congress and to his desk that puts in place a system, a market-based system that lessens the amount of greenhouses gases in the air."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)