In a Gallup survey from 1989, 35% of respondents told interviewers they worried a great deal about global warming. In its March 2009 poll, nearly the same number, 34%, said they did. Further, the issue ranked dead last--20th of 20 issues--when the Pew Research Center asked respondents to list top priorities for President Obama and Congress. In an ABC/Washington Post poll on the same topic, global warming ranked 11th out of 11 issues.
How could this be, given all the media coverage and political attention global warming has received? Why aren't Americans more concerned about it?
Understanding current attitudes requires stepping back to see how the environment emerged as an issue on our radar. From 1935 to the early 1960s, opinion surveys included hardly any questions about the environment. Pollsters asked a few questions about sanitation (glass vs. paper cartons) and a handful of questions about the population "explosion." But not one on what we would today call "environmental issues."
The issue sprang to life in the late 1960s, and it soon became clear from the polls that Americans wanted a clean and healthy environment and were willing to take reasonable steps to achieve it.
The environment became a core value. When we as a nation agree on the goals policy should serve, we usually step back from the discussions about the means by which those goals should be achieved. Most of us are busy, and we don't have time to read the latest reported changes in water quality or global temperature over the past century.
In other words, we follow debates casually. As a back-handed compliment to our system of representative democracy, we are content to let competing interest groups, political parties and others debate the next policy steps, reasonably confident that good policy will result from the clash of interests. This understanding of how public opinion forms explains why global warming isn't a top priority.
Pollsters are currently seeking answers to lots of questions about the next steps to address global warming because, on this topic, existing results are of limited use. It is extremely difficult to know from polls how far people want to go in terms of taxing, spending and regulating in the abstract.
A recent poll from Yale and George Mason universities found that 79% of Americans would support a 45-mile-per-gallon fuel-efficiency standard for cars, trucks and SUVs--even if it meant a new vehicle would cost $1,000 more.
Related Stories
Who Killed California's Economy?
Get Briefed: P. Brett Hammond
Can We Trust Polls From Iran?
Sotomayor's Supreme Challenge
Europe: No Longer A Role Model For America
Related Videos
World Stocks Trade Higher
Google, IBM Surprise
Symantec CMO Carine Clark
Telecoms Hit Europe
Million Dollar Moon Landing Auction
Stories
Videos
But would people really be willing to pay a $1,000 more for a car when their health care and day-to-day living costs are increasing too? I'm not sure, but I do know that abstract questions like this one are not reliable for determining public opinion.
There are other reasons that, right now, global warming isn't a top priority. Americans don't see it as a problem for today. Only 4% of respondents to the Yale/Mason poll strongly agreed that they had personally experienced the effects of global warming. For obvious reasons, people are much more concerned about the economy and unemployment. They also have high confidence in capabilities of American science and, as a result, they may believe efforts in that area will lead to progress.
Finally, there is evidence from polls that media outlets may have over-covered the topic. When the environment emerged as an issue, the media had much greater public credibility. A decade ago, 31% of respondents to one poll said the media were exaggerating the seriousness of the issue. That figure has risen to 41% today.
In another new poll, the "mainstream media" ranked far below scientists and environmentalists as a source people turned to for information about global warming. Media's championing of the cause may also explain a new development in more recent polls on the topic: intense partisan polarization on many aspects of the debate.
To answer the question posed at the beginning of this column, Americans are concerned about global warming. They believe it's a problem that is real and serious; they aren't indifferent. But most may think their voices have already been heard and, as a result, they will choose to stay on the sidelines as the issue remains in the realm of intense political debate.
Friday, July 17, 2009
Teen Behaviors Stem From Genetics, Environment
Teens' alcohol use and behavior problems are influenced by both genetic and environmental factors, a new study finds.
"In the past, research on genetic and environmental influences on behavior was often conducted in isolation," researcher Danielle Dick, an assistant professor of psychiatry, psychology, and human and molecular genetics at Virginia Commonwealth University, said in a news release.
"Some scientists were interested in genetic effects, others in environmental effects. We now know that both genetic and environmental influences are important for most behavioral outcomes, and our challenge is to understand how they interact," she explained.
"Much of the research on environmental influences on alcohol use and behavior problems focuses on the impact of parents and peers," Dick added. "While these are clearly critical environmental influences, we have also found that socio-regional, or neighborhood influences, also have big impacts on adolescent behavioral outcomes, and these environmental effects have not received as much attention historically."
In this study, Dick and colleagues analyzed long-term data gathered on more than 5,000 twins born in Finland between 1983 and 1987. The researchers focused on how genetic and environmental factors influenced behavior problems at age 12 and alcohol use at age 14.
They found that certain environments promoted the expression of a teens' genetic predispositions, while other environments limited gene expression.
The study, which appears online, will be published in the October print issue of Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research.
"There is now converging evidence across a number of different studies that behavioral problems in kids are associated with both concurrent and future alcohol problems," Dick said. "There is evidence accumulating from genetic studies that behavior problems may be one of the first signs of an individual at increased susceptibility for developing alcohol problems."
An important message from this kind of research is that a person's destiny isn't written in their genes, the authors noted.
"We're not all equally predisposed to develop alcohol or behavior problems, and the environment can be a key factor in whether or not an individual ever develops problems," Dick said.
"In the past, research on genetic and environmental influences on behavior was often conducted in isolation," researcher Danielle Dick, an assistant professor of psychiatry, psychology, and human and molecular genetics at Virginia Commonwealth University, said in a news release.
"Some scientists were interested in genetic effects, others in environmental effects. We now know that both genetic and environmental influences are important for most behavioral outcomes, and our challenge is to understand how they interact," she explained.
"Much of the research on environmental influences on alcohol use and behavior problems focuses on the impact of parents and peers," Dick added. "While these are clearly critical environmental influences, we have also found that socio-regional, or neighborhood influences, also have big impacts on adolescent behavioral outcomes, and these environmental effects have not received as much attention historically."
In this study, Dick and colleagues analyzed long-term data gathered on more than 5,000 twins born in Finland between 1983 and 1987. The researchers focused on how genetic and environmental factors influenced behavior problems at age 12 and alcohol use at age 14.
They found that certain environments promoted the expression of a teens' genetic predispositions, while other environments limited gene expression.
The study, which appears online, will be published in the October print issue of Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research.
"There is now converging evidence across a number of different studies that behavioral problems in kids are associated with both concurrent and future alcohol problems," Dick said. "There is evidence accumulating from genetic studies that behavior problems may be one of the first signs of an individual at increased susceptibility for developing alcohol problems."
An important message from this kind of research is that a person's destiny isn't written in their genes, the authors noted.
"We're not all equally predisposed to develop alcohol or behavior problems, and the environment can be a key factor in whether or not an individual ever develops problems," Dick said.
Nuclear Title May Not Be Enough to Push Senate Climate Bill Over the Top
While supporters of nuclear energy ardently proclaim the power source is necessary to combat climate change, incentives for nuclear power may not be the silver bullet sponsors need to pass climate legislation in the Senate this year.Both supporters and critics of a climate bill agree that some sort of nuclear title is likely to be included in the measure taken up by the Senate in the fall. But what should go in it and how much impact that might have for the nuclear industry is unclear, making its potential role in climate negotiations muted.
"I expect there will be a modest nuclear title in the bill coming out of committee and we will add to that on the floor," Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), chairman of the Clean Air and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee, told reporters earlier this week. This conclusion comes after discussions with Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), he said.
Carper declined to provide details of what might be in the proposal but added Energy Secretary Steven Chu will be visiting with senators before the August recess to discuss what Chu believes should be in the climate bill that would be supportive of nuclear.
Reid this week said he would be open to a nuclear component but, "we just have to do it the right way."
"I think there will be a nuclear title, yes," said Joseph Romm, a senior fellow with Center for American Progress. "I think there will be a nuclear title on incentives for R&D ... but I am not sure what else you can do for nuclear," Romm said. The industry is waiting to get reactor designs approved and construction and operating licenses for the 17 applications for new reactors, he said.
An industry source close to the negotiations said "nuclear will definitely play a more prominent role if a bill is to make it through the Senate" but defining a set of principles to be included in the bill is a work in progress for the industry.
"The challenge is to balance expectations that there is a magic bullet out there for nuclear with the reality that under the best of circumstances a major build out of new plants is still about a decade away since it takes four years to license and another four years to build," the source said.
Dems wait and see; Republicans aren't optimistic
Managing expectations is a difficult task for sponsors who have to rally senators to vote for the whole climate bill, especially when many have other serious problems with a cap-and-trade bill.
"Adding a nuclear title to the climate change bill would be just one of many improvements needed to secure Senator Landrieu's vote," said Aaron Saunders, a spokesman for Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.).
Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) said nuclear power and other energy issues such as oil and natural gas included in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee energy bill passed in June "stand on their own" and there should be a separate vote for a climate bill. Earlier this year Reid decided the committee energy legislation would be considered with the climate bill.
The energy committee bill has several perks for nuclear energy including a Clean Energy Development Administration, training programs for nuclear education, and exclusion of new nuclear generation or capacity upgrades through efficiency at existing nuclear plants from the power sales baseline used to measure the renewable electricity standard (RES).
The House climate bill, H.R. 2454 (pdf), also contains a Clean Energy Development Administration -- although it prevents any technology from using more than 30 percent of total available funds. It also includes the exclusion of new nuclear generation from the power sales baseline used to calculate the RES.
When asked if additional nuclear incentives in a climate bill would help win support from the senator from North Dakota -- a heavy coal-production state -- Dorgan simply said, "We'll see."
Fellow fence-sitter Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) also wants to see incentives for nuclear energy in any climate bill she would support but also more for biomass, natural gas and other fuels as part of an "all of the above" approach, Lincoln spokeswoman Katie Laning Niebaum said.
Nuclear energy incentives do not appear to be the clincher for Republican swing voters either.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a key potential Republican supporter, told reporters this week including a nuclear title is "vital" to his support for a climate bill. But McCain has also roundly criticized many other parts of the House climate bill, which Boxer has stated is the starting point for her committee draft. McCain said the "1,400-page monstrosity" House bill contains too many giveaways to special interests and trade protection measures (E&E Daily, July 16).
Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), another possible supporter, said the money or free allocations flowing to special interests is "offensive."
"Certainly our energy bill has nuclear in it and hopefully it sees the light of day, but it is not going to make up for the tremendous defects that occur in the House bill," Corker said.
Both supporters and critics of a climate bill agree that some sort of nuclear title is likely to be included in the measure taken up by the Senate in the fall. But what should go in it and how much impact that might have for the nuclear industry is unclear, making its potential role in climate negotiations muted.
"I expect there will be a modest nuclear title in the bill coming out of committee and we will add to that on the floor," Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), chairman of the Clean Air and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee, told reporters earlier this week. This conclusion comes after discussions with Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), he said.
Carper declined to provide details of what might be in the proposal but added Energy Secretary Steven Chu will be visiting with senators before the August recess to discuss what Chu believes should be in the climate bill that would be supportive of nuclear.
Reid this week said he would be open to a nuclear component but, "we just have to do it the right way."
"I think there will be a nuclear title, yes," said Joseph Romm, a senior fellow with Center for American Progress. "I think there will be a nuclear title on incentives for R&D ... but I am not sure what else you can do for nuclear," Romm said. The industry is waiting to get reactor designs approved and construction and operating licenses for the 17 applications for new reactors, he said.
An industry source close to the negotiations said "nuclear will definitely play a more prominent role if a bill is to make it through the Senate" but defining a set of principles to be included in the bill is a work in progress for the industry.
"The challenge is to balance expectations that there is a magic bullet out there for nuclear with the reality that under the best of circumstances a major build out of new plants is still about a decade away since it takes four years to license and another four years to build," the source said.
Dems wait and see; Republicans aren't optimistic
Managing expectations is a difficult task for sponsors who have to rally senators to vote for the whole climate bill, especially when many have other serious problems with a cap-and-trade bill.
"Adding a nuclear title to the climate change bill would be just one of many improvements needed to secure Senator Landrieu's vote," said Aaron Saunders, a spokesman for Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.).
Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) said nuclear power and other energy issues such as oil and natural gas included in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee energy bill passed in June "stand on their own" and there should be a separate vote for a climate bill. Earlier this year Reid decided the committee energy legislation would be considered with the climate bill.
The energy committee bill has several perks for nuclear energy including a Clean Energy Development Administration, training programs for nuclear education, and exclusion of new nuclear generation or capacity upgrades through efficiency at existing nuclear plants from the power sales baseline used to measure the renewable electricity standard (RES).
The House climate bill, H.R. 2454 (pdf), also contains a Clean Energy Development Administration -- although it prevents any technology from using more than 30 percent of total available funds. It also includes the exclusion of new nuclear generation from the power sales baseline used to calculate the RES.
When asked if additional nuclear incentives in a climate bill would help win support from the senator from North Dakota -- a heavy coal-production state -- Dorgan simply said, "We'll see."
Fellow fence-sitter Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) also wants to see incentives for nuclear energy in any climate bill she would support but also more for biomass, natural gas and other fuels as part of an "all of the above" approach, Lincoln spokeswoman Katie Laning Niebaum said.
Nuclear energy incentives do not appear to be the clincher for Republican swing voters either.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a key potential Republican supporter, told reporters this week including a nuclear title is "vital" to his support for a climate bill. But McCain has also roundly criticized many other parts of the House climate bill, which Boxer has stated is the starting point for her committee draft. McCain said the "1,400-page monstrosity" House bill contains too many giveaways to special interests and trade protection measures Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), another possible supporter, said the money or free allocations flowing to special interests is "offensive."
"Certainly our energy bill has nuclear in it and hopefully it sees the light of day, but it is not going to make up for the tremendous defects that occur in the House bill," Corker said
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, (R-Alaska), ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, would welcome a stronger nuclear title in the climate bill but there are several other problems, such as the cost of the bill, said spokesman Robert Dillon.
At this point she is not supporting a cap-and-trade bill," Dillon said. "No one can give us a clear estimate about the cost. ... There are more questions than answers that people need to have before they are going to say they are going to start supporting this bill."
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), who was also thought by many to be a possible supporter of a climate change bill, said this week no amount of nuclear incentives would tempt him to support a climate bill that involved cap and trade (E&ENews PM July 13).
"The bill needs to be junked," Alexander said at a press conference this week unveiling a "blueprint" for constructing 100 nuclear power plants in 20 years. Alexander said he would be pursuing his goal in separate legislation to boost loan guarantee funds, increasing resources for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and more money to nuclear research and development.
Looking for love in all the wrong places
The underlying question for sponsors: If nuclear incentives are not enough to get undecided senators on board with cap and trade, what is the point of including them at all?
"I think the question is who do you get who you weren't going to get?" Romm said. "I think that obviously there is no point in adding stuff to the bill if you are not adding more votes for it. Republicans like nuclear, but I don't think they are going to vote for this bill."
Romm believes it will be an agreement with China on reducing emissions or even natural gas that will get the necessary senators on board. For instance, the natural gas industry sat out of negotiations in the House but have said they want more input into the Senate bill. And Louisiana, Arkansas, Pennsylvania and "a lot of interesting states" -- i.e. senators who may vote for the climate bill -- have discovered a good reserve of potential natural gas recently, Romm said.
Boxer does not appear to be willing to go much further in adding nuclear provisions to the bill. Boxer and Alexander have had lengthy disagreements about the role of nuclear during committee hearings on the climate bill this week.
The nuclear issue dominated much of the debate at a hearing on Tuesday intended to focus on the climate bill's potential for agriculture and forestry. Alexander and other Republicans on the panel touted the proposal to build 100 nuclear plants by 2030, but Boxer fired back at them that her bill would be the better way to go.
"I think it's very important we understand that the approach we're taking, we don't pick winners or losers. We put a cap on carbon and let the marketplace do it," Boxer said. She highlighted the U.S. EPA analysis of the House bill that estimates it could lead to 260 new 1,000 megawatt nuclear plants by 2050.
After Alexander called on President Obama to support his proposal for more nuclear plants, Boxer replied: "It is very clear he doesn't have to support your proposal. His [support of the House bill] results in more nuclear power plants being built."
Boxer added after a hearing yesterday, "I think if you look at Waxman-Markey, the prediction is there being well over 100 nuke plants. I don't know that we'll need to have more than that. But we'll certainly look at all of these issues."
Nuclear lobby split
The Nuclear Energy Institute, the lobbying arm of the U.S. nuclear industry, has stayed relatively quiet on the climate change negotiations as its members, including Exelon Corp. and Southern Co., have different positions on the House bill.
NEI has strongly pushed for more funding in the loan guarantee program and backs the new clean energy bank but has not issued many other demands.
"What we are hopeful for in any climate bill are those provisions. One, the recognition of nuclear as a clean energy source so if someone has nuclear in their portfolio they should be recognized for that and, two, recognition that to move forward we are going to have to private-public partnership of government and private enterprise," said Derrick Freeman, senior director, of NEI's legislative programs.
Individual utilities, as well as the Edison Electric Institute -- which represents investor-owned utilities -- have taken the lead on lobbying their interests in climate legislation. But their main target is the distribution of the free emission allocation provisions for utilities.
"Exelon is particularly pleased that free allowances will be allocated to local utilities to help mitigate the impact of increased prices on consumers," a statement from Exelon said after the House vote last month. The statement also included approval of the strong support for protection of consumers the bill provides, according to Exelon, but did not mention any of the nuclear measures or lack thereof.
Similarly a letter (pdf) from Duke Energy Corp. sent to House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) the day before the bill was scheduled for a vote supports the allocation scheme, criticizes the offsets and cost-containment mechanisms among other subjects, but makes no mention of the nuclear provisions either for better or for worse.
Jim Rogers, Duke's CEO, said yesterday he has spoken to Boxer about including in the climate bill a provision to shorten licensing approval process under the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to two years and a provision that deals with "the waste confidence issues in a straightforward way."
"I expect there will be a modest nuclear title in the bill coming out of committee and we will add to that on the floor," Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), chairman of the Clean Air and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee, told reporters earlier this week. This conclusion comes after discussions with Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), he said.
Carper declined to provide details of what might be in the proposal but added Energy Secretary Steven Chu will be visiting with senators before the August recess to discuss what Chu believes should be in the climate bill that would be supportive of nuclear.
Reid this week said he would be open to a nuclear component but, "we just have to do it the right way."
"I think there will be a nuclear title, yes," said Joseph Romm, a senior fellow with Center for American Progress. "I think there will be a nuclear title on incentives for R&D ... but I am not sure what else you can do for nuclear," Romm said. The industry is waiting to get reactor designs approved and construction and operating licenses for the 17 applications for new reactors, he said.
An industry source close to the negotiations said "nuclear will definitely play a more prominent role if a bill is to make it through the Senate" but defining a set of principles to be included in the bill is a work in progress for the industry.
"The challenge is to balance expectations that there is a magic bullet out there for nuclear with the reality that under the best of circumstances a major build out of new plants is still about a decade away since it takes four years to license and another four years to build," the source said.
Dems wait and see; Republicans aren't optimistic
Managing expectations is a difficult task for sponsors who have to rally senators to vote for the whole climate bill, especially when many have other serious problems with a cap-and-trade bill.
"Adding a nuclear title to the climate change bill would be just one of many improvements needed to secure Senator Landrieu's vote," said Aaron Saunders, a spokesman for Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.).
Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) said nuclear power and other energy issues such as oil and natural gas included in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee energy bill passed in June "stand on their own" and there should be a separate vote for a climate bill. Earlier this year Reid decided the committee energy legislation would be considered with the climate bill.
The energy committee bill has several perks for nuclear energy including a Clean Energy Development Administration, training programs for nuclear education, and exclusion of new nuclear generation or capacity upgrades through efficiency at existing nuclear plants from the power sales baseline used to measure the renewable electricity standard (RES).
The House climate bill, H.R. 2454 (pdf), also contains a Clean Energy Development Administration -- although it prevents any technology from using more than 30 percent of total available funds. It also includes the exclusion of new nuclear generation from the power sales baseline used to calculate the RES.
When asked if additional nuclear incentives in a climate bill would help win support from the senator from North Dakota -- a heavy coal-production state -- Dorgan simply said, "We'll see."
Fellow fence-sitter Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) also wants to see incentives for nuclear energy in any climate bill she would support but also more for biomass, natural gas and other fuels as part of an "all of the above" approach, Lincoln spokeswoman Katie Laning Niebaum said.
Nuclear energy incentives do not appear to be the clincher for Republican swing voters either.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a key potential Republican supporter, told reporters this week including a nuclear title is "vital" to his support for a climate bill. But McCain has also roundly criticized many other parts of the House climate bill, which Boxer has stated is the starting point for her committee draft. McCain said the "1,400-page monstrosity" House bill contains too many giveaways to special interests and trade protection measures (E&E Daily, July 16).
Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), another possible supporter, said the money or free allocations flowing to special interests is "offensive."
"Certainly our energy bill has nuclear in it and hopefully it sees the light of day, but it is not going to make up for the tremendous defects that occur in the House bill," Corker said.
Both supporters and critics of a climate bill agree that some sort of nuclear title is likely to be included in the measure taken up by the Senate in the fall. But what should go in it and how much impact that might have for the nuclear industry is unclear, making its potential role in climate negotiations muted.
"I expect there will be a modest nuclear title in the bill coming out of committee and we will add to that on the floor," Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), chairman of the Clean Air and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee, told reporters earlier this week. This conclusion comes after discussions with Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), he said.
Carper declined to provide details of what might be in the proposal but added Energy Secretary Steven Chu will be visiting with senators before the August recess to discuss what Chu believes should be in the climate bill that would be supportive of nuclear.
Reid this week said he would be open to a nuclear component but, "we just have to do it the right way."
"I think there will be a nuclear title, yes," said Joseph Romm, a senior fellow with Center for American Progress. "I think there will be a nuclear title on incentives for R&D ... but I am not sure what else you can do for nuclear," Romm said. The industry is waiting to get reactor designs approved and construction and operating licenses for the 17 applications for new reactors, he said.
An industry source close to the negotiations said "nuclear will definitely play a more prominent role if a bill is to make it through the Senate" but defining a set of principles to be included in the bill is a work in progress for the industry.
"The challenge is to balance expectations that there is a magic bullet out there for nuclear with the reality that under the best of circumstances a major build out of new plants is still about a decade away since it takes four years to license and another four years to build," the source said.
Dems wait and see; Republicans aren't optimistic
Managing expectations is a difficult task for sponsors who have to rally senators to vote for the whole climate bill, especially when many have other serious problems with a cap-and-trade bill.
"Adding a nuclear title to the climate change bill would be just one of many improvements needed to secure Senator Landrieu's vote," said Aaron Saunders, a spokesman for Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.).
Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) said nuclear power and other energy issues such as oil and natural gas included in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee energy bill passed in June "stand on their own" and there should be a separate vote for a climate bill. Earlier this year Reid decided the committee energy legislation would be considered with the climate bill.
The energy committee bill has several perks for nuclear energy including a Clean Energy Development Administration, training programs for nuclear education, and exclusion of new nuclear generation or capacity upgrades through efficiency at existing nuclear plants from the power sales baseline used to measure the renewable electricity standard (RES).
The House climate bill, H.R. 2454 (pdf), also contains a Clean Energy Development Administration -- although it prevents any technology from using more than 30 percent of total available funds. It also includes the exclusion of new nuclear generation from the power sales baseline used to calculate the RES.
When asked if additional nuclear incentives in a climate bill would help win support from the senator from North Dakota -- a heavy coal-production state -- Dorgan simply said, "We'll see."
Fellow fence-sitter Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) also wants to see incentives for nuclear energy in any climate bill she would support but also more for biomass, natural gas and other fuels as part of an "all of the above" approach, Lincoln spokeswoman Katie Laning Niebaum said.
Nuclear energy incentives do not appear to be the clincher for Republican swing voters either.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a key potential Republican supporter, told reporters this week including a nuclear title is "vital" to his support for a climate bill. But McCain has also roundly criticized many other parts of the House climate bill, which Boxer has stated is the starting point for her committee draft. McCain said the "1,400-page monstrosity" House bill contains too many giveaways to special interests and trade protection measures Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), another possible supporter, said the money or free allocations flowing to special interests is "offensive."
"Certainly our energy bill has nuclear in it and hopefully it sees the light of day, but it is not going to make up for the tremendous defects that occur in the House bill," Corker said
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, (R-Alaska), ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, would welcome a stronger nuclear title in the climate bill but there are several other problems, such as the cost of the bill, said spokesman Robert Dillon.
At this point she is not supporting a cap-and-trade bill," Dillon said. "No one can give us a clear estimate about the cost. ... There are more questions than answers that people need to have before they are going to say they are going to start supporting this bill."
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), who was also thought by many to be a possible supporter of a climate change bill, said this week no amount of nuclear incentives would tempt him to support a climate bill that involved cap and trade (E&ENews PM July 13).
"The bill needs to be junked," Alexander said at a press conference this week unveiling a "blueprint" for constructing 100 nuclear power plants in 20 years. Alexander said he would be pursuing his goal in separate legislation to boost loan guarantee funds, increasing resources for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and more money to nuclear research and development.
Looking for love in all the wrong places
The underlying question for sponsors: If nuclear incentives are not enough to get undecided senators on board with cap and trade, what is the point of including them at all?
"I think the question is who do you get who you weren't going to get?" Romm said. "I think that obviously there is no point in adding stuff to the bill if you are not adding more votes for it. Republicans like nuclear, but I don't think they are going to vote for this bill."
Romm believes it will be an agreement with China on reducing emissions or even natural gas that will get the necessary senators on board. For instance, the natural gas industry sat out of negotiations in the House but have said they want more input into the Senate bill. And Louisiana, Arkansas, Pennsylvania and "a lot of interesting states" -- i.e. senators who may vote for the climate bill -- have discovered a good reserve of potential natural gas recently, Romm said.
Boxer does not appear to be willing to go much further in adding nuclear provisions to the bill. Boxer and Alexander have had lengthy disagreements about the role of nuclear during committee hearings on the climate bill this week.
The nuclear issue dominated much of the debate at a hearing on Tuesday intended to focus on the climate bill's potential for agriculture and forestry. Alexander and other Republicans on the panel touted the proposal to build 100 nuclear plants by 2030, but Boxer fired back at them that her bill would be the better way to go.
"I think it's very important we understand that the approach we're taking, we don't pick winners or losers. We put a cap on carbon and let the marketplace do it," Boxer said. She highlighted the U.S. EPA analysis of the House bill that estimates it could lead to 260 new 1,000 megawatt nuclear plants by 2050.
After Alexander called on President Obama to support his proposal for more nuclear plants, Boxer replied: "It is very clear he doesn't have to support your proposal. His [support of the House bill] results in more nuclear power plants being built."
Boxer added after a hearing yesterday, "I think if you look at Waxman-Markey, the prediction is there being well over 100 nuke plants. I don't know that we'll need to have more than that. But we'll certainly look at all of these issues."
Nuclear lobby split
The Nuclear Energy Institute, the lobbying arm of the U.S. nuclear industry, has stayed relatively quiet on the climate change negotiations as its members, including Exelon Corp. and Southern Co., have different positions on the House bill.
NEI has strongly pushed for more funding in the loan guarantee program and backs the new clean energy bank but has not issued many other demands.
"What we are hopeful for in any climate bill are those provisions. One, the recognition of nuclear as a clean energy source so if someone has nuclear in their portfolio they should be recognized for that and, two, recognition that to move forward we are going to have to private-public partnership of government and private enterprise," said Derrick Freeman, senior director, of NEI's legislative programs.
Individual utilities, as well as the Edison Electric Institute -- which represents investor-owned utilities -- have taken the lead on lobbying their interests in climate legislation. But their main target is the distribution of the free emission allocation provisions for utilities.
"Exelon is particularly pleased that free allowances will be allocated to local utilities to help mitigate the impact of increased prices on consumers," a statement from Exelon said after the House vote last month. The statement also included approval of the strong support for protection of consumers the bill provides, according to Exelon, but did not mention any of the nuclear measures or lack thereof.
Similarly a letter (pdf) from Duke Energy Corp. sent to House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) the day before the bill was scheduled for a vote supports the allocation scheme, criticizes the offsets and cost-containment mechanisms among other subjects, but makes no mention of the nuclear provisions either for better or for worse.
Jim Rogers, Duke's CEO, said yesterday he has spoken to Boxer about including in the climate bill a provision to shorten licensing approval process under the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to two years and a provision that deals with "the waste confidence issues in a straightforward way."
China jails environment activists - rights group
A Chinese environmental activist and his daughter have been jailed for leaking state secrets and endangering national security related to a uranium mine, a human rights group said.Sun Xiaodi worked at a uranium mine in the remote northwestern province of Gansu, and has campaigned against nuclear contamination and for labour rights for years, Human Rights in China said in a statement.But he has now been sentenced to two years of "re-education through labour". His daughter, Sun Dunbai, was given 1-½ years.Human Rights in China said Xiaodi was found guilty of stealing information related to the mine and giving it to his daughter to supply to foreign organisations."If the authorities have evidence that Sun Xiaodi and his daughter endangered state security, they should present it in an open and fair trial," said Sharon Hom, executive director of HRIC."Instead, they chose re-education through labour -- a non-transparent process of administrative punishment lacking procedural protections -- raising strong suspicions about their handling of these cases."
Judges consider Essar steel plant’s impact on the environment
The future of Minnesota’s largest-ever industrial development is in the hands of three state Appeals Court judges.
Environmental groups want the judges to order the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources to take a closer look at how Essar Steel Minnesota’s planned $1.65 billion direct taconite-to-steel plant would affect global warming.
The project near Nashwauk is due to begin producing steel slabs by 2014. It will employ 500 people. Up to 2,000 workers will be needed to construct the facilities and state officials have compared its economic impact to the Mall of America.
The Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, supported by Fresh Energy, contend the DNR did not adequately consider the amount of greenhouse gases the plant would produce. The DNR said it did all that it could to consider the global warming impact produced by the gases before approving an Environmental Impact Statement that opened the door to state and federal construction permits.
“The agency always could have done something more,” Tom Overton, an assistant attorney general representing DNR, told the appeals judges during a Thursday hearing. But, he added, there could be no end to such a study.
Scott Strand, representing the environmentalists, told the judges that they should order DNR to look into global warming.
“A large environmental impact was ignored altogether,” he said.
Thaddeus Lightfoot, Essar’s attorney, told the judges that they do not have legal authority to revoke state and federal permits already issued.
In an interview, he said the court case has not slowed construction work. However, if the Appeals Court overturns permits, construction may slow or stop.
Thursday’s hearing followed an Oct. 15, 2008, Itasca County court ruling that held the DNR followed the law when it drew up the Environmental Impact Statement. The environmental center appealed the ruling.
The environmental group claimed the DNR’s Environmental Impact Statement did not take into account the added electricity that would be needed to run the mining and steelmaking operation. Strand said that electricity most likely would come from power plants fueled by coal, which many scientists say leads to global warming.
Overton said “DNR took a hard look at the issues” and did the best it could to include global warming impacts in its 1,000-page report. “They did use the best information that they had.”
India-based Essar plans to reopen the Butler taconite mine near Nashwauk, which is estimated to have enough iron to keep the nearby steel-making plant running for at least 100 years. Essar bought 8,000 acres of land in the area and plans to buy or obtain easements on more until it controls about 20,000 acres.
Contractors are preparing the site for construction. An iron ore pellet plant could be in production by 2011, with steel being produced three years later. It would be the first American facility where mining and steel-making are at the same site.
Overton said that the project “offers distinct advantages” over other steel mills and mines. For instance, he said, the mill will use natural gas, a cleaner alternative to coal. And it could buy electricity from Canadian hydroelectric generators, he added.
While judges asked how the DNR was supposed to figure the global warming impact, Strand said the agency needs “to do their best projection of what science will allow
Environmental groups want the judges to order the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources to take a closer look at how Essar Steel Minnesota’s planned $1.65 billion direct taconite-to-steel plant would affect global warming.
The project near Nashwauk is due to begin producing steel slabs by 2014. It will employ 500 people. Up to 2,000 workers will be needed to construct the facilities and state officials have compared its economic impact to the Mall of America.
The Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, supported by Fresh Energy, contend the DNR did not adequately consider the amount of greenhouse gases the plant would produce. The DNR said it did all that it could to consider the global warming impact produced by the gases before approving an Environmental Impact Statement that opened the door to state and federal construction permits.
“The agency always could have done something more,” Tom Overton, an assistant attorney general representing DNR, told the appeals judges during a Thursday hearing. But, he added, there could be no end to such a study.
Scott Strand, representing the environmentalists, told the judges that they should order DNR to look into global warming.
“A large environmental impact was ignored altogether,” he said.
Thaddeus Lightfoot, Essar’s attorney, told the judges that they do not have legal authority to revoke state and federal permits already issued.
In an interview, he said the court case has not slowed construction work. However, if the Appeals Court overturns permits, construction may slow or stop.
Thursday’s hearing followed an Oct. 15, 2008, Itasca County court ruling that held the DNR followed the law when it drew up the Environmental Impact Statement. The environmental center appealed the ruling.
The environmental group claimed the DNR’s Environmental Impact Statement did not take into account the added electricity that would be needed to run the mining and steelmaking operation. Strand said that electricity most likely would come from power plants fueled by coal, which many scientists say leads to global warming.
Overton said “DNR took a hard look at the issues” and did the best it could to include global warming impacts in its 1,000-page report. “They did use the best information that they had.”
India-based Essar plans to reopen the Butler taconite mine near Nashwauk, which is estimated to have enough iron to keep the nearby steel-making plant running for at least 100 years. Essar bought 8,000 acres of land in the area and plans to buy or obtain easements on more until it controls about 20,000 acres.
Contractors are preparing the site for construction. An iron ore pellet plant could be in production by 2011, with steel being produced three years later. It would be the first American facility where mining and steel-making are at the same site.
Overton said that the project “offers distinct advantages” over other steel mills and mines. For instance, he said, the mill will use natural gas, a cleaner alternative to coal. And it could buy electricity from Canadian hydroelectric generators, he added.
While judges asked how the DNR was supposed to figure the global warming impact, Strand said the agency needs “to do their best projection of what science will allow
The Search for Environmental Justice in Perry County, Alabama
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), the nation's largest public utility, has recently gained approval from the EPA to ship three millions of tons coal ash waste, from the December 2008 Kingston Fossil Fuel Plant ash spill disaster in Kingston TN to Perry County, Alabama. The TVA is now shipping ash coal waste that contains significant levels of 14 toxic substances including arsenic, lead, mercury selenium and radioactive elements to a private waste site owned by Perry County Associates. This move has generated considerable controversy. Why? For reasons I will explain later, largely because it appears to be a blatant case of environmental injustice.
First, you need to know more about Perry County. Situated in the heart of our nation's "Black Belt" it is the second poorest county in Alabama. Unemployment is around 17 percent. The median income of its residents is around $24,000 and approximately a third of the county lives below the poverty level. Added to that is the fact that 70% of the county is black.
Now, here is the rub, the majority of the county's politicians are black including the county commissioners who endorsed the idea. The politicians claim that they have backed the idea because it will bring more employment to the county. They claim the waste will bring $4 million dollars in fees to the county and create as many as 50 jobs to a county whose population is 10,6000 people. In an Associated Press story (AP) (7/02/09) Michael Churchman, executive director of the Alabama Environmental Council stated:"We still feel that there are elements that seem like an injustice to the people of Perry County," said "The benefits of the new jobs and increased income to families in that county is not as significant as it's being portrayed to be."
Even if you accept the county commissioners' rationale it clearly underscores the asymmetrical economic power relations of this nation and demonstrates just how desperate a poor, southern minority county is in today's America. The more affluent State of Pennsylvania has refused a request a TVA request to ship the waste to their state because they deemed the waste hazardous. The Tuscaloosa News has published an editorial objecting to the "toxic dumping" and among other things stating that, "the money is fleeting and the job-lasting about a year. The waste and its impact are on the environment forever"
In a recent meeting last month in Roane County TN, Anda Ray, TVA Senior Vice President of the Office of the Environment, justified the decision in part by saying the county residents endorsed the idea. She then, somewhat adroitly, amended the statement-"mid-stream"- with the caveat that the locally elected officials were the ones that did so and not the county's residents leaving the impression with many in the audience that the citizens of Perry County endorsed the idea.
It would seem from the reports in the press and discussions with Perry County residents that the decision is highly unpopular among some, if not many. A number of people have argued that the risks greatly exceed any potential benefit. For instance, an AP story recently reported that the district attorney for the county, Michael Jackson, is "vehemently" opposed to the idea and has stated that the decision by local politicians was: tragic and shortsighted." Congressman, Arthur Davis, who represents the county, and who intends to run for governor of Alabama, is also strongly opposed to the ash fill landfill.
Which brings us back to why this appears to be a prima facie case of environmental justice. Let's be very clear about this, according to Presidential Executive Order 12898 (1994) and the EPA's website:
Environmental justice is for the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Fair treatment means that no group of people should bear a disproportionate risk share of negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, governmental, or commercial operations or policies. Meaningful involvement means (1) that people have an opportunity to participate in decisions and activities that may affect their environment and/or health; (2) the public's contribution can influence the regulatory agency's decision; (3) their concerns will be considered in the decision making process; (4) the decision makers seek out and facilitate the involvement of those potentially effected (emphasis theirs).
First of all, according to reports in the press and statements made by numerous individuals in the community, a meaningful process involving the community members, and not just a select group of elected officials, has not taken place. Moreover, the statutes that the EPA implements require the agency to consider a host of factors including public health, cumulative impacts; social costs, and welfare impacts. And then there is the fact that, under the Toxics Substances Control Act (TSCA) it explicitly directs EPA to target low-income and minority populations for assistance and to consider such vulnerable populations in setting standards.
Finally, there is no evidence to the contrary that any of the above stated procedures listed on the EPA website have been implemented let alone taken into consideration. The fact that the county commissioners are also a minority population does not absolve them, or the EPA, from insuring that the county's residents have an opportunity to participate in the decisions that may disproportionately affect them. As Lisa Evans, an attorney for Earthjustice has argued, regardless of race, the decision to allow the dumping of TVA waste in Perry County adversely affects all low-income residents in the county: an outcome that pertains directly to federal environmental justice policy concerns.
In responding to criticisms of institutional racism, TVA, Peyton T. Hairston, TVA's Vice-President for Corporate Responsibility and Diversity, spokesperson, according to the publication, Facing South, stated that TVA made the decision to ship the waste to Perry County for reasons other than the racial composition of the community. Another TVA spokesperson has repeatedly stated to the press that the primary reason the Perry County waste site was chosen is because it is accessible by railroad. While this may be true, a basic precept of environmental justice rightly contends that regardless of intent, the impact is the same: a poor minority suffers a disproportionate risk regardless of the rationale for such a decision.
In 2006, during the Bush Administration, the US EPA's Office of Inspector General conducted an evaluation report and found "that EPA senior management has not sufficiently directed program and regional offices to conduct justice reviews in accordance with Executive Order 12898. (Report No. 2006-P-00034, September 18, 2006). More recently, earlier this month, a coalition of environmental justice leaders led by Robert Bullard, log-time environmental justice advocate, have urged the Obama administration to enforce stricter standards in regard to environmental waste.
So here is the question: what has the EPA done to improve this situation under the new Obama administration? Specifically, has the EPA's Office of Environmental Justice taken appropriate action in the case of Perry County? What exactly have they done? How transparent has their decision making process been? If they have reviewed and approved the sitting of this waste what is their rationale for such a decision?
As one elderly, back resident of Perry County, stated, "If we can't get environmental justice enforced under the administration of a black president than we ain't never going to get any justice!"
President Obama might want to consider that halting the dumping of toxic waste in Perry County might well be one of those "defining moments" he spoke so eloquently of during his campaign for President.
First, you need to know more about Perry County. Situated in the heart of our nation's "Black Belt" it is the second poorest county in Alabama. Unemployment is around 17 percent. The median income of its residents is around $24,000 and approximately a third of the county lives below the poverty level. Added to that is the fact that 70% of the county is black.
Now, here is the rub, the majority of the county's politicians are black including the county commissioners who endorsed the idea. The politicians claim that they have backed the idea because it will bring more employment to the county. They claim the waste will bring $4 million dollars in fees to the county and create as many as 50 jobs to a county whose population is 10,6000 people. In an Associated Press story (AP) (7/02/09) Michael Churchman, executive director of the Alabama Environmental Council stated:"We still feel that there are elements that seem like an injustice to the people of Perry County," said "The benefits of the new jobs and increased income to families in that county is not as significant as it's being portrayed to be."
Even if you accept the county commissioners' rationale it clearly underscores the asymmetrical economic power relations of this nation and demonstrates just how desperate a poor, southern minority county is in today's America. The more affluent State of Pennsylvania has refused a request a TVA request to ship the waste to their state because they deemed the waste hazardous. The Tuscaloosa News has published an editorial objecting to the "toxic dumping" and among other things stating that, "the money is fleeting and the job-lasting about a year. The waste and its impact are on the environment forever"
In a recent meeting last month in Roane County TN, Anda Ray, TVA Senior Vice President of the Office of the Environment, justified the decision in part by saying the county residents endorsed the idea. She then, somewhat adroitly, amended the statement-"mid-stream"- with the caveat that the locally elected officials were the ones that did so and not the county's residents leaving the impression with many in the audience that the citizens of Perry County endorsed the idea.
It would seem from the reports in the press and discussions with Perry County residents that the decision is highly unpopular among some, if not many. A number of people have argued that the risks greatly exceed any potential benefit. For instance, an AP story recently reported that the district attorney for the county, Michael Jackson, is "vehemently" opposed to the idea and has stated that the decision by local politicians was: tragic and shortsighted." Congressman, Arthur Davis, who represents the county, and who intends to run for governor of Alabama, is also strongly opposed to the ash fill landfill.
Which brings us back to why this appears to be a prima facie case of environmental justice. Let's be very clear about this, according to Presidential Executive Order 12898 (1994) and the EPA's website:
Environmental justice is for the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Fair treatment means that no group of people should bear a disproportionate risk share of negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, governmental, or commercial operations or policies. Meaningful involvement means (1) that people have an opportunity to participate in decisions and activities that may affect their environment and/or health; (2) the public's contribution can influence the regulatory agency's decision; (3) their concerns will be considered in the decision making process; (4) the decision makers seek out and facilitate the involvement of those potentially effected (emphasis theirs).
First of all, according to reports in the press and statements made by numerous individuals in the community, a meaningful process involving the community members, and not just a select group of elected officials, has not taken place. Moreover, the statutes that the EPA implements require the agency to consider a host of factors including public health, cumulative impacts; social costs, and welfare impacts. And then there is the fact that, under the Toxics Substances Control Act (TSCA) it explicitly directs EPA to target low-income and minority populations for assistance and to consider such vulnerable populations in setting standards.
Finally, there is no evidence to the contrary that any of the above stated procedures listed on the EPA website have been implemented let alone taken into consideration. The fact that the county commissioners are also a minority population does not absolve them, or the EPA, from insuring that the county's residents have an opportunity to participate in the decisions that may disproportionately affect them. As Lisa Evans, an attorney for Earthjustice has argued, regardless of race, the decision to allow the dumping of TVA waste in Perry County adversely affects all low-income residents in the county: an outcome that pertains directly to federal environmental justice policy concerns.
In responding to criticisms of institutional racism, TVA, Peyton T. Hairston, TVA's Vice-President for Corporate Responsibility and Diversity, spokesperson, according to the publication, Facing South, stated that TVA made the decision to ship the waste to Perry County for reasons other than the racial composition of the community. Another TVA spokesperson has repeatedly stated to the press that the primary reason the Perry County waste site was chosen is because it is accessible by railroad. While this may be true, a basic precept of environmental justice rightly contends that regardless of intent, the impact is the same: a poor minority suffers a disproportionate risk regardless of the rationale for such a decision.
In 2006, during the Bush Administration, the US EPA's Office of Inspector General conducted an evaluation report and found "that EPA senior management has not sufficiently directed program and regional offices to conduct justice reviews in accordance with Executive Order 12898. (Report No. 2006-P-00034, September 18, 2006). More recently, earlier this month, a coalition of environmental justice leaders led by Robert Bullard, log-time environmental justice advocate, have urged the Obama administration to enforce stricter standards in regard to environmental waste.
So here is the question: what has the EPA done to improve this situation under the new Obama administration? Specifically, has the EPA's Office of Environmental Justice taken appropriate action in the case of Perry County? What exactly have they done? How transparent has their decision making process been? If they have reviewed and approved the sitting of this waste what is their rationale for such a decision?
As one elderly, back resident of Perry County, stated, "If we can't get environmental justice enforced under the administration of a black president than we ain't never going to get any justice!"
President Obama might want to consider that halting the dumping of toxic waste in Perry County might well be one of those "defining moments" he spoke so eloquently of during his campaign for President.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Climate Roadmap Missing from G8 Agreement
International leaders at the G8 summit in Italy pledged last week to keep global temperature increases below 2 degrees -- the limit set by scientists before irreversible damage is done -- but failed to outline actions to achieve this goal, warns an environmental protection group.
What's the Story?
To ensure that global temperatures don't warm more than 2 degrees, G8 countries -- the United States, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, and the United Kingdom -- plan to reduce their emissions by at least 80 percent by 2050.
The conservation organization WWF "welcomes the leaders' initiative, but the lack of an agreement on ambitious midterm emissions reduction targets, clear financial commitments, and a date for global peak and decline of emissions could turn the 2 degree commitment into an empty statement," says a release on the group's Web site.
"Without setting the path to reduce emissions, the actual obligations of countries will be watered down, and staying below 2 degrees will be impossible," noted Kim Carstensen, the leader of WWF's global climate campaign.
To ensure they are on track to meet the long-term goal, continued WWF, industrialized nations should take immediate action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent in the next 10 years. In addition, said the organization, the G8 should also provide funds to help developing countries adapt to climate change and cut their own emissions. (See the WWF's full statement below.)
G8 Fails on Midterm Emissions Goal
In addition to reducing their own emissions 80 percent by midcentury, the G8 also agreed that total global emissions should be cut in half by 2050. But in the absence of a firm timeline for the next 40 years, advocacy groups are cautioning that a strong foundation has not yet been laid for an effective global climate change treaty, to be concluded at an upcoming meeting in Copenhagen, now just five months away.
"The failure to reach agreement on emissions reductions targets in Italy this week was a timely reminder that in the half-year since President Barack Obama took office, world leaders have made little progress in bridging the key issues that must be resolved in order to achieve an effective climate agreement in Copenhagen," wrote Christopher Flavin, president of the Worldwatch Institute, a Washington-based environmental think tank.
The poverty alleviation organization ActionAid also chastised G8 countries for not making a firmer commitment, calling the twin goals of reducing emissions from the world's wealthiest countries by 80 percent and halving global emissions by 2050 "too little, too late."
"The global target the G8 agreed to...is too far away," said Angela Wauye, ActionAid's food rights coordinator. "Ask the 230 million hungry people in sub-Saharan Africa, who are already suffering the impact of climate change, if they can wait until 2050."
Changing weather patterns are contributing to hunger and food shortages in developing countries around the world. In Bangladesh, Indonesia, Jamaica, Kenya, and Zambia climate change has adversely affected agriculture, causing local food prices to rise, reports ActionAid.
G8 Commits to Food Aid
The G8's announcement last Friday to invest $20 billion over three years in agriculture development was "the only bright spot of the summit," remarked Oxfam's Gawain Kripke.
"There is an urgent need for decisive action to free humankind from hunger and poverty," said the G8 leaders in a joint statement. "Food security is closely connected with economic growth and social progress as well as with political stability and peace."
The UN food and agriculture agency greeted the pledge as an "encouraging policy shift to help the poor and hungry." Some organizations, however, view it as an "old fashioned" way of tackling food issues, reports the development and technology news outlet SciDev.net.
Meanwhile, Action Against Hunger (AAH) is urging the Obama administration not to overlook the immediate crisis of acute malnutrition. Applauding the Obama administration for taking a leadership role on hunger, AAH is calling for funding to scale up existing programs serving people already suffering from food shortages.
"Acute malnutrition is predictable, cost-effective to treat, and simple to prevent; it's a tragedy that should not exist in the 21st century," said the aid group.
'A Long Way to Go'
Some humanitarian organizations remain extremely skeptical that the agreements made by the G8 will have a lasting effect.
According to the anti-poverty agency Mercy Corps, a 2005 G8 pledge to increase yearly international aid by $50 billion by 2010 is well behind schedule.
Similarly, Joanne Green, head of policy for the Catholic relief group CAFOD, lamented:"The G8 has reaffirmed its aid promises to the world's poorest, but let's not forget that that's just saying 'we'll actually do what we said we'd do four years ago'... When the language of the communiqué is so heavily infused with enthusiasm rather than solid action, we have to be skeptical."
"This summit has been a shambles, it did nothing for Africa, and the world is still being cooked," concluded Jeremy Hobbs
What's the Story?
To ensure that global temperatures don't warm more than 2 degrees, G8 countries -- the United States, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, and the United Kingdom -- plan to reduce their emissions by at least 80 percent by 2050.
The conservation organization WWF "welcomes the leaders' initiative, but the lack of an agreement on ambitious midterm emissions reduction targets, clear financial commitments, and a date for global peak and decline of emissions could turn the 2 degree commitment into an empty statement," says a release on the group's Web site.
"Without setting the path to reduce emissions, the actual obligations of countries will be watered down, and staying below 2 degrees will be impossible," noted Kim Carstensen, the leader of WWF's global climate campaign.
To ensure they are on track to meet the long-term goal, continued WWF, industrialized nations should take immediate action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent in the next 10 years. In addition, said the organization, the G8 should also provide funds to help developing countries adapt to climate change and cut their own emissions. (See the WWF's full statement below.)
G8 Fails on Midterm Emissions Goal
In addition to reducing their own emissions 80 percent by midcentury, the G8 also agreed that total global emissions should be cut in half by 2050. But in the absence of a firm timeline for the next 40 years, advocacy groups are cautioning that a strong foundation has not yet been laid for an effective global climate change treaty, to be concluded at an upcoming meeting in Copenhagen, now just five months away.
"The failure to reach agreement on emissions reductions targets in Italy this week was a timely reminder that in the half-year since President Barack Obama took office, world leaders have made little progress in bridging the key issues that must be resolved in order to achieve an effective climate agreement in Copenhagen," wrote Christopher Flavin, president of the Worldwatch Institute, a Washington-based environmental think tank.
The poverty alleviation organization ActionAid also chastised G8 countries for not making a firmer commitment, calling the twin goals of reducing emissions from the world's wealthiest countries by 80 percent and halving global emissions by 2050 "too little, too late."
"The global target the G8 agreed to...is too far away," said Angela Wauye, ActionAid's food rights coordinator. "Ask the 230 million hungry people in sub-Saharan Africa, who are already suffering the impact of climate change, if they can wait until 2050."
Changing weather patterns are contributing to hunger and food shortages in developing countries around the world. In Bangladesh, Indonesia, Jamaica, Kenya, and Zambia climate change has adversely affected agriculture, causing local food prices to rise, reports ActionAid.
G8 Commits to Food Aid
The G8's announcement last Friday to invest $20 billion over three years in agriculture development was "the only bright spot of the summit," remarked Oxfam's Gawain Kripke.
"There is an urgent need for decisive action to free humankind from hunger and poverty," said the G8 leaders in a joint statement. "Food security is closely connected with economic growth and social progress as well as with political stability and peace."
The UN food and agriculture agency greeted the pledge as an "encouraging policy shift to help the poor and hungry." Some organizations, however, view it as an "old fashioned" way of tackling food issues, reports the development and technology news outlet SciDev.net.
Meanwhile, Action Against Hunger (AAH) is urging the Obama administration not to overlook the immediate crisis of acute malnutrition. Applauding the Obama administration for taking a leadership role on hunger, AAH is calling for funding to scale up existing programs serving people already suffering from food shortages.
"Acute malnutrition is predictable, cost-effective to treat, and simple to prevent; it's a tragedy that should not exist in the 21st century," said the aid group.
'A Long Way to Go'
Some humanitarian organizations remain extremely skeptical that the agreements made by the G8 will have a lasting effect.
According to the anti-poverty agency Mercy Corps, a 2005 G8 pledge to increase yearly international aid by $50 billion by 2010 is well behind schedule.
Similarly, Joanne Green, head of policy for the Catholic relief group CAFOD, lamented:"The G8 has reaffirmed its aid promises to the world's poorest, but let's not forget that that's just saying 'we'll actually do what we said we'd do four years ago'... When the language of the communiqué is so heavily infused with enthusiasm rather than solid action, we have to be skeptical."
"This summit has been a shambles, it did nothing for Africa, and the world is still being cooked," concluded Jeremy Hobbs
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)