Bill Gates, Microsoft founder and one of the world's richest men, Thursday announced an increase in his foundation's AIDS prevention commitment in India to $338 million, saying India's AIDS prevention could be a model for the rest of the world.
Launched in 2003 by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, it provides funding and support to targeted HIV prevention programmes in six Indian states, including Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra, and along the national trucking routes through its own initiative called Avahan.
Prior to this, the foundation had committed a total of $258 million for the purpose.
'Prevention is absolutely essential for fighting HIV, and will ultimately save millions of lives,' Gates told reporters.
'I congratulate the Indian government for its leadership on HIV prevention, which can be a model for the rest of the world. Our foundation is committed to working with India over the long haul on a variety of critical health issues,' he said.
Gates, co-chairman of the Gates Foundation, will meet Health Minister Ghulam Nabi Azad and other top officials to discuss their shared commitment to control of the diseases.
Gates and Azad will discuss plans for gradually transition of key aspects of Avahan to the Indian government and other partners. During this transition, Avahan will provide financial and technical support to ensure that prevention programmes can be sustained over time.
Avahan has already awarded more than $100 million in grants for this transition.
'Our collaboration with Avahan has made it possible to reach far more people with proven HIV prevention interventions,' said K. Sujatha Rao, director general of the National Aids Control Organisation.
'This strong partnership will continue as key aspects of Avahan transition to the government in the coming years.'
India is home to 2.5 million HIV positive people including over 70,000 children below the age of 15.
Gates is in Delhi to receive the Indira Gandhi Prize for Peace, Disarmament, and Development on behalf of the Gates Foundation. The foundation is being recognized for 'pioneering and exemplary philanthropic work around the world and in India in health'.
As of July 2009, the foundation has committed nearly $1 billion for health and development projects in India. Globally it has committed approximately $ 11.95 billion in grants for global health, the foundation claimed in a statement.
For the last six years, Avahan-supported programmes provide thousands of people with risk-reduction counselling, access to contraceptives, treatment for sexually-transmitted infections, and other prevention services
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Animal Friends: Rescued cat thrives in a new environment
For a guy who was crammed into a house with 132 other cats by a hoarder in Monterey County, Marshall Matt Dillon is doing just fine now, thank you.
He has two humans who adore him, all the food and toys he could imagine and a growing fan club. When Jane Parks-McKay and her husband, Tim McKay, take Dillon out for walks near their Santa Cruz home, people can't resist stopping to ooh and aah over the black and white cat.
That's because Dillon is usually peering out at them from over Tim's shoulder or looking up at them from Tim's arms. Dillon loves to be carried on his walks and while he's friendly to the people who stop and say hello, he'll start licking Tim's face to let his new fans know his heart belongs to "Daddy'' — Tim.
"When he starts kissing me, it's like he's saying 'I like all of you paying attention to me but here's the man I love,' " Tim said, laughing.
Ever since he was adopted by the couple four years ago from the Monterey SPCA, Dillon, now 14, has been able to let his playful personality shine through. He knows what he likes and what he wants — and he's usually able to get it.
"He brings treasures to us every night," Jane said. "First he rounds me up and tells me that it is time for bed. Then I get in bed and he gets in with me. After a few minutes, he is probably convinced I will stay in bed and he goes to the living room to his toy chest."
From this huge toy chest, Dillon "brings what
we call his 'babies' to bed," she said. "Stuffed animal babies of all types and sizes. Sometimes he drags them if they're big, sometimes he uses his little paws to bop them around and sometimes he jumps on the bed with them. We find babies all over the place.
"Of course, we thank him for each baby and for helping the family, something this 14-year-old started a couple of years ago."
The selection of stuffed animals Dillon chooses varies slightly but he has a lot of favorite "babies."
"He's very selective," Tim said. "He has a lot of them but only brings certain ones in a certain sequence. He goes out of his way to bring certain ones. While he's going through that process, he talks."
Dillon is a friendly guy but his "babies" are off limits to others. "If you try to play with the stuffed animal with him after he's brought it, he starts fighting," Tim said. But it's more like batting, lest you think funny Dillon has a dark side.
It's remarkable really that a cat that got almost no attention — if any at all — from the hoarder could be such a happy, well-adjusted family cat now. Certainly kudos go to Jane and Tim for having a home environment where Dillon feels safe and secure, but I think this old guy has an unusual amount of spunk.
He has to.
"You'd never know it from his disposition but he has a lot of ills," Jane said. "He has pancreatitis, diabetes, chronic bronchitis and asthma, all of which we treat him for. We no longer take vacations or go out at night because of Dillon's medication schedule," which includes 29 injections a week, according to Tim.
Dillon endures it all and seems thrilled to start each new day, Jane said.
"He is happy and joyous and brings needed smiles on our faces and everyone else he meets."
He has two humans who adore him, all the food and toys he could imagine and a growing fan club. When Jane Parks-McKay and her husband, Tim McKay, take Dillon out for walks near their Santa Cruz home, people can't resist stopping to ooh and aah over the black and white cat.
That's because Dillon is usually peering out at them from over Tim's shoulder or looking up at them from Tim's arms. Dillon loves to be carried on his walks and while he's friendly to the people who stop and say hello, he'll start licking Tim's face to let his new fans know his heart belongs to "Daddy'' — Tim.
"When he starts kissing me, it's like he's saying 'I like all of you paying attention to me but here's the man I love,' " Tim said, laughing.
Ever since he was adopted by the couple four years ago from the Monterey SPCA, Dillon, now 14, has been able to let his playful personality shine through. He knows what he likes and what he wants — and he's usually able to get it.
"He brings treasures to us every night," Jane said. "First he rounds me up and tells me that it is time for bed. Then I get in bed and he gets in with me. After a few minutes, he is probably convinced I will stay in bed and he goes to the living room to his toy chest."
From this huge toy chest, Dillon "brings what
we call his 'babies' to bed," she said. "Stuffed animal babies of all types and sizes. Sometimes he drags them if they're big, sometimes he uses his little paws to bop them around and sometimes he jumps on the bed with them. We find babies all over the place.
"Of course, we thank him for each baby and for helping the family, something this 14-year-old started a couple of years ago."
The selection of stuffed animals Dillon chooses varies slightly but he has a lot of favorite "babies."
"He's very selective," Tim said. "He has a lot of them but only brings certain ones in a certain sequence. He goes out of his way to bring certain ones. While he's going through that process, he talks."
Dillon is a friendly guy but his "babies" are off limits to others. "If you try to play with the stuffed animal with him after he's brought it, he starts fighting," Tim said. But it's more like batting, lest you think funny Dillon has a dark side.
It's remarkable really that a cat that got almost no attention — if any at all — from the hoarder could be such a happy, well-adjusted family cat now. Certainly kudos go to Jane and Tim for having a home environment where Dillon feels safe and secure, but I think this old guy has an unusual amount of spunk.
He has to.
"You'd never know it from his disposition but he has a lot of ills," Jane said. "He has pancreatitis, diabetes, chronic bronchitis and asthma, all of which we treat him for. We no longer take vacations or go out at night because of Dillon's medication schedule," which includes 29 injections a week, according to Tim.
Dillon endures it all and seems thrilled to start each new day, Jane said.
"He is happy and joyous and brings needed smiles on our faces and everyone else he meets."
French parliament passes sweeping environment law
France's parliament has passed a sweeping law overhauling environmental standards and setting tough emissions targets.
Both houses of parliament approved the measure Thursday, with the majority conservatives and opposition Socialists supporting it. Green Party lawmakers and the Communists opposed it, saying it doesn't go far enough.
The law says France should reduce its carbon emissions fourfold by 2050 and increase renewable energy sources to 23 percent of total energy production.
The law also sets targets for greener transport, agriculture and waste management for workplace pollution.
President Nicolas Sarkozy has sought to have France catch up to greener neighbors and set an environmental example to other nations.
Both houses of parliament approved the measure Thursday, with the majority conservatives and opposition Socialists supporting it. Green Party lawmakers and the Communists opposed it, saying it doesn't go far enough.
The law says France should reduce its carbon emissions fourfold by 2050 and increase renewable energy sources to 23 percent of total energy production.
The law also sets targets for greener transport, agriculture and waste management for workplace pollution.
President Nicolas Sarkozy has sought to have France catch up to greener neighbors and set an environmental example to other nations.
Commentary; Climate change negotiations vital
As Southwest Virginians consider how the interests of our region will be affected by the passage of legislation controlling greenhouse gas emissions, these points may be of interest:• The choice is not between doing something and doing nothing. In 2007, the Supreme Court effectively required EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, the choice is between EPA regulation and Congress intervening with its own regulatory program. Virtually all interested parties, from industry to the environmental community, would prefer that Congress regulate because, unlike EPA, Congress can consider the economic effects of regulation. We can simply do a better job. In essence, we have no alternative but to pass legislation through the Congress regulating greenhouse gases and do so in an economically sustainable way.• Improperly drafted legislation could have had a major adverse effect on both our region’s coal industry and electricity rates in our area. As a senior member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, I was determined to prevent these outcomes and to assure that the legislation which passed the House enabled growth in our region’s coal industry and kept the overall cost of the program to a negligible level for the typical homeowner. We have achieved these goals.• To have a role in the legislation, I simply had to be a part of the process. If I had announced my intention to vote no, I would have had no ability to negotiate the dozens of changes in the original draft of the bill which were ultimately accepted and which earned for the legislation the support of a broad swath of American industry, including electric utilities and American Electric Power Co., which serves our region. Simply stepping aside and voting no would have been the politically easier course; however, it would have been irresponsible because I then would have had no opportunity to modify the legislation to prevent it doing serious economic harm. Unless I was going to be helpful in moving the legislation through the House, the Chairman of the Committee would have refused to enter into the extensive negotiations with me which resulted in major modifications of the bill.• Over two months of intensive negotiations, I was able to modify the original bill to assure that emission allowances are provided for free to electric utilities. By receiving free allowances and avoiding the cost of acquiring allowances at an auction, electric utilities can keep electricity rates affordable and can continue to use coal instead of having to shift to a fuel that has a lower CO2 content. Another of my changes provided the offsets which will enable electric utilities to achieve their required reductions in CO2 emissions by planting trees or investing in agriculture while continuing to use coal at the generating plant. The offsets enable CO2 emitters to meet their greenhouse gas reduction obligations while continuing to burn increasing amounts of coal. My amendments lowered the CO2 reduction targets and also facilitated the early introduction of carbon dioxide capture and sequestration technologies, which will assure the long-term life of the coal industry across our nation.• The official projection of the Environmental Protection Agency is that because of the amendments I was able to add to the bill, coal use will grow by 2020 as compared to 2005 production figures, and the total cost of the program for the typical American home will be no more than 20 to 30 cents per day per family. That number is well less than the cost of a postage stamp daily.• While it was necessary to pass this measure in order to prevent an inevitable, poorly balanced regulation from the EPA, the legislation also contains major benefits for our region and the nation’s economy. It promotes energy independence by broadly accelerating the move to all electric vehicles, which will be fueled by American coal instead of imported petroleum. With the certainty the law provides, a large amount of pent-up capital investment by electric utilities will be unleashed. Many utilities have been waiting for the rules on greenhouse gas reductions to be written before they make major capital investments. And over the longer term, as industry throughout the world seeks to deploy low carbon dioxide emitting technologies, those new technologies will be innovated in American laboratories, manufactured in our factories, deployed at home and exported throughout the world. • I am already having discussions with a group of members of the United States Senate who will be deeply involved in the debate in that body about additional changes which could be made to the legislation to make it more economically acceptable. By being a key drafter of the bill in the House and supporting its movement through the legislative process, I was able to protect this region’s interests, and I am assured of a seat at the table when the final bill is written in negotiations between House and Senate members
Agreeing on energy choices
Our nation's clean-energy future has been one of the most debated issues in Washington in recent months. As Congress works to pass a landmark energy and climate bill, the conversation has often fallen into a familiar pattern of right against left, and Democrats against Republicans - partisan divides that threaten to hold back necessary change.
But when I travel beyond the environs of Washington, I hear a different discussion.
People across the nation ask me about clean-energy jobs in their communities. They want to know how we can cut pollution. They are concerned that the changing climate means they won't be able to vacation on the same beaches in the years ahead, and they are eager to know if the factories in their cities can be saved by manufacturing wind turbines or solar panels. I meet Democrats and Republicans who agree that our dependence on foreign oil jeopardizes our economy and security.
These are issues that unite us as a nation - and have for years. It was Republican President Richard Nixon who formed the Environmental Protection Agency. And President George H.W. Bush based his energy policy on "reducing our dependence on foreign oil, protecting our environment, and promoting economic growth."
Today, there is still broad, bipartisan support for getting America running on clean energy. People are eager for Washington to break the old pattern and help them confront the economic, environmental, and security challenges we face - not as political parties, but as a nation.
Sparking a nationwide transition to clean energy can create millions of well-paying jobs that can't be shipped overseas, which will help rebuild the economy in every state. There is no red-state/blue-state divide when it comes to green jobs. A recent University of Massachusetts study showed that clean-energy investments would create the highest concentrations of jobs in traditionally Republican states, such as Kansas, Texas, Georgia, and Tennessee.
Clean energy can also cut dangerous pollution in our communities. It can bring relief to the millions of American children with asthma and cut smog levels that double the risk of premature births. It can reduce the prevalence of cancer and other diseases linked to pollution from burning fossil fuels. That will improve overall health and lower the amount we spend on health care each year - another goal we all can support.
Clean energy is also the key to turning the tide on climate change. Our nation is already suffering through historic droughts, more destructive hurricanes, and agricultural pests and infectious diseases spreading into new areas. Further changes in the climate pose real threats to our coastlines, family farmers, and the environment.
Finally, with home-grown energy sources, we can stop sending billions of dollars overseas and help stabilize our economy at home. Over the first half of this year, the price of a barrel of oil has nearly doubled. Those kinds of fluctuations raise the costs for businesses to move products and for drivers to fill up their gas tanks, putting greater stress on the economy.
But this is about more than just oil; it's about global stability as well. Violence over resources, displaced refugee populations, poverty-driven instability, drought, and famine will only worsen as the climate changes and the environment is degraded.
The alternative is to put our ingenuity to work. Clean-energy technologies can create educational and economic opportunities where none existed before, including new markets for American goods.
Clean energy is to this decade what the space race was to the 1950s and '60s, and other nations are seizing the moment, leaving America behind. Germany has surged ahead in solar manufacturing, Japan is leading the world in hybrid cars, and China has stepped up efforts to produce electric vehicles. And when those cars come to market, Korean companies will be well ahead of our own in the development of batteries and fuel cells.
Clean energy needs strong incentives and support if we are to lead the new global economy, and that's what the clean-energy bill before Congress provides. It's up to Democrats and Republicans across the nation to let lawmakers know that we need to confront economic, environmental, and security issues that affect us all. When it comes to clean energy, the American people need to show they aren't concerned about whether we follow Democrats or Republicans, as long as we lead the world.
But when I travel beyond the environs of Washington, I hear a different discussion.
People across the nation ask me about clean-energy jobs in their communities. They want to know how we can cut pollution. They are concerned that the changing climate means they won't be able to vacation on the same beaches in the years ahead, and they are eager to know if the factories in their cities can be saved by manufacturing wind turbines or solar panels. I meet Democrats and Republicans who agree that our dependence on foreign oil jeopardizes our economy and security.
These are issues that unite us as a nation - and have for years. It was Republican President Richard Nixon who formed the Environmental Protection Agency. And President George H.W. Bush based his energy policy on "reducing our dependence on foreign oil, protecting our environment, and promoting economic growth."
Today, there is still broad, bipartisan support for getting America running on clean energy. People are eager for Washington to break the old pattern and help them confront the economic, environmental, and security challenges we face - not as political parties, but as a nation.
Sparking a nationwide transition to clean energy can create millions of well-paying jobs that can't be shipped overseas, which will help rebuild the economy in every state. There is no red-state/blue-state divide when it comes to green jobs. A recent University of Massachusetts study showed that clean-energy investments would create the highest concentrations of jobs in traditionally Republican states, such as Kansas, Texas, Georgia, and Tennessee.
Clean energy can also cut dangerous pollution in our communities. It can bring relief to the millions of American children with asthma and cut smog levels that double the risk of premature births. It can reduce the prevalence of cancer and other diseases linked to pollution from burning fossil fuels. That will improve overall health and lower the amount we spend on health care each year - another goal we all can support.
Clean energy is also the key to turning the tide on climate change. Our nation is already suffering through historic droughts, more destructive hurricanes, and agricultural pests and infectious diseases spreading into new areas. Further changes in the climate pose real threats to our coastlines, family farmers, and the environment.
Finally, with home-grown energy sources, we can stop sending billions of dollars overseas and help stabilize our economy at home. Over the first half of this year, the price of a barrel of oil has nearly doubled. Those kinds of fluctuations raise the costs for businesses to move products and for drivers to fill up their gas tanks, putting greater stress on the economy.
But this is about more than just oil; it's about global stability as well. Violence over resources, displaced refugee populations, poverty-driven instability, drought, and famine will only worsen as the climate changes and the environment is degraded.
The alternative is to put our ingenuity to work. Clean-energy technologies can create educational and economic opportunities where none existed before, including new markets for American goods.
Clean energy is to this decade what the space race was to the 1950s and '60s, and other nations are seizing the moment, leaving America behind. Germany has surged ahead in solar manufacturing, Japan is leading the world in hybrid cars, and China has stepped up efforts to produce electric vehicles. And when those cars come to market, Korean companies will be well ahead of our own in the development of batteries and fuel cells.
Clean energy needs strong incentives and support if we are to lead the new global economy, and that's what the clean-energy bill before Congress provides. It's up to Democrats and Republicans across the nation to let lawmakers know that we need to confront economic, environmental, and security issues that affect us all. When it comes to clean energy, the American people need to show they aren't concerned about whether we follow Democrats or Republicans, as long as we lead the world.
Report: US, China must improve climate cooperation
The United States and China should use high-level meetings next week to work toward improved cooperation in curbing greenhouse gases, according to a new Senate report.
The Foreign Relations Committee report released Thursday says new efforts to address emissions by the United States and China, the world's largest emitters of climate-altering pollution, could be "the key to a global solution" to climate change.
The report urges the countries to make climate change a priority. It also warns that winning a climate change policy agreement with fixed commitments from China will "prove extraordinarily difficult."
"The stakes are high," Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., the chairman of the committee, said in the report. "We must jointly tackle one of the most important and complex global issues: the threat of catastrophic climate change."
While the Senate is pressing for cooperation, the House has taken a more confrontational approach by placing trade tariffs in a House-passed bill to limit heat-trapping pollution. The tariffs would impose a "border adjustment" in 2020 on goods from countries that do not limit the gases linked to global warming. Critics say that could undermine U.S. efforts to persuade developing countries to enter into a new global warming treaty.
It is unclear whether similar provisions will be in a version of the bill the Senate is working on; the House and Senate versions eventually will have to be reconciled.
China and the United States account for 40 percent of worldwide emissions of carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas. Both countries, the report says, recognize the need for cooperation.
"However, neither has yet been willing to take the dramatic actions that many experts deem necessary to achieve critical mass for a global effort," the report says. "Many in the United States frankly doubt China's commitment to reduce emissions."
The report said "the absence of specific emissions reduction commitments from China has stoked fears of an unfair economic advantage for China, a hobbled U.S. economy and an insufficient response to the threat of global climate change."
The environment will be among the topics when senior officials meet Monday and Tuesday in Washington for the Strategic and Economic Dialogue, high-level talks meant to govern ties between the countries.
It is a complicated relationship. The United States regularly criticizes China's treatment of its citizens and its trade and fiscal policies. The Obama administration, like the Bush administration before, recognizes that it needs China's help to solve many tough diplomatic and economic crises.
Beijing, meanwhile, is Washington's biggest foreign creditor, with $801.5 billion invested in Treasury securities. Chinese officials worry that massive U.S. stimulus spending and a rapid expansion of credit might spark inflation that would erode the value of the dollar and China's holdings.
The Senate report recommends three areas where the countries could cooperate:
_A joint laboratory for its scientists to collaborate.
_Green projects to test solar power and other technologies.
_A "clean energy corps" trained to focus on designing energy-efficient policies and monitoring and enforcing standards.
The Foreign Relations Committee report released Thursday says new efforts to address emissions by the United States and China, the world's largest emitters of climate-altering pollution, could be "the key to a global solution" to climate change.
The report urges the countries to make climate change a priority. It also warns that winning a climate change policy agreement with fixed commitments from China will "prove extraordinarily difficult."
"The stakes are high," Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., the chairman of the committee, said in the report. "We must jointly tackle one of the most important and complex global issues: the threat of catastrophic climate change."
While the Senate is pressing for cooperation, the House has taken a more confrontational approach by placing trade tariffs in a House-passed bill to limit heat-trapping pollution. The tariffs would impose a "border adjustment" in 2020 on goods from countries that do not limit the gases linked to global warming. Critics say that could undermine U.S. efforts to persuade developing countries to enter into a new global warming treaty.
It is unclear whether similar provisions will be in a version of the bill the Senate is working on; the House and Senate versions eventually will have to be reconciled.
China and the United States account for 40 percent of worldwide emissions of carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas. Both countries, the report says, recognize the need for cooperation.
"However, neither has yet been willing to take the dramatic actions that many experts deem necessary to achieve critical mass for a global effort," the report says. "Many in the United States frankly doubt China's commitment to reduce emissions."
The report said "the absence of specific emissions reduction commitments from China has stoked fears of an unfair economic advantage for China, a hobbled U.S. economy and an insufficient response to the threat of global climate change."
The environment will be among the topics when senior officials meet Monday and Tuesday in Washington for the Strategic and Economic Dialogue, high-level talks meant to govern ties between the countries.
It is a complicated relationship. The United States regularly criticizes China's treatment of its citizens and its trade and fiscal policies. The Obama administration, like the Bush administration before, recognizes that it needs China's help to solve many tough diplomatic and economic crises.
Beijing, meanwhile, is Washington's biggest foreign creditor, with $801.5 billion invested in Treasury securities. Chinese officials worry that massive U.S. stimulus spending and a rapid expansion of credit might spark inflation that would erode the value of the dollar and China's holdings.
The Senate report recommends three areas where the countries could cooperate:
_A joint laboratory for its scientists to collaborate.
_Green projects to test solar power and other technologies.
_A "clean energy corps" trained to focus on designing energy-efficient policies and monitoring and enforcing standards.
The U.S.'s coming around on climate change was supposed to be good news. Instead, it's trouble
Be careful what you wish for. For years, much of the world has been bashing America for refusing to cooperate in the fight against climate change. Now that President Barack Obama has pledged American leadership in cutting greenhouse-gas emissions—and as a far-reaching package of green legislation begins to wind its way through the U.S. Congress—relief is giving way to worry. In recent weeks European, Indian and Chinese officials have warned that the result of America's long-awaited change of mind might not be cooperation but conflict, and possibly the world's first green trade war.
That's because as Washington debates how to regulate emissions, a powerful coalition of energy-intensive industries, labor unions and Rust Belt state legislators is clamoring for protection from imports. They argue that the new cap-and-trade system envisioned by Obama and congressional leaders, which will require major polluters to acquire permits for the right to emit CO2, will put them at a competitive disadvantage against competitors based in countries that don't have similar carbon-pricing schemes. In March Obama's energy secretary, Steven Chu, said the U.S. is prepared to use a border tax on imports as a weapon to force countries like China to limit their own emissions, triggering a warning by Su Wei, China's chief climate negotiator, that this would lead to retaliatory measures. India has since warned the West not to engage in "green protectionism."
So far, the threats have been limited to words, but that may soon change. Introduced in Congress on April 1, America's proposed scheme is loosely based on Europe's, which gives homegrown energy-intensive industries like steel, aluminum and cement generous free allowances of pollution permits, in effect grandfathering them into the new system. The president would have the authority to impose "border adjustments" only if U.S. companies were determined to be at a competitive disadvantage after a five-year trial period. But with the American debate over climate change increasingly driven by worries over jobs and competitiveness, some form of protection seems increasingly likely. In Europe, politicians have called for EU trade sanctions against both China and the U.S. if they don't agree to cut emissions.
Because they already regulate emissions, the Europeans would likely be exempt from any U.S. carbon tariffs, which appear squarely aimed at China.
The biggest victim of a confrontation, however, would be the environment that U.S. legislators are purporting to save. China is just beginning to get serious about its own environmental record, and as a member of the G20 seems finally to be taking its first baby steps toward a more involved and constructive international role. The global climate regime that the world's biggest polluters will try to hammer out at the U.N. climate conference in Copenhagen in December will not work without major developing-world emitters like China onboard. A nasty trade fight with the United States would make cooperation by Beijing even less likely, says Benjamin Görlach, emissions expert at the Ecologic Institute in Berlin.
Not only does the debate over imports threaten to obscure the original environmental-policy goals, it also obscures the facts. The greatest share of carbon-intensive imports reaches the U.S. not from China but from heavily regulated Europe. What's more, a number of studies have found the effects on industrial competitiveness to be minimal. Among other things, they found that the cost of complying with environmental regulation plays little to no role when companies decide where to locate—access to local markets is by far the most important factor, followed by labor costs. In some cases, such as Germany's €160 billion chemical industry, efficiency improvements prodded by environmental regulation have even helped make the industry more competitive, not less. Even the Chinese case is anything but clear. China itself may be polluted, but its exports tend to come from modern, efficient plants, and the country already has higher efficiency standards for vehicles and appliances than the U.S., leading a Chinese official to remark at a Brookings Institution conference in Washington last year that it may be China that should slap carbon tariffs on U.S. products, not the other way around. The trouble now is that the debate is driven less and less by environmental concerns and is turning into one defined by longstanding domestic U.S. worries that cheap Chinese goods will continue to flood the U.S., take jobs and hurt companies. So far in this downturn, the protectionists have been held in check by fears of repeating the mistakes of the 1930s, when a global tariff war plunged the world into depression. Under the cover of green, they could yet have their day
That's because as Washington debates how to regulate emissions, a powerful coalition of energy-intensive industries, labor unions and Rust Belt state legislators is clamoring for protection from imports. They argue that the new cap-and-trade system envisioned by Obama and congressional leaders, which will require major polluters to acquire permits for the right to emit CO2, will put them at a competitive disadvantage against competitors based in countries that don't have similar carbon-pricing schemes. In March Obama's energy secretary, Steven Chu, said the U.S. is prepared to use a border tax on imports as a weapon to force countries like China to limit their own emissions, triggering a warning by Su Wei, China's chief climate negotiator, that this would lead to retaliatory measures. India has since warned the West not to engage in "green protectionism."
So far, the threats have been limited to words, but that may soon change. Introduced in Congress on April 1, America's proposed scheme is loosely based on Europe's, which gives homegrown energy-intensive industries like steel, aluminum and cement generous free allowances of pollution permits, in effect grandfathering them into the new system. The president would have the authority to impose "border adjustments" only if U.S. companies were determined to be at a competitive disadvantage after a five-year trial period. But with the American debate over climate change increasingly driven by worries over jobs and competitiveness, some form of protection seems increasingly likely. In Europe, politicians have called for EU trade sanctions against both China and the U.S. if they don't agree to cut emissions.
Because they already regulate emissions, the Europeans would likely be exempt from any U.S. carbon tariffs, which appear squarely aimed at China.
The biggest victim of a confrontation, however, would be the environment that U.S. legislators are purporting to save. China is just beginning to get serious about its own environmental record, and as a member of the G20 seems finally to be taking its first baby steps toward a more involved and constructive international role. The global climate regime that the world's biggest polluters will try to hammer out at the U.N. climate conference in Copenhagen in December will not work without major developing-world emitters like China onboard. A nasty trade fight with the United States would make cooperation by Beijing even less likely, says Benjamin Görlach, emissions expert at the Ecologic Institute in Berlin.
Not only does the debate over imports threaten to obscure the original environmental-policy goals, it also obscures the facts. The greatest share of carbon-intensive imports reaches the U.S. not from China but from heavily regulated Europe. What's more, a number of studies have found the effects on industrial competitiveness to be minimal. Among other things, they found that the cost of complying with environmental regulation plays little to no role when companies decide where to locate—access to local markets is by far the most important factor, followed by labor costs. In some cases, such as Germany's €160 billion chemical industry, efficiency improvements prodded by environmental regulation have even helped make the industry more competitive, not less. Even the Chinese case is anything but clear. China itself may be polluted, but its exports tend to come from modern, efficient plants, and the country already has higher efficiency standards for vehicles and appliances than the U.S., leading a Chinese official to remark at a Brookings Institution conference in Washington last year that it may be China that should slap carbon tariffs on U.S. products, not the other way around. The trouble now is that the debate is driven less and less by environmental concerns and is turning into one defined by longstanding domestic U.S. worries that cheap Chinese goods will continue to flood the U.S., take jobs and hurt companies. So far in this downturn, the protectionists have been held in check by fears of repeating the mistakes of the 1930s, when a global tariff war plunged the world into depression. Under the cover of green, they could yet have their day
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)