The UN's top climate scientist has, for the first time, backed ambitious goals for slashing greenhouse gas emissions that many climate negotiators say are beyond reach.
"As chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), I cannot take a position because we do not make recommendations," Pachauri told AFP when asked if he supported poorer nations calling for atmospheric CO2 levels to be held below 350 parts per million (ppm).
"But as a human being I am fully supportive of that goal. What is happening, and what is likely to happen, convinces me that the world must be really ambitious and very determined at moving toward a 350 target," he said by telephone from New Delhi.
In its benchmark 2007 report, the IPCC said that the key for preventing dangerous global warming was to keep CO2 concentrations below 450 ppm.
Above that level, average global temperatures are likely, by 2100, to increase by more than 2.0 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), a threshold G8 leaders agreed last month must not be crossed.
But a growing body of scientific evidence suggests that even these hard-to-reach goals may not be ambitious enough, prompting many of the nations most threatened by global warming to set the bar even higher.
More than 80 of the world's poorest and most climate-vulnerable nations have now declared that CO2 concentrations must be scaled back to below 350 ppm, and that temperatures cannot rise more than 1.5 C by century's end.
"I think this is a good development," Pachauri said.
"Now people -- including some scientists -- see the seriousness of the impacts of climate change, and the fact that things are going to get substantially worse than what we had anticipated."
Even at current CO2 levels of 385-to-390 ppm, severe impacts from climate change -- rising sea levels, drought, violent storms -- have started and are likely to get worse, experts say.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Monday, August 24, 2009
Clunker Program's Environmental Merits Questioned
The Cash for Clunkers program was touted as a way to stimulate the flat-lining auto industry and to improve the environment. President Obama celebrated the program as a triumph. But while dealers could barely keep up with demand, questions remain about the plan's effect on Mother Earth.
"The program has been wonderful for the economy, but it's been only a middling success for greenhouse gas emissions," Michael Gerrard, director of Columbia Law School's new Center for Climate Change Law tells Weekend Edition host Liane Hansen.
To start, Gerrard says, "there was a provision in the law that automobiles over 25 years old could not be traded in. And that made no sense from an environmental standpoint. It was put there to help the dealers in used auto parts, but it really didn't help the environment at all."
Additionally, "the minimum required difference in the mileage for the old vehicles that were traded in and the new vehicles that were bought was just 4 miles per gallon — which is not much of a difference at all."
To make a bigger impact, the government could have required a greater mileage differential, Gerrard says. "You could have had a minimum of 15 mpg differential, which would have made a big difference."
People did buy cars with better average gas mileage, Gerrard says, "but it is still not a cost-effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions."
"There are some calculations that it cost somewhere between $200 and $400 per ton of carbon dioxide reduced, depending on what assumptions are used," he says. "That's way above the market price of carbon and way above many, many other methods of reducing greenhouse gas emissions."
At the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative — an American cap-and-trade system that trades in carbon — carbon dioxide is selling for about $3 a ton, Gerrard says. In Europe, it's around $18 or $20. "So the market price of carbon dioxide trading is much, much lower than the cost of reducing a ton of carbon dioxide under the Cash for Clunkers program."
More cost-effective ways to reduce greenhouse gases would include increasing energy efficiency in the industrial sector or in commercial and residential lighting, Gerrard suggests. Or providing combined heat and power systems in commercial and industrial settings. "All would be several orders of magnitude more cost-effective from a fuel-saving and greenhouse perspective than Cash for Clunkers was."
Successful or not, the government is putting the brakes on the popular program. After 8 p.m. Monday, car buyers will no longer be able to trade in their gas-guzzling vehicles for rebates of up to $4,500.
"The program has been wonderful for the economy, but it's been only a middling success for greenhouse gas emissions," Michael Gerrard, director of Columbia Law School's new Center for Climate Change Law tells Weekend Edition host Liane Hansen.
To start, Gerrard says, "there was a provision in the law that automobiles over 25 years old could not be traded in. And that made no sense from an environmental standpoint. It was put there to help the dealers in used auto parts, but it really didn't help the environment at all."
Additionally, "the minimum required difference in the mileage for the old vehicles that were traded in and the new vehicles that were bought was just 4 miles per gallon — which is not much of a difference at all."
To make a bigger impact, the government could have required a greater mileage differential, Gerrard says. "You could have had a minimum of 15 mpg differential, which would have made a big difference."
People did buy cars with better average gas mileage, Gerrard says, "but it is still not a cost-effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions."
"There are some calculations that it cost somewhere between $200 and $400 per ton of carbon dioxide reduced, depending on what assumptions are used," he says. "That's way above the market price of carbon and way above many, many other methods of reducing greenhouse gas emissions."
At the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative — an American cap-and-trade system that trades in carbon — carbon dioxide is selling for about $3 a ton, Gerrard says. In Europe, it's around $18 or $20. "So the market price of carbon dioxide trading is much, much lower than the cost of reducing a ton of carbon dioxide under the Cash for Clunkers program."
More cost-effective ways to reduce greenhouse gases would include increasing energy efficiency in the industrial sector or in commercial and residential lighting, Gerrard suggests. Or providing combined heat and power systems in commercial and industrial settings. "All would be several orders of magnitude more cost-effective from a fuel-saving and greenhouse perspective than Cash for Clunkers was."
Successful or not, the government is putting the brakes on the popular program. After 8 p.m. Monday, car buyers will no longer be able to trade in their gas-guzzling vehicles for rebates of up to $4,500.
India, China agree to fight trade barriers under the excuse of climate change
India and China on Monday agreed to jointly fight any attempt by western nations to link trade with climate change issues and impose trade-related penalties on developing countries to meet environmental standards.
Jairam Ramesh, India’s minister of state for environment and forest, bluntly asked Chinese officials whether they will stick to New Delhi during the climate talks in Copenhagen next December. India is worried that high-pressure attempts by western nations to get developing countries to deviate from their stand might bear fruit. "The Chinese side has assured me there will be no change in its stand. I think there is total convergence of views between India and China on the issue of climate change," Ramesh said after meeting Xie Zhen Hua, vice chairman of China’s National Development Reforms Commission. Xie briefed the Indian delegation, which included environment secretary Vijai Sharma and climate change negotiator R.R.Reshmi, about a recent China-US accord on climate change issues. He assured Indian officials that the accord was on renewal energy and technological collaboration and nothing else should be read into it. In a significant move, the two countries have agreed to coordinate their views on different aspects of climate change before every major international meeting on the subject. These conclusions reached between Ramesh and Xie are expected to be spelt out in the form of an agreement in the coming days. Both countries want to negotiate with the West for higher levels of financial assistance and technology transfer in return for promises to do their best to tackle environmental problems. China remains committed to the principal of "common but differentiated responsibilities" of developed and developing nations, Ramesh said. But they would not agree to any legal binding on reducing emission norms because it would come in the way of their development goals. India and China will also not agree to the creation of any trade barriers on the excuse of climate change. Ramesh suggest that China consider reducing carbon dioxide levels in power plants supplied by it to India. This would be part of the mitigation activities that the two countries expect to carry out jointly. Meanwhile, Xie told the standing committee of the National People’s Congress today that the government will display "utmost sincerity" in pushing for the success of climate talks in Copenhagen. He did not reveal what public stand China will take besides its commitment to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which laid the principal of "common but differentiated responsibilities" for developed and developing nations
Jairam Ramesh, India’s minister of state for environment and forest, bluntly asked Chinese officials whether they will stick to New Delhi during the climate talks in Copenhagen next December. India is worried that high-pressure attempts by western nations to get developing countries to deviate from their stand might bear fruit. "The Chinese side has assured me there will be no change in its stand. I think there is total convergence of views between India and China on the issue of climate change," Ramesh said after meeting Xie Zhen Hua, vice chairman of China’s National Development Reforms Commission. Xie briefed the Indian delegation, which included environment secretary Vijai Sharma and climate change negotiator R.R.Reshmi, about a recent China-US accord on climate change issues. He assured Indian officials that the accord was on renewal energy and technological collaboration and nothing else should be read into it. In a significant move, the two countries have agreed to coordinate their views on different aspects of climate change before every major international meeting on the subject. These conclusions reached between Ramesh and Xie are expected to be spelt out in the form of an agreement in the coming days. Both countries want to negotiate with the West for higher levels of financial assistance and technology transfer in return for promises to do their best to tackle environmental problems. China remains committed to the principal of "common but differentiated responsibilities" of developed and developing nations, Ramesh said. But they would not agree to any legal binding on reducing emission norms because it would come in the way of their development goals. India and China will also not agree to the creation of any trade barriers on the excuse of climate change. Ramesh suggest that China consider reducing carbon dioxide levels in power plants supplied by it to India. This would be part of the mitigation activities that the two countries expect to carry out jointly. Meanwhile, Xie told the standing committee of the National People’s Congress today that the government will display "utmost sincerity" in pushing for the success of climate talks in Copenhagen. He did not reveal what public stand China will take besides its commitment to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which laid the principal of "common but differentiated responsibilities" for developed and developing nations
Aggravation Mounts in Minn. Over Governor's Shift on Climate
Minnesota's Republican governor used to make soaring speeches about defusing climate change. Now he's making jokes, and some environmentalists are wondering whether his gone-missing support amounts to "bait and switch" politics.
Gov. Tim Pawlenty is stoking frustration among Democratic state lawmakers and prominent climate thinkers for becoming "totally silent" on two major efforts to stem greenhouse gas emissions in Minnesota and in a strip of states stretching from Canada to Kansas.
The turnaround is striking because it was the governor who powerfully promoted the initiatives. Now, chafed participants believe Pawlenty is abandoning climate action to mend his conservative credentials before taking a stab at the Republican nomination for president in 2012.
"What we're seeing from our governor currently is all focused on his national political ambitions," said state Rep. Bill Hilty, the Democratic chairman of the state's House Energy Committee.
It may not be that simple. The governor is cooling toward bold climate steps that could raise costs on businesses and residents, his supporters say. There was no way to know how big the price would be without delving deeply into the issue, one supporter said.
Not long ago, Pawlenty and Hilty were cooperating on muscular legislation to slash greenhouse gas emissions. Hilty introduced the bill and Pawlenty signed it in 2007, establishing Minnesota as an early carbon-cutter. The law set goals to reduce emissions 15 percent by 2015 and 80 percent by 2050.
Pawlenty went further. He named more than 50 science and business leaders to an advisory group tasked with designing ways to meet those targets.
"Our global climate is warming," Pawlenty said when he named the group in April 2007. "We cannot solve it by ourselves, but we need to lead and do our part."
Governor is 'delaying action'
A few months later, Pawlenty punctuated his commitment to pulling the nation back from its climatic "tipping point" when he was elected chairman of the National Governors Association.
"Our nation is too dependent on imported sources of energy, and greenhouse gas emissions continue to grow too quickly," he said. "Governors have a tremendous opportunity to lead the country toward a cleaner, more independent, more secure energy future."
Those were remarkable words coming from a Midwestern Republican in a state where coal cars click-clack on rail lines and river barges filled with the black stuff float through the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul. About 75 percent of the state's power comes from coal, compared to the national average of 55 percent.
Then something happened.
After more than a year of meetings, tussles and compromises, the Minnesota Climate Change Advisory Group sent the governor its recommendations. The list included capping carbon by the ton, energy efficiency measures and renewable power mandates. Silence from the governor.
The recommendations are getting dusty, according to participants. Lawmakers plan to introduce legislation addressing some of the issues, like a low-carbon fuel standard, but the governor's new position is feeding uncertainty about the likelihood of success.
"I think you would say that's delaying action," said J. Drake Hamilton, a member of the advisory board and a climatologist with Fresh Energy, a renewable energy group. She believes Pawlenty is "ignoring" the recommendations of the group he established.
"At best, it's disingenuous to have created and staffed a process that says we're going to create economic opportunities around clean energy in the Midwest, and then to abandon that process without offering any other way to move forward," Hamilton added. "What does this man really believe?"
Using 'climate change' against Obama
Aides to Pawlenty did not respond to requests for comment or to appeals for an interview with the governor. But Pawlenty appeared to break his silence on global warming last week. He used the term "climate change" to mock President Obama's health-care initiatives at the GOPAC conference in Chicago.
"It appears that President Obama is making great progress on climate change," the governor chided, according to Politico. "He is changing the political climate in the country back to Republican."
Pawlenty is also damping down wider efforts to curtail carbon output, according to sources. In November 2007, he and Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle, a Democrat, helped launch a regional effort to reduce emissions from power plants, industry and transportation sources. The collaborative of six states and the Canadian province of Manitoba is called the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord.
Its backbone is a proposed cap-and-trade program that would contribute to a "de facto national energy policy" and jump-start an "energy revolution," Pawlenty said in November 2007.
The future of that plan, too, is now uncertain in Minnesota. Each state would have to approve the accord in its legislature, or by executive order. Some states plan to consider a model rule for the regional program this year.
"He is not helpful at this point," Minnesota state Rep. Kate Knuth, a Democrat and the assistant majority leader, said of Pawlenty. "We're obviously very frustrated."
An official in Wisconsin said the regional plan is "a bit bogged down, because Pawlenty has gotten squirrelly, because he's going to run for president and the Republicans are all over him to back off, and he has. That process is in trouble based on Pawlenty's failure to engage."
He's evolving, not flip-flopping
The Midwestern accord -- which includes Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Manitoba -- was devised to help shape national cap-and-trade legislation around the particular needs of interior states, such as providing agricultural offsets and other benefits.
As those states were scrambling to finish a list of draft recommendations for cutting carbon this May, in the hope of influencing Congress as it debated a bill introduced by U.S. Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.), Pawlenty had other ideas.
The governor sent a letter to Minnesota's congressional delegation on the eve of the House's vote on Waxman-Markey. It was an argument against the bill. In essence, he signaled opposition to a national plan that proposed somewhat less robust carbon reductions than both the Midwest plan and the targets in his own state.
"I oppose any cap and trade system that does not set emission caps at pragmatic levels or fails to provide free allowances to producers instead of creating an expensive auction that would bid up prices, and in turn dramatically increase costs," Pawlenty wrote.
Some participants in the Midwestern accord say Pawlenty is responding to the potential economic impacts from cap and trade that surfaced through the arduous planning process undertaken by the Midwestern Governors Association (MGA). He's not flipping positions for political convenience, says Mike Robertson, a participant in the regional program representing the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce.
"I think he was more positive about [cap and trade] at the beginning of the MGA effort," Robertson said. "But as the process began, and as he began a process within his own state, he began to hear concerns about the economic impact of such a program. So he was listening to that as the process went forward."
Whatever the reason is behind Pawlenty's shift has apparently not been publicly aired in his state. That has led Hamilton, the climatologist, to wonder "was this really a bait and switch all along?"
"What is in his mind?" she asked
Gov. Tim Pawlenty is stoking frustration among Democratic state lawmakers and prominent climate thinkers for becoming "totally silent" on two major efforts to stem greenhouse gas emissions in Minnesota and in a strip of states stretching from Canada to Kansas.
The turnaround is striking because it was the governor who powerfully promoted the initiatives. Now, chafed participants believe Pawlenty is abandoning climate action to mend his conservative credentials before taking a stab at the Republican nomination for president in 2012.
"What we're seeing from our governor currently is all focused on his national political ambitions," said state Rep. Bill Hilty, the Democratic chairman of the state's House Energy Committee.
It may not be that simple. The governor is cooling toward bold climate steps that could raise costs on businesses and residents, his supporters say. There was no way to know how big the price would be without delving deeply into the issue, one supporter said.
Not long ago, Pawlenty and Hilty were cooperating on muscular legislation to slash greenhouse gas emissions. Hilty introduced the bill and Pawlenty signed it in 2007, establishing Minnesota as an early carbon-cutter. The law set goals to reduce emissions 15 percent by 2015 and 80 percent by 2050.
Pawlenty went further. He named more than 50 science and business leaders to an advisory group tasked with designing ways to meet those targets.
"Our global climate is warming," Pawlenty said when he named the group in April 2007. "We cannot solve it by ourselves, but we need to lead and do our part."
Governor is 'delaying action'
A few months later, Pawlenty punctuated his commitment to pulling the nation back from its climatic "tipping point" when he was elected chairman of the National Governors Association.
"Our nation is too dependent on imported sources of energy, and greenhouse gas emissions continue to grow too quickly," he said. "Governors have a tremendous opportunity to lead the country toward a cleaner, more independent, more secure energy future."
Those were remarkable words coming from a Midwestern Republican in a state where coal cars click-clack on rail lines and river barges filled with the black stuff float through the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul. About 75 percent of the state's power comes from coal, compared to the national average of 55 percent.
Then something happened.
After more than a year of meetings, tussles and compromises, the Minnesota Climate Change Advisory Group sent the governor its recommendations. The list included capping carbon by the ton, energy efficiency measures and renewable power mandates. Silence from the governor.
The recommendations are getting dusty, according to participants. Lawmakers plan to introduce legislation addressing some of the issues, like a low-carbon fuel standard, but the governor's new position is feeding uncertainty about the likelihood of success.
"I think you would say that's delaying action," said J. Drake Hamilton, a member of the advisory board and a climatologist with Fresh Energy, a renewable energy group. She believes Pawlenty is "ignoring" the recommendations of the group he established.
"At best, it's disingenuous to have created and staffed a process that says we're going to create economic opportunities around clean energy in the Midwest, and then to abandon that process without offering any other way to move forward," Hamilton added. "What does this man really believe?"
Using 'climate change' against Obama
Aides to Pawlenty did not respond to requests for comment or to appeals for an interview with the governor. But Pawlenty appeared to break his silence on global warming last week. He used the term "climate change" to mock President Obama's health-care initiatives at the GOPAC conference in Chicago.
"It appears that President Obama is making great progress on climate change," the governor chided, according to Politico. "He is changing the political climate in the country back to Republican."
Pawlenty is also damping down wider efforts to curtail carbon output, according to sources. In November 2007, he and Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle, a Democrat, helped launch a regional effort to reduce emissions from power plants, industry and transportation sources. The collaborative of six states and the Canadian province of Manitoba is called the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord.
Its backbone is a proposed cap-and-trade program that would contribute to a "de facto national energy policy" and jump-start an "energy revolution," Pawlenty said in November 2007.
The future of that plan, too, is now uncertain in Minnesota. Each state would have to approve the accord in its legislature, or by executive order. Some states plan to consider a model rule for the regional program this year.
"He is not helpful at this point," Minnesota state Rep. Kate Knuth, a Democrat and the assistant majority leader, said of Pawlenty. "We're obviously very frustrated."
An official in Wisconsin said the regional plan is "a bit bogged down, because Pawlenty has gotten squirrelly, because he's going to run for president and the Republicans are all over him to back off, and he has. That process is in trouble based on Pawlenty's failure to engage."
He's evolving, not flip-flopping
The Midwestern accord -- which includes Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Manitoba -- was devised to help shape national cap-and-trade legislation around the particular needs of interior states, such as providing agricultural offsets and other benefits.
As those states were scrambling to finish a list of draft recommendations for cutting carbon this May, in the hope of influencing Congress as it debated a bill introduced by U.S. Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.), Pawlenty had other ideas.
The governor sent a letter to Minnesota's congressional delegation on the eve of the House's vote on Waxman-Markey. It was an argument against the bill. In essence, he signaled opposition to a national plan that proposed somewhat less robust carbon reductions than both the Midwest plan and the targets in his own state.
"I oppose any cap and trade system that does not set emission caps at pragmatic levels or fails to provide free allowances to producers instead of creating an expensive auction that would bid up prices, and in turn dramatically increase costs," Pawlenty wrote.
Some participants in the Midwestern accord say Pawlenty is responding to the potential economic impacts from cap and trade that surfaced through the arduous planning process undertaken by the Midwestern Governors Association (MGA). He's not flipping positions for political convenience, says Mike Robertson, a participant in the regional program representing the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce.
"I think he was more positive about [cap and trade] at the beginning of the MGA effort," Robertson said. "But as the process began, and as he began a process within his own state, he began to hear concerns about the economic impact of such a program. So he was listening to that as the process went forward."
Whatever the reason is behind Pawlenty's shift has apparently not been publicly aired in his state. That has led Hamilton, the climatologist, to wonder "was this really a bait and switch all along?"
"What is in his mind?" she asked
World youth calls for more action and less talk
The largest-ever gathering of young climate activists urged world leaders on Thursday to do far more to combat climate change, Reuters reports. "We young people – 3 billion of the world population – are very concerned and frustrated that our governments are not doing enough to combat climate change ... we feel that radical and holistic measures are needed urgently from us all," they said in a statement following their conference in Daejeon in South Korea. "We now need more actions and less talking." Organized by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), the some 700 delegates from all over the world met to discuss their concerns ahead of the decisive UN climate conference in December in Copenhagen. "We are the generation of tomorrow. The decisions that are made today will define our future and the world we have to live in. So we young people of the world urge governments to commit to a strong post-Kyoto climate regime. It is our lives we are talking about," UNEP quoted 23-year-old delegate Anne Walraven as saying. The statement urged governments to impose strict laws on polluters, develop independently-monitored carbon action plans and encourage wider use of green fuels
Water issue crucial in world climate deal
Participants at the World Water Week conference said climate change will severely affect water supplies and poorer countries need support to help them adapt. "At the moment the water issue doesn't get enough attention in the climate negotiations," Anders Berntell, head of the Stockholm International Water Institute, told The Associated Press on Friday. "To be effective, climate negotiations must factor in the impact and importance of water for the world and, indeed, human well-being." After several rounds of global talks, world leaders will be meeting in December in the Danish capital, Copenhagen, with the aim of reaching a new accord to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. Berntell said water issues are of primary importance because it plays such a fundamental role in economies, communities, and public health. "When you change the availability of water, you change the prerequisites for farming — the possibility to feed this planet — and you change the possibilities for energy production, forestry and industries," he said. Scientists at the weeklong conference also demanded more effective use of water across borders and called for better cooperation between officials involved in land and forest management, climate questions and water issues. Friday's appeal ended a weeklong conference of more than 2,500 scientists, politicians and officials in the Swedish capital.
Stern: “Good chance” that China and the US agree on climate
China and the US are the two countries emitting the most CO2 in the world. The two countries need to agree on the basic elements of a new climate deal – or the world will have no agreement at the UN climate conference in Copenhagen in December, state a number of observers to the Bloomberg news agency.Both the UN executive secretary on climate, Yvo de Boer, and the US top climate negotiator, Todd Stern, are optimistic about China and the US reaching agreement.
“If these two countries don’t cooperate further, then we’re not going to get a result,” UN executive secretary on climate, Yvo de Boer says. “They need to find a way forward together, and I think that they can.”
The US State Department’s special envoy Todd Stern says bilateral climate discussions between China and the US are in progress.
“There is a good chance at the end of the day that we’re going to be able to find an accommodation with China,” Todd Stern says to the Bloomberg news agency.
However, at the same time Stern stresses that negotiations have seen no “breakthroughs”.
The two countries signed a memorandum of understanding earlier this year giving direction to the bilateral negotiations leading up to the UN climate conference. In July, Chinese and US officials also pledged to cooperate on clean-energy technology
“If these two countries don’t cooperate further, then we’re not going to get a result,” UN executive secretary on climate, Yvo de Boer says. “They need to find a way forward together, and I think that they can.”
The US State Department’s special envoy Todd Stern says bilateral climate discussions between China and the US are in progress.
“There is a good chance at the end of the day that we’re going to be able to find an accommodation with China,” Todd Stern says to the Bloomberg news agency.
However, at the same time Stern stresses that negotiations have seen no “breakthroughs”.
The two countries signed a memorandum of understanding earlier this year giving direction to the bilateral negotiations leading up to the UN climate conference. In July, Chinese and US officials also pledged to cooperate on clean-energy technology
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)