business sometimes requires only a flip of a lid.
When Stonyfield Farm switched from plastic to foil lids six years ago, the organic yogurt company avoided 16 percent of the energy costs associated with producing its containers.
Similar savings have been discovered throughout Stonyfield's manufacturing, transportation, and packaging divisions since the company began measuring its carbon footprint in the early 1990s, according to Chairman Gary Hirshberg.
"Our carbon footprint is everywhere we look. It's our transportation. It's our waste," Hirshberg told a conference of business executives in Boston, Massachusetts, earlier this month. "We're sending our money into the dark sky. That's clearly dollars to be reclaimed."
For many companies, sustainability improvements such as energy and water efficiency were at first reactions to public criticism. Nowadays, as rising energy costs, water scarcity, and climate change threaten the affordability and availability of global inputs, corporations are recognizing that a more sustainable product has a better chance of remaining competitive in a resource-constrained world.
But a product's environmental or economic sustainability rarely depends on the actions of a single company. As a result, many corporations are pressuring their suppliers to become more efficient as well.
"Everyone is scrutinizing for higher sustainability efforts because companies are asking for it," said Paul Baier, a vice president with the consulting firm Groom Energy. "Clearly, it's become mainstream business."
Walmart represents the most dramatic example of efforts to "green" corporate supply chains. The world's largest retailer announced in July that many of its suppliers would need to assess and report on the environmental and social sustainability of their products. The responses may eventually be combined into an index of a product's lifecycle impact, the company said.
Since Walmart notified its suppliers about the request - asking whether the companies had evaluated environmental impacts such as greenhouse gas emissions, water use, and product recyclability - several suppliers have increased their investments in measuring carbon emissions and energy efficiency, Baier said.
The motivation for corporations like Walmart to improve the efficiency of supplier industries is in part financial. Improved efficiency can be an important component of business deals between suppliers and retailers. Depending on the agreement, the avoided energy costs are shared between the two companies. Both supplier and buyer increase profits while the overall supply chain becomes more efficient.
"When you're speaking sustainability with business people, you have to speak the language," said Richard Goode, head of climate change programs for Alcatel-Lucent, a global telecommunications company. "The language has always been profitability."
David Newman, a sustainability director for Millipore Corporation, said the Massachusetts-based bioscience manufacturer has reduced its energy consumption 12 percent since it started measuring emissions in 2006. Still, Newman questions whether the additional sustainability push from outside businesses and organizations will boost profits for his company.
"The vision...can't just be to reduce the environmental cost of our supply chain," Newman said. "That's an admirable goal, but it's not the best goal from a business perspective."
Corporations are also pushing sustainability to mitigate the environmental risks associated with their products. The growing scarcity of arable land, clean water, and cheap energy may threaten the availability of products ranging from t-shirts to soft drinks, especially as climate change shifts agricultural patterns.
"If climate change takes place as many scientists are projecting and parts of the supply chain will no longer be available, companies want to know whether suppliers are recognizing this and taking action to ensure for the survival of their products 30 years from now," said Dan Kreeger, executive director of the Association of Climate Change Officers, an organization for corporate sustainability officers.
"Cadbury's is worried about where it'll get its chocolate and Coca-Cola is worried about where it'll get its water," said Gwen Ruta, vice president of corporate programs at the Environmental Defense Fund.
Peer pressure has also led more companies to volunteer emissions data through the independent Carbon Disclosure Project, which reports corporate emissions from electricity usage as well as the direct burning of fossil fuels. The group announced last week that a record 409 of the world's 500 largest companies responded to its latest request-an increase from 383 last year.
"If you're not doing CDP, I strongly recommend it," Hirshberg told the conference. "If today [reporting emissions] is not mandated, tomorrow I guarantee it will be."
Beginning this year, the Carbon Disclosure Project has attempted to expand its inventory to smaller companies that supply many of the world's largest corporations. While many of these companies remain unsure of how to analyze their emissions, the quality of responses is improving, said Chrystina Gastelum, U.S. account manager for the group's supply chain inventory.
"It requires a lot of technical data," Gastelum said. "There is not a lot of expertise [among the companies]."
Corporations are also instructing suppliers to validate all sustainability improvements through outside auditors. Large companies are increasingly sensitive to being perceived as "greenwashing," the notion that environmental improvements are advertised disproportionately to distract from other, polluting, activities.
"If we are going to communicate to the public, you need to have someone standing behind you, saying you did it the right way," said David Walker, director of environmental sustainability for PepsiCo.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
The Politics of Energy & Climate Change: DC Expert Coming to NH
Politics, energy and climate change, and their relationship to national security, is the topic for discussion at a lecture on Wednesday (Sept. 30) at Southern New Hampshire University in Manchester. The keynote speaker, Sarah Ladislaw, is an energy and national security expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C. She has been looking at this relationship for years, and while some people believe they are separate issues, she says climate change, energy production and U.S. policies all have a direct impact on future availability of energy, as well as our national security.
"If you don't answer the question about what you should do about climate change, whether or not we should be moving to a whole new slate of energy sources going forward, you can't really answer the question about energy security: whether or not those resources will be affordable, reliable and available."
Jan Pendlebury, senior field associate with the Pew Environment Group, says that the realities of climate change are no longer deniable. She says the time to begin using alternative forms of energy is now.
"Sea level rise, wildfires, flood, drought, famine. But the greatest risk is to our national security, our continued dependence on foreign oil from hostile nations."
The event, which is titled "The Geopolitics of Energy, Climate Change & National Security," is sponsored by the World Affairs Council of New Hampshire, Pew Environment Group and Southern New Hampshire University and will be held at the Penmen Room, at the Southern New Hampshire University campus, beginning Wednesday at noon.
The U.S. Senate is expected to introduce a climate change bill this week, which is sponsored by Senators Barbara Boxer of California and John Kerry of Massachusetts.
"If you don't answer the question about what you should do about climate change, whether or not we should be moving to a whole new slate of energy sources going forward, you can't really answer the question about energy security: whether or not those resources will be affordable, reliable and available."
Jan Pendlebury, senior field associate with the Pew Environment Group, says that the realities of climate change are no longer deniable. She says the time to begin using alternative forms of energy is now.
"Sea level rise, wildfires, flood, drought, famine. But the greatest risk is to our national security, our continued dependence on foreign oil from hostile nations."
The event, which is titled "The Geopolitics of Energy, Climate Change & National Security," is sponsored by the World Affairs Council of New Hampshire, Pew Environment Group and Southern New Hampshire University and will be held at the Penmen Room, at the Southern New Hampshire University campus, beginning Wednesday at noon.
The U.S. Senate is expected to introduce a climate change bill this week, which is sponsored by Senators Barbara Boxer of California and John Kerry of Massachusetts.
Nigeria unprepared for climate change convention
Barely three months to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Copenhagen, Denmark, Nigeria does not have a clear position on the key issues nor a negotiating team for her interests at the convention, said Ewah Eleri, the executive director of the Abuja based International Centre for Energy, Environment, and Development (ICEED).
"Nigeria is a signatory to the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol and our officials attend most negotiation meetings, but we neither have a negotiating team nor a position," said Mr. Eleri.
Government gets serious
About ten years ago, most countries joined an international treaty, the UNFCCC, to start talks on what can be done to reduce global warming and cope with whatever temperature rises that are unavoidable. Recently, a group of nations added the Kyoto Protocol, which is more powerful and legally binding, to the treaty. According to Mr. Eleri, the Nigerian government is increasingly getting serious on the issue of climate change.
"Unfortunately, we started very late and part of the circumstance that we have now is we have not been able to develop our national position for the negotiations in Copenhagen," he said.
"And even if we have, we've not been able to put them on the public domain so the Nigerian people would know what we are negotiating on their behalf," said Mr. Eleri.
The Kyoto Protocol to prevent climate changes and global warming comes up in 2012. To ensure that the targets for the protocol are met, a round of negotiations had been scheduled to discuss the critical issues and renew the need for new climate protocol.
Convention may end in deadlock
"If they have their way, it is more or less certain that the talks in December that are supposed to set the post 2012 path will end in deadlock," said Nnimmo Bassey, the executive director of Environmental Rights Action (ERA).
Mr. Bassey said some of the key tactics of developed countries include a reclassification of developing countries and the setting of emissions cut targets for developing countries, especially India and China.
"With the global notoriety of gas flaring in Nigeria, it must take extra boldness to canvass such a position in an international arena such as that provided by the climate talks," the ERA director said.
Never too late to start
The first round of negotiations this year was held in Bonn, Germany, between March 29 - April 8. The second took place June 1 - 12. Informal consultations took place in Bonn, between August 10 and 14. Prior to the Copenhagen conference, two further sessions will be held: Bangkok, Thailand, between September 28 and October 9; and Barcelona, Spain, from November 2 to 6.
"What we do today to prepare Nigeria for Copenhagen is better than what we didn't do all these years," said Mr. Eleri.
According to Mr. Eleri, the deadline for the submission of countries' national positions was June 17, this year.
"We have missed the deadline but it can be done in one or three months. We can have a team. It is still possible and I believe if the media can put in more pressure, we can do it," he said.
Let's Have a Grown-Up Debate About Climate Change
If, like me, you have been confused, frustrated, dispirited or all of the above by the health care debate in Congress, get ready for more as the U.S. Senate prepares to take up climate-change legislation. The stakes are high. The debate will not be high-minded.
Expect opponents of mandatory carbon regulation to distort the science and economics of global warming, predicting an economic catastrophe if the bill passes, even as environmentalists promise a green jobs nirvana and warn of an environmental catastrophe if it doesn’t.
The fact is, any meaningful effort to regulate carbon will carry real but not catastrophic costs for businesses and consumers -- that’s part of the point, to raise the price of burning fossil fuels -- and that the transition to a clean-energy economy will be disruptive, under the best of circumstances. Solar-power manufacturers in China will gain at the expense of coal miners in West Virginia. That makes the politics of the bill a challenge, but so be it.
But if we acknowledge that passing a climate bill will create costs, we also need to recognize the costs of inaction will likely to be far greater. If you doubt it, read Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States, an excellent report, written in plain English, about the likely impacts of climate change. Catastrophe is probably not too strong a word to describe the environmental impact of business as usual.
While the congressional debate will focus on science, economics and politics, the climate change issue is fundamentally about our legacy. Are we willing to make sacrifices now -- maybe even painful sacrifices -- to better the world for future generations?
If you want to learn more about the upcoming congressional debate, I invite you to join in a webinar on Wednesday, September 30, at 1 p.m. ET, called Climate Legislation in the U.S. Senate. It’s organized by The Energy Collective, a website about energy and climate that brings together some of the smartest ideas and opinions on the Internet.
Panelists at the webinar will be Manik “Nikki” Roy of the Pew Center on Climate Change, a politically savvy Washington insider who’s been tracking the climate issue for years; Michael Zimmer, an attorney and energy policy expert with Thompson Hine, also in Washington; and Jesse Jenkins, director of energy and climate policy at the Breakthrough Institute. I’ll be moderating.
Among the questions on the table:
Expect opponents of mandatory carbon regulation to distort the science and economics of global warming, predicting an economic catastrophe if the bill passes, even as environmentalists promise a green jobs nirvana and warn of an environmental catastrophe if it doesn’t.
The fact is, any meaningful effort to regulate carbon will carry real but not catastrophic costs for businesses and consumers -- that’s part of the point, to raise the price of burning fossil fuels -- and that the transition to a clean-energy economy will be disruptive, under the best of circumstances. Solar-power manufacturers in China will gain at the expense of coal miners in West Virginia. That makes the politics of the bill a challenge, but so be it.
But if we acknowledge that passing a climate bill will create costs, we also need to recognize the costs of inaction will likely to be far greater. If you doubt it, read Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States, an excellent report, written in plain English, about the likely impacts of climate change. Catastrophe is probably not too strong a word to describe the environmental impact of business as usual.
While the congressional debate will focus on science, economics and politics, the climate change issue is fundamentally about our legacy. Are we willing to make sacrifices now -- maybe even painful sacrifices -- to better the world for future generations?
If you want to learn more about the upcoming congressional debate, I invite you to join in a webinar on Wednesday, September 30, at 1 p.m. ET, called Climate Legislation in the U.S. Senate. It’s organized by The Energy Collective, a website about energy and climate that brings together some of the smartest ideas and opinions on the Internet.
Panelists at the webinar will be Manik “Nikki” Roy of the Pew Center on Climate Change, a politically savvy Washington insider who’s been tracking the climate issue for years; Michael Zimmer, an attorney and energy policy expert with Thompson Hine, also in Washington; and Jesse Jenkins, director of energy and climate policy at the Breakthrough Institute. I’ll be moderating.
Among the questions on the table:
- Is there any chance of a bi-partisan bill? If so, what is required for Republican support?
- What role will nuclear play in the climate legislation?
- What about oversight for carbon markets, as addressed in the House bill?
- Will there be more concessions and free allowance allocation to carbon producers (oil & gas, utilities, industrial manufacturers) in the Senate version?
- Will a safety valve be necessary politically, and to ensure carbon permit prices are stable and predictable?
- How strong will international trade protection be?
- If legislation is not enacted this year, what constructive action, if any, can the U.S. government take at Copenhagen?
Exelon Quits Chamber Over Climate Change
Power generator Exelon became the latest utility to drop its membership in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce because of the group's opposition to legislation that would limit emissions of greenhouse gases.
"Inaction on climate is not an option," John Rowe, Exelon's chairman and chief executive, said in a speech at an energy-efficiency conference. "If Congress does not act, the EPA will, and the result will be more arbitrary, more expensive and more uncertain for investors and the industry than a reasonable, market-based legislative solution."
Exelon, the nation's largest generator of nuclear power, joined the Public Service Company of New Mexico, the state's largest utility, and California's largest utility, Pacific Gas and Electric, in quitting the chamber.
A chamber spokesman, Eric Wohlschlegel, said that the chamber's message has become muddled and that it does not question the science behind climate change, but rather the science that the Environmental Protection Agency is using to regulate emissions.
"Inaction on climate is not an option," John Rowe, Exelon's chairman and chief executive, said in a speech at an energy-efficiency conference. "If Congress does not act, the EPA will, and the result will be more arbitrary, more expensive and more uncertain for investors and the industry than a reasonable, market-based legislative solution."
Exelon, the nation's largest generator of nuclear power, joined the Public Service Company of New Mexico, the state's largest utility, and California's largest utility, Pacific Gas and Electric, in quitting the chamber.
A chamber spokesman, Eric Wohlschlegel, said that the chamber's message has become muddled and that it does not question the science behind climate change, but rather the science that the Environmental Protection Agency is using to regulate emissions.
TSUNAMI HITS PACIFIC ISLANDS
A massive earthquake struck the South Pacific on Tuesday morning, according to officials, generating a destructive tsunami that struck at least several islands and killed scores of people. Tsunami warnings have since been canceled, and the exact scale of the destruction is still unclear.
The earthquake, which had a preliminary magnitude of 8.0, struck 125 miles south of Apia, Samoa and about 139 miles southwest of Pago Pago on American Samoa. The tremor, which struck at 6.48 a.m. local time, had a depth of about 11.2 miles, making it a shallow earthquake. Shallow earthquakes often tend to cause more damage, and increase the risk of a destructive tsunami.
The Pacific Tsunami Warning Center immediately issued a tsunami warning for American Samoa, Samoa, Niue, Wallis-Futuna, Tokelau, Cook Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Kiribati, Kermadec Islands, Fiji, Howland-Baker, Jarvis Island, New Zealand, French Polynesia, Palmyra Island, Vanuatu, Nauru, Marshall Island, the Solomon Islands, Johnston Island, New Caledonia, Kosrae, Papua New Guinea, Pohnpei and Wake Island but canceled them several hours later.
Hours after the earthquake, a tsunami advisory remains in effect for Hawaii and from the California-Mexico border to the Oregon-Washington border. Click here to read more on the U.S. tsunami advisory. A tsunami advisory is also in effect for the entire Japanese coast, where a tsunami may reach a height of about 0.5 meter, but is not expected to cause significant damage.
A 0.5ft tsunami was recorded in Nawiliwili Kauai, Hawaii at 00.11 UTC, according to the West Coast and Alaska Tsunami Warning Center. A 0.6ft tsunami, about two minutes later, was recorded in Kawaihae, Hawaii.
Samoa and American Samoa, both located about 130 miles from the earthquake epicenter, were the worst hit places. In the harbor of Pago Pago, on American Samoa, one tsunami reached at least a height of 13.1 foot (4 meter), according to a spokeswoman for the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center. She said the first floor of at least one government building was inundated with water following the tsunamis.
A spokeswoman for American Samoa Governor Togiola Tulafono told BNO News that some villages on the island were "destroyed," and said there were reports of fatalities. The spokeswoman said those reports had not yet been confirmed.
Local KSBS-FM radio on American Samoa reported that at least 19 people were killed there, and other media estimated the death toll as high as 40. Some witnesses described one of the tsunamis to be as high as 30 feet (9.1 meter).
"Based on all available data a tsunami may have been generated by this earthquake that could be destructive on coastal areas even far from the epicenter," a bulletin from the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center read when tsunami warnings were still in effect. Hours later, the exact extent of the destruction was still not clear.
A tsunami with a height of at least 10 foot (3 meter) also hit the island of Samoa, causing fatalities and severe destruction. A spokesman for the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade said a number of Australians were among the injured there, but did not know how many. "Australia stands ready to provide assistance," he said. He advised concerned relatives of Australians on Samoa to call +61 2 6261 3305.
U.S. Coast Guard spokesman Lt. John Titchen said it will be sending a C-130 plane to American Samoa on Tuesday evening, which will also transport American Samoa Governor Tulafono, who was in Honolulu when the earthquake happened. The plane is expected to take off around 10 p.m. local time, and will conduct a short flyover of the island on its way to the airport.
A spokeswoman for the U.S. State Department said it had no reports of American casualties from the earthquake or tsunami.
Meanwhile, South Korea's Foreign Ministry told the Yonhap News Agency that at least two citizens were killed on American Samoa, and added that one girl remained missing following the disaster.
The New Zealand Ministry of Civil Defense and Emergency Management said a small tsunami, of about 40 centimeters, hit several areas on the coast but no damage was reported.
Shaking near the epicenter reportedly lasted up to three minutes.
A number of aftershocks also hit the area after the initial earthquake. "We are seeing a lot of activity in the area," a spokesman for the United States Geological Survey said, who also warned that more stronger aftershocks should be expected. The strongest aftershock struck at 12.45 p.m. local time, about 150 miles south-southwest of Samoa's Apia, and had a preliminary magnitude of 5.9.
The earthquake, which had a preliminary magnitude of 8.0, struck 125 miles south of Apia, Samoa and about 139 miles southwest of Pago Pago on American Samoa. The tremor, which struck at 6.48 a.m. local time, had a depth of about 11.2 miles, making it a shallow earthquake. Shallow earthquakes often tend to cause more damage, and increase the risk of a destructive tsunami.
The Pacific Tsunami Warning Center immediately issued a tsunami warning for American Samoa, Samoa, Niue, Wallis-Futuna, Tokelau, Cook Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Kiribati, Kermadec Islands, Fiji, Howland-Baker, Jarvis Island, New Zealand, French Polynesia, Palmyra Island, Vanuatu, Nauru, Marshall Island, the Solomon Islands, Johnston Island, New Caledonia, Kosrae, Papua New Guinea, Pohnpei and Wake Island but canceled them several hours later.
Hours after the earthquake, a tsunami advisory remains in effect for Hawaii and from the California-Mexico border to the Oregon-Washington border. Click here to read more on the U.S. tsunami advisory. A tsunami advisory is also in effect for the entire Japanese coast, where a tsunami may reach a height of about 0.5 meter, but is not expected to cause significant damage.
A 0.5ft tsunami was recorded in Nawiliwili Kauai, Hawaii at 00.11 UTC, according to the West Coast and Alaska Tsunami Warning Center. A 0.6ft tsunami, about two minutes later, was recorded in Kawaihae, Hawaii.
Samoa and American Samoa, both located about 130 miles from the earthquake epicenter, were the worst hit places. In the harbor of Pago Pago, on American Samoa, one tsunami reached at least a height of 13.1 foot (4 meter), according to a spokeswoman for the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center. She said the first floor of at least one government building was inundated with water following the tsunamis.
A spokeswoman for American Samoa Governor Togiola Tulafono told BNO News that some villages on the island were "destroyed," and said there were reports of fatalities. The spokeswoman said those reports had not yet been confirmed.
Local KSBS-FM radio on American Samoa reported that at least 19 people were killed there, and other media estimated the death toll as high as 40. Some witnesses described one of the tsunamis to be as high as 30 feet (9.1 meter).
"Based on all available data a tsunami may have been generated by this earthquake that could be destructive on coastal areas even far from the epicenter," a bulletin from the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center read when tsunami warnings were still in effect. Hours later, the exact extent of the destruction was still not clear.
A tsunami with a height of at least 10 foot (3 meter) also hit the island of Samoa, causing fatalities and severe destruction. A spokesman for the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade said a number of Australians were among the injured there, but did not know how many. "Australia stands ready to provide assistance," he said. He advised concerned relatives of Australians on Samoa to call +61 2 6261 3305.
U.S. Coast Guard spokesman Lt. John Titchen said it will be sending a C-130 plane to American Samoa on Tuesday evening, which will also transport American Samoa Governor Tulafono, who was in Honolulu when the earthquake happened. The plane is expected to take off around 10 p.m. local time, and will conduct a short flyover of the island on its way to the airport.
A spokeswoman for the U.S. State Department said it had no reports of American casualties from the earthquake or tsunami.
Meanwhile, South Korea's Foreign Ministry told the Yonhap News Agency that at least two citizens were killed on American Samoa, and added that one girl remained missing following the disaster.
The New Zealand Ministry of Civil Defense and Emergency Management said a small tsunami, of about 40 centimeters, hit several areas on the coast but no damage was reported.
Shaking near the epicenter reportedly lasted up to three minutes.
A number of aftershocks also hit the area after the initial earthquake. "We are seeing a lot of activity in the area," a spokesman for the United States Geological Survey said, who also warned that more stronger aftershocks should be expected. The strongest aftershock struck at 12.45 p.m. local time, about 150 miles south-southwest of Samoa's Apia, and had a preliminary magnitude of 5.9.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
G20 Communique: Support for Climate Action, but Few Details
The G20 failed to produce a climate change financing plan for developing nations at its Pittsburgh meeting this past week. It took a step forward on cutting greenhouse gas emissions by agreeing to phase out fossil fuel subsidies, but on both issues, the details were pushed aside until the next G20 finance ministers’ meeting.
That meeting isn't until November, one month before world leaders gather for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change at Copenhagen.
European Commission President Jose Manuel Barraso and environmental groups were dismayed by the delay and warned that time is running out.
Speaking at the close of the Pittsburgh meeting, Barraso said the world’s most powerful nations aren’t moving fast enough on climate change financing and related issues to have an agreement that could replace the Kyoto Protocol ready by the start of the Copenhagen summit.
"Negotiations cannot be an open-ended process," Barraso said. "This is a test of credibility for the G20 — failure is not an option."
Environmental groups found little to praise from the meeting beyond welcoming the fossil fuel subsidy phase-out as “an acknowledgement from the G20 leaders that we are in a hole and need to stop digging.”
“In all, this has been an unacceptable week for anyone worried about climate change and anxious to see real action to tackle it." said Patricia Lerner, senior political advisor for Greenpeace International. "In their UN speeches, leaders sounded the climate alarm, but they got to Pittsburgh and hit the snooze button."
The G20 leaders made a few vague statements promising action on climate change. They vowed to support clean and renewable energy and to help transfer clean energy technology to developing countries. They also listed addressing climate change among their “core values for sustainable economic activity.”
Here are excerpts from what the leaders of the world’s wealthiest nations – and largest greenhouse gas emitters – had to say about climate change in a statement released at the close of their two-day meeting.
The G20 leaders agreed to:
* reform the global architecture to meet the needs of the 21st century.
"After this crisis, critical players need to be at the table and fully vested in our institutions to allow us to cooperate to lay the foundation for strong, sustainable and balanced growth. We designated the G-20 to be the premier forum for our international economic cooperation."
"Today we have delivered on our promise to contribute over $500 billion to a renewed and expanded IMF New Arrangements to Borrow (NAB). ... We called on the World Bank to play a leading role in responding to problems whose nature requires globally coordinated action, such as climate change and food security, and agreed that the World Bank and the regional development banks should have sufficient resources to address these challenges and fulfill their mandates."
* take new steps to increase access to food, fuel and finance among the world’s poorest while clamping down on illicit outflows.
"To start, we call on the World Bank to develop a new trust fund to support the new Food Security Initiative for low-income countries announced last summer. We will increase, on a voluntary basis, funding for programs to bring clean affordable energy to the poorest, such as the Scaling Up Renewable Energy Program."
* phase out and rationalize over the medium term inefficient fossil fuel subsidies while providing targeted support for the poorest.
"Inefficient fossil fuel subsidies encourage wasteful consumption, reduce our energy security, impede investment in clean energy sources and undermine efforts to deal with the threat of climate change. We call on our Energy and Finance Ministers to report to us their implementation strategies and timeline for acting to meet this critical commitment at our next meeting."
“We will spare no effort to reach agreement in Copenhagen through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiations.”
On the issue of financial aid, they called for the World Bank and regional development banks to strengthen their support in several areas connected to the impacts of climate change:
* food security through enhancements in agricultural productivity and access to technology, and improving access to food.
* human development and security in the poorest and most challenging environments.
* support for private-sector led growth and infrastructure to enhance opportunities for the poorest, social and economic inclusion, and economic growth.
* contributions to financing the transition to a green economy through investment in sustainable clean energy generation and use, energy efficiency and climate resilience; this includes responding to countries needs to integrate climate change concerns into their core development strategies, improved domestic policies, and to access new sources of climate finance.
The G20 also called on all nations to phase out fossil fuel subsidies, a proposal submitted by the Obama administration. It noted OECD and IEA studies suggesting that if fossil fuel subsidies were eliminated by 2020, global greenhouse gas emissions would drop 10 percent by 2050. However, the group did not set a timetable, leaving that, too, to finance ministers to work out for the next meeting. The G20 wrote:
“Many countries are reducing fossil fuel subsidies while preventing adverse impact on the poorest. Building on these efforts and recognizing the challenges of populations suffering from energy poverty, we commit to rationalize and phase out over the medium term inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption. As we do that, we recognize the importance of providing those in need with essential energy services, including through the use of targeted cash transfers and other appropriate mechanisms.”
The G20 leaders stressed that the fossil fuel subsidies phase-out "will not apply to our support for clean energy, renewables, and technologies that dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”
In fact, they vowed to support clean and renewable energy — and to help transfer clean energy technology to developing countries:
“Increasing clean and renewable energy supplies, improving energy efficiency, and promoting conservation are critical steps to protect our environment, promote sustainable growth and address the threat of climate change. Accelerated adoption of economically sound clean and renewable energy technology and energy efficiency measures diversifies our energy supplies and strengthens our energy security."
"We commit to:
* Stimulate investment in clean energy, renewables, and energy efficiency and provide financial and technical support for such projects in developing countries.
* Take steps to facilitate the diffusion or transfer of clean energy technology including by conducting joint research and building capacity. The reduction or elimination of barriers to trade and investment in this area are being discussed and should be pursued on a voluntary basis and in appropriate fora."
In summary, they write:
“As leaders of the world’s major economies, we are working for a resilient, sustainable, and green recovery. We underscore anew our resolve to take strong action to address the threat of dangerous climate change. We reaffirm the objective, provisions, and principles of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), including common but differentiated responsibilities.
“We will intensify our efforts, in cooperation with other parties, to reach agreement in Copenhagen through the UNFCCC negotiation. An agreement must include mitigation, adaptation, technology, and financing.”
The G20 expressed the right sentiments but offered no solid plans of action, environmental groups pointed out. The Copenhagen summit is a little over 10 weeks away, and while the European Union suggested another G20 meeting in the interim, possibly by video conference, U.S. officials said there was no agreement to meet.
At this point, says Friends of the Earth President Erich Pica, "the lack of financial commitments jeopardizes an international agreement on global warming."
That meeting isn't until November, one month before world leaders gather for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change at Copenhagen.
European Commission President Jose Manuel Barraso and environmental groups were dismayed by the delay and warned that time is running out.
Speaking at the close of the Pittsburgh meeting, Barraso said the world’s most powerful nations aren’t moving fast enough on climate change financing and related issues to have an agreement that could replace the Kyoto Protocol ready by the start of the Copenhagen summit.
"Negotiations cannot be an open-ended process," Barraso said. "This is a test of credibility for the G20 — failure is not an option."
Environmental groups found little to praise from the meeting beyond welcoming the fossil fuel subsidy phase-out as “an acknowledgement from the G20 leaders that we are in a hole and need to stop digging.”
“In all, this has been an unacceptable week for anyone worried about climate change and anxious to see real action to tackle it." said Patricia Lerner, senior political advisor for Greenpeace International. "In their UN speeches, leaders sounded the climate alarm, but they got to Pittsburgh and hit the snooze button."
The G20 leaders made a few vague statements promising action on climate change. They vowed to support clean and renewable energy and to help transfer clean energy technology to developing countries. They also listed addressing climate change among their “core values for sustainable economic activity.”
Here are excerpts from what the leaders of the world’s wealthiest nations – and largest greenhouse gas emitters – had to say about climate change in a statement released at the close of their two-day meeting.
The G20 leaders agreed to:
* reform the global architecture to meet the needs of the 21st century.
"After this crisis, critical players need to be at the table and fully vested in our institutions to allow us to cooperate to lay the foundation for strong, sustainable and balanced growth. We designated the G-20 to be the premier forum for our international economic cooperation."
"Today we have delivered on our promise to contribute over $500 billion to a renewed and expanded IMF New Arrangements to Borrow (NAB). ... We called on the World Bank to play a leading role in responding to problems whose nature requires globally coordinated action, such as climate change and food security, and agreed that the World Bank and the regional development banks should have sufficient resources to address these challenges and fulfill their mandates."
* take new steps to increase access to food, fuel and finance among the world’s poorest while clamping down on illicit outflows.
"To start, we call on the World Bank to develop a new trust fund to support the new Food Security Initiative for low-income countries announced last summer. We will increase, on a voluntary basis, funding for programs to bring clean affordable energy to the poorest, such as the Scaling Up Renewable Energy Program."
* phase out and rationalize over the medium term inefficient fossil fuel subsidies while providing targeted support for the poorest.
"Inefficient fossil fuel subsidies encourage wasteful consumption, reduce our energy security, impede investment in clean energy sources and undermine efforts to deal with the threat of climate change. We call on our Energy and Finance Ministers to report to us their implementation strategies and timeline for acting to meet this critical commitment at our next meeting."
“We will spare no effort to reach agreement in Copenhagen through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiations.”
On the issue of financial aid, they called for the World Bank and regional development banks to strengthen their support in several areas connected to the impacts of climate change:
* food security through enhancements in agricultural productivity and access to technology, and improving access to food.
* human development and security in the poorest and most challenging environments.
* support for private-sector led growth and infrastructure to enhance opportunities for the poorest, social and economic inclusion, and economic growth.
* contributions to financing the transition to a green economy through investment in sustainable clean energy generation and use, energy efficiency and climate resilience; this includes responding to countries needs to integrate climate change concerns into their core development strategies, improved domestic policies, and to access new sources of climate finance.
The G20 also called on all nations to phase out fossil fuel subsidies, a proposal submitted by the Obama administration. It noted OECD and IEA studies suggesting that if fossil fuel subsidies were eliminated by 2020, global greenhouse gas emissions would drop 10 percent by 2050. However, the group did not set a timetable, leaving that, too, to finance ministers to work out for the next meeting. The G20 wrote:
“Many countries are reducing fossil fuel subsidies while preventing adverse impact on the poorest. Building on these efforts and recognizing the challenges of populations suffering from energy poverty, we commit to rationalize and phase out over the medium term inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption. As we do that, we recognize the importance of providing those in need with essential energy services, including through the use of targeted cash transfers and other appropriate mechanisms.”
The G20 leaders stressed that the fossil fuel subsidies phase-out "will not apply to our support for clean energy, renewables, and technologies that dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”
In fact, they vowed to support clean and renewable energy — and to help transfer clean energy technology to developing countries:
“Increasing clean and renewable energy supplies, improving energy efficiency, and promoting conservation are critical steps to protect our environment, promote sustainable growth and address the threat of climate change. Accelerated adoption of economically sound clean and renewable energy technology and energy efficiency measures diversifies our energy supplies and strengthens our energy security."
"We commit to:
* Stimulate investment in clean energy, renewables, and energy efficiency and provide financial and technical support for such projects in developing countries.
* Take steps to facilitate the diffusion or transfer of clean energy technology including by conducting joint research and building capacity. The reduction or elimination of barriers to trade and investment in this area are being discussed and should be pursued on a voluntary basis and in appropriate fora."
In summary, they write:
“As leaders of the world’s major economies, we are working for a resilient, sustainable, and green recovery. We underscore anew our resolve to take strong action to address the threat of dangerous climate change. We reaffirm the objective, provisions, and principles of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), including common but differentiated responsibilities.
“We will intensify our efforts, in cooperation with other parties, to reach agreement in Copenhagen through the UNFCCC negotiation. An agreement must include mitigation, adaptation, technology, and financing.”
The G20 expressed the right sentiments but offered no solid plans of action, environmental groups pointed out. The Copenhagen summit is a little over 10 weeks away, and while the European Union suggested another G20 meeting in the interim, possibly by video conference, U.S. officials said there was no agreement to meet.
At this point, says Friends of the Earth President Erich Pica, "the lack of financial commitments jeopardizes an international agreement on global warming."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)