When the 1997 Kyoto Protocol covering 180 nations did not include China and India, there was political backlash in the U.S. David Sandalaow was on President Clinton's negotiating team. He says now going forward, "Only agree abroad to what you can implement at home."
Kyoto remains largely a failure. The U.S. never joined it. Members that did join have not met their carbon reduction targets. But if any agreement is reached in Copenhagen in 2 months it will have to reflect the current American political climate. Kenichi Kobayashi, of the Japanese foreign Ministry says the Kyoto framework must be abandoned for a totally new program, citing changes in the 12 years since Kyoto.
One of the biggest developments is that China has overtaken the U.S. as the worlds top carbon emitter. China and the U.S. contribute nearly half of global carbon emissions. Copenhagen won't work without each of them coming to the table. China, India and Brazil emit far more carbon now than they did when Kyoto was agreed upon. The International Energy Agency says that 97% of increased carbon will come from the Emerging World in 2030.
Such projections sway Moderate Senate Democrats like Evan Bayh (Ind) to balk at legal limits on U.S. carbon emissions. "I could not ask the American people to sacrifice and not solve the problem of global warming because the developing world was not participating," he said.
India's Minister of Environment Jairam Ramesh said the U.S. short term carbon reductions remain too low. "The stalemate in negotiations has not been caused by China and India," Ramesh said. "The make or break issue is emissions cuts. If there is no agreement on that, there's no agreement in Copenhagen."
The U.S. is slow to use provisions in the House Climate Change Bill passed in the late spring for a framework of the U.S. position at Copenhagen, such as firm U.S. emission targets and investment and aid to Emerging Nations for forest preservation and Green Technology transfer. Many top environmental leaders say because of the U.S. failure to act on Kyoto we must now act more aggressively in Copenhagen.
Friday, Carol Browner, Obama's Climate Change czar said it is "not likely" that the U.S. will have a Climate Change bill passed and signed by the President in time for Copenhagen. The U.S. will not endorse international goals the U.S. has yet to accept at home, according to Todd Stern of the State Department.
The alternative to break the stalemate going into Copenhagen under discussion by both the U.S. and India is nationally binding targets that would be capable of international scrutiny.
Jim Connaughton, a top Bush environmental adviser said that what comes out of Copenhagen may look a great deal like what Bush had promoted. " What countries came to realize after Kyoto was it was hugely problematic to have international environmental negotiations establishing domestic economic and energy policy without first forging a domestic consensus," Connaughton said.
"What all major economies realized this time around is that they need to establish a domestic consensus on an agreed level of effort as a stronger basis for the commitments they make internationally and as a catalyst for international cooperation."
The promise of flexibility at Copenhagen signals not the end of discussion on Climate Change control but the real beginning.
Monday, October 5, 2009
India seeks new path on climate change
India seeks new path on Climate Change. India has softened its harsh voice on resisting carbon limits. The change is brought about by India Prime Minister Manmohan Singh who is nudging India into a more international pose on topics ranging from trade to Climate Change.
Mr. Singh says India faces multiple complex stumbling blocks that are all interrelated. These include everything from domestic issues like pollution and energy security to even national security. All are tied into Climate Change.
Experts say India's previous stand did not work. India is seen as an unwilling laggard on Climate Change. China meanwhile, India's top development ally, has come off as more active on Climate Change, despite resisting legal limits on carbon emissions.
"We can not compromise our basic national position on protecting our prospects for growth, but we can see things that can be done," said Nitin Desai, one of the Prime Minister's special Climate Change advisors. "The signal that I get is that India is not going to be a spoiler at Copenhagen. If a reasonable deal can be worked out, they will be there."
Experts are looking at alternatives to mandatory rules on carbon limits, like those of the failing Kyoto Protocol. As Copenhagen approaches within 3 months planners are considering providing credit for domestic programs, like the one India is considering.
India's ties to China on development make it seem the two are equal emitters of carbon. China is the worlds biggest carbon emitter. India emits a fifth of the carbon emissions of China, measured both in total and per capita. China comprises 23% of all worldwide carbon emissions while India contributes just 5%.
David Victor, an energy expert who researches India's Climate Change policies, believes the developing nations will break up as India distinguishes itself from nations like Mexico, Brazil and China that have more mature economies and greater carbon emissions. "The Indians need to be very careful that they are seen as a different kind of country."
Mr. Ramesh, India's Environmental Minister, said, "China has raced ahead of us, in conveying they are doing a lot on Climate Change." Mr. Ramesh said India has 2 basic requirements for Copenhagen. Industrialized countries must consent to steep cuts in carbon by 2020 and provide monetary and technical help to the Emerging World. India is still against mandatory carbon limits.
Mr. Ramesh said despite all the bad press about India on Climate Change, he said the Environmental Ministry is introducing legislation to the Indian Parliament to strengthen fuel efficiency standards, create voluntary targets to improve energy efficiency and promote solar power and implement clean coal technology among its utilities.
At the U.N. last month Mr. Ramesh highlighted the basic needs of India like increased forestation cover, lengthening a treaty on investment in Green Technology and more technological help.
For a long time, India defined its stance on Climate Change in geopolitical economic social justice and a national rights terms, claiming the Industrialized nations created Climate Change and the majority of response should come from the West.
Historically India has said legal limits on carbon would stunt India's economic development. This debate is still raging in India as part of the domestic debate on Climate Change. Mr. Singh was rebuked by members of Parliament after consenting last summer in Italy to prevent worldwide temperatures from increasing more than 2 degrees Fahrenheit from today.
Mr. Ramesh said its his responsibility to create a new domestic political partnership on how India can fruitfully work on Climate Change without jeopardizing India's economy, "without a solid domestic consensus, or even domestic constituency, we can not even think about engaging internationally. And this is also true of the United States", he added. "Its true of all democracies."
Mr. Singh says India faces multiple complex stumbling blocks that are all interrelated. These include everything from domestic issues like pollution and energy security to even national security. All are tied into Climate Change.
Experts say India's previous stand did not work. India is seen as an unwilling laggard on Climate Change. China meanwhile, India's top development ally, has come off as more active on Climate Change, despite resisting legal limits on carbon emissions.
"We can not compromise our basic national position on protecting our prospects for growth, but we can see things that can be done," said Nitin Desai, one of the Prime Minister's special Climate Change advisors. "The signal that I get is that India is not going to be a spoiler at Copenhagen. If a reasonable deal can be worked out, they will be there."
Experts are looking at alternatives to mandatory rules on carbon limits, like those of the failing Kyoto Protocol. As Copenhagen approaches within 3 months planners are considering providing credit for domestic programs, like the one India is considering.
India's ties to China on development make it seem the two are equal emitters of carbon. China is the worlds biggest carbon emitter. India emits a fifth of the carbon emissions of China, measured both in total and per capita. China comprises 23% of all worldwide carbon emissions while India contributes just 5%.
David Victor, an energy expert who researches India's Climate Change policies, believes the developing nations will break up as India distinguishes itself from nations like Mexico, Brazil and China that have more mature economies and greater carbon emissions. "The Indians need to be very careful that they are seen as a different kind of country."
Mr. Ramesh, India's Environmental Minister, said, "China has raced ahead of us, in conveying they are doing a lot on Climate Change." Mr. Ramesh said India has 2 basic requirements for Copenhagen. Industrialized countries must consent to steep cuts in carbon by 2020 and provide monetary and technical help to the Emerging World. India is still against mandatory carbon limits.
Mr. Ramesh said despite all the bad press about India on Climate Change, he said the Environmental Ministry is introducing legislation to the Indian Parliament to strengthen fuel efficiency standards, create voluntary targets to improve energy efficiency and promote solar power and implement clean coal technology among its utilities.
At the U.N. last month Mr. Ramesh highlighted the basic needs of India like increased forestation cover, lengthening a treaty on investment in Green Technology and more technological help.
For a long time, India defined its stance on Climate Change in geopolitical economic social justice and a national rights terms, claiming the Industrialized nations created Climate Change and the majority of response should come from the West.
Historically India has said legal limits on carbon would stunt India's economic development. This debate is still raging in India as part of the domestic debate on Climate Change. Mr. Singh was rebuked by members of Parliament after consenting last summer in Italy to prevent worldwide temperatures from increasing more than 2 degrees Fahrenheit from today.
Mr. Ramesh said its his responsibility to create a new domestic political partnership on how India can fruitfully work on Climate Change without jeopardizing India's economy, "without a solid domestic consensus, or even domestic constituency, we can not even think about engaging internationally. And this is also true of the United States", he added. "Its true of all democracies."
US climate bill not likely this year, says Obama adviser
The White House has said for the first time that it does not expect to see a climate change bill this year, removing one of the key elements for reaching an international agreement to avoid catastrophic global warming.
In a seminar in Washington, Barack Obama's main energy adviser, Carol Browner, gave the clearest indication to date that the administration did not expect the Senate to vote on a climate change bill before an international meeting in Copenhagen in December.Browner spoke barely 48 hours after Senate Democrats staged a campaign-style rally in support of a climate change bill that seeks to cut US emissions by 20% on 2005 levels by 2020.
"Obviously, we'd like to be through the process, but that's not going to happen," Browner told a conference hosted by the Atlantic magazine on Friday. "I think we would all agree the likelihood that you'd have a bill signed by the president on comprehensive energy by the time we go in December is not likely."
Browner's bleak assessment deepens concerns that negotiations, already deadlocked, will fail to produce a meaningful agreement in Copenhagen. It also threatens to further dampen the prospects for a bill that was struggling for support among conservative and rustbelt Democrats.
The UN has cast the Copenhagen meeting as a last chance for countries to reach an agreement to avoid the most disastrous effects of warming. Negotiators – including the state department's climate change envoy – admit it will be far harder to reach such a deal unless America, historically the world's biggest polluter, shows it is willing to cut its own greenhouse gas emissions.
Browner's comments undercut a campaign by Democratic leaders in the Senate, corporations and environmental organisations to try to build momentum behind the bill. The day before Browner's comments, John Kerry, the former presidential candidate who is one of the sponsors of the cap-and-trade bill, told a conference he remained confident the bill would squeak through the Senate.
Her remarks also raise further doubts about how forcefully the Obama administration is willing to press the Senate for a climate bill in the midst of its struggles over healthcare.
In the last two weeks, diplomats have grown increasingly frustrated with the administration. Negotiators say they understand Obama would have to struggle to get this agenda through the Senate, but say the president has shied away from opportunities to make the case for climate change.Obama came in for harsh criticism from environmental organisations for failing to urge the Senate to act during a speech to the United Nations summit on climate change late last month. Environmental groups called it a "missed opportunity".
"If there is no serious US legislation in place then we will have delegations arriving and getting increasingly frustrated with nothing happening," said John Bruton, the European Union's ambassador.Combating climate change with condoms
Earlier this year, a Lancet Commission on Climate Change and Health reported its finding that "climate change is the biggest global health threat of the 21st century." Now, the Lancet is taking their statement one step farther by providing method for the world to reduce the rate of climate change. This novel method involves contraception and providing this resource to those who want and need it in the world, Lancet asserts that by reducing unintended pregnancies the world can reduce the pressure that large populations put on the environment.
When applying this to a worldly perspective, over 200 million women want, but currently lack, access to modern contraceptives. This results in 76 million unintended pregnancies occurring every year. The availability of contraception methods could slow high rates of population growth, thereby reducing demographic pressure on the environment. Experts believe that while normal population growth is unlikely to significantly increase global warming that overpopulation in developing countries could lead to increased demand for food and shelter, which could jeopardize the environment as it struggles with global warming.
To back this up the Lancet presents a case study from Ethiopia that trained people in sustainable land management practices, while increasing availability of family planning. This case study saw an immediate improvement to the environment with better agricultural practices, which in the long term will be sustained and not eroded by a rapidly increasing population (which had been curbed by family planning practices).
The Lancet's assertions have created an emerging debate and interest about the links between population dynamics, sexual and reproductive health and rights, and climate change. This is not the first time lifestyle issues have been tied to the battle against global warming. Climate change experts have previously recommended that people cut their meat intake to slow global warming by reducing the numbers of animals using the world's resources. Most recently there has been a push for people to stop using plastic water bottles and to use more eco-friendly water canisters.
By presenting this argument the Lancet believes that the sexual and reproductive health and rights community should challenge the global design of climate change. In other words, the Lancet hopes that the argument about how to combat climate change will shift its current focus from green technology to a more "human-based, rights-based adaptation approach".
By changing the focus of climate change, one can bring the issue of reducing environmental impact away from industries and their corporations down to the grassroots level where most of the world's population resides.
Perhaps this strategy would better serve the range of issues pivotal to improving the health of women worldwide as well as affecting the environmental impacts of developing nations rather than just developed and industrialized nations.
When applying this to a worldly perspective, over 200 million women want, but currently lack, access to modern contraceptives. This results in 76 million unintended pregnancies occurring every year. The availability of contraception methods could slow high rates of population growth, thereby reducing demographic pressure on the environment. Experts believe that while normal population growth is unlikely to significantly increase global warming that overpopulation in developing countries could lead to increased demand for food and shelter, which could jeopardize the environment as it struggles with global warming.
To back this up the Lancet presents a case study from Ethiopia that trained people in sustainable land management practices, while increasing availability of family planning. This case study saw an immediate improvement to the environment with better agricultural practices, which in the long term will be sustained and not eroded by a rapidly increasing population (which had been curbed by family planning practices).
The Lancet's assertions have created an emerging debate and interest about the links between population dynamics, sexual and reproductive health and rights, and climate change. This is not the first time lifestyle issues have been tied to the battle against global warming. Climate change experts have previously recommended that people cut their meat intake to slow global warming by reducing the numbers of animals using the world's resources. Most recently there has been a push for people to stop using plastic water bottles and to use more eco-friendly water canisters.
By presenting this argument the Lancet believes that the sexual and reproductive health and rights community should challenge the global design of climate change. In other words, the Lancet hopes that the argument about how to combat climate change will shift its current focus from green technology to a more "human-based, rights-based adaptation approach".
By changing the focus of climate change, one can bring the issue of reducing environmental impact away from industries and their corporations down to the grassroots level where most of the world's population resides.
Perhaps this strategy would better serve the range of issues pivotal to improving the health of women worldwide as well as affecting the environmental impacts of developing nations rather than just developed and industrialized nations.
Political Alliances Shift in Fight Over Climate Bill
The flurry of companies quitting the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is highlighting how the climate-change issue is straining traditional alliances in Washington, as some businesses seek to profit from overhauling the energy market and others try to cut deals to head off tougher regulation.
Some companies and industry groups that have in the past worked with Republicans to fight efforts to curb the use of fossil fuels -- such as Detroit's auto makers -- are now expressing support for action on climate change. Some support legislation to put a price on the carbon-dioxide emissions that contribute to global warming, while others support preserving the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to regulate such greenhouse gases.
The Chamber of Commerce says it supports efforts to fight climate change through federal investments and incentives for power that can be produced without emitting carbon dioxide. But the group has opposed proposals to require companies to pay for the right to emit carbon.
The Chamber, which says it represents three million businesses, says its positions are "mainstream, common-sense views" approved by a majority of more than 100 business leaders who sit on its board of directors.
Some companies -- such as Peabody Energy and ConocoPhillips -- have spoken out against climate legislation passed by the House of Representatives. Others -- such as General Electric Co. and Duke Energy Corp. -- have expressed support for it.
Many companies backing action on climate change stand to gain if the U.S. requires corporations to pay for the right to emit carbon dioxide.
In the past two weeks, three utilities -- Exelon Corp., PG&E Corp. and PNM Resources Inc. -- have quit the Chamber, citing the group's opposition to climate bills. A fourth company, Nike Inc., said Wednesday that it was resigning from the Chamber's board because the group "has not represented the diversity of perspective" held by the board's members on climate change.
GE, which has built a marketing campaign around the clean-energy technology it sells, intends to remain a member despite differences with the Chamber on specific legislation, a spokesman says.
Exelon, the nation's biggest nuclear-plant operator by output, says it sees an annual upside to its revenue of about $1.1 billion if climate legislation approved by the House in June is enacted. Because nuclear plants don't spew carbon dioxide, their operators wouldn't have to pay for the right to emit such gases, giving them an edge over competitors that burn fossil fuels.
Exelon notes that it has spent billions of dollars over the years to reduce its carbon footprint, by investing in nuclear power, and that it decided years ago to sell most of its coal-powered plants.
Last month, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers -- which includes General Motors Co., Ford Motor Co. and Toyota Motor Corp. -- joined the Obama administration and environmentalists in opposing an effort to bar the EPA for one year from attempting to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions for power plants and other large sources.
The group says it opposed the measure because it prefers a single, nationwide set of rules rather than a patchwork of regulations by states. It says it feared the one-year prohibition would have delayed the EPA from finalizing an agency proposal to regulate automobile greenhouse-gas emissions, potentially exposing its members to regulation by states.
"It's not a big surprise that the auto industry, which was just bailed out by the administration, would come to their defense," says a spokesman for Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R., Alaska), who wrote the proposal. He notes that the measure said that "mobile" sources, such as cars, could still be regulated by the EPA.
An alliance spokesman says that the group was "sympathetic to the thrust" of Ms. Murkowski's proposal but that eliminating the "inconsistency created by conflicting and overlapping" regulations at the state and federal level has been "the main priority of all auto makers" since 2002.
Environmentalists have cheered the recent defections from the Chamber, hoping they might weaken one of the best-funded opponents of the climate legislation.
The Chamber, in a statement after Exelon's resignation, said legislation capping U.S. emissions and passed by the House "is neither comprehensive nor international," and would spur retaliation from U.S. trading partners.
Some companies and industry groups that have in the past worked with Republicans to fight efforts to curb the use of fossil fuels -- such as Detroit's auto makers -- are now expressing support for action on climate change. Some support legislation to put a price on the carbon-dioxide emissions that contribute to global warming, while others support preserving the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to regulate such greenhouse gases.
The Chamber of Commerce says it supports efforts to fight climate change through federal investments and incentives for power that can be produced without emitting carbon dioxide. But the group has opposed proposals to require companies to pay for the right to emit carbon.
The Chamber, which says it represents three million businesses, says its positions are "mainstream, common-sense views" approved by a majority of more than 100 business leaders who sit on its board of directors.
Some companies -- such as Peabody Energy and ConocoPhillips -- have spoken out against climate legislation passed by the House of Representatives. Others -- such as General Electric Co. and Duke Energy Corp. -- have expressed support for it.
Many companies backing action on climate change stand to gain if the U.S. requires corporations to pay for the right to emit carbon dioxide.
In the past two weeks, three utilities -- Exelon Corp., PG&E Corp. and PNM Resources Inc. -- have quit the Chamber, citing the group's opposition to climate bills. A fourth company, Nike Inc., said Wednesday that it was resigning from the Chamber's board because the group "has not represented the diversity of perspective" held by the board's members on climate change.
GE, which has built a marketing campaign around the clean-energy technology it sells, intends to remain a member despite differences with the Chamber on specific legislation, a spokesman says.
Exelon, the nation's biggest nuclear-plant operator by output, says it sees an annual upside to its revenue of about $1.1 billion if climate legislation approved by the House in June is enacted. Because nuclear plants don't spew carbon dioxide, their operators wouldn't have to pay for the right to emit such gases, giving them an edge over competitors that burn fossil fuels.
Exelon notes that it has spent billions of dollars over the years to reduce its carbon footprint, by investing in nuclear power, and that it decided years ago to sell most of its coal-powered plants.
Last month, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers -- which includes General Motors Co., Ford Motor Co. and Toyota Motor Corp. -- joined the Obama administration and environmentalists in opposing an effort to bar the EPA for one year from attempting to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions for power plants and other large sources.
The group says it opposed the measure because it prefers a single, nationwide set of rules rather than a patchwork of regulations by states. It says it feared the one-year prohibition would have delayed the EPA from finalizing an agency proposal to regulate automobile greenhouse-gas emissions, potentially exposing its members to regulation by states.
"It's not a big surprise that the auto industry, which was just bailed out by the administration, would come to their defense," says a spokesman for Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R., Alaska), who wrote the proposal. He notes that the measure said that "mobile" sources, such as cars, could still be regulated by the EPA.
An alliance spokesman says that the group was "sympathetic to the thrust" of Ms. Murkowski's proposal but that eliminating the "inconsistency created by conflicting and overlapping" regulations at the state and federal level has been "the main priority of all auto makers" since 2002.
Environmentalists have cheered the recent defections from the Chamber, hoping they might weaken one of the best-funded opponents of the climate legislation.
The Chamber, in a statement after Exelon's resignation, said legislation capping U.S. emissions and passed by the House "is neither comprehensive nor international," and would spur retaliation from U.S. trading partners.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Energy tax could deal Americans a bad hand
Senate Democrats unveiled a bill Wednesday that aims to cut greenhouse gasses by 20 percent by 2020. The House passed a bill in June that calls for a 17 percent emission cut by 2020. Carol Browner, assistant to the president on energy and climate change, ( global warming czar, was listed as one of 14 leaders of a socialist group's Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which calls for "global governance" and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change) speaking at MIT earlier this year. She argued that U.S. businesses will have to invest more in clean-energy technologies once Congress passes a law with incentives for renewable energy and efficiency as well as a cap-and-trade system that limits heat-trapping greenhouse gases. "The point is we have to get started, we have to send a signal to the marketplace that we are going to be dealing with these (greenhouse gas) emissions in a different way," she said in an interview that was streamed live online and reported by CNET News.Com.
President Barack Obama's top aide on climate change acknowledged that legislation requiring major reductions in global-warming emissions is unlikely to pass Congress before December's Copenhagen summit on climate change. The Senate bill includes an economy-wide cap-and-trade system that would require power plants, industrial facilities and refineries to cut carbon dioxide and other climate-changing pollution. While there would be an overall emission cap, polluters would be able to purchase emission allowances to limit reductions. The bill, however, does not lay out how emission allowances would be distributed, an important issue left out to be resolved later. On Thursday, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee held hearings on the theme of “Climate Change and National Security,” where Senator Barrasso (R-WY) expressed his concern that carbon markets could become a source for “funding streams to international organized criminal elements.”
Earlier this week, the Environmental Protection Agency went ahead with a program to see how carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from stationary sources, such as power plants and factories, would be regulated under the Clean Air Act. But that is not the route that the Obama administration prefers, Browner said. Democratic Senators John Kerry and Barbara Boxer unveiled the senate version of the climate bill (Waxman-Markley comprehensive energy bill, known for short as "ACES) this week but it isn't clear whether it would win the required 60 Senate votes to get this bill passed.
No matter how many times the majority adds to this hand another giveaway to special interests, another tax break to offset the monumental cost of this bill, the end will be just the same: The taxpayer goes bust and Washington will win the game. How big are the costs? Well, he cites the Congressional Budget Office, which estimated that the resulting increases in consumer prices needed to achieve just a 15-percent reduction in carbon dioxide--slightly less than the target of this bill--would raise the cost of living $1,600 a year, every year, for every family in America. That is a $1,600 tax on every American family every year.
President Barack Obama's top aide on climate change acknowledged that legislation requiring major reductions in global-warming emissions is unlikely to pass Congress before December's Copenhagen summit on climate change. The Senate bill includes an economy-wide cap-and-trade system that would require power plants, industrial facilities and refineries to cut carbon dioxide and other climate-changing pollution. While there would be an overall emission cap, polluters would be able to purchase emission allowances to limit reductions. The bill, however, does not lay out how emission allowances would be distributed, an important issue left out to be resolved later. On Thursday, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee held hearings on the theme of “Climate Change and National Security,” where Senator Barrasso (R-WY) expressed his concern that carbon markets could become a source for “funding streams to international organized criminal elements.”
Earlier this week, the Environmental Protection Agency went ahead with a program to see how carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from stationary sources, such as power plants and factories, would be regulated under the Clean Air Act. But that is not the route that the Obama administration prefers, Browner said. Democratic Senators John Kerry and Barbara Boxer unveiled the senate version of the climate bill (Waxman-Markley comprehensive energy bill, known for short as "ACES) this week but it isn't clear whether it would win the required 60 Senate votes to get this bill passed.
No matter how many times the majority adds to this hand another giveaway to special interests, another tax break to offset the monumental cost of this bill, the end will be just the same: The taxpayer goes bust and Washington will win the game. How big are the costs? Well, he cites the Congressional Budget Office, which estimated that the resulting increases in consumer prices needed to achieve just a 15-percent reduction in carbon dioxide--slightly less than the target of this bill--would raise the cost of living $1,600 a year, every year, for every family in America. That is a $1,600 tax on every American family every year.
Hohm Shows Way to More Energy Efficient Future
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and United Nations officials today joined with 30 global leaders in Los Angeles, at the closing ceremony of the Governors’ Global Climate Summit 2 to sign a declaration committing to work together to pursue clean transportation and mobility, support national climate change legislation, include forests in climate policy development,
acknowledge the need for adaptation efforts and recognize the role of subnational governments in the discussions on the next global climate agreement being negotiated in Copenhagen this December.
The declaration reaffirms and builds upon the goals of last year’s Governors’ Global Climate Summit. Leaders who signed the declaration are acknowledging the need for greater efforts to collaborate on climate change solutions and support the recognition of the role of subnational governments in the fight against global warming. They are also renewing their commitments to promote policies that reduce greenhouse gases and implement strategies to grow their green economies. The declaration also helps set the stage for the upcoming negotiations in Copenhagen, demonstrating the significant work already underway at the grassroots level to respond to the global climate challenge.
acknowledge the need for adaptation efforts and recognize the role of subnational governments in the discussions on the next global climate agreement being negotiated in Copenhagen this December.
“Addressing the problems caused by climate change is the greatest environmental challenge of our time and at this summit we heard leaders and experts from around the globe discuss the innovative steps and strategies being championed in the fight against global warming,” said Governor Schwarzenegger. “We have deepened our partnerships and renewed our commitment to work collaboratively to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and create a cleaner planet and stronger economy for the next generation. In signing this declaration we are sending a powerful message to the national leaders negotiating the next global climate agreement that we are ready for action. The time to act is now.”
“The Governors’ Global Climate Summit clearly demonstrated the key role local and state governments can play in addressing climate change. The summit also illustrated that action is needed at all levels - and in partnership with the private sector and civil society - if we are to move forward this defining issue of our time,” said Amy Fraenkel, Director of the United Nations Environment Programme’s (UNEP) Regional Office for North America. “Collaboration is at the heart of the United Nations’ work and UNEP looks forward to working with the many partners that were here in Los Angeles.”
“This summit confirmed that there are solutions to the climate challenge and regions are definitely a part of those solutions,” said Olav Kjorven, United Nations Assistant Secretary-General and director of policy at United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). “I’m delighted to see how regions are exploring the ways they can address climate change. This is the can-do spirit we need to seal the deal in Copenhagen. At UNDP, we will step up our work with regions and national governments on planning, financing and implementing the foundations of a low carbon and poverty-free future.”
The declaration reaffirms and builds upon the goals of last year’s Governors’ Global Climate Summit. Leaders who signed the declaration are acknowledging the need for greater efforts to collaborate on climate change solutions and support the recognition of the role of subnational governments in the fight against global warming. They are also renewing their commitments to promote policies that reduce greenhouse gases and implement strategies to grow their green economies. The declaration also helps set the stage for the upcoming negotiations in Copenhagen, demonstrating the significant work already underway at the grassroots level to respond to the global climate challenge.
California’s advocacy for progressive states and provinces led to the drafting of language recognizing the important role of subnational governments. The term “subnational” is now referenced more than 100 times in the official negotiating text for Copenhagen as a result of the partnerships created and strengthened at the summit. Up to 50 to 80 percent of actions needed to reach the UN climate goals will be implemented at the state and local levels.
The following global leaders signed today’s declaration: Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, California, USA; Governor David Paterson, New York, USA; Governor Jim Doyle of Wisconsin, USA; Governor Jennifer Granholm, Michigan, USA; Governor Jodi Rell, Connecticut, USA; Governor John Baldacci, Maine, USA; Governor John P. de Jough Jr., U.S. Virgin Islands, USA; Governor Mark Parkinson, Kansas, USA; Governor Pat Quinn, Illinois, USA; Governor Theodore (Ted) Kulongski, Oregon, USA; Governor Tim Kaine, Virginia, USA; Governor Bill Richardson, New Mexico, USA; Governor Martin O'Malley, Maryland, USA; Governor John Lynch, New Hampshire, USA; Minister Rick Miles Department of the Environment, New Brunswick, Canada; Premier Gary Doer, Manitoba, Canada; Premier Jean Charest, Québec, Canada; Premier Danny Williams, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada; Premier Dalton McGuinty, Ontario, Canada; Premier Darrell Dexter, Nova Scotia, Canada; Premier Gordon Campbell, British Columbia, Canada; Premier Shawn Graham, New Brunswick, Canada; Governor Antônio Waldez Góes da Silva, Amapá, Brazil; Governor Carlos Eduardo de Souza Braga, Amazonas, Brazil; Governor Arnóbio Marques de Almeida Júnior, Acre, Brazil; Governor Blairo Maggi, Mato Grosso, Brazil; Governor Ana Júla de Vasconcelos Carepa, Pará, Brazil; Honorable Peter Beattie, Premier of Queensland, Australia (1998-2007, Queensland Commissioner for the Americas); Honorable Gavin Jennings, Minister for Environment & Climate Change, State government of Victoria, Australia; Minister of the Environment and Landscape Planning, Cherif Rahmani Republic of Algeria; Minister for Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management, Nicholas Berlakovich, Austria; Former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, United Kingdom; President National Institute of Ecology, Dr. Adrián Fernandez, Mexico – United Mexican States; Governor Fernando Eutimio Ortega Barnés, Campeche, Mexico - United Mexican States; Governor Irwandi Yusuf, Aceh, Indonesia; Minister of Environment, Elaine Taylor,Yukon; Christian Guyonvarc'h, Vice President of the Regional Government of Brittany, Brittany Region of France; President of Region Fatick, Senegal, Coumba Ndoffène Diouf; Minister of Environment, Sustainability and Housing Jane Davidson, Welsh, Britain; Governor Barnabas Suebu of Papua, Indonesia; Governor Kim Moon-soo of Gyeonggi Province, South Korea; Mayor Boris Johnson, London, England; Lord Mayor Ritt Bjerregaard, Copenhagen, Denmark; President of Lombardy Regional Administration, Roberto Formigoni, Italy; Governor Salvacion Z. Perez, Antique, Philippines; Governor Babatunde Raji Fashola [SAN], State of Lagos, Nigeria; Toronto, Mayor David Miller, Canada; Governor Emmanuel Eweta Uduaghan, State of Delta, Nigeria; Donetsk Regional Council Chairman Anatoly Blizniuk, Ukraine; Governor Fauzi Bowo, Jakarta, Indonesia; UN Resident Coordinator and UNDP Resident Representative in China Khalid Malik; Director and Regional Representative, Amy Fraenkel, United Nations Environmental Programme, Regional Office for North America; Assistant Secretary-General for United Nations and Policy Director Olav Kjørven, United Nations Development Programme; and Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Honorary Witness.
Earlier today at the summit, Governor Schwarzenegger also signed a Statement of Intent with the UNDP, stating that California will work with African nations to share successful policies on energy efficiency, low carbon fuels and other clean technology in the fight against climate change.
African leaders at the summit announced a new continent-wide effort, called “A New Green Deal for Africa.” African nations are some of the least responsible for climate change, but they are some of the most vulnerable to its devastating impacts and least able to adapt. The Statement of Intent will support this effort under the current framework of the territorial approach to climate change. This effort is important because Africa has the opportunity to implement low carbon development strategies from the beginning – to grow green from the start.
The Governor also signed an agreement with Governor Luo Zhijun of the Jiangsu Province of the People’s Republic of China to form a partnership that will further reduce greenhouse gas emissions, strengthen government support for renewable energy and technological cooperation, increase energy security, promote economic activity and advance environmental sustainability. This state-to-province partnership is China’s first-ever subnational agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Additionally, the Governors Climate and Forestry Task Force which was initiated at last year’s summit signed a letter addressed to U.S. President Barack Obama, Republic of Indonesia President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da calling for international leadership to reduce forestry-related greenhouse gas emissions. In the letter, the governors emphasized the critical importance of including forests and reducing emissions from deforestation and land degradation in international climate policy. The task force includes representatives from U.S., Brazil and Indonesia which represents over 50% of the world's tropical forests.
For more information, or to view webcasting of all events, go to www.governorsglobalclimatesummit.org.
Text of the declaration:
The magnitude and urgency of the challenges in stabilizing and reducing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and adapting to climate change will require an unprecedented level of cooperation and collaboration among all levels of government around the world. We recognize the need to both reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and to adapt to current and future impacts of climate change.
We also recognize that our efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to climate change can strengthen global, national and subnational economies. These efforts enhance energy security, increase energy efficiency and create new industries and good jobs that stimulate diverse, decentralized and sustainable economic activity.
Affirmation of the Goals of the 2008 Global Climate Solutions Declaration
On November 19, 2008, thirty-one international representatives signed the Global Climate Solutions Declaration in Los Angeles, California. The Declaration focused on fostering collaborative subnational efforts to address climate change by:
- Reducing greenhouse gas emissions in sectors with a high potential for environmental and economic benefits;
- Undertaking actions that are most suited to providing mutually beneficial outcomes to the signatories;
- Pursuing opportunities that complement existing efforts;
- Scaling up investments in climate-friendly technologies and strategies;
- Growing economies and enhancing overall quality of life through technologies that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions;
- Focusing on research, development and deployment activities;
- Fostering exchanges between researchers, educators and students; and
- Accelerating capacity building for monitoring and reporting programs.
Today, October 2, 2009, we affirm our commitment to the goals and principles of the 2008 Global Climate Solutions Declaration and further affirm:
Pursuit of Clean Transportation and Mobility
Transportation is one of the largest and fastest growing contributors to worldwide climate change emissions. Action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector is needed at both the national and subnational levels, including:
- Widespread development and use of zero and near-zero emitting vehicles and fuels to achieve the scale of greenhouse gas emissions reductions necessary and to ensure stability of the transportation fuels supply.
- A comprehensive policy approach that recognizes the interrelationship between vehicles and fuels, the benefits of complementary market-based and standards-based approaches and the importance of public education and outreach to help ensure informed vehicle purchase decisions.
- Land use and transportation planning and financing that increases mobility choice and reduces emissions by providing a balance between housing, employment and services and enables widespread access to transit, biking and walking infrastructure.
- Research, development and deployment activities that are prioritized to meet the near-and long-term need for cleaner and more efficient transportation technologies.
We support the above strategies to address greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation sector. We believe that transportation systems and technologies must be designed and implemented in ways that enhance mobility while at the same time reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Support for National Climate Change Legislation
Efforts of national governments to address climate change are important in guiding global consensus to act. Recognizing the concept of differentiated responsibility, strong national policies are crucial to coordinated global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to climate change. We support efforts throughout the world to enact national legislation that addresses climate change.
Developed countries must take strong steps to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and provide examples of global leadership. We believe that the United States must enact comprehensive climate change legislation during the current session of the U.S. Congress in order to put the world on a path to greenhouse gas stabilization.
Inclusion of Forests in Climate Policy
Deforestation accounts for 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions, more than the entire global transportation sector, but was excluded from the Kyoto Protocol. Actions to protect and restore forests must be a key component of climate protection. We therefore call upon all governments to advocate for the inclusion of mechanisms, such as Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation, within the global framework for combating climate change.
Need for Adaptation Efforts
Climate change is an immediate and long-term threat. Right now, climate change is affecting our food and water quality and supply, human health and well-being and our valuable natural resources. The impacts of climate change are being felt in our cities, provinces, states, regions and nations. The most vulnerable of our people are often the most adversely impacted.
The breadth and severity of impacts from climate change will continue for decades, even if our efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions were to be fully implemented tomorrow. The longer we wait to respond, the more difficult and costly it will be.
We support collaborative efforts to adapt to climate change including:
· Sharing plans to help people and nature survive the unavoidable adverse impacts of climate change;
· Advocating for a comprehensive role for adaptation in international climate policy under development by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC);
· Developing ecosystem-based adaptation strategies that increase resilience and protect natural resources that sustain life on earth; and
· Implementing comprehensive state and local adaptation policies and programs that protect the most at-risk individuals.
Recognition of the Role of Sub-National Governments
Current global efforts to address climate change focus on the ongoing negotiations under the UNFCCC. We recognize the important role of subnational governments in addressing the global challenges associated with climate change. We embrace the overarching principles of subnational engagement and support for the efforts of national governments which include:
- Developing a shared vision for global security and prosperity;
- Pursuing adaptation strategies to address current and future climate change;
- Mitigating greenhouse gas emissions;
- Supporting the use of finance mechanisms to address global warming; and
- Promoting technology transfer and capacity building agreements.
In the spirit of common and differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, we agree to work together in solidarity as cities, provinces, states and regions and nations in developed and developing countries to craft our environmental, economic and social development policies. We agree to consider the impacts of climate change in our economic and social development policies.
We agree to rely on a territorial approach, which is a coordinated and collaborative approach within subnations and regions that is intended to increase effectiveness in combating and adapting to climate change.
We commit to work together to promote recognition of the role of subnational governments at the 15th UNFCCC Conference of Parties and in future international forums. We support negotiations leading toward international recognition of this role.
For years, the smart home has been envisioned as a place where the coffee maker knows you need a jolt of caffeine, the refrigerator orders milk when only a quart is left, and the TV tunes in a favorite program when someone walks into the room.
Rising energy costs and demand and smarter consumers, however, have turned attention toward a more tangible value of the smart home: energy conservation.
|
The smart home today isn’t just about smart appliances; it’s also about putting consumer-friendly technology in consumers’ hands so they can manage their energy use. Manufacturers predict that smart thermostats and smart plugs that use wireless technology could soon be available and affordable for consumers. And consumers can already take advantage of a technology boom to gather information and manage their energy consumption with products and services already on the market.
These technology advances appeal to consumers motivated to lessen their carbon footprint and preserve the environment, and those who simply want to live more economically. Consumers who conserve also help utilities prepare to manage more zero-carbon energy sources such as wind and solar and manage demand while keeping the lights on.
“The most scalable, cleanest and cost-effective energy source comes from conservation,” says Jon Arnold, Microsoft’s Worldwide Power and Utilities director. “Consumers want to take an active role in their own energy management. They are more environmentally aware and want to save money and conserve.”
Microsoft has joined the energy conservation effort with Hohm. Announced in June 2009, Hohm is a Web-based application that uses advanced analytics to provide consumers with personalized energy- and money-saving recommendations. Suggestions include plugging air leaks and insulating attics.
Here’s how it works: Consumers in the United States go to http://www.microsoft-hohm.com and create an account using their Windows Live ID and postal code. Next, they enter information about their home structure, heating and cooling systems, as well as other details such as the number of occupants and types and age of appliances. The system uses algorithms and data from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the U.S. Department of Energy to analyze the information and create an energy report with personalized recommendations. The more information consumers provide, the more accurate and relevant the recommendations will be. And as utilities work with Hohm, consumers will have the added value that the utility can load their historical energy usage information via their secure account to watch energy use trends.
Since Microsoft announced the Hohm beta, consumers worldwide have contributed comments on the Hohm Facebook page. One wrote about Hohm’s ease of use: “I already completed my home profile info. Took me 10 minutes.” Another wrote, “This is Microsoft Hohm court advantage on the Smart Grid.” Many others hope their utilities soon sign on as industry partners.
Elsewhere, hardware manufacturers including Black & Decker and Energy Inc. have created gadgets that consumers connect to the electric meter. These devices measure and report how much power people use in their homes so that consumers can watch their costs go down as they turn off lights and use less-powerful appliances.
In addition, Cisco Systems, Comcast Corp., General Electric and ADT Security Services are investing jointly in iControl Networks, a small company that, along with competitors 4Home Inc. and Intamac Systems Ltd., is developing the capability to remotely monitor home thermostats, lights and security systems from the Web or cellular phone.
The potential gains from conservation are enormous. For example, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) estimates some 50 million computers in American offices and homes that are left on when they’re not in use. If power-management tools now available in Windows-based computers were used widely, that could cut $500 million from the nation’s energy bill and eliminate 3 million tons of global warming pollution, says the NRDC. Other savings could come from turning off lights and TVs, sealing air ducts, and replacing old appliances with newer, more energy-efficient ones.
For consumers, the big motivation is financial. In a May 2009 Gartner Inc. report titled “Utility Consumer Survey: Energy Efficiency, Do They Care and Why?” analysts asked survey participants directly: “If your utility company offered an energy efficiency program, would you participate?” Consumers expressed interested in a 4-to-1 ratio in both the United States and the United Kingdom.
Gartner also asked for “the most important reason why they would participate in an energy conservation program. Cost reduction, not surprisingly, was the main motive in both markets.”
|
For utilities, the stakes are even higher. They face new challenges in how energy is produced and consumed. Since the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine constantly, zero-carbon energy sources such wind and solar are variable and often unpredictable. And consumer usage patterns will change as people plug in millions of electric vehicles in garage outlets each evening, creating a huge demand spike. Although a smarter power grid will help manage the roller coaster energy demand, new power plants or conservation are also needed.
Building new power plants is an enormous time and financial investment - a nuclear plant, for instance, can cost as much as $800 million for a typical 800-megawatt plant and require upward of 12 years to complete: Yet energy demand worldwide is expected to increase anywhere from 16 percent of current usage to perhaps twice current usage, depending on who is doing the estimating. Any significant demand increase will likely mean higher prices for consumers as power companies explore traditional and alternative energy resources to help meet these new challenges.
Sharelynn Moore, director of product marketing at Itron, believes that smart meters and other technology upgrades help utilities learn more about energy use patterns, which allows for general awareness, special rates and programs for consumers that reduce consumption during peak times and ultimately reduce consumer costs. “As utilities build a solid smart-grid technology base, they want to pursue technology investments that will positively impact the consumer, such as replacing traditional meters on homes with smart meters,” she says. “They also help utilities run more efficiently and lower their overall carbon footprint.”
In Microsoft Hohm, utilities have access to a scalable, cost-effective tool they can offer their customers as a free service. It can also help utilities meet increasing energy conservation regulatory requirements and promote their rebate and conservation programs.
Utilities working with Hohm - including Puget Sound Energy, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, Seattle City Light and Xcel Energy - believe that putting home energy management into consumers’ hands is a good idea. “We share the belief with Microsoft that better information leads to better choices in energy use,” says Steve Reynolds, CEO and president of Puget Sound Energy. “Microsoft Hohm will help our customers be more energy-efficient by providing new insights and understanding into how they use energy and how they can conserve.”
According to Arnold, as U.S. state and federal regulatory trends move more toward conservation as an additional motivator for consumers and businesses alike, “power companies must respond and accelerate the path toward energy conservation. Leading the trend, or at least joining in by encouraging customers to conserve, can help power companies meet regulatory requirements, manage demand, and improve customer service and their reputation,” Arnold says.
The combination of conservation and cross-industry collaboration will help make a difference. “And if cutting our carbon usage was easy, we would have done it by now,” Arnold adds.
One can only hope that homes will never be so smart that the freezer scolds people who reach for a late-night ice cream snack.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)