Nations should scale down ambitions for a global climate deal in Copenhagen in December rather than have "exaggerated expectations", India's minister of state for environment and forests said on Saturday.
Jairam Ramesh said climate talks in Bangkok, which ended on Friday, had left a big gap in trust between developing and industrialised nations.
"We have to be realistic, we have to be pragmatic," Ramesh said. "We should not derail Copenhagen by having exaggerated expectations. Let us clinch those elements of the deal that we can clinch."
He said countries may need to come back to Copenhagen after December to reach a wider deal.
India insists it will not accept binding greenhouse gas emissions cuts but will adopt nationally appropriate mitigation actions.
Ramesh suggested instead of binding emissions cuts, governments should now focus on agreeing on three main areas: finance for adaptation to climate change, a deal to combat deforestation and promote forestation, and technology sharing.
"Even the United States is in agreement on these three issues," Ramesh told an editors' meeting in the Danish capital with 57 days left until about 190 governments are due to convene the U.N. climate change conference there on Dec. 7-18, seeking a deal to replace the Kyoto Protocol that expires in 2012.
Ramesh warned against what he called the "mistake of the Doha round" of trade talks. "The basic problem of the Doha round was 'all or nothing,'" he said. The trade talks began in 2001 and there is still no deal.
Ramesh said India would go a step beyond nationally appropriate mitigation actions, dubbed "NAMAs", and pass domestic legislation in areas such as fuel efficiency standards and possibly environmental building codes.
Ramesh blamed the European Union for abandoning the basic structure of the Kyoto Protocol and said it was up to the EU to bridge the lack of trust after the Bangkok talks.
The Kyoto pact contains binding emissions reductions targets for rich countries but does not include hard targets for developing countries
"It is the European Union that has given the impression in Bangkok that it is ready to abandon the basic architecture of the Kyoto Protocol to accommodate the United States," he said.
"Recent events in Bangkok have cast a long shadow over what is going to happen in the Copenhagen negotiations," Ramesh said.
Only one more week of negotiations -- in Barcelona next month -- remain before negotiators move to Copenhagen
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Friday, October 9, 2009
Will Obama bypass Congress on climate rules?
If Congress won't get the job done on climate change, President Obama has a way to do it himself. But is he strong-arming the legislative branch?
It certainly looks that way as a series of new environmental regulations, released over the past two weeks by the EPA, are putting legislators on notice and executives on edge.
The rules are the federal government's broadest swipe yet at regulating greenhouse gasses. According to EPA chief Lisa Jackson, "We've taken the historic step of proposing the nation's first-ever greenhouse-gas emissions standards for vehicles, and moved substantially closer to an efficient, clean energy future."
The Environmental Protection Agency, which reports to the White House, is a new player in this arena. Before 2007, greenhouse gases were considered outside the EPA's purview because regulating them would have required cracking down on specific industrial practices that other agencies had under their charge.
But a 2007 Supreme Court decision ruled them to be an air pollutant, giving the EPA wide authority to regulate any industries that emit them under the 1970 Clean Air Act.
Test drive: auto emissions
The agency's first target as it moves towards that future? Detroit. Under the new guidelines, by 2016 automakers must reduce their fleet's average emissions-per-mile to 250 grams. This is in addition to the familiar fuel-mileage standards set by the National Highway Safety and Transportation Authority (NHTSA).
Since there are about 9,000 grams of CO2 produced by burning each gallon of gas, automakers will be able to hit the EPA's requirements in 2016 simply by raising fuel economy to the 35 miles per gallon levels NHTSA has already ordered for the same time period.
So meeting that 2016 deadline won't be too challenging. But after 2016 something interesting happens. With conventional gasoline technology, improvements in fuel economy move in lockstep with drops in emissions.
But conventional technology maxes out 35 mpg, which means getting lower CO2 emissions beyond that point will require new technologies like electrics, hydrogen fuel cells or biofuels.
With electrics and hydrogen, there are no "gallons" of fuel to measure, while biofuels producer fewer emissions than gasoline but also get fewer miles per gallon. So the EPA has come up with a solution to encourage carmakers to design for low emissions rather than miles per gallon.
Margo Oge, the EPA's air quality and transportation director, says carmakers can apply for fuel economy credits for flex-fuel vehicles that use biofuels. That means automakers will have an incentive to focus on low-emission vehicles. It's a small change, but it amounts to a substantial power grab by the EPA.
An activist executive
Environmentalists are celebrating the new rules, since the EPA has historically been stricter than NHTSA, which is overseen by Congress. But industry trade representatives whose jobs depend on lobbying Congress on behalf of business aren't thrilled by the developments.
"NHTSA has 35 years of experience with our technologies, for which the environmental agency doesn't have the knowledge. They ensure that fuel-economy increases are cost-effective and possible," says Charles Territo of the Automakers' Alliance. "If NHTSA started to lose its role, we would resist that."
While publicly White House officials say that both agencies are working in harmony, privately, they admit that it's the EPA that is taking the lead.
And by Spring 2010, the EPA is planning to expand its reach even further, issuing greenhouse-gas targets for all firms emitting more that 25,000 metric tons per year.
That might cover enough major emitters that a cap-and-trade scheme, where the government sells permits for emissions above a certain level that companies can trade, becomes unnecessary. Cap-and-trade legislation is currently awaiting consideration in Congress, somewhat stalled because of the focus on health-care legislation.
Not surprisingly, some legislators are calling this a classic case of executive branch overreach. Representative Peter Welch (D-Vermont), who helped draft the cap-and-trade bill, says, "I would prefer for this to be done legislatively, and my contacts in industry would prefer that, because when we write bills, we give them the opportunity to help us." Skeptics would argue that there are lucrative ties to lobbyists that Congress is loath to give up.
There are economic objections too. The Congressional bill has provisions to direct funds raised via cap-and-trade permits into green energy jobs, and takes into account the cost of emissions reductions.
Columbia Business School professor and noted energy economist Geoffrey Heal estimates that discretionary regulation will be twice as costly as cap-and-trade, up to 2% of GDP, since cap-and-trade allows reductions to be made wherever they are most efficient.
"That cost will get passed on to consumers, and it's not small change," he says.
Power Play
The timing of the EPA's moves also hint at political motives. Congressman Welch believes the new policies are intended to tell Congress, "that if we don't pass legislation, the President will not wait and will just go ahead and regulate."
Columbia's Heal agrees: "The EPA announcements are designed to put pressure on the Senate and on industry representatives who are pushing senators, that if they don't act, [the EPA] will, in ways industry won't like."
The administration is also certainly thinking ahead to December's international climate change conference in Copenhagen. Twelve years after President Clinton signed the Kyoto Protocol, and with both Republican and Democratic senates having failed to ratify the agreement, the last thing Obama wants to do is show up empty handed.
If Congress doesn't pass a bill before December, the EPA's moves give him some cover. As Obama well knows, the credibility of America's commitments is key to extracting similar promises from other nations like India and China.
In other words, Obama seems to be offering Congress a choice: Pass a bill, or be bypassed altogether. 
Africa needs $65 bln to meet climate change: minister
Africa needs 65 billion dollars (44 billion euros) to deal with the effects of global warming, Burkina Faso's environment minister said Friday at the opening of a special forum on climate change.
The seventh World Forum on Sustainable Development comes just two months before a critical UN climate summit in Copenhagen set to seal a planet-saving global deal.
"We think 65 billion dollars are needed to deal with the effects of climate change on a continental scale. That is to say that our expectations are very high," Salifou Sawadogo, one of the forum's organisers, told AFP at the opening of the event.
At the forum organised by the government of Burkina Faso together with the United Nations and the African Union, several African heads of state will meet key policy makers to discuss the opportunities climate change could offer for sustainable development.
Experts say Sub-Saharan Africa is one of the regions most affected by global warming. The World Bank estimates that the developing world will suffer about 80 percent of the damage of climate change despite accounting for only around one third of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
"We are all on the same planet so there is a duty of solidarity to help the most vulnerable countries, like we are, implement policies to adapt to climate change," Sawadogo said.
His comments come as crunch UN climate talks held in Bangkok drew to a close Friday with the rift between the rich and the poor countries still wide open.
A key point of contention remains how much money wealthy nations are willing to cough up to help developing ones deal with climate change
The seventh World Forum on Sustainable Development comes just two months before a critical UN climate summit in Copenhagen set to seal a planet-saving global deal.
"We think 65 billion dollars are needed to deal with the effects of climate change on a continental scale. That is to say that our expectations are very high," Salifou Sawadogo, one of the forum's organisers, told AFP at the opening of the event.
At the forum organised by the government of Burkina Faso together with the United Nations and the African Union, several African heads of state will meet key policy makers to discuss the opportunities climate change could offer for sustainable development.
Experts say Sub-Saharan Africa is one of the regions most affected by global warming. The World Bank estimates that the developing world will suffer about 80 percent of the damage of climate change despite accounting for only around one third of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
"We are all on the same planet so there is a duty of solidarity to help the most vulnerable countries, like we are, implement policies to adapt to climate change," Sawadogo said.
His comments come as crunch UN climate talks held in Bangkok drew to a close Friday with the rift between the rich and the poor countries still wide open.
A key point of contention remains how much money wealthy nations are willing to cough up to help developing ones deal with climate change
Pennsylvania DEP releases Climate Change Action Plan
A decade from now, Pennsylvania should have its greenhouse gas emissions at 30 percent below 2000 levels, according to the Climate Change Action Plan released Friday by the Department of Environmental Protection.
Actually, the state can go as low as 42 percent below, if the governor and Legislature heed the advice of the panel’s 52 recommendations.The Climate Change Advisory Committee is a consortium of about two dozen government, industry and environmental interests assembled by Act 70, the Pennsylvania Climate Change Act of 2008, and tasked with producing an action plan.
If all suggested measures are implemented, Pennsylvania will add 65,000 new jobs and more than $6 billion to its gross state product 2020, the report states.
The Keystone state accounts for 1 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions attributed to human activity.
Sorted by sector — residential and commercial, electricity, industry, waste, land use and transportation, agriculture, and forestry — the report shows that all but two will see millions of dollars in savings by 2020, with an $11.7 billion cumulative decrease in the cost of operations if all recommendations are adopted.
The notable exceptions include electricity, reforms to which are projected to total around $1 billion by 2020, largely due to a $832 million plan to bring on a new nuclear power plant and a $300 million price tag for carbon capture and sequestration work.
While in a decade the transportation sector is expected to be seeing annual net savings, it will take about $2.8 billion by 2020 to implement plants to reform that field.
Climate Change Program Manager Joe Sherrick said the recommendations will likely serve as a pot of ideas from which the government can pull at will.
“We don’t expect that these will be implemented as they are written,” Sherrick said. “These are nonbinding targets. These are things that we will strive for.”
The plan will be updated every three years.
Some of the committee’s recommendations include capturing the methane released during coal mining operations and using it as an energy source, introducing pay-as-you-drive insurance to encourage driving less, and replacing lighting systems in residential and commercial buildings, which are “responsible for approximately 34 percent of all gross greenhouse gas emissions in Pennsylvania.”
Not all of the groups’ members agreed to the goal of a 30 percent reduction. George Ellis, president of the Pennsylvania Coal Association, said the idea of issuing a target was brought up for a vote during the committee’s last meeting Sept. 16. He and the other six members representing the business community voted against it.
Ellis said the committee, which has been meeting for more than a year, has failed to show “the diversity of opinion” in the scientific community when it comes to global warming.“I don’t think there is a scientific consensus on climate change,” Ellis said. “I believe the (committee’s) impact assessment report was biased toward the prevailing view of climate change as a problem in need of an immediate solution.”
He also criticized the “rosy scenarios” for renewable energy goals, which Ellis said fail to account for deficits in technology and availability.
When the business representatives on the committee did vote with the majority, they did so to move the process forward, and were still uncomfortable with what Ellis said was a lack of Pennsylvania-specific information, he said.
Pennsylvania DEP releases Climate Change Action Plan
A decade from now, Pennsylvania should have its greenhouse gas emissions at 30 percent below 2000 levels, according to the Climate Change Action Plan released Friday by the Department of Environmental Protection.
Actually, the state can go as low as 42 percent below, if the governor and Legislature heed the advice of the panel’s 52 recommendations.The Climate Change Advisory Committee is a consortium of about two dozen government, industry and environmental interests assembled by Act 70, the Pennsylvania Climate Change Act of 2008, and tasked with producing an action plan.
If all suggested measures are implemented, Pennsylvania will add 65,000 new jobs and more than $6 billion to its gross state product 2020, the report states.
The Keystone state accounts for 1 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions attributed to human activity.
Sorted by sector — residential and commercial, electricity, industry, waste, land use and transportation, agriculture, and forestry — the report shows that all but two will see millions of dollars in savings by 2020, with an $11.7 billion cumulative decrease in the cost of operations if all recommendations are adopted.
The notable exceptions include electricity, reforms to which are projected to total around $1 billion by 2020, largely due to a $832 million plan to bring on a new nuclear power plant and a $300 million price tag for carbon capture and sequestration work.
While in a decade the transportation sector is expected to be seeing annual net savings, it will take about $2.8 billion by 2020 to implement plants to reform that field.
Climate Change Program Manager Joe Sherrick said the recommendations will likely serve as a pot of ideas from which the government can pull at will.
“We don’t expect that these will be implemented as they are written,” Sherrick said. “These are nonbinding targets. These are things that we will strive for.”
The plan will be updated every three years.
Some of the committee’s recommendations include capturing the methane released during coal mining operations and using it as an energy source, introducing pay-as-you-drive insurance to encourage driving less, and replacing lighting systems in residential and commercial buildings, which are “responsible for approximately 34 percent of all gross greenhouse gas emissions in Pennsylvania.”
Not all of the groups’ members agreed to the goal of a 30 percent reduction. George Ellis, president of the Pennsylvania Coal Association, said the idea of issuing a target was brought up for a vote during the committee’s last meeting Sept. 16. He and the other six members representing the business community voted against it.
Ellis said the committee, which has been meeting for more than a year, has failed to show “the diversity of opinion” in the scientific community when it comes to global warming.“I don’t think there is a scientific consensus on climate change,” Ellis said. “I believe the (committee’s) impact assessment report was biased toward the prevailing view of climate change as a problem in need of an immediate solution.”
He also criticized the “rosy scenarios” for renewable energy goals, which Ellis said fail to account for deficits in technology and availability.
When the business representatives on the committee did vote with the majority, they did so to move the process forward, and were still uncomfortable with what Ellis said was a lack of Pennsylvania-specific information, he said.
Potholes in Road to Copenhagen Climate Accord Widen During Bangkok Talks
Norway unveiled an aggressive new emissions target yesterday, a move that environmental groups acknowledged is unlikely to prod new U.S. action but that many described as one of the few positive developments in a contentious, down-to-the-wire negotiating The announcement of a 40 percent reduction goal from the oil-rich Scandanavian country came as nations wrapped up a difficult two weeks of U.N. climate talks in Bangkok. The final days were marked with tension as developing nations walked out of a meeting, accusing the United States of trying to "destroy" the 1997 Kyoto Protocol upon which talks for a new global treaty had been based. "The European Union, Australia, Japan, the rest of the developed countries need to rise up to the challenge rather than race to the bottom with the United States," said Lumumba Di-Aping, the Sudanese chairman of the G-77.
As nations try to craft a new international agreement to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, the fight over what legal form the document will take has emerged as a technical but critical point.
Developing nations insist that nations are negotiating a second commitment period to the Kyoto Protocol, the first part of which ends in 2012. Under the set of rules outlined in that 12-year-old agreement, industrialized countries must slash their CO2 emissions, but developing nations -- even fast-growing ones like China and India -- are under no such obligation.
The United States never became a party to Kyoto, largely because of that omission. Since President Obama took office in January, administration officials have pledged to become part of a new international agreement. But they have also consistently called for a new deal to replace Kyoto. America's terms: Major developing nations must make legally binding commitments to temper their own global warming pollution.
In Bangkok this week, U.S. officials openly floated the idea of a new system of national climate plans. Meanwhile, State Department deputy climate envoy Jonathan Pershing explicitly said Kyoto should be scrapped.
U.S. accused of sabotaging Kyoto pact
"We are not going to be part of an agreement that we cannot meet," he told reporters. "Things have changed since Kyoto. Where countries were in 1990 and today is very different. We cannot be stuck with an agreement 20 years old. We want action from all countries."
The European Union backed the United States in its position, and G-77 countries walked out of a meeting, with some leaders charging America with trying to scuttle the climate talks.
Remi Moncel, a climate program associate with the World Resources Institute think tank, said developing countries remain unsure whether the new formula the United States is floating will still be legally binding for developed nations. They also worry about losing the principle enshrined in Kyoto that says poor countries' rights to development should not be hampered by climate change commitments.
"It was sort of assumed by developing countries that the Kyoto Protocol would be maintained for all developed countries, and something would be worked out for the United States," Moncel said. "Developing countries don't want to be put in the same legal instrument that is used for developed countries."
Despite significant domestic action in recent months by China, India, Brazil and others, the international negotiating positions of developing countries remains unchanged: Industrialized nations caused climate change, and they should be the ones to fix it.
"Developing countries are prepared to do their fair share as a contribution to the global effort. However, the reality that we face is that the cause of the fundamental emissions which result in global warming are to a large extent the responsibility ... of developed countries," Alf Wills, South Africa's top climate negotiator, said at a press conference.
'A frustrating situation for everybody'
Jennifer Haverkamp, a senior counsel at the Environmental Defense Fund, called it a "frustrating situation for everybody," and also noted that the United States has made some constructive proposals on technology and financing to help developing countries prepare for climate impacts.
"You're at a point in the negotiatings where you see a lot of posturing," Haverkamp said.
"The U.S. has hinted at this type of position before, and now it's becoming more clear. That's part of the cause for all the debate," added Moncel.
Meanwhile, they and other environmental activists lauded Norway's pledge. Moncel called it a gust of "fresh air" into the climate talks.
Norway, which gets most of its energy from clean hydroelectric power, previously had committed unconditionally to slashing emissions 30 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. Its new pledge is to cut greenhouse gas output by 40 percent if an international agreement is reached in Copenhagen this December. The cut is in line with what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said is needed for nations to keep warming to 2 degrees Celsius over preindustrial levels.
Hanne Bjurstrøm, leading Norway's negotiating team, told E&E that roughly two-thirds of the cuts would be made domestically, with the remaining cuts likely coming from international offsets.
"It will increase the pressure to some extent" on other developed countries to act more aggressively, Bjurstrøm said. But, she also noted, "you shouldn't exaggerate that, because we are a very small country and a rich country."
As nations try to craft a new international agreement to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, the fight over what legal form the document will take has emerged as a technical but critical point.
Developing nations insist that nations are negotiating a second commitment period to the Kyoto Protocol, the first part of which ends in 2012. Under the set of rules outlined in that 12-year-old agreement, industrialized countries must slash their CO2 emissions, but developing nations -- even fast-growing ones like China and India -- are under no such obligation.
The United States never became a party to Kyoto, largely because of that omission. Since President Obama took office in January, administration officials have pledged to become part of a new international agreement. But they have also consistently called for a new deal to replace Kyoto. America's terms: Major developing nations must make legally binding commitments to temper their own global warming pollution.
In Bangkok this week, U.S. officials openly floated the idea of a new system of national climate plans. Meanwhile, State Department deputy climate envoy Jonathan Pershing explicitly said Kyoto should be scrapped.
U.S. accused of sabotaging Kyoto pact
"We are not going to be part of an agreement that we cannot meet," he told reporters. "Things have changed since Kyoto. Where countries were in 1990 and today is very different. We cannot be stuck with an agreement 20 years old. We want action from all countries."
The European Union backed the United States in its position, and G-77 countries walked out of a meeting, with some leaders charging America with trying to scuttle the climate talks.
Remi Moncel, a climate program associate with the World Resources Institute think tank, said developing countries remain unsure whether the new formula the United States is floating will still be legally binding for developed nations. They also worry about losing the principle enshrined in Kyoto that says poor countries' rights to development should not be hampered by climate change commitments.
"It was sort of assumed by developing countries that the Kyoto Protocol would be maintained for all developed countries, and something would be worked out for the United States," Moncel said. "Developing countries don't want to be put in the same legal instrument that is used for developed countries."
Despite significant domestic action in recent months by China, India, Brazil and others, the international negotiating positions of developing countries remains unchanged: Industrialized nations caused climate change, and they should be the ones to fix it.
"Developing countries are prepared to do their fair share as a contribution to the global effort. However, the reality that we face is that the cause of the fundamental emissions which result in global warming are to a large extent the responsibility ... of developed countries," Alf Wills, South Africa's top climate negotiator, said at a press conference.
'A frustrating situation for everybody'
Jennifer Haverkamp, a senior counsel at the Environmental Defense Fund, called it a "frustrating situation for everybody," and also noted that the United States has made some constructive proposals on technology and financing to help developing countries prepare for climate impacts.
"You're at a point in the negotiatings where you see a lot of posturing," Haverkamp said.
"The U.S. has hinted at this type of position before, and now it's becoming more clear. That's part of the cause for all the debate," added Moncel.
Meanwhile, they and other environmental activists lauded Norway's pledge. Moncel called it a gust of "fresh air" into the climate talks.
Norway, which gets most of its energy from clean hydroelectric power, previously had committed unconditionally to slashing emissions 30 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. Its new pledge is to cut greenhouse gas output by 40 percent if an international agreement is reached in Copenhagen this December. The cut is in line with what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said is needed for nations to keep warming to 2 degrees Celsius over preindustrial levels.
Hanne Bjurstrøm, leading Norway's negotiating team, told E&E that roughly two-thirds of the cuts would be made domestically, with the remaining cuts likely coming from international offsets.
"It will increase the pressure to some extent" on other developed countries to act more aggressively, Bjurstrøm said. But, she also noted, "you shouldn't exaggerate that, because we are a very small country and a rich country."
U.S. Chamber of Commerce shrugs off defections
The head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on Thursday brushed off decisions by a string of high-profile companies to break with the nation's leading business organization over what they considered its backward-looking position on global warming.
The companies, which included Pacific Gas & Electric Co. and computer giant Apple Inc., announced they were leaving the chamber after one of its officials said it planned to stage the environmental equivalent of the "Scopes monkey trial" -- a reference to an early 20th century court case in which prosecutors attacked the scientific foundations of the theory of evolution.
Chamber President Tom Donohue said he was "not particularly worried" about the companies' departure, blaming their actions on an "orchestrated pressure campaign" by environmental groups.
In addition to PG&E and Apple, PNM Resources Inc., a New Mexico utility company, and Exelon Corp., based in Chicago and the nation's largest power company, have quit the U.S. chamber entirely. Sports footwear maker Nike Inc. resigned from the group's board of directors but remains a member.
The companies that left have largely argued that business should come to terms with the future implications of climate change and seek ways to prosper in a greener environment. The chamber, and many of its members, have argued that policies that attack climate change too aggressively could cost jobs, hurt profits and raise consumer prices -- weakening an already battered economy.
The chamber opposed the climate bill that passed the House, but Donohue said at a news briefing that the organization favored what he called sensible legislation designed to curb climate change without impeding job growth -- possibly including a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system to limit greenhouse gas emissions.
The group has also threatened to sue the Environmental Protection Agency over proposed greenhouse gas regulations the chamber says could bring the American economy to its knees.
Donohue has worked to distance the chamber from the source of the Scopes remark, which has plagued the group since late August, when a chamber vice president, William Kovacs, said in an interview with the Tribune Washington bureau that the group was pushing for a Scopes monkey trial on whether global warming truly endangers human health.
On Thursday, Donohue called those comments unfortunate and said they went too far.
"We are not arguing the science" of global warming, he said. "You are not going to get me to go against the science because, by the way, I know a lot of things, but I don't know about the science."
Environmentalists, who frequently clash with the chamber on policy issues, have sought to capitalize on the Scopes remark.
The Natural Resources Defense Council has issued news releases celebrating each defection from the chamber, and it has launched an accompanying ad campaign online and in print this week.
The chamber has responded, first with a news release reiterating its support for "sensible" climate legislation, then with an aggressive response to Apple this week that accused the company of having its facts wrong on the chamber's climate stance.
"We're not changing where we are" because of the companies that have left the group, Donohue said. "We thought long and hard about what was important here, and we're not going anywhere."
He said there was "almost nobody" among the chamber's 3 million members pushing for changes in the organization's climate policy.
He said the chamber would continue to pressure the EPA to be transparent about the research it is using as a basis of greenhouse gas regulations. But he raised the possibility of amending a complaint against the EPA to remove passages that questioned whether rising temperatures would erode human health.
"The chamber believes that if EPA continues down a regulatory path that will impact virtually the entire economy, it should be as transparent as possible and explain how it arrived at its decision," said chamber spokesman Eric Wohlschlegel.
Environmentalists rejected the distinction.
"You can't say the science of global warming is fine, but the science behind [EPA regulation] is not," said Josh Dorner, a spokesman for Clean Energy Works, a consortium of groups pushing for climate legislation. "That's a distinction without a difference."
The companies, which included Pacific Gas & Electric Co. and computer giant Apple Inc., announced they were leaving the chamber after one of its officials said it planned to stage the environmental equivalent of the "Scopes monkey trial" -- a reference to an early 20th century court case in which prosecutors attacked the scientific foundations of the theory of evolution.
Chamber President Tom Donohue said he was "not particularly worried" about the companies' departure, blaming their actions on an "orchestrated pressure campaign" by environmental groups.
In addition to PG&E and Apple, PNM Resources Inc., a New Mexico utility company, and Exelon Corp., based in Chicago and the nation's largest power company, have quit the U.S. chamber entirely. Sports footwear maker Nike Inc. resigned from the group's board of directors but remains a member.
The companies that left have largely argued that business should come to terms with the future implications of climate change and seek ways to prosper in a greener environment. The chamber, and many of its members, have argued that policies that attack climate change too aggressively could cost jobs, hurt profits and raise consumer prices -- weakening an already battered economy.
The chamber opposed the climate bill that passed the House, but Donohue said at a news briefing that the organization favored what he called sensible legislation designed to curb climate change without impeding job growth -- possibly including a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system to limit greenhouse gas emissions.
The group has also threatened to sue the Environmental Protection Agency over proposed greenhouse gas regulations the chamber says could bring the American economy to its knees.
Donohue has worked to distance the chamber from the source of the Scopes remark, which has plagued the group since late August, when a chamber vice president, William Kovacs, said in an interview with the Tribune Washington bureau that the group was pushing for a Scopes monkey trial on whether global warming truly endangers human health.
On Thursday, Donohue called those comments unfortunate and said they went too far.
"We are not arguing the science" of global warming, he said. "You are not going to get me to go against the science because, by the way, I know a lot of things, but I don't know about the science."
Environmentalists, who frequently clash with the chamber on policy issues, have sought to capitalize on the Scopes remark.
The Natural Resources Defense Council has issued news releases celebrating each defection from the chamber, and it has launched an accompanying ad campaign online and in print this week.
The chamber has responded, first with a news release reiterating its support for "sensible" climate legislation, then with an aggressive response to Apple this week that accused the company of having its facts wrong on the chamber's climate stance.
"We're not changing where we are" because of the companies that have left the group, Donohue said. "We thought long and hard about what was important here, and we're not going anywhere."
He said there was "almost nobody" among the chamber's 3 million members pushing for changes in the organization's climate policy.
He said the chamber would continue to pressure the EPA to be transparent about the research it is using as a basis of greenhouse gas regulations. But he raised the possibility of amending a complaint against the EPA to remove passages that questioned whether rising temperatures would erode human health.
"The chamber believes that if EPA continues down a regulatory path that will impact virtually the entire economy, it should be as transparent as possible and explain how it arrived at its decision," said chamber spokesman Eric Wohlschlegel.
Environmentalists rejected the distinction.
"You can't say the science of global warming is fine, but the science behind [EPA regulation] is not," said Josh Dorner, a spokesman for Clean Energy Works, a consortium of groups pushing for climate legislation. "That's a distinction without a difference."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)