The news that President Barack Obama had been selected as the Norwegian Nobel committee’s 2009 peace prize winner was met with a near-unanimous non-partisan international response: “Huh?” Even in the President’s own acceptance speech, the chord struck was not so much disagreement as shock.
It is good to see that there are still some surprises in the world, and - in particular - in politics. Still, truly shocking political events - and reactions to them - are rare. Careful observers can see most Hill happenings coming from miles down the road and months ahead of schedule. We know some things will happen already, still our political and media culture waits out the inevitable before allowing events to capture headlines, ride roughshod over public opinion and exert themselves on political discourse.
Borrowing a page from Maureen Dowd’s “imaginings” playbook, this trip to 2010 explains how Washington’s worst-kept secrets will effect the climate change bill by collaring the President and Congressional Dems, and threatening our collective energy future.
FEBRUARY 10, 2010
WASHINGTON, DC
REACTION MIXED AS SENATE CLIMATE BILL GOES TO FLOOR
Critics Assail Compromises While Some Laud Any Action in Time of Political Turmoil
The Senate will likely take up floor debate of its climate bill this week after the proposed legislation was released from committee with considerable compromise put in place to help win votes from reluctant Senators who are facing election-year political pressure and mounting disappointing news about the economy and the war in Afghanistan.
The White House and Congressional Democratic leaders had hoped to have a climate change bill in place before the global climate change conference held in Copenhagen last December. Instead, American negotiators went to the United Nations conference with only the promise of continued domestic effort on greenhouse gas reduction, and observers felt that the Copenhagen conference’s result was all too similar to the Kyoto agreement it was supposed to build upon. While the world left Denmark with a resolution that features very strong aspirational emissions targets, there remains no enforcement mechanism in place, and it is unlikely that the world’s leading emitters will ratify any of the agreement’s most restrictive standards.
The Copenhagen failure took much of the momentum away from domestic climate change legislation, and action on energy and environmental reform has been further hampered as time gets closer to 2010’s mid-term elections and bad news on the economy mounts. Consistent with moribund projections, holiday sales figures were down for a second consecutive year, and the markets took a tumble as cautious investors reacted to retailers’ figures.
The tumble followed earlier market reaction to early January’s fourth quarter earnings announcements, which showed that in spite of stirring signs of economic strength, real recovery is still far from solidified.
The combination of slow sales and low earnings had brought markets back to a point where many observers felt valuation had leveled off from last fall’s slight recovery bubble. But, as final confirmation of double-digit unemployment became reality with last week’s announcement of jobless figures, the market dropped further.
All of the disappointing economic news made it impossible to get a climate change bill to the floor of the Senate without strong trade protections put in place for the domestic industries that are the most energy-intensive.
The protections spurred objections from global trading partners and concerns from observers worldwide that embedding carbon leakage tariff adjustments into the legislation amounts to protectionism and may further stunt economic recovery. Still, Senate negotiators had to include the provisions to win support from Midwestern Democrats who want both to claim progressive credentials by voting for a climate bill, but also needed any such bill to deliver not only protections - but also dollars - for heavy-emitting industries that employ their constituents.
The bill is expected to be debated next week after hearings on the President’s dismissal of General Stanley McChrystal are complete. In late 2009, Obama dismissed McChrystal from his post as commanding general in Afghanistan amid a very public disagreement about troop levels and strategy. The President has faced immense criticism from all sides after dismissing McChrystal. Republicans have criticized him for putting his own “yes man” in charge of executing the plan that McChrystal concocted because he subsequently adopted the recommendation to elevate troop levels. From his left, Obama has faced accusations that escalation is the wrong course and is a repudiation of the “call to action” that he received with his Nobel Peace Prize award last October.
Pundits had expected the Senate climb to be more difficult even than the House’s trials in passing the Waxman-Markey climate bill in early summer last year. Senate rules, election-year pressures and the fact that the House bill relied on heavy support from very populous blue states to win passage all spelled trouble for the Senate bill. Also, Obama’s own clout on the Hill was heavily damaged after last year’s failure to pass a strong health care bill.
Trade protections, heavy dilution of greenhouse has emissions targets, watered-down fuel and building energy efficiency standards, and huge cash handouts to utilities and the oil, gas and coal industries are just some of the elements of the final Senate bill that are drawing fire. As they did for the much-stronger Waxman-Markey bill, leading green groups like Greenpeace are opposing the Senate bill. Others insist that while the bill is imperfect, an incremental approach to energy and environmental legislation may be the best way to proceed.
Whatever the result, it now seems highly unlikely that the House and Senate could possibly agree on a bill in conference committee during this session, and any climate change legislation will likely have to wait until after mid-term elections. Of course, by that time, President Obama will be ramping up his own re-election bid and with hurt feelings among many of the constituencies that supported him in 2008 (gay rights groups and anti-war activists chief among them), Obama may choose to take on some more mainstream initiatives and leave climate change to the side for a while
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Enviros Waging 'Orchestrated Pressure Campaign' on Climate Bill -- U.S. Chamber CEO
U.S. Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Tom Donohue charged today that recent defections of high-profile companies from his group are part of an "orchestrated pressure campaign" by environmental groups and signaled that his influential business "We're sorry to see them go," Donohue said. "But it is sort of interesting that we have turnover all of the time and these four companies sort of woke up one morning and all decided they were on their own going to quit and put it in the newspaper."
In the past two weeks, Exelon Corp., PNM Resources Inc., PG&E Corp. and Apple Inc. have either resigned or announced plans to do so because of the business association's opposition to potential U.S. EPA regulation of greenhouse gases and a House-passed emissions cap-and-trade bill. Nike Inc. resigned from the chamber's more than 100-member board of directors but vowed to remain a member company.
Donohue said he and other chamber staff members would "keep our minds open" to member concerns, but also underscored that the chamber's climate stance is the result of broad-based deliberations among the chamber's staff, its board and company officials. The chamber opposes EPA regulation of greenhouse gas emissions via the Clean Air Act but supports legislation on climate change at "the earliest possible time," he explained. The more than 3-million-member business association also supports a comprehensive international agreement to reduce global emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases.
Donohue said he is confident that the chamber's policy position is shared by the "great majority of the American people and the business community." He said fewer than a dozen executives of member companies are pressing him to change course.
"This is a time for business and those who represent the business community to be strong," Donohue added. "The current attacks on us will not weaken us. In fact, additional supporters are rallying to our cause all day long."
Donohue's remarks came during an hourlong meeting with reporters where he also discussed the chamber's position on climate science, EPA's proposed regulation of greenhouse gas emissions and how the business lobby crafts policy positions.
The meeting capped a two-week period in which the chamber has gradually but significantly shifted its response to the departure of members. The chamber has gone from not commenting on PG&E's Sept. 22 announcement that it would not renew its chamber membership, to downplaying the importance of two more utilities leaving, to Donohue issuing a statement about the chamber's climate policy position after Nike's board resignation.
Apple resigned from the chamber on Oct. 6, spurring Donohue to send a strongly worded letter to company CEO Steve Jobs and call for a question-and-answer session with national reporters. Former Vice President Al Gore -- who shared a Nobel Peace Prize for his advocacy for action on climate change -- is an Apple board member.
If the chamber is not worried about companies leaving, "it makes me wonder why they had to call a gaggle ... to speak to reporters," said Peter Altman, the Natural Resources Defense Council's climate campaign director. "It obviously worries them greatly."
Altman scoffed at Donohue's charge that environmental companies are mounting an organized campaign to spur chamber member defections.
"It's nice of Donohue to give the environmental movement credit for being able to convince Fortune 500 companies what group they should be a part of," Altman said. "But it's a red herring. These companies are making the decision on their own."
Nike fallout
Donohue rejected claims made by Nike in a recent E&E article that the chamber's board does not vet decisions made on climate policy.
"That member of the board never raised that issue with us before," Donohue said. "That member is a vigorous participant in our transportation committee, attends meetings, participates in policymaking processes, and so fully understands how the policy works."
Donohue did not name Nike, but when asked if that was the company he was referring to, he said Nike was the business that had voiced concerns about governance. won't shift its stance on climate change policy
Donohue said that the board voted on climate issues, but that they were part of a consent calendar, where members are voting on several items at one time. Neither Nike nor any other board member asked for those items to be pulled from the consent calendar and discussed more extensively, he said.
Kate Meyers, a Nike spokeswoman, declined to comment on Donohue's latest remarks.
"We are keeping our eye on the main goal of achieving the passage of meaningful climate change legislation," Meyers added.
Donohue said the chamber board did not vote whether to support or oppose the House-passed emissions cap-and-trade bill. He said that opposing the legislation was a staff decision because it did not meet the principles that the chamber already had approved through its committee and board process.
Fred Palmer, senior vice president of government relations for St. Louis-based Peabody Energy Corp., the world's largest private coal company and a member of the chamber's board of directors, said in an earlier interview that businesses that want to be heard have plenty of opportunity to voice their opinions.
Palmer also said that the chamber's position reflects what most members want.
An official who is knowledgeable of chamber energy policy, but who spoke with E&E on condition of anonymity, said the chamber board acts as more of an adviser than as the final word on policy.
"On policy, it only sets broad positions and principles," the official noted. "Groups within the chamber, like Bill Kovacs' Environment, Technology and Regulatory Affairs shop, develop detailed policy positions in concert with contributors, which include some board members."
"Companies with the largest contributions tend to hold more sway with chamber staff on setting final policy positions," the official added.
Talk of the town
Donohue's comments come as more than 150 clean-energy company executives and investors converge in Washington to make the economic and environmental case for cap-and-trade legislation. President Obama was slated to discuss climate change policy, along with health care and the economy, during lunch today with executives from Amazon.com Inc., FPL Group Inc., Eastman Kodak Co. and Kraft Foods Inc.
The House passed legislation in late June (H.R. 2454 (pdf)) that would cap U.S. greenhouse gas emissions at 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050. Under the legislation's cap-and-trade proposal, power plants and other regulated entities must pollute less or buy and sell emissions allowances to meet the federal targets. The bill, sponsored by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.), also would set a 20 percent renewable energy and energy-efficiency standard by 2020.
Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) introduced companion legislation (pdf) last week that would cap emissions at 20 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050.
The chamber opposed the Waxman-Markey bill, charging that it would put U.S. businesses at a competitive disadvantage with companies in countries that do not cap their emissions. The business group has yet to offer a detailed critique of the Senate's companion legislation, which contains many of the House bill's provisions.
"It is good to have the Chamber of Commerce on board supporting the tenets of Waxman-Markey," Markey said upon hearing of Donohue's bullet points on what the business group supports. "Unfortunately, while the chamber says they are for everything the Waxman-Markey bill addresses, they are just not for the bill itself; the chamber should listen to the companies who would rather leave the group than wait for it to back up their talk with action."
The chamber's recent rift with some of its members has come up often in conversations among clean-energy advocates visiting Washington this week. The fly-in was organized by the investor coalition Ceres and the Clean Economy Network, which counts several chamber companies among its members.
"This issue has really divided the business community," said Nancy Floyd, who runs the San Francisco-based venture capital firm Nth Power LLC. "The divide is not really along traditional players versus technology players; it is across the board."
Floyd said she is not a chamber member but would like the association to get behind the Kerry-Boxer bill.
"This is the biggest economic opportunity to come our way," Floyd said. "It is the most patriotic legislation we can get behind."
Bill Keith, president of SunRise Solar Inc., a St. John, Ind.-based maker of solar-powered ventilation systems, said there has been "a lot of chatter" among executives this week about the chamber defections. Keith is not a chamber member but sits on the group's intellectual property committee.
"I fully respect the chamber, but I think they are missing the mark on the climate issue," Keith said. "For one, they are not scientists, they are the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. They are supposed to represent businesses."
'Scopes Monkey Trial'
Keith was referring to the chamber's August petition of EPA to host an on-the-record hearing, which a top chamber official initially likened to the Scopes Monkey Trial, in which environmental and business groups would engage in a weighing of the scientific evidence that global warming endangers human health (E&ENews PM, Aug. 25). EPA is drafting a finding that would declare that greenhouse gas emissions from new automobiles and their engines contribute to air pollution that endangers public health and welfare.
In recent months, chamber executives have vowed to sue if EPA rejects the chamber's call for scientific debate and moves ahead with the so-called endangerment finding.
Speaking to reporters today, Donohue said he regretted the "Scopes" trial comparison. However, he did not back away from the threat of litigation against EPA.
"If they didn't open the debate on the science and if they went ahead with a massive endangerment finding, there would probably be a line all of the way down the street of people that wanted to challenge," Donohue said.
Donohue's statements that the chamber is not questioning the science of climate change clash with the business group's previous remarks and efforts, charged Altman, who has chronicled the chamber departures on his NRDC blog and launched the Web site whodoesthechamberrepresent.org.
"They have a very clear track record of casting doubt and raising questions about the science on this," Altman said. "You can see that pattern constantly in their communications to the Hill, the general public and their own members. It's completely ludicrous for them to try and pretend that they have not been into climate science denial."
In the meeting with reporters, Donohue did not directly answer a question about whether he believes that humans are causing climate change, instead saying, "This is an issue that the world needs to deal with."
In the past two weeks, Exelon Corp., PNM Resources Inc., PG&E Corp. and Apple Inc. have either resigned or announced plans to do so because of the business association's opposition to potential U.S. EPA regulation of greenhouse gases and a House-passed emissions cap-and-trade bill. Nike Inc. resigned from the chamber's more than 100-member board of directors but vowed to remain a member company.
Donohue said he and other chamber staff members would "keep our minds open" to member concerns, but also underscored that the chamber's climate stance is the result of broad-based deliberations among the chamber's staff, its board and company officials. The chamber opposes EPA regulation of greenhouse gas emissions via the Clean Air Act but supports legislation on climate change at "the earliest possible time," he explained. The more than 3-million-member business association also supports a comprehensive international agreement to reduce global emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases.
Donohue said he is confident that the chamber's policy position is shared by the "great majority of the American people and the business community." He said fewer than a dozen executives of member companies are pressing him to change course.
"This is a time for business and those who represent the business community to be strong," Donohue added. "The current attacks on us will not weaken us. In fact, additional supporters are rallying to our cause all day long."
Donohue's remarks came during an hourlong meeting with reporters where he also discussed the chamber's position on climate science, EPA's proposed regulation of greenhouse gas emissions and how the business lobby crafts policy positions.
The meeting capped a two-week period in which the chamber has gradually but significantly shifted its response to the departure of members. The chamber has gone from not commenting on PG&E's Sept. 22 announcement that it would not renew its chamber membership, to downplaying the importance of two more utilities leaving, to Donohue issuing a statement about the chamber's climate policy position after Nike's board resignation.
Apple resigned from the chamber on Oct. 6, spurring Donohue to send a strongly worded letter to company CEO Steve Jobs and call for a question-and-answer session with national reporters. Former Vice President Al Gore -- who shared a Nobel Peace Prize for his advocacy for action on climate change -- is an Apple board member.
If the chamber is not worried about companies leaving, "it makes me wonder why they had to call a gaggle ... to speak to reporters," said Peter Altman, the Natural Resources Defense Council's climate campaign director. "It obviously worries them greatly."
Altman scoffed at Donohue's charge that environmental companies are mounting an organized campaign to spur chamber member defections.
"It's nice of Donohue to give the environmental movement credit for being able to convince Fortune 500 companies what group they should be a part of," Altman said. "But it's a red herring. These companies are making the decision on their own."
Nike fallout
Donohue rejected claims made by Nike in a recent E&E article that the chamber's board does not vet decisions made on climate policy.
"That member of the board never raised that issue with us before," Donohue said. "That member is a vigorous participant in our transportation committee, attends meetings, participates in policymaking processes, and so fully understands how the policy works."
Donohue did not name Nike, but when asked if that was the company he was referring to, he said Nike was the business that had voiced concerns about governance. won't shift its stance on climate change policy
Donohue said that the board voted on climate issues, but that they were part of a consent calendar, where members are voting on several items at one time. Neither Nike nor any other board member asked for those items to be pulled from the consent calendar and discussed more extensively, he said.
Kate Meyers, a Nike spokeswoman, declined to comment on Donohue's latest remarks.
"We are keeping our eye on the main goal of achieving the passage of meaningful climate change legislation," Meyers added.
Donohue said the chamber board did not vote whether to support or oppose the House-passed emissions cap-and-trade bill. He said that opposing the legislation was a staff decision because it did not meet the principles that the chamber already had approved through its committee and board process.
Fred Palmer, senior vice president of government relations for St. Louis-based Peabody Energy Corp., the world's largest private coal company and a member of the chamber's board of directors, said in an earlier interview that businesses that want to be heard have plenty of opportunity to voice their opinions.
Palmer also said that the chamber's position reflects what most members want.
An official who is knowledgeable of chamber energy policy, but who spoke with E&E on condition of anonymity, said the chamber board acts as more of an adviser than as the final word on policy.
"On policy, it only sets broad positions and principles," the official noted. "Groups within the chamber, like Bill Kovacs' Environment, Technology and Regulatory Affairs shop, develop detailed policy positions in concert with contributors, which include some board members."
"Companies with the largest contributions tend to hold more sway with chamber staff on setting final policy positions," the official added.
Talk of the town
Donohue's comments come as more than 150 clean-energy company executives and investors converge in Washington to make the economic and environmental case for cap-and-trade legislation. President Obama was slated to discuss climate change policy, along with health care and the economy, during lunch today with executives from Amazon.com Inc., FPL Group Inc., Eastman Kodak Co. and Kraft Foods Inc.
The House passed legislation in late June (H.R. 2454 (pdf)) that would cap U.S. greenhouse gas emissions at 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050. Under the legislation's cap-and-trade proposal, power plants and other regulated entities must pollute less or buy and sell emissions allowances to meet the federal targets. The bill, sponsored by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.), also would set a 20 percent renewable energy and energy-efficiency standard by 2020.
Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) introduced companion legislation (pdf) last week that would cap emissions at 20 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050.
The chamber opposed the Waxman-Markey bill, charging that it would put U.S. businesses at a competitive disadvantage with companies in countries that do not cap their emissions. The business group has yet to offer a detailed critique of the Senate's companion legislation, which contains many of the House bill's provisions.
"It is good to have the Chamber of Commerce on board supporting the tenets of Waxman-Markey," Markey said upon hearing of Donohue's bullet points on what the business group supports. "Unfortunately, while the chamber says they are for everything the Waxman-Markey bill addresses, they are just not for the bill itself; the chamber should listen to the companies who would rather leave the group than wait for it to back up their talk with action."
The chamber's recent rift with some of its members has come up often in conversations among clean-energy advocates visiting Washington this week. The fly-in was organized by the investor coalition Ceres and the Clean Economy Network, which counts several chamber companies among its members.
"This issue has really divided the business community," said Nancy Floyd, who runs the San Francisco-based venture capital firm Nth Power LLC. "The divide is not really along traditional players versus technology players; it is across the board."
Floyd said she is not a chamber member but would like the association to get behind the Kerry-Boxer bill.
"This is the biggest economic opportunity to come our way," Floyd said. "It is the most patriotic legislation we can get behind."
Bill Keith, president of SunRise Solar Inc., a St. John, Ind.-based maker of solar-powered ventilation systems, said there has been "a lot of chatter" among executives this week about the chamber defections. Keith is not a chamber member but sits on the group's intellectual property committee.
"I fully respect the chamber, but I think they are missing the mark on the climate issue," Keith said. "For one, they are not scientists, they are the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. They are supposed to represent businesses."
'Scopes Monkey Trial'
Keith was referring to the chamber's August petition of EPA to host an on-the-record hearing, which a top chamber official initially likened to the Scopes Monkey Trial, in which environmental and business groups would engage in a weighing of the scientific evidence that global warming endangers human health (E&ENews PM, Aug. 25). EPA is drafting a finding that would declare that greenhouse gas emissions from new automobiles and their engines contribute to air pollution that endangers public health and welfare.
In recent months, chamber executives have vowed to sue if EPA rejects the chamber's call for scientific debate and moves ahead with the so-called endangerment finding.
Speaking to reporters today, Donohue said he regretted the "Scopes" trial comparison. However, he did not back away from the threat of litigation against EPA.
"If they didn't open the debate on the science and if they went ahead with a massive endangerment finding, there would probably be a line all of the way down the street of people that wanted to challenge," Donohue said.
Donohue's statements that the chamber is not questioning the science of climate change clash with the business group's previous remarks and efforts, charged Altman, who has chronicled the chamber departures on his NRDC blog and launched the Web site whodoesthechamberrepresent.org.
"They have a very clear track record of casting doubt and raising questions about the science on this," Altman said. "You can see that pattern constantly in their communications to the Hill, the general public and their own members. It's completely ludicrous for them to try and pretend that they have not been into climate science denial."
In the meeting with reporters, Donohue did not directly answer a question about whether he believes that humans are causing climate change, instead saying, "This is an issue that the world needs to deal with."
Obama Wins Nobel Prize in Part for Confronting 'Great Climatic Challenges'
President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize today in part for what the award's organizers said was a "more constructive role in meeting the great challenges the world is confronting.
The stunning decision to honor Obama just nine months into his first term caught even the White House off guard.
"Well, this is not how I expected to wake up this morning," Obama said during a Rose Garden speech.
Moments later, the president highlighted his early efforts to rid the world of nuclear weapons and halt the threat of global warming -- work cited by the Nobel Prize committee that is a long way from completion.
"These challenges can't be met by any one leader or any one nation," Obama said. "And that's why my administration has worked to establish a new era of engagement in which all nations must take responsibility for the world we seek."
Turning to global warming, Obama added, "We cannot accept the growing threat posed by climate change, which could forever damage the world that we pass on to our children -- sowing conflict and famine, destroying coastlines and emptying cities. And that's why all nations must now accept their share of responsibility for transforming the way that we use energy."
In Oslo, Thorbjørn Jagland, the chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee and a former prime minister of Norway, explained that Obama's early international diplomacy efforts helped him beat out more than 200 other nominees to become the third sitting U.S. president to win the award. The sitting presidents to win the prize were Theodore Roosevelt in 1906 and Woodrow Wilson in 1919. Former President Jimmy Carter won the award in 2002.
"Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future," Jagland said. "We are not awarding the prize for what may happen in the future, but for what he has done in the previous year. We would hope this will enhance what he is trying to do."
Former Vice President Al Gore, a 2007 Nobel Peace Prize winner for his work on global warming, called Obama's award "thrilling."
"It's extremely well deserved," Gore added during the annual Society of Environmental Journalists conference in Madison, Wis. "Much of what he has accomplished already is going to be far more appreciated in the eyes of history as it has been by the Nobel Committee in their announcement early this morning."
(Click here to listen to and read the transcript of Gore’s comments.)
But the connection between the Nobel Peace Prize and Obama's work on climate change caught many by surprise.
In Washington, Congress remains several giant steps away from passing the global warming legislation that Obama has sought. And Obama administration officials have been under fire on the international front for not taking bold enough steps as world leaders negotiate the contours of a new U.N. treaty to succeed the Kyoto Protocol.
Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists, for example, issued a statement this morning as a preliminary round of U.N. negotiations wrapped up in Thailand. The headline: "U.S. stance retards progress at Bangkok climate talks."
Asked for a reaction to Obama's award, Meyer replied via e-mail: "My guess is he was awarded the prize as much for his efforts to change the tone of the global conversation, re-engage the U.S. with the rest of the world, and listen to others' points of view with respect. The contrast with the previous U.S. president is pretty stark on these fronts, and it's a change that clearly appeals to the Nobel Committee.
"The award is likely more for the promise of what Obama hopes to accomplish on global warming, nuclear weapons reduction, Middle East peace, and other issues than it is for what he's accomplished to date. Whether the award helps the president achieve those objectives remains to be seen."
Timing for Nobel ceremony, U.N. talks
Other environmental groups remained cautious about the Nobel Peace Prize award, given the pressure on the Obama administration to show greater leadership headed into this December's major U.N. summit in Copenhagen, Denmark, where much of the treaty is expected to be finished.
Friends of the Earth President Erich Pica said Obama's award "reflects his commitment to tackle profoundly important issues and re-engage the world community, as well as his ability to inspire hope and optimism that bold change is possible."
We have concerns though, that the Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded President Obama this award on the basis of expectations that have not yet been met," Pica added. "While President Obama has pledged to solve climate change at the international level, it is important to note the United States is still playing a counterproductive role in the ongoing climate negotiations. At this moment, U.S. negotiators are in Bangkok attempting to undermine existing agreements and shirk wealthy nations' responsibility to lead the way in solving the climate crisis."
"If President Obama is to be a true Nobel Peace laureate, he must engage personally to reverse his country's current blocking role in the climate negotiations to secure a fair, ambitious and binding deal for the climate this December," said Gerd Leipold, executive director of Greenpeace International. "He must use his power to avert future climate conflicts and chaos."
Several environmentalists highlighted the coincidental timing of the Nobel award ceremony in Oslo on Dec. 10 to the Copenhagen negotiations, which run Dec. 7-18.
Gore said in Wisconsin today that while he had no inside information, he was "certain President Obama will go to Copenhagen." In 2007, Gore flew from his Nobel award ceremony in Oslo to Bali, Indonesia, for the U.N. climate talks there.
But Meyer said the timing may be awkward, considering that the Danish organizers hoped to bring together heads of state closer to the end of the talks.
"So the logistics are tricky," Meyer said. "He wouldn't likely fly directly from Oslo to Copenhagen, the way Gore did from Oslo to Bali in 2007, as it would be too early to join other leaders in presiding over the final deal. But the optics of going twice to Scandinavian countries in three months for other reasons, and then skipping the climate summit, might give the White House pause, especially if other prominent world leaders have committees to go."
"I hope this encourages President Obama to bring an ambitious target to Copenhagen," Yvo de Boer, the United Nations' top climate official, said via e-mail from Bangkok.
Critics
Some of Obama's critics from the right also had their own interpretation of the Nobel Peace Prize award.
"The real question Americans are asking is, 'What has President Obama actually accomplished?'" Michael Steele, the head of the Republican National Committee, said in a press release. "It is unfortunate that the president's star power has outshined tireless advocates who have made real achievements working towards peace and human rights."
Obama, Steele added, "won't be receiving any awards from Americans for job creation, fiscal responsibility, or backing up rhetoric with concrete action."
Iain Martin, deputy editor of the Wall Street Journal Europe, questioned the timing of the award so soon into Obama's administration.
"Of course, traditionally it has been standard procedure that winners of the prize do their peacemaking first and are only given the prize after they have achieved something," Martin wrote this morning. "But this innovation sweeps aside such old-fashioned notions of reward following effort. Think about it, it's so post-modern: a leader can now win the peace prize for saying that he hopes to bring about peace at some point in the future. He doesn't actually have to do it, he just has to have aspirations. Brilliant."
On Capitol Hill, Texas Republican Rep. Joe Barton spokesman Larry Neal issued this statement in response to a question about Obama's award:
"The earth and I are more like cousins than actual friends, but I have to admit that it and the sun did a darned good job with the tomatoes in my back yard this summer. I can assure you that represents a decisive break from the past. I don't expect a Nobel for my bright promise of next year's tasty Beefsteaks and Early Girls, but now that they've started giving Nobel prizes for good things that could happen in the future, I'm as eligible as the next guy, right? As for now, well, I'm no Hendrick Danckerts -- who is? -- but I'm still a little disappointed to be overlooked. I even think they knew about my plans to build a shed."
Danckerts was a 17th century Dutch painter and engraver.
The stunning decision to honor Obama just nine months into his first term caught even the White House off guard.
"Well, this is not how I expected to wake up this morning," Obama said during a Rose Garden speech.
Moments later, the president highlighted his early efforts to rid the world of nuclear weapons and halt the threat of global warming -- work cited by the Nobel Prize committee that is a long way from completion.
"These challenges can't be met by any one leader or any one nation," Obama said. "And that's why my administration has worked to establish a new era of engagement in which all nations must take responsibility for the world we seek."
Turning to global warming, Obama added, "We cannot accept the growing threat posed by climate change, which could forever damage the world that we pass on to our children -- sowing conflict and famine, destroying coastlines and emptying cities. And that's why all nations must now accept their share of responsibility for transforming the way that we use energy."
In Oslo, Thorbjørn Jagland, the chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee and a former prime minister of Norway, explained that Obama's early international diplomacy efforts helped him beat out more than 200 other nominees to become the third sitting U.S. president to win the award. The sitting presidents to win the prize were Theodore Roosevelt in 1906 and Woodrow Wilson in 1919. Former President Jimmy Carter won the award in 2002.
"Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future," Jagland said. "We are not awarding the prize for what may happen in the future, but for what he has done in the previous year. We would hope this will enhance what he is trying to do."
Former Vice President Al Gore, a 2007 Nobel Peace Prize winner for his work on global warming, called Obama's award "thrilling."
"It's extremely well deserved," Gore added during the annual Society of Environmental Journalists conference in Madison, Wis. "Much of what he has accomplished already is going to be far more appreciated in the eyes of history as it has been by the Nobel Committee in their announcement early this morning."
(Click here to listen to and read the transcript of Gore’s comments.)
But the connection between the Nobel Peace Prize and Obama's work on climate change caught many by surprise.
In Washington, Congress remains several giant steps away from passing the global warming legislation that Obama has sought. And Obama administration officials have been under fire on the international front for not taking bold enough steps as world leaders negotiate the contours of a new U.N. treaty to succeed the Kyoto Protocol.
Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists, for example, issued a statement this morning as a preliminary round of U.N. negotiations wrapped up in Thailand. The headline: "U.S. stance retards progress at Bangkok climate talks."
Asked for a reaction to Obama's award, Meyer replied via e-mail: "My guess is he was awarded the prize as much for his efforts to change the tone of the global conversation, re-engage the U.S. with the rest of the world, and listen to others' points of view with respect. The contrast with the previous U.S. president is pretty stark on these fronts, and it's a change that clearly appeals to the Nobel Committee.
"The award is likely more for the promise of what Obama hopes to accomplish on global warming, nuclear weapons reduction, Middle East peace, and other issues than it is for what he's accomplished to date. Whether the award helps the president achieve those objectives remains to be seen."
Timing for Nobel ceremony, U.N. talks
Other environmental groups remained cautious about the Nobel Peace Prize award, given the pressure on the Obama administration to show greater leadership headed into this December's major U.N. summit in Copenhagen, Denmark, where much of the treaty is expected to be finished.
Friends of the Earth President Erich Pica said Obama's award "reflects his commitment to tackle profoundly important issues and re-engage the world community, as well as his ability to inspire hope and optimism that bold change is possible."
We have concerns though, that the Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded President Obama this award on the basis of expectations that have not yet been met," Pica added. "While President Obama has pledged to solve climate change at the international level, it is important to note the United States is still playing a counterproductive role in the ongoing climate negotiations. At this moment, U.S. negotiators are in Bangkok attempting to undermine existing agreements and shirk wealthy nations' responsibility to lead the way in solving the climate crisis."
"If President Obama is to be a true Nobel Peace laureate, he must engage personally to reverse his country's current blocking role in the climate negotiations to secure a fair, ambitious and binding deal for the climate this December," said Gerd Leipold, executive director of Greenpeace International. "He must use his power to avert future climate conflicts and chaos."
Several environmentalists highlighted the coincidental timing of the Nobel award ceremony in Oslo on Dec. 10 to the Copenhagen negotiations, which run Dec. 7-18.
Gore said in Wisconsin today that while he had no inside information, he was "certain President Obama will go to Copenhagen." In 2007, Gore flew from his Nobel award ceremony in Oslo to Bali, Indonesia, for the U.N. climate talks there.
But Meyer said the timing may be awkward, considering that the Danish organizers hoped to bring together heads of state closer to the end of the talks.
"So the logistics are tricky," Meyer said. "He wouldn't likely fly directly from Oslo to Copenhagen, the way Gore did from Oslo to Bali in 2007, as it would be too early to join other leaders in presiding over the final deal. But the optics of going twice to Scandinavian countries in three months for other reasons, and then skipping the climate summit, might give the White House pause, especially if other prominent world leaders have committees to go."
"I hope this encourages President Obama to bring an ambitious target to Copenhagen," Yvo de Boer, the United Nations' top climate official, said via e-mail from Bangkok.
Critics
Some of Obama's critics from the right also had their own interpretation of the Nobel Peace Prize award.
"The real question Americans are asking is, 'What has President Obama actually accomplished?'" Michael Steele, the head of the Republican National Committee, said in a press release. "It is unfortunate that the president's star power has outshined tireless advocates who have made real achievements working towards peace and human rights."
Obama, Steele added, "won't be receiving any awards from Americans for job creation, fiscal responsibility, or backing up rhetoric with concrete action."
Iain Martin, deputy editor of the Wall Street Journal Europe, questioned the timing of the award so soon into Obama's administration.
"Of course, traditionally it has been standard procedure that winners of the prize do their peacemaking first and are only given the prize after they have achieved something," Martin wrote this morning. "But this innovation sweeps aside such old-fashioned notions of reward following effort. Think about it, it's so post-modern: a leader can now win the peace prize for saying that he hopes to bring about peace at some point in the future. He doesn't actually have to do it, he just has to have aspirations. Brilliant."
On Capitol Hill, Texas Republican Rep. Joe Barton spokesman Larry Neal issued this statement in response to a question about Obama's award:
"The earth and I are more like cousins than actual friends, but I have to admit that it and the sun did a darned good job with the tomatoes in my back yard this summer. I can assure you that represents a decisive break from the past. I don't expect a Nobel for my bright promise of next year's tasty Beefsteaks and Early Girls, but now that they've started giving Nobel prizes for good things that could happen in the future, I'm as eligible as the next guy, right? As for now, well, I'm no Hendrick Danckerts -- who is? -- but I'm still a little disappointed to be overlooked. I even think they knew about my plans to build a shed."
Danckerts was a 17th century Dutch painter and engraver.
Indian minister urges pared down climate deal
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
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
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)