Seventy million Indians have been re-classified as overweight or obese, after a lowering of obesity thresholds by a diabetes research organisations based here.
This threshold has been lowered for India as South Asian people are more liable than their white counterparts to develop obesity-linked conditions like Type 2 (T-2) diabetes and heart disease. “We know that T-2 diabetes, which is linked to being overweight, is up to six times more common in South Asian people than the white population,” said Pav Kalsi, care adviser at Diabetes-UK. Standards used worldwide to tell when someone is overweight or obese are based on data from white people. These state that people with a body mass index
(BMI) of 25 or more are overweight and obese if it goes above 30. BMI is calculated using weight and height. In India those limits have been lowered to 23 for being overweight and 25 for being obese, to reflect the risks to the population. Indians also have lower thresholds for waist circumference measurements.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Variation in monsoon not due to climate change: Ramesh
Climate model studies has shown no significant impact on change in the mean onset of monsoon in the country, government said.
The long-term mean onset date of monsoon in India is 1st June, with a standard deviation of about 8 days," Environment minister Jairam Ramesh informed Rajya Sabha. "However, year to year variations in the onset or the propagation are part of the natural variability and cannot be attributed to climate change," he said. He however, added that "the government is aware of the challenges posed by climate change and has taken steps in this regard," Ramesh said the National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) which was released on 30th June last year outlines steps that will enable the country to adapt to climate change and enhance the ecological sustainability of India's development path. Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology (IITM) in Pune is a dedicated centre for climate change research set up to undertake focused research on the science aspects of climate change, the minister added.
The long-term mean onset date of monsoon in India is 1st June, with a standard deviation of about 8 days," Environment minister Jairam Ramesh informed Rajya Sabha. "However, year to year variations in the onset or the propagation are part of the natural variability and cannot be attributed to climate change," he said. He however, added that "the government is aware of the challenges posed by climate change and has taken steps in this regard," Ramesh said the National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) which was released on 30th June last year outlines steps that will enable the country to adapt to climate change and enhance the ecological sustainability of India's development path. Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology (IITM) in Pune is a dedicated centre for climate change research set up to undertake focused research on the science aspects of climate change, the minister added.
Mystery mechanism drove global warming 55m years ago
A runaway spurt of global warming
55 million years ago turned Earth into a hothouse but how this happened remains worryingly unclear, scientists said.
Previous research into this period, called the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, or PETM, estimates the planet's surface temperature blasted upwards by between five and nine degrees Celsius in just a few thousand years. The Arctic Ocean warmed to 23 C, or about the temperature of a lukewarm bath. How PETM happened is unclear but climatologists are eager to find out, as this could shed light on aspects of global warming. What seems clear is that a huge amount of heat-trapping "greenhouse" gases -- natural, as opposed to man-made -- were disgorged in a very short time. The theorised sources include volcanic activity and the sudden release of methane hydrates in the ocean. Even though there are big differences between Earth's geology and ice cover then and now, the findings are relevant as they highlight the risk of hidden mechanisms that add dramatically to warming, says the paper. After the big warm-up, the planet eventually cooled around 100,000 years later, but not before there had been a mass extinction, paving the way to the biodiversity that is familiar to us today.
55 million years ago turned Earth into a hothouse but how this happened remains worryingly unclear, scientists said.
Previous research into this period, called the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, or PETM, estimates the planet's surface temperature blasted upwards by between five and nine degrees Celsius in just a few thousand years. The Arctic Ocean warmed to 23 C, or about the temperature of a lukewarm bath. How PETM happened is unclear but climatologists are eager to find out, as this could shed light on aspects of global warming. What seems clear is that a huge amount of heat-trapping "greenhouse" gases -- natural, as opposed to man-made -- were disgorged in a very short time. The theorised sources include volcanic activity and the sudden release of methane hydrates in the ocean. Even though there are big differences between Earth's geology and ice cover then and now, the findings are relevant as they highlight the risk of hidden mechanisms that add dramatically to warming, says the paper. After the big warm-up, the planet eventually cooled around 100,000 years later, but not before there had been a mass extinction, paving the way to the biodiversity that is familiar to us today.
Negotiators slam India's climate flip at Italy forum
India's endorsement of the climate declaration at the Major Economies Forum in Italy has split its top climate negotiators. In a strong dissent, one of negotiators called Prime Minister Manmohan Singhs signing on to the statement a body blow to everything that we( the indian officials) have fought for.
In his letter to the government, the negotiator, a senior government official, said "India's poor will pay the price for this political declaration". He added, "Irrespective of the positive spin we might give, the honest truth is that the document boxes India in an extremely weak corner. I feel broken and let down. I hope I am wrong and I am afraid to be proven right." The communication lays it bare that the statement had taken the negotiators by surprise and can potentially set off the stage for huge uproar. The clause in the MEF statement that rise in global temperatures be capped at 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels has been interpreted as indirectly foisting emission caps on India ^ something that the country doggedly refused to do on the ground that it would hinder its development. Now the fear has been endorsed by at least one of the negotiators on government records. The negotiators for climate talks under UN and other forums are drawn from various government bodies and are all high-level officials. The PM's special envoy on climate change, Shyam Saran, is the chief negotiator for India. At the MEF, he and another officer from the foreign ministry represented India. While Saran, in a letter to the negotiators, defended the PM's signing of the statement and said it did not compromise the Indian position, the dissenting negotiator and other observers TOI talked to have assessed the situation differently. The negotiator said the political declaration in Italy would "seriously restrict" India's development. As TOI had reported earlier, till weeks before the Italy meeting, India had stuck to its guns and refused to budge under tremendous pressure from UK and the Obama regime as well as other industrialized countries to be party to the pledge to keep global temperatures from increasing by more than 2 degrees centigrade above the pre-industrial level. India had claimed that the science behind the 2-degree target was yet uncertain and, importantly, it implied emission cuts on India through the backdoor. Refusing to acquiesce, it also argued that the rich nations first declare how much of the burden of reducing emissions they were willing to take in the short and long run. But at the Italy meet, India shifted its goal posts and agreed to the 2-degree and several other contentious clauses that it earlier considered non-negotiable. While the MEF statement was a mere political one in nature and not binding on the ongoing UN negotiations, observers feel that having joined the advocacy for temperature cap and other clauses, India may find it difficult to stick to its earlier stance. It will reduce India's bargaining position at the climate table even in an optimistic scenario. In the statement, the developed countries had disregarded India's demand that they agree to take "strong and quantifiable" emission targets running upto 2020. In another letter, the negotiator explained why the MEF statement would 'box India into a corner' and militates against the country's long-standing demand that the climate negotiations be held on the principle that each person of the world has an equal right to the atmosphere. He said, "The declaration in Italy would allow Indian emissions to peak at about 3 tonnes per capita (of carbon dioxide)." An average US citizen already emits 20 tonnes per capita and a UK citizen 10 tonnes per capita. China, other observers note would be able to get away as it is already at 6 tonnes per person and would be able to reach up to the developed world average of 10 tonnes per capita by the time emission caps kick in. Emissions in the developed world have grown in absolute and per capita terms right up to 2007 and would have grown higher if not for one off incidents like the failure of Eastern European economies. He warns that the only equitable solution to climate change in one that guarantees development space to every citizen at an acceptable level of well-being. This he points is enshrined even in the existing UN convention on climate change that rich countries are signatories to but now want to override with ploys like the MEF. He said that the rich countries had made no concession by the "aspirational goal" of bringing down their emission levels to 85% below 1990 levels by 2050. Assuming that they lived up to the pledge, it would still allow them to continue to occupy more 'carbon space' in decades to come compared to other developing nations. Under an equitable deal, he points out, that countries holding 'atmospheric space' in excess of their allocation would pay their climate debt - the full costs of emission reductions of other developing countries which are forced to act because the rich nations didn't do enough. But he avers that by agreeing to the ideas in the MEF statement India gives up its right to the atmospheric space without gaining either the finance or the technology in adequate levels to compensate it.
In his letter to the government, the negotiator, a senior government official, said "India's poor will pay the price for this political declaration". He added, "Irrespective of the positive spin we might give, the honest truth is that the document boxes India in an extremely weak corner. I feel broken and let down. I hope I am wrong and I am afraid to be proven right." The communication lays it bare that the statement had taken the negotiators by surprise and can potentially set off the stage for huge uproar. The clause in the MEF statement that rise in global temperatures be capped at 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels has been interpreted as indirectly foisting emission caps on India ^ something that the country doggedly refused to do on the ground that it would hinder its development. Now the fear has been endorsed by at least one of the negotiators on government records. The negotiators for climate talks under UN and other forums are drawn from various government bodies and are all high-level officials. The PM's special envoy on climate change, Shyam Saran, is the chief negotiator for India. At the MEF, he and another officer from the foreign ministry represented India. While Saran, in a letter to the negotiators, defended the PM's signing of the statement and said it did not compromise the Indian position, the dissenting negotiator and other observers TOI talked to have assessed the situation differently. The negotiator said the political declaration in Italy would "seriously restrict" India's development. As TOI had reported earlier, till weeks before the Italy meeting, India had stuck to its guns and refused to budge under tremendous pressure from UK and the Obama regime as well as other industrialized countries to be party to the pledge to keep global temperatures from increasing by more than 2 degrees centigrade above the pre-industrial level. India had claimed that the science behind the 2-degree target was yet uncertain and, importantly, it implied emission cuts on India through the backdoor. Refusing to acquiesce, it also argued that the rich nations first declare how much of the burden of reducing emissions they were willing to take in the short and long run. But at the Italy meet, India shifted its goal posts and agreed to the 2-degree and several other contentious clauses that it earlier considered non-negotiable. While the MEF statement was a mere political one in nature and not binding on the ongoing UN negotiations, observers feel that having joined the advocacy for temperature cap and other clauses, India may find it difficult to stick to its earlier stance. It will reduce India's bargaining position at the climate table even in an optimistic scenario. In the statement, the developed countries had disregarded India's demand that they agree to take "strong and quantifiable" emission targets running upto 2020. In another letter, the negotiator explained why the MEF statement would 'box India into a corner' and militates against the country's long-standing demand that the climate negotiations be held on the principle that each person of the world has an equal right to the atmosphere. He said, "The declaration in Italy would allow Indian emissions to peak at about 3 tonnes per capita (of carbon dioxide)." An average US citizen already emits 20 tonnes per capita and a UK citizen 10 tonnes per capita. China, other observers note would be able to get away as it is already at 6 tonnes per person and would be able to reach up to the developed world average of 10 tonnes per capita by the time emission caps kick in. Emissions in the developed world have grown in absolute and per capita terms right up to 2007 and would have grown higher if not for one off incidents like the failure of Eastern European economies. He warns that the only equitable solution to climate change in one that guarantees development space to every citizen at an acceptable level of well-being. This he points is enshrined even in the existing UN convention on climate change that rich countries are signatories to but now want to override with ploys like the MEF. He said that the rich countries had made no concession by the "aspirational goal" of bringing down their emission levels to 85% below 1990 levels by 2050. Assuming that they lived up to the pledge, it would still allow them to continue to occupy more 'carbon space' in decades to come compared to other developing nations. Under an equitable deal, he points out, that countries holding 'atmospheric space' in excess of their allocation would pay their climate debt - the full costs of emission reductions of other developing countries which are forced to act because the rich nations didn't do enough. But he avers that by agreeing to the ideas in the MEF statement India gives up its right to the atmospheric space without gaining either the finance or the technology in adequate levels to compensate it.
Sen. Boxer Courts Farmers to Seek 'Rare Opportunity' for Climate Bill
Senate Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) vowed yesterday to include a major role for agriculture in her climate bill despite mounting criticism from some farm groups and Republicans.
At a hearing on the opportunities for agriculture in the climate bill, Boxer indicated she has no intention of stepping down as she fought back against critics of the bill. The powerful Senate chairwoman, who noted that she represents the top farm producing state, also tried to strike down any notion that the costs of the bill might be too high for agriculture.
(pdf)
"If we do nothing and argue over this to the point of stalling everything, the farmers in my state will be desperate, as they see more droughts and more warming," Boxer said. "This is a rare time, we have the confluence of a recession that is deep and global and the issue of climate change -- it creates an exceptional opportunity, if we can just get over our fearmongering and get over the naysayers."
Her remarks came as Republicans on the EPW Committee and the president of one of the largest farm lobbies, the American Farm Bureau Federation, criticized the House cap-and-trade bill (H.R. 2454), which Boxer has said will be her starting point for the Senate legislation.
"I have strong concerns about whether this legislation will in the end result in higher costs for farmers," said Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho). "But I would like to find a win-win situation for everyone."
Farm interests are likely to be a major factor in the Senate debate. Senate Agriculture Chairman Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) has said he wants the Senate to include all of the farm-friendly provisions that were in the House bill. His panel will hold a hearing on the issue next week, with testimony from Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, the Farm Bureau and other farm groups that support cap-and-trade legislation.
The Farm Bureau and GOP lawmakers on Boxer's committee yesterday listed the potential harm to the rural economy among their grievances against the bill. Boxer also shot back at some high-profile criticism from retiring Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R), who joined the climate debate yesterday by blasting the cap-and-trade proposal as "an enormous threat to our economy." Boxer said such critiques are to be expected with such a wide-ranging bill.
"I would just tell the American people to take a look at history," said Boxer. "Every single time we've moved forward to go after pollution, the naysayers have been wrong about their predicted costs, about the gloom and doom, and we have in fact led the way."
As Boxer searches for the elusive 60 votes she will need to pass the bill, she said that everyone will have to compromise in order to craft a bill that could pass in the Senate.
"I am going to have to walk away from some things I believe should be in the bill," Boxer said.
'This could transform agriculture'
Farm groups are divided on the bill. The National Farmer's Union, an influential left-leaning group, supported the House measure, along with farmland conservation groups, such as the American Farmland Trust. But the proposal has met opposition from the Farm Bureau and some major commodity groups, including the National Cattlemen's Beef Association and the National Chicken Council.
Supporters of the bill say it could provide tremendous opportunities to rural landowners. The House-passed bill would allow regulated industries that cannot meet greenhouse gas reductions at the smokestack to buy offset credits by investing in green energy or greenhouse gas reduction projects. The provision could significantly reduce compliance costs for some industries.
The offset market could be a boon to farmers and other landowners who plant extra trees to absorb carbon dioxide, use new technology to feed livestock, install methane capture systems over animal waste lagoons or practice no-till farming to store carbon in the soil.
The offsets could pose some challenges in the Senate bill, as some environmental groups have begun to question whether these projects will measurable reduce carbon dioxide overall. But most groups insist some form of offsets will be vital for the bill to gain political traction and work on the ground.
"An effective climate solution must include offsets," Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense Fund, told the panel yesterday. "I know the topic of carbon offsets can be controversial and advocates all have very strong opinions. But the climate program we all want just doesn't work without these things."
Krupp added: "These [offsets] aren't just important cost-saving devices, these are vital."
Democratic panel members indicated yesterday they want to include a robust offset system, so long as it has environmental checks.
"There is a tremendous amount of sequestering potential, but we have to have it work," said Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.). "It has to have a high level of integrity, if there is too much of a loophole it will be irrelevant and ineffective."
But the potential profit to farmers from offsets is still not enough to win over the Farm Bureau, Stallman said yesterday. He said that not every type of farmer in every region will be able to participate. Meanwhile, his group is concerned the bill will lead to higher energy and fertilizer costs for farmers.
"Every farmer has production costs to meet, and we know our costs will rise and the concern is for our livelihood," Stallman said.
William Hohenstein, director of the Agriculture Department's global change program, agreed that the agriculture sector will face higher energy and input costs due to their reliance on products that are included under the cap. But he said the bill could provide "significant economic opportunities."
H.R. 2454 includes a billion-ton limit on the use of domestic greenhouse gas offsets. The offsets would likely go toward a wide-range of activities, but Hohenstein said it would be roughly the equivalent to planting 170 million acres of trees or switching to no-till farming on 1.5 billion acres of cropland -- three times the total cropland in the United States.
"What I am trying to say is that this thing is really significant," Hohenstein told reporters after the hearing. "This could transform agriculture, and to do that we will have to engage tens of thousands of acres of land."
Boxer said she will keep promoting those opportunities for agriculture -- which she thinks should far outweigh some of the potential problems the farm sector could face from environmental changes resulting from higher temperatures.
"We need to factor in the cost of doing nothing -- I think if we can get over the mindset of 'no,' we can do something," Boxer said.
At a hearing on the opportunities for agriculture in the climate bill, Boxer indicated she has no intention of stepping down as she fought back against critics of the bill. The powerful Senate chairwoman, who noted that she represents the top farm producing state, also tried to strike down any notion that the costs of the bill might be too high for agriculture.
(pdf)
"If we do nothing and argue over this to the point of stalling everything, the farmers in my state will be desperate, as they see more droughts and more warming," Boxer said. "This is a rare time, we have the confluence of a recession that is deep and global and the issue of climate change -- it creates an exceptional opportunity, if we can just get over our fearmongering and get over the naysayers."
Her remarks came as Republicans on the EPW Committee and the president of one of the largest farm lobbies, the American Farm Bureau Federation, criticized the House cap-and-trade bill (H.R. 2454), which Boxer has said will be her starting point for the Senate legislation.
"I have strong concerns about whether this legislation will in the end result in higher costs for farmers," said Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho). "But I would like to find a win-win situation for everyone."
Farm interests are likely to be a major factor in the Senate debate. Senate Agriculture Chairman Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) has said he wants the Senate to include all of the farm-friendly provisions that were in the House bill. His panel will hold a hearing on the issue next week, with testimony from Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, the Farm Bureau and other farm groups that support cap-and-trade legislation.
The Farm Bureau and GOP lawmakers on Boxer's committee yesterday listed the potential harm to the rural economy among their grievances against the bill. Boxer also shot back at some high-profile criticism from retiring Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R), who joined the climate debate yesterday by blasting the cap-and-trade proposal as "an enormous threat to our economy." Boxer said such critiques are to be expected with such a wide-ranging bill.
"I would just tell the American people to take a look at history," said Boxer. "Every single time we've moved forward to go after pollution, the naysayers have been wrong about their predicted costs, about the gloom and doom, and we have in fact led the way."
As Boxer searches for the elusive 60 votes she will need to pass the bill, she said that everyone will have to compromise in order to craft a bill that could pass in the Senate.
"I am going to have to walk away from some things I believe should be in the bill," Boxer said.
'This could transform agriculture'
Farm groups are divided on the bill. The National Farmer's Union, an influential left-leaning group, supported the House measure, along with farmland conservation groups, such as the American Farmland Trust. But the proposal has met opposition from the Farm Bureau and some major commodity groups, including the National Cattlemen's Beef Association and the National Chicken Council.
Supporters of the bill say it could provide tremendous opportunities to rural landowners. The House-passed bill would allow regulated industries that cannot meet greenhouse gas reductions at the smokestack to buy offset credits by investing in green energy or greenhouse gas reduction projects. The provision could significantly reduce compliance costs for some industries.
The offset market could be a boon to farmers and other landowners who plant extra trees to absorb carbon dioxide, use new technology to feed livestock, install methane capture systems over animal waste lagoons or practice no-till farming to store carbon in the soil.
The offsets could pose some challenges in the Senate bill, as some environmental groups have begun to question whether these projects will measurable reduce carbon dioxide overall. But most groups insist some form of offsets will be vital for the bill to gain political traction and work on the ground.
"An effective climate solution must include offsets," Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense Fund, told the panel yesterday. "I know the topic of carbon offsets can be controversial and advocates all have very strong opinions. But the climate program we all want just doesn't work without these things."
Krupp added: "These [offsets] aren't just important cost-saving devices, these are vital."
Democratic panel members indicated yesterday they want to include a robust offset system, so long as it has environmental checks.
"There is a tremendous amount of sequestering potential, but we have to have it work," said Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.). "It has to have a high level of integrity, if there is too much of a loophole it will be irrelevant and ineffective."
But the potential profit to farmers from offsets is still not enough to win over the Farm Bureau, Stallman said yesterday. He said that not every type of farmer in every region will be able to participate. Meanwhile, his group is concerned the bill will lead to higher energy and fertilizer costs for farmers.
"Every farmer has production costs to meet, and we know our costs will rise and the concern is for our livelihood," Stallman said.
William Hohenstein, director of the Agriculture Department's global change program, agreed that the agriculture sector will face higher energy and input costs due to their reliance on products that are included under the cap. But he said the bill could provide "significant economic opportunities."
H.R. 2454 includes a billion-ton limit on the use of domestic greenhouse gas offsets. The offsets would likely go toward a wide-range of activities, but Hohenstein said it would be roughly the equivalent to planting 170 million acres of trees or switching to no-till farming on 1.5 billion acres of cropland -- three times the total cropland in the United States.
"What I am trying to say is that this thing is really significant," Hohenstein told reporters after the hearing. "This could transform agriculture, and to do that we will have to engage tens of thousands of acres of land."
Boxer said she will keep promoting those opportunities for agriculture -- which she thinks should far outweigh some of the potential problems the farm sector could face from environmental changes resulting from higher temperatures.
"We need to factor in the cost of doing nothing -- I think if we can get over the mindset of 'no,' we can do something," Boxer said.
Senate Eyes Public Transit as Climate Change Solution
Federal strategies for tackling climate change are doomed to fail without concerted efforts to keep Americans out of their cars — efforts that will necessarily include a greater emphasis on public transit, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood told Senate lawmakers Tuesday.
The statement arrives just a few weeks after House lawmakers passed sweeping reforms aimed at reducing the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions, but included in the proposal only meager funding for public transportation projects.
While the Obama administration this year adopted tough new emissions standards that will force automakers to make cleaner cars and trucks, LaHood warned that those efforts alone won’t address the climate change problem if Americans continue to drive as much as they do today. Indeed, even if vehicle fuel efficiencies doubled over the next two decades to 55 miles per gallon, he told members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, the resulting decrease in greenhouse emissions would be merely “modest” without a simultaneous reduction in vehicle-miles traveled, or VMT.
“Addressing VMT growth plays a key role in decreasing transportation related greenhouse-gas emissions and should be included in overall efforts to prevent climate change,” LaHood said. “Failing to recognize the connection between transportation and climate change will likely jeopardize our ability to achieve our [emission] reduction goals.”
LaHood’s comments came as Senate Democrats are still in the process of drafting controversial climate change legislation designed to cut the nation’s emissions more than 80 percent by 2050. Like the House bill, the Senate proposal is expected to feature a cap-and-trade structure that would effectively commodify pollutants, holding the nation’s largest emitters financially accountable for the greenhouse gases they spew. The revenue generated, the theory goes, could then be used to fund renewable-energy technologies and other green initiatives, including public transit projects. Some lawmakers have been pushing for 10 percent of cap-and-trade revenue to go toward public transportation, bike lanes and other “smart-street” initiatives.
After a great deal of political sparring and industry lobbying, however, a very different model emerged from the House. Indeed, under the House proposal, 15 percent of the value of the polluting permits distributed under the cap-and-trade system would go initially to benefit big polluters like the paper, steel and cement industries; 5 percent would target coal-burning power plants; 2 percent would help oil refineries; and another 2 percent would go to electric utilities. But just one percent — or roughly $537 million — would go to fund public transit projects, a real-dollar figure that would rise to roughly $1 billion by 2020.
And Senate passage of a climate bill this year is hardly a certainty. Even with all of the concessions to the polluting industries and their congressional defenders, the House proposal passed the lower chamber last month by the slim count of 219 to 212, with 44 Democrats voting against it. Already, Democratic infighting over the Senate bill has forced party leaders to push the release of the proposal from July to September, when Congress returns from its month-long summer recess.
Environmentalists, state officials and many congressional lawmakers are hoping the delay will allow Senate leaders the time to carve out more room for public transit than House Democrats did. And they cite some strong reasons for their push.
The United States emits about 21 percent of the world’s greenhouse gases, of which nearly 30 percent come from transportation. And, if current trends hold, those numbers are expected to rise precipitously. Indeed, between 1977 and 2007, the number of vehicle-miles traveled by Americans jumped 110 percent even as the population rose just 37 percent, according to Steven Winkelman, director of transportation programs at the Center for Clean Air Policy. Looking ahead, per capita VMT is projected to rise 15 percent by 2030, the Energy Information Administration estimates.
“Although this is a slower growth rate than the recent past, it will effectively offset the emissions savings expected from the improved fuel efficiency and low carbon fuels requirements [of Congress and the Obama administration],” Winkelman told lawmakers Tuesday. Ignoring transportation in climate change legislation, he added, “will neglect opportunities to meet overall emission reduction goals while increasing the burden on other sectors of the economy.”
But it must be done carefully, proponents warned. David Bragdon, president of the Portland Metro Council, cautioned that building new transit infrastructure would be futile without land-use management plans to accompany it. Efforts to prevent sprawl, for example, and to concentrate populations around both public transportation and commercial facilities go a long way to keep people out of cars, he said.
“We can’t simply reform the supply of transportation, we have to reduce demand,” Bragdon testified, “and the way our communities are laid out is a major determinant of demand.”
Conservatives, meanwhile, used Tuesday’s hearing to blast the Democrats for their plans to take up a cap-and-trade bill at all. That strategy, they argue, would force businesses to hike costs on consumers at a time when the country continues to suffer from the financial downturn.
Sen. James Inhofe (Okla.), senior Republican on the Senate Environment panel, pointed to recent layoffs in the trucking industry as just one reason why Democrats should abandon their plans to put a price tag on greenhouse emissions. “If we enact cap-and-trade legislation, fuel prices will rise, and more jobs in the trucking sector will be destroyed,” Inhofe said.
For his part, Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) was more concerned with the cost associated with new high-speed rail and other public transit projects, arguing that the deficit spending is already through the roof in the wake of the long series of financial bailouts.
“How are we gonna pay for it?” Voinovich asked LaHood. “Borrow more money?”
At least one funding option, it appears, is off the table. The 18.4 cent-per-gallon gas tax — though it hasn’t been raised since 1993, nor is it indexed for inflation — is not being eyed for a hike, LaHood assured lawmakers. “We are not for raising the gas tax,” he said.
That’s sure to be music to the ears of many conservatives, who argue that such a tax would cripple businesses and consumers reliant on energy-intensive goods and services. Yet, the idea of a gas-tax hike found an unlikely cheerleader this week, when the U.S. Chamber of Commerce came out in support of a “modest” increase as “the simplest, most straightforward way” to keep up with the nation’s crumbling infrastructure.
“The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has never been accused of being a strong proponent of any kind of tax increases,” Janet Kavinoky, the Chamber’s director of transportation infrastructure wrote for Roll Call Monday. “But taxes paid on gasoline and diesel are different — they are user fees.”
That’s different than saying the money should go to fund public transit. But when the nation’s largest business federation advocates a tax hike, it sure dulls the Republican claim that any such increase would strike a death knell for the country’s small businesses.
The statement arrives just a few weeks after House lawmakers passed sweeping reforms aimed at reducing the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions, but included in the proposal only meager funding for public transportation projects.
While the Obama administration this year adopted tough new emissions standards that will force automakers to make cleaner cars and trucks, LaHood warned that those efforts alone won’t address the climate change problem if Americans continue to drive as much as they do today. Indeed, even if vehicle fuel efficiencies doubled over the next two decades to 55 miles per gallon, he told members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, the resulting decrease in greenhouse emissions would be merely “modest” without a simultaneous reduction in vehicle-miles traveled, or VMT.
“Addressing VMT growth plays a key role in decreasing transportation related greenhouse-gas emissions and should be included in overall efforts to prevent climate change,” LaHood said. “Failing to recognize the connection between transportation and climate change will likely jeopardize our ability to achieve our [emission] reduction goals.”
LaHood’s comments came as Senate Democrats are still in the process of drafting controversial climate change legislation designed to cut the nation’s emissions more than 80 percent by 2050. Like the House bill, the Senate proposal is expected to feature a cap-and-trade structure that would effectively commodify pollutants, holding the nation’s largest emitters financially accountable for the greenhouse gases they spew. The revenue generated, the theory goes, could then be used to fund renewable-energy technologies and other green initiatives, including public transit projects. Some lawmakers have been pushing for 10 percent of cap-and-trade revenue to go toward public transportation, bike lanes and other “smart-street” initiatives.
After a great deal of political sparring and industry lobbying, however, a very different model emerged from the House. Indeed, under the House proposal, 15 percent of the value of the polluting permits distributed under the cap-and-trade system would go initially to benefit big polluters like the paper, steel and cement industries; 5 percent would target coal-burning power plants; 2 percent would help oil refineries; and another 2 percent would go to electric utilities. But just one percent — or roughly $537 million — would go to fund public transit projects, a real-dollar figure that would rise to roughly $1 billion by 2020.
And Senate passage of a climate bill this year is hardly a certainty. Even with all of the concessions to the polluting industries and their congressional defenders, the House proposal passed the lower chamber last month by the slim count of 219 to 212, with 44 Democrats voting against it. Already, Democratic infighting over the Senate bill has forced party leaders to push the release of the proposal from July to September, when Congress returns from its month-long summer recess.
Environmentalists, state officials and many congressional lawmakers are hoping the delay will allow Senate leaders the time to carve out more room for public transit than House Democrats did. And they cite some strong reasons for their push.
The United States emits about 21 percent of the world’s greenhouse gases, of which nearly 30 percent come from transportation. And, if current trends hold, those numbers are expected to rise precipitously. Indeed, between 1977 and 2007, the number of vehicle-miles traveled by Americans jumped 110 percent even as the population rose just 37 percent, according to Steven Winkelman, director of transportation programs at the Center for Clean Air Policy. Looking ahead, per capita VMT is projected to rise 15 percent by 2030, the Energy Information Administration estimates.
“Although this is a slower growth rate than the recent past, it will effectively offset the emissions savings expected from the improved fuel efficiency and low carbon fuels requirements [of Congress and the Obama administration],” Winkelman told lawmakers Tuesday. Ignoring transportation in climate change legislation, he added, “will neglect opportunities to meet overall emission reduction goals while increasing the burden on other sectors of the economy.”
But it must be done carefully, proponents warned. David Bragdon, president of the Portland Metro Council, cautioned that building new transit infrastructure would be futile without land-use management plans to accompany it. Efforts to prevent sprawl, for example, and to concentrate populations around both public transportation and commercial facilities go a long way to keep people out of cars, he said.
“We can’t simply reform the supply of transportation, we have to reduce demand,” Bragdon testified, “and the way our communities are laid out is a major determinant of demand.”
Conservatives, meanwhile, used Tuesday’s hearing to blast the Democrats for their plans to take up a cap-and-trade bill at all. That strategy, they argue, would force businesses to hike costs on consumers at a time when the country continues to suffer from the financial downturn.
Sen. James Inhofe (Okla.), senior Republican on the Senate Environment panel, pointed to recent layoffs in the trucking industry as just one reason why Democrats should abandon their plans to put a price tag on greenhouse emissions. “If we enact cap-and-trade legislation, fuel prices will rise, and more jobs in the trucking sector will be destroyed,” Inhofe said.
For his part, Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) was more concerned with the cost associated with new high-speed rail and other public transit projects, arguing that the deficit spending is already through the roof in the wake of the long series of financial bailouts.
“How are we gonna pay for it?” Voinovich asked LaHood. “Borrow more money?”
At least one funding option, it appears, is off the table. The 18.4 cent-per-gallon gas tax — though it hasn’t been raised since 1993, nor is it indexed for inflation — is not being eyed for a hike, LaHood assured lawmakers. “We are not for raising the gas tax,” he said.
That’s sure to be music to the ears of many conservatives, who argue that such a tax would cripple businesses and consumers reliant on energy-intensive goods and services. Yet, the idea of a gas-tax hike found an unlikely cheerleader this week, when the U.S. Chamber of Commerce came out in support of a “modest” increase as “the simplest, most straightforward way” to keep up with the nation’s crumbling infrastructure.
“The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has never been accused of being a strong proponent of any kind of tax increases,” Janet Kavinoky, the Chamber’s director of transportation infrastructure wrote for Roll Call Monday. “But taxes paid on gasoline and diesel are different — they are user fees.”
That’s different than saying the money should go to fund public transit. But when the nation’s largest business federation advocates a tax hike, it sure dulls the Republican claim that any such increase would strike a death knell for the country’s small businesses.
Britain pins climate goals on clean energy
Britain will double the share of its energy from low carbon sources by 2020 as part of plans to counter global warming, the government said on Wednesday.Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband said 40 percent of Britain's electricity will come from nuclear, wind, solar, marine and cleaner coal, compared with a fifth of today's supplies.Nuclear now supplies around 20 percent of Britain's electricity, and is not expected to grow over the period, while the other sources such as wind currently play a minor role but will deliver the low carbon growth."Our plan will strengthen our energy security...it seizes industrial opportunity and it rises to the moral challenge of climate change," Miliband said in a statement.Miliband said the pledge showed Britain's commitment to United Nations climate change talks in Copenhagen in December that aim to secure a global deal to replace the Kyoto Protocol on reducing emissions.Attempts to reach a new agreement have foundered on fears that environmental targets could hamper any economic recovery and arguments between rich and developing nations on the level of emissions cuts.U.S. President Barack Obama, who chaired the Major Economies Forum this month, failed to convince China, India and other developing nations to sign up to a G8-supported goal of halving world emissions by 2050.With Britain in its worst recession in 50 years and the ruling Labour Party trailing in the polls with an election less than a year away, the government has been keen to talk up the benefits of the growing environmental sector.Business Secretary Peter Mandelson said the proposals would be important for the economic recovery, adding: "The government is determined to ensure it maximises the economic and employment opportunities this transition offers."GLOBAL MARKETIn a series of policy documents, Britain said the global market for low carbon goods and services could expand to 4.3 trillion pounds ($7,047 billion) by 2015 from 3 trillion pounds in 2007/08 and grow even faster if a deal is struck in Denmark.Miliband said Britain's low carbon sector will be one of the few areas of the economy that will grow during the recession and beyond, expanding at over 4 percent each year up to 2014/15.The number of people employed in the sector in Britain could rise by up to 400,000 to more than 1.28 million by 2015, compared to 880,000 today.The jobs will be created in areas like the design and production of low carbon vehicles and the development of renewable energy such as wind, marine and nuclear power.Action to tackle climate change will add about 8 percent to household energy bills by 2020, Miliband said. This estimate relies on consumers using less energy.The government hopes the measures will improve Britain's energy security by preventing any increase in gas imports between 2010 and 2020. [ID:nLF021640]About a fifth of the emissions cuts by 2020 will come from cleaner transport, including government subsidies of between 2,000 and 5,000 pounds for each electric car.A further 15 percent of the emissions cuts must come from making homes more energy efficient, while 10 percent of the savings will be made in the workplace.People and businesses who generate small amounts of energy through solar panels or other renewable sources, will be paid extra for feeding the energy into the national power networks.Rates and terms will be announced after a public consultation due to begin by next April.Britain was the first country to set legally-binding emissions targets. It wants to cut its output of planet-warming gases by 34 percent by 2020, from 1990 levels.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)