Climate Issues

Juliet Eilperin and Michael D. Shear reported in yesterday’s Washington Post that, “The White House announced Wednesday that President Obama will attend U.N.-sponsored climate talks in Copenhagen next month and commit the United States to specific targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

“The administration’s decision to identify a series of goals, including cutting emissions over the next decade ‘in the range of’ 17 percent below 2005 levels, is a calculated risk, given that Congress has never set mandatory limits on greenhouse gases.”

 

Yesterday’s Post article indicated that, “The figure amounts to a 5.5 percent cut below the 1990 levels that most countries use as a reference point, much less than what most other nations have called for. It is also less than what President Bill Clinton endorsed in the Kyoto talks in 1997 and well below the 25 to 40 percent cut that the European Union has asked of industrialized countries.

“However, the target will be contingent on passage of domestic legislation, and that figure reflects the current U.S. political reality. The House already passed such a target, and Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), who is working on a bipartisan bill, said in an interview that the short-term target is ‘a strong and good place to be.’”

John M. Broder reported in yesterday’s New York Times that, “Mr. Obama will travel to the United Nations talks to deliver the promise in hopes of spurring significant progress there. He will appear Dec. 9, near the beginning of the 12-day session, on his way to accept the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo on Dec. 10, officials said.

“By making the pledge in an international forum, Mr. Obama is laying a bet that Congress will complete action on a climate bill next year and will be prepared to ratify an international agreement based on the commitment.

“But White House officials acknowledged that those outcomes were uncertain. They will depend in large measure on whether the Democratic sponsors of the legislation can win 60 votes for a measure that is at the moment unpopular and whether major developing nations, notably China and India, deliver credible emissions reduction pledges of their own.”

The Times article added that, “Andreas Carlgren, the Swedish environment minister, said that Mr. Obama had now raised expectations for the Copenhagen talks, but he expressed a note of disappointment about the timing of his visit. He said he hoped Mr. Obama would come in the final days of negotiations, when dozens of other heads of government were planning to arrive.”

The Times article pointed out that, “But Senator James M. Inhofe, the Senate’s most outspoken skeptic on climate change, said that Mr. Obama’s public pledge would do little to speed an international agreement and foolishly prejudged the outcome of a Senate debate that had barely started. Mr. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, said that Senate climate legislation was ‘dying on the vine’ and that the Senate would never ratify a treaty that did not require strong emissions reductions from major developing countries.”

“‘The U.S. Senate has made clear on numerous occasions that unilateral action by the United States is unacceptable, because it will harm our economy and have virtually no effect on climate change,’ Mr. Inhofe said.”

The White House announcement regarding Copenhagen was also featured on the Wednesday edition of The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. To view the entire segment from Wednesday evening, which included a detailed analysis of the administration’s announcement, just click here. To listen to a brief audio clip from Wednesday’s program, which included analysis from Michael Oppenheimer, professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University – and a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, just click here (MP3-1:57)).

Lisa Lerer reported on Wednesday at Politico.com that, “President Barack Obama’s decision to drop in on the international climate conference in Copenhagen next month lends some star power to an event that’s lost much of its luster —but at considerable risk for Obama himself.”

The article quoted Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) as saying, “The fact that the president will attend the Copenhagen talks underscores that the administration is putting its money where its mouth is, putting the president’s prestige on the line.”

The article indicated that, “And therein lies the problem for Obama. The upside potential for his visit is limited; expectations for the conference have dropped dramatically over the past few weeks, with nearly universal acknowledgment that the talks are very likely to result in a only limited political agreement, rather than in a legally binding treaty on global warming.

“But the downside is significant. Obama has come home from Copenhagen empty-handed once before — when he flew in to lobby for Chicago’s pitch for the 2016 Olympics, only to watch the International Olympic Committee reject his hometown’s bid in the first round of its voting.

“Another failure on the international stage could bring another round of embarrassment and set back efforts to get climate change legislation through the Senate.”

The AP reported yesterday that, “Putting his prestige on the line, President Barack Obama will personally commit the U.S. to a goal of substantially cutting greenhouse gases at next month’s Copenhagen climate summit.”

The Washington Post editorial board indicated yesterday that, “After months of speculation, President Obama announced on Wednesday that he will travel to Copenhagen to attend an international climate-change conference scheduled for Dec. 7-18. More important is that he also decided to take with him an American emissions-reduction target. The United States is no longer the only developed country without an explicit goal.

“On both counts, there are risks. As with his unsuccessful mission to win the Olympics for Chicago, Mr. Obama will be criticized if he comes home with less of an agreement than he hopes for. And by setting a goal before Congress acts, he risks alienating legislators. But on both counts, he made the right call. The United States has been a laggard for too long on climate change.”

James Kanter reported yesterday at The Green Inc. Blog (The New York Times) that, “The reaction in Europe has been mixed to a decision, announced on Wednesday, that President Obama will attend the Copenhagen climate conference as the event gets underway next month.

“Government officials and commentators welcomed Mr. Obama’s presence as an important signal that the United States was finally becoming serious about tackling climate change. But many of them expressed disappointment that the president would only spend one day at the conference.

“They also expressed disappointment that the president’s offer to cut emissions would be broadly similar to what the Congress already is considering and that the president might shy away from a pledge to provide money to the countries most vulnerable to climate change.”

Several other executive branch officials will also be attending the Copenhagen meetings. Ben Geman reported on Wednesday at The Hill’s Energy and Environment Blog that the following officials would also be heading to the climate talks next month: “Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson, Council on Environmental Quality Chair Nancy Sutley, Office of Science and Technology Policy Director John Holdren, and Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change Carol Browner.”

Energy Sec. Chu appeared on C-SPAN Wednesday as part of the network’s “Newsmakers” series. In part, Sec. Chu was questioned in more detail about the administration’s announcement regarding Copenhagen and the specific targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The entire C-SPAN interview is available here, while a short audio excerpt from Wednesday’s interview with Sec. Chu can be heard here (MP3-5:26).

It won’t be quite as easy for members of the Senate to get to Copenhagen. Jessica Brady reported on Wednesday at Roll Call that, “President Barack Obama may be heading to Copenhagen next month for the United Nations’ global climate change summit, but Democratic Senators tasked with moving health care reform will likely stay behind to pass a bill by year’s end.

“About a dozen Senators had been expected to attend the 11-day forum, but that was before Democratic leaders planned to spend the entire month of December debating — and voting on — a sweeping health care package. And since Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) needs every vote he can get to stave off GOP amendments and pass a final measure, it will be difficult for lawmakers to leave town while the Senate is in session and voting.”

In other climate developments, the Environmental Protection Agency announced on Wednesday that, “President Barack Obama and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, as part of his first state visit, jointly launched a new U.S.-India Green Partnership aimed at strengthening cooperation between the two nations on a wide range of environment and climate initiatives.”

At a press briefing on Tuesday, President Obama indicated that, “Prime Minister Singh and I made important progress today. We reaffirmed that an agreement in Copenhagen should be comprehensive and cover all the issues under negotiation. We resolved to take significant national mitigation actions that will strengthen the world’s ability to combat climate change. We agreed to stand by these commitments with full transparency through appropriate processes as to their implementation. All this builds on the progress that we made in Beijing, and it takes us one step closer to a successful outcome in Copenhagen.”

Meanwhile, Juliet Eilperin reported today at The Washington Post Online that, “China announced Thursday that it will lower its carbon emissions relative to the size of its economy by as much as 45 percent by 2020, the official New China News Agency reported, and that Premier Wen Jiabao will participate in international climate negotiations in Copenhagen next month.

“The move by the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter to announce a near-term target of a 40 to 45 percent reduction, coming a day after President Obama set U.S. climate goals for the talks, suggests a possible breakthrough in Denmark next month in the long-stalled climate negotiations. But the State Council’s announcement that China will cut its carbon output relative to economic growth, using 2005 as a baseline, fell short of the 50 or 55 percent cut many world leaders had hoped Beijing would make.”

The Post article noted that, “Michael Levi, a senior fellow for energy and the environment at the Council on Foreign Relations, called the announcement ‘disappointing,’ because the Energy Information Administration estimates that existing Chinese policies will already cut the nation’s carbon intensity by 45 to 46 percent. Carbon intensity is a measure that captures the amount of carbon dioxide emitted per unit of gross domestic product.

“‘It does not move them beyond business as usual,’ Levi said. ‘The United States has put an ambitious path for emissions cuts through 2050 on the table. China needs to raise its level of ambition if it is going to match that. One can only hope that, now that China has made a proposal, negotiators are able to work out something better.’

“The European Commission, the executive body of the European Union, welcomed ‘the leadership China is bringing to this negotiation,’ while noting that it will be ‘disappointing to some’ that the cuts did not go further.”

Edward Wong and Keith Bradsher reported in today’s New York Times that, “The Chinese offer, which focuses on energy efficiency, contrasts with the strategy of the United States and most other nations to reduce total emissions. China has resisted demands from American and European negotiators to adopt binding limits on its emissions, arguing that environmental concerns must be balanced with economic growth and that developed countries must first demonstrate a significant commitment to reducing their own emissions.

“With its enormous population and breathtaking pace of economic development, China surpassed the United States two years ago as the largest emitter of greenhouse gases.

“It was unclear whether the timing of China’s announcement was coincidental, though the Chinese have been preparing an opening position ahead of international talks on climate change in Copenhagen next month. In the past, Beijing has tried to avoid looking as if it has been directly influenced by American decisions.”

Jeffrey Ball and Shai Oster reported in today’s Wall Street Journal that, “The world’s top two greenhouse-gas-producing countries for the first time offered specific targets for controlling their emissions, but their broad promises ahead of a United Nations climate summit merely set the terms for a high-stakes struggle over money and future economic growth.

“China kicked off the latest round of global climate poker Thursday when it announced the country would aim to cut its ‘carbon intensity’ — or the amount of greenhouse gas it emits per unit of gross domestic product — by 40% to 45% below 2005 levels by 2020. The plan is fundamentally different from those offered by the U.S. and the European Union in that it doesn’t pledge to reduce emissions, but rather to slow the rate at which emissions grow.”

Today’s Journal article added that, “Left unanswered were a host of questions, most notably how both nations will achieve their cuts at a time when industries across the world are reeling from the recession and in no mood to sacrifice further economic growth in the name of the environment.

“The proposals by the U.S. and China — which together account for 40% of the world’s total emissions — don’t address one of the most contentious issues in the climate-change debate: Which countries and industries in the West will pay, and how much they’ll pay, to help finance a clean-energy revolution in the developing world, home to many of their toughest competitors.”

In other international news on climate developments, Bloomberg writer Jason Scott reported today that, “Australian leader Kevin Rudd is struggling to force through legislation aimed at reducing carbon emissions, as he flies to Washington for talks with President Barack Obama on global warming.

“Both men have been frustrated in their bid to meet election pledges to tackle climate change, with legislation passing in the lower houses of both countries before stalling in the senate. Meeting Obama on Nov. 30 ‘will help build momentum towards an ambitious global agreement in Copenhagen,’ Rudd said yesterday.

“‘Obama faces the exact same problem as Rudd, trying to get legislation through the senate, which is heavily influenced by vested interests and lobby groups,’ Peter Kenyon, professor of economic policy at Curtin University’s Graduate School of Business in Perth, said yesterday in an interview.”

 

Food Security

A news release issued yesterday by the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) stated that, “Climate change is projected to impact heavily on agriculture, forestry and fisheries in the Pacific islands, leading to increased food insecurity and malnutrition, FAO warned today ahead of the UN summit on climate change in Copenhagen. The agency urged governments and donors to immediately start implementing robust and action-oriented climate change adaptation plans for all Pacific islands.

“Climate change is expected to act as a ‘threat multiplier’ in a region that is already under severe ecological and economic stress, according to the FAO policy brief Climate Change and Food Security in the Pacific prepared for Copenhagen.”

Fiona Harvey reported on Wednesday at The Financial Times Online that, “Climate change has been stealing the headlines for the past few months, as the Copenhagen summit looms. But other environmental problems remain just as pressing, and their impact may be felt sooner than some of the worst effects of global warming.

“Feeding the world is now recognised as one of the key problems for the next few decades. An international food summit held in November showed the extent of the difficulties we face: in order to feed a world population that is likely to exceed 9bn before 2050, the world will have to almost double food production. This will have to be managed at the same time as cutting greenhouse gases by between 50 and 80 per cent over the same period.”

The FT article noted that, “Cutting down forests and draining peatlands in order to be able to grow more food would be only a short-term solution, as the effect would be to increase drastically greenhouse gas emissions, which would in turn have a detrimental effect on agriculture. Many staple crops, such as wheat, are not tolerant of large temperature rises, and climate change is expected to worsen water shortages, which will also cause serious problems for farmers.”

“Farmers in many parts of the world, including Africa, the US and eastern Europe, also face a further concern: soil degradation. Quality topsoil is being eroded faster than it can be replenished, for a variety of reasons. In some cases it is drying and being eroded by droughts, or washed away by floods – and both droughts and floods are set to increase in frequency around the world, if scientists are right about climate change. Overgrazing can be a problem in poor areas, and both the underuse and the overuse of chemicals can cause degradation,” the FT article said.

Reuters writer Roberta Rampton reported earlier this week that, “The World Bank will start a trust fund to boost agriculture in poor countries with an initial $1.5 billion, its president Robert Zoellick said on Tuesday, warning of the risk of another food price crisis.

“Crop shortages in India and the Philippines combined with increased speculation in commodity markets by investment funds have increased the risk that food prices could spike, as happened in 2008, Zoellick said.

“‘I’m not forecasting this. I’m just staying we have to anticipate this as a possible risk,’ he told reporters on the sidelines of a food security event at Brookings Institution.”

 

Biofuels

The Wednesday edition of Commodity News For Tomorrow, a complimentary daily commodity publication provided by CME Group in partnership with Dow Jones Newswires, reported that, “The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is approaching a deadline for deciding whether to allow more ethanol in gasoline, an action that would help politically influential farm states but worry vehicle makers who warn about damage to boats, lawn mowers and older vehicles.

“In April, the EPA said that it was considering whether to allow ethanol to constitute as much as 15% of ordinary gasoline. That would be up from the current limit of 10%. The EPA has cited a Dec. 1 deadline for responding to a petition filed by the trade group Growth Energy. A number of people following the issue predict that the EPA will avoid making a decision, citing a lack of data.”

Matthew L. Wald reported in today’s New York Times that, “Two years ago, Congress ordered the nation’s gasoline refiners to do something that is turning out to be mathematically impossible.

“To please the farm lobby and to help wean the nation off oil, Congress mandated that refiners blend a rising volume of ethanol and other biofuels into gasoline. They are supposed to use at least 15 billion gallons of biofuels by 2012, up from less than seven billion gallons in 2007.”

The Times article added that, “But nobody at the time counted on fuel demand falling in the United States, which is what has happened during the recession. And that decline could well continue, as cars become more efficient under other recent government mandates.

“At the maximum allowable blend, in which gasoline at the pump contains 10 percent ethanol, updated projections suggest that the country is unlikely to be able to use all the ethanol that Congress has ordered up. So something has to give.

“‘The market is full,’ said Jeff Broin, chief executive of Poet, a company in Sioux Falls, S.D., that produces ethanol.”

Mr. Wald went on to explain that, “In theory, the Environmental Protection Agency has the power to solve this problem by tweaking the mandates imposed by Congress, and it may act as early as next week.

“Each potential solution would anger one interest group or another, so the agency has been subjected to fierce lobbying, including from members of Congress lining up behind various factions. One possibility is to raise the maximum proportion of ethanol in gasoline to 15 or 20 percent.”

“Another possibility is that the agency could waive the mandates requiring use of a large volume of biofuels. But that would anger farmers, who sell a great deal of corn to ethanol factories, and the members of Congress who represent them. It might also undermine the efforts of companies that are investing millions in factories to make ethanol from waste materials, like corncobs, straw and garbage,” the article said.