International Findings from EPA Analysis of the American Power Act

by Jake Schmidt

The Obama Administration has just released the US EPA analysis of the American Power Act and it shows that US action coupled with reasonable actions by other countries will put us on a path to preventing the worst impacts of global warming.  It also shows that a lengthy delay in the deployment of international offsets will have a very minimal impact on the cost of the program.  Both findings address issues that opponents to comprehensive climate and energy legislation use to argue that we shouldn’t take action or that it won’t really be as cheap as everyone says (my colleague summarizes how EPA’s analysis shows the draft bill is affordable, equitable, and effective).

So let’s take each of these points in turn.   

1.  US Action Spurs/Solidifies Action of Other Countries.  One of the chief talking points of opponents of US clean energy and climate legislation is the claim that the US taking action would have little impact on global warming.  Taking US action in isolation, they claim that reducing US emissions won't make much of a dent in world emissions and future temperature increases. 

But those critics miss two important points:

1. Other countries besides the US are taking action and have committed to emissions cuts (as I’ve discussed here); and
2.  US action spurs/solidifies those actions (as I’ve discussed here).

This new EPA analysis shows the impact of these two realities in a tangible way.    Continued...

1 [2] read more...

Major Economies Meet on Global Warming – What should they decide?

by Jake Schmidt

Ministers from 17 developed and developing countries will be coming to Washington, DC next week (April 27-28) for the Major Economies Forum (MEF). This will be the first of three reported meetings of this “forum” through June of this year -- the next one is scheduled for Mexico -- culminating in a “Leaders meeting” around the G8 meeting in July (or maybe later). Coming out of the recent climate negotiations in Bonn, this forum has become even more important in helping “move from rhetoric to agreement” in Copenhagen later this year.

This forum will bring together countries representing:

• •Over 80% of the world’s CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion;
• •94% of the greenhouse gas emissions from all developed countries;
• •Over 60% of developing country greenhouse gas emissions; and
• •Almost 60% of the world’s economic output (all values from the World Resources Climate Analysis Indicator Tool).

So to say that these countries are crucial to solving global warming is a huge understatement.  Continued...

[1] [2] read more...

Developing Country Action on Global Warming: Speech of South African Minister at NRDC event

by Jake Schmidt

I just wrapped up an event that NRDC co-hosted with Climate Change Capital on Emerging Strategies for International Climate & Investment Policy on Capital Hill. The event was aimed at beginning a serious discussion about how to structure international incentives to encourage greater emissions reductions in developing countries in the post-2012 agreement in Copenhagen (Dec. 2009).

We had the pleasure of having Minister Marthinus van Schalkwyk of the South African Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism provide a keynote address. He is a powerful leader amongst developing countries and South Africa is staking out a leadership role in battling global warming. In July 2008, South Africa announced a Cabinet-level commitment to have their global warming pollution peak, plateau, and decline.

So at this important junction as President-elect Obama is on the cusp of working to restore America's global leadership on global warming and the international negotiations are moving into high-gear in the lead-in to Copenhagen, we had a first hand account from Minister van Schwalkwyk on the role of developing countries in addressing this global challenge. He also pointed out the need for the US to show leadership by capping its global warming pollution which is a key building block of getting a strong international agreement (I won't discuss these points here as I'll have further posts on the whole issue of developed country targets).

And, we weren't disappointed as he gave a powerful talk on key elements of this challenge with some insights that are worth highlighting (the whole speech is available here and worth a read, but I've included some key points).

Minister van Schalkwyk had this to say about the new dynamic that can emerge in the international negotiations:

"We look forward to the unlocking of a new dynamic in international climate negotiations as the US assumes an international leadership role that is underpinned by ambitious domestic action and solidarity with developing countries."

He highlighted the emissions trend in South Africa and the implications:

"If we continue with a business as usual growth path, our emissions will almost quadruple...by 2050. Continuing along this path will be a high risk approach. We are clear that it would be socially, economically, politically and environmentally unsustainable. We cannot continue to grow without a carbon constraint."

But South Africa has committed to reverse this trend... Continued...

[1] [2] read more...

One Step Forward on Deforestation in Poland...But More Should Have Been Achieved

by Jake Schmidt

For the past week and half, climate negotiators have been trying to push forward agreement on important elements of the global efforts to address deforestation and forest degradation emissions. We took one step forward (but unfortunately many hoped we could have taken two steps forward or more). The draft agreement (available here) is touted as a: Deal struck on forests in climate talks by some (Associated Press).

Modest progress has been made on one important element -- we will now be able to negotiate on the tricky political issues of how incentives will be created, to whom they will they flow, and under what rules. This is a positive step forward as we will now be able to get down to the "nitty gritty" details on the deforestation debate (as I discussed here, a number of us were stressing this message in a joint letter).

Unfortunately, a number of us had hoped to begin to get agreement on some key details that aren't caught up in the broader political debate. These are extremely important elements, but not necessarily as "political" (or so we thought). In particular, we were hoping to get agreement on:

1. Protection of biodiversity
2. Protection of indigenous rights
3. Ensuring that the full emissions from deforestation were accounted and that deforestation reductions can't be directly "offset" by replanting of forests

So, how did these important details fair this week?

Protecting indigenous rights? Ensuring that indigenous lands are preserved and the rights of these indigenous peoples are protected has always been a key issue. It looked like there was an emerging consensus from the negotiations in Accra, Ghana on this point. However, some countries have legal issues with an international agreement that enshrines the rights of specific individual groups. This seems to be the U.S. negotiators stated problem. Some developing countries also pushed to have it either excluded or seriously watered down. They either don't respect the rights of indigenous communities, acknowledge that they exist, and/or want the international community to tell them what to do on this issue. Continued...

[1] [2] read more...

Slow Progress in Poland Climate Negotiations…but Some Key Issues Emerging

by Jake Schmidt

The first week of the Poland Climate Negotiations has ended and progress is slow. This isn't a surprising outcome at this stage in negotiations. Without the new US leadership in place and with many of the key pieces of the post-2012 international agreement likely only woven together in the "final deal" this was the anticipation as "no major breakthroughs were expected".

But, some emerging debates have arisen that will be central to the negotiations next year as the world leads-in to an international agreement in Copenhagen (Dec. 2009).

Timeline for an international agreement and will it be a "final" detailed agreement in Copenhagen? Recent news stories coming out of Poland have contained mixed messages from key players on whether an agreement can be reached in Copenhagen and how much detail will be in that agreement (see Greenwire (subs. req.), Associated Press, and Agence France-Presse). There is a lot of soul searching about what the Copenhagen agreement will actually have in it. Will the agreement coming out of Copenhagen contain enough of the key details to be ratified or otherwise implemented right afterwards (e.g. with enough details that countries will know exactly what they are getting into) or will it be an agreement on the main framework with the details to be worked out later?

Clearly the U.S. Congress and the new Administration will need to move hand in glove and only commit the U.S. internationally to what it can actually implement in domestic law. So, NRDC and 17 other major US environmental and faith groups submitted a letter to all delegates in Poznan saying that:

We all will be devoting our efforts and resources over the next year to help President-elect Obama resurrect America's lost leadership on global warming and the environment. With diligent efforts by all countries and a renewed spirit of American international cooperation, we are confident that an agreement on climate change can be reached by the end of next year.

Emissions Reduction targets and "shared vision". There is an extensive debate on developed countries committing to reduce their emissions 25-40% below 1990 levels in 2020 and developing countries undertaking a 15-30% cut below what their emissions would have been otherwise in 2020 (so-called business as usual cut). The EU is pushing the 15-30% range for developing countries and the developed countries are pushing to get agreement that developed countries as a whole will reduce their emissions 25-40% below 1990 levels in 2020.

This won't get resolved here in Poland, but it is a "coming attraction" for the year to come. This back and forth between what level of reductions developed countries will undertake and how much action developing countries take will be one of the main points of debate in the lead-in to Copenhagen. Continued...

[1] [2] read more...

Kyoto II climate meeting opens in Thailand

by Janet Ritz

Talks by the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to negotiate a replacement to the Kyoto Accord began in Bangkok today with a plea by the Secretary General for unity and a common purpose toward the remediation of climate change.

Three months after the landmark agreement on a road map towards strengthened international action on climate change reached in Bali, Indonesia, the next round of negotiations shifts to the neighbouring country of Thailand and its capital, Bangkok. The talks are taking place between 31 March to 4 April 2008 at the United Nations Conference Centre (UNCC) of the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. [webcast]

"The world is waiting for a solution that is long-term and economically viable," U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon said in a video address to the 1,000 delegates from 190 nations gathered in Bangkok.


The previously unscheduled (by the UNFCCC) week-long meeting is the result of an agreement that was reached in the last moments of the Bali Climate Change Summit last December, after pressure was put upon the United States to participate in the process.

"Following a speech by the representative of Papua New Guinea, where he called upon the United States to: 'lead, follow or get out of the way:'

The United States made a dramatic reversal Saturday, first rejecting and then accepting a compromise to set the stage for intense negotiations in the next two years aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions worldwide. The final result was a global warming pact that provides for negotiating rounds to conclude in 2009."

"It's the first test of whether the goodwill and good intentions that were present in Bali are still there when they get down to the hard negotiations," said Angela Anderson of the Pew Environment Group.

THERE'S MORE