Climate Action » climate talks

Clean Energy, International Climate Change, and More Hot Pubs

USCAN — Wed, 25 May 2011 18:39:21 +0000

USCAN MEMBER REPORTS

Clean Cars: A May 2011 report “Summer Gas Prices: Beating the Heat with Clean Cars” by Environment America highlights rising summer gas prices and the need to reduce dependence on oil. The report finds as oil prices continue to rise our environment, health, and national security continues to be at risk. Additionally, if drivers meet the national average 60 mpg, “Americans would save $67 billion at the gas pump and cut gasoline consumption by 17 billion gallons this summer.” As an added benefit, meeting the fuel efficiency standards will also reduce global warming pollution. The report recommends people to purchase cleaner and more efficient cars that run on alternative energy sources. The Obama Administration has acknowledged the need for sustainable transportation methods and is currently in the process of making new fleet wide fuel efficiency and global warming standards through 2025.

RGGI: An May 2011 report “RGGI Emissions Trends Report April 2011 Data & Analysis” by Environment Northeast focused in on emissions from power plants in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). A summary of RGGI and graphs of emission trends are provided within the report. 2011 emissions rose slightly from last year mainly due to warmer summer temperatures and increased demand for air conditioning. The report also found that the switch to natural gas and clean energy technology emits less carbon dioxide and will help the power plants remain below the regional emissions cap. The constant demand for electricity despite the economic downturn also provides hope that emissions will not undergo any drastic changes once the economy stabilizes.

OTHER REPORTS

Fossil Fuels: An April 19^th report “Fossil Fuels: A Legacy of Disaster” by the Center for American Progress (CAP) examines the dangers associated with fossil fuel dependence and provides reasons for why the United States should transition to cleaner energy technologies. In a Tony Mazzocchi Center for Health, Safety and Environmental Education worker safety survey of United Steelworkers-represented oil refineries, “Ninety percent of the 51 refineries reported the presence of at least one of the three targeted highly hazardous conditions.” The study was based upon three targets: “use of atmospheric vents on process units, the siting of trailers and unprotected buildings near high risk process facilities, and the allowance of non-essential personnel in high risk areas.” CAP indicates more funding should be provided to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration in addition to support for labor union leaders to ensure the accuracy of worker safety and fossil fuel disasters data reports. Although every work place comes with risks in comparison to natural gas and fossil fuel sources, transitioning to clean energy technology is beneficial for public health, the environment, and the United States economy.

Energy Outlook: An April 26^th report “The Annual Energy Outlook 2011” from the U.S. Energy Information Administration provides long term energy projections up to year 2035 based on current laws and regulations. Fifty-seven sensitivity cases and a reference case are enclosed within the report which explores the uncertainties, production, consumption, technology, and future directions regarding the United States energy economy. A majority of the report is focused on shale gas production, gains in usage of natural gas and renewable energy, reduction of fossil fuels, and slow reduction in energy related carbon dioxide emissions. In depth information is available in the “Issues in focus” section of the report.

Climate Legislation: An April 26^th report “GLOBE Climate Legislation Study” released by the Global Legislators Organization (GLOBE) provides information on the latest groundbreaking study of climate change. The study is based on legislation in 16 of the world’s largest economies, which include countries such as the United States, China, Australia, and the United Kingdom. This study provides evidence that many developing countries are taking legislative steps to reduce climate change. Consequently, GLOBE claims that more attention should be paid to national level policy and legislative development. Other findings reveal information about Measurement, Reporting, and Verification (MRV) and national security structures.

Climate Finance: An April 2011 report “Designing the International Green Climate Fund: Focusing on Results” released by Global Economy and Development at Brookings outlines challenges and recommendations for the Transitional Committee on their April 28 – 29, 2011 meeting to supplement the parameters of the Green Climate Fund that were decided in Cancun last December. The report states that the fund must be aligned to the following principles: balance and inclusion; ownership; transformation; leverage; operational efficiency; and results and learning. Contributors and recipients must merge towards a shared objective to obtain results that will help nations move forward to a sustainable future.

Clean Air: An April report “State of the Air 2011” released by American Lung Association provides an annual update on air quality which includes lists of the nation’s most polluted metropolitan areas. This year’s report finds that the majority of American cities most-polluted by ozone (smog) or year-round particle pollution (soot) have improved, showing continued progress in the cleanup of deadly toxics, thanks to the Clean Air Act. However there is much work left to do, the report reveals that just over half the nation—154.5 million people—live in areas with levels of ozone and/or particle pollution that are often dangerous to breathe.

Public Opinion: An May 16^th report “American Climate Attitudes 2011” released by The Social Capitol Project provides an analysis of significant public opinion trends on global warming. This report provides communication and engagement recommendations for climate practitioners based on polling data, research and the authors’ experience as climate and environmental communicators.

Copenhagen Climate Progress Feels More Real

Keith Schneider — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:48:23 +0000

By David Turnbull
Climate Action Network

As Copenhagen prepares for December, a strange combination of Christmas lights, clean energy expos, evergreen wreaths, and security barriers have begun to crop up around the city. It’s an exciting time to be in Copenhagen, reflecting on a year of intense pressure, activity, and engagement around the world.

Over the past several months (and years), a growing movement has coalesced around the climate change conference here next month and it’s hard to believe it’s finally almost here. You may recall that in June, the sleepy German town of Bonn saw hundreds of activists descend in the rain upon the normally quiet Subsidiary Bodies negotiations at the UNFCCC’s home. Thousands around the world participated in the September 21 Global Wakeup Call. Then in Bangkok in October thousands marched outside the UNESCAP building calling for climate action. October 24th saw the most widespread day of environmental action in the planet’s history, spearheaded by 350.org, with over 5000 events in 181 countries around the world.

And now, rumors of tens of thousands arriving here for the conference are looming over Copenhagen, including by my count, at least 15 heads of state who have committed to attending the talks — although Yvo de Boer, the Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, said in Barcelona earlier this month that he expects at least 40.

The last time I wrote, it was a dark and gloomy day in Copenhagen. But today was beautiful – the sun was out, the weather warm, and the bustle on the street was electric.

The last time I wrote, I was convincing myself, and others, that all was not lost for December. Now, on this bright and sunny day, I’m as convinced as ever that world leaders can achieve an ambitious outcome in Copenhagen if they try.

Even in the past week, we’ve seen movement around the world. The Alliance of Small Island states continue to raise its collective voice of conscience against a weak outcome in Copenhagen. We’ve heard that the Chinese would be willing to bring a number to the table in Copenhagen. We’ve seen South Korea confirm a voluntary emissions reduction target of 30 percent below business as usual by 2020. The European Union has said that it would like a binding agreement in Copenhagen. France and Brazil came out with a “climate bible” – an agreement between two nations to work together on climate change. This follows Brazil’s previous announcement of voluntary emissions cuts of 36-39% by 2020 below business as usual in a “political gesture” some weeks ago.

Even the Danish government, which had caused so many hearts to sink with its proposal of a “politically binding” outcome in Copenhagen, seemed to change its tune, if only a bit. Danish Minister for Climate and Energy Connie Hedegaard (who will chair the negotiations in December), spoke in a press briefing at the close of the preparatory meeting last week, assuring the world that her aim is a legally binding outcome from the negotiations.

Finally, eyes continue to focus on the US. In the joint announcement between the US and China, President Obama indicated his team could bring further commitments to the table in Copenhagen. As Copenhagen creeps towards December, the question remains, will Obama come to Copenhagen? If so, will he come bearing gifts or a lump of coal?

David Turnbull is executive director of Climate Action Network International. A version of this article was posted on Eco-Digest, CAN International’s blog.

Although Still Unclear, Copenhagen Meeting Will Produce Real Progress

Keith Schneider — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:40:22 +0000

By David Turnbull
Climate Action Network

Waking up almost a week ago on a dreary Sunday morning in Copenhagen (where I’ve recently moved to prepare for the upcoming climate talks in December), I was met with a barrage of headlines, mostly from U.S. media. Their message: Copenhagen is doomed to total failure and I might as well head off to Mexico City where next year’s summit will be held. The New York Times cried out: World Leaders Agree to Delay a Deal on Climate Change. The Washington Post bellowed: Copenhagen talks unlikely to yield climate accord, leaders told. Not the best way to start a Sunday morning.

Is Copenhagen really over before it begins? Had I moved to this dark, rainy (but beautiful!) city for no reason? Should we all just pack it up and hope that political declarations will solve it all?

The answer, thankfully, quickly became a resounding “no.” As Grist’s own David Roberts is often the first to point out, the mainstream media clearly got it wrong. There’s still hope—a lot of it, at that.

Let’s start with those headlines. Who are these “world leaders” who agreed to delay? Well, the plural may be accurate, but just barely.

In the 48 hours since initial reports, as ministers and other government representatives have trickled into Copenhagen for the “pre-COP” preparatory meeting, it’s become clear that while the media reported that all 19 APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation) leaders were in agreement on the so-called “one agreement, two steps” approach, that’s not at all the case.

The real story occurred at a hastily arranged APEC breakfast. Danish Prime Minister Lars Loekke Rasmussen made a last-minute visit and surprised the room with a speech that was only vetted by a few of the so-called “leaders.” One can only imagine a room full of bleary-eyed heads of state sitting around a big table sipping coffee and politely nodding at Rasmussen’s climate change speech without really understanding how their nods would be translated by the media.

Rasmussen began his speech by saying: ”I would like to share with you how I believe a Copenhagen Agreement could be constructed to serve the dual purpose of providing for continued negotiations on a legal agreement and for immediate action.”

Later towards the end of the speech he says: ”Some of you might have wished for a different format or for a different legal structure. Still, I believe you will agree with me on one fundamental point: What matters at the end of the day is the ability of the Copenhagen Agreement to capture and reinforce global commitment to real actions.”

Doesn’t sound like consensus to me; it sounds like a man trying to convince an audience to go along with him. It’s not entirely clear who actually did agree with the prime minister, but what is clear is that there is nowhere near consensus on such a delay approach; in fact, dozens of countries oppose it and are still wishing—and fighting—for more.

Now, what about the actual plan itself—the “one agreement, two steps” plan? Two steps to an agreement doesn’t sounds so bad, right?

As NRDC’s Jake Schmidt wrote, the strategy might not be so bad if you actually thought that the second step would ever be taken. Unfortunately, what Rasmussen has put forward is a cynical approach. It’s becoming clear that all he cares about is getting a “positive” result in Copenhagen, and that the second step could just be for show.

If you look closely at Rasmussen’s APEC breakfast speech, there’s very little incentive to actually finish the job in 2010 (as in, to take the “second step”). Rasmussen explains his vision thusly:

The Copenhagen Agreement should capture progress already achieved in the negotiations and at the same time provide for immediate action already from next year.

The Copenhagen Agreement should be political by nature, yet precise on specific commitments and binding on countries committing to reach certain targets and to undertake certain actions or provide agreed finance.

The Copenhagen Agreement should be global, comprehensive and substantial, yet flexible enough to accommodate countries with very different national circumstances.

The Copenhagen Agreement should finally mandate continued legal negotiations and set a deadline for their conclusion.

Why would any developed country with high emissions want to go back to the table and flesh out a legally binding deal after the pressure of Copenhagen has passed and there is no real obligation to do so? Despite his lip service to “continued legal negotiations,” there’s no clarity nor firm deadline. Rasmussen’s invention of “politically binding”—a term no one seems willing or able to define—is also repeated here.

Furthermore, there is only a passing mention of the Kyoto Protocol later in the speech. Despite what some would have you think, however, the Kyoto Protocol does not expire in 2012. In fact, in 2005, the parties to the Kyoto Protocol agreed to negotiate a second commitment period (2013-2017) and further committed in Bali in 2007 to reaching a conclusion on what that second commitment period would look like. In Rasmussen’s vision, this goal seems to disappear in favor of a “politically binding” outcome.

Indeed, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper—one of the leading climate negotiation blockers now that George W. Bush is out of the picture—has been positively beaming in the press about this announcement. Not a sign of a positive development.

Luckily, there’s still time to push for more. The Alliance of Small Island States, the African group of nations, and other vulnerable and least developed countries will surely be pushing back on this plan during the prep meetings in Copenhagen this week. In fact, 11 Pacific Island States already have. Some European nations are also likely to stand up to this plan.

The planet and its people need a fair, ambitious, and binding outcome from this process. Countries should be working on such a document in Copenhagen and they can and should finish it there. After all, it’s what they committed to in Bali just two years ago.

David Turnbull is executive director of the Climate Action Network International. This piece was originally posted on November 16, 2009 at Grist.org.