The Environmental Protection Agency’s new leadership, in a step toward confronting global warming, submitted a finding that will force the White House to decide whether to limit greenhouse gas emissions under the nearly 40-year-old Clean Air Act.

Under that law, EPA’s conclusion — that such emissions are pollutants that endanger the public’s health and welfare — could trigger a broad regulatory process affecting much of the U.S. economy as well as the nation’s future environmental trajectory. The agency’s finding, which was sent to the White House Office of Management and Budget without fanfare on Friday, also reversed one of the Bush administration’s landmark decisions on climate change, and it indicated anew that President Obama’s appointees will push to address the issue of warming despite the potential political costs.

In 2007, the Supreme Court instructed the Bush administration to determine whether greenhouse gases should be regulated under the Clean Air Act, but last July, then-EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson announced that the agency would instead seek months of public comment on the threat posed by global-warming pollution.

Interest groups and experts across the ideological spectrum described the EPA’s proposal yesterday as groundbreaking. But while environmentalists called it overdue and essential to curbing dangerous climate change, business representatives warned that it could hobble the nation’s economic recovery.

“This is historic news,” said Frank O’Donnell, who heads the environmental watchdog group Clean Air Watch. “It will set the stage for the first-ever national limits on global-warming pollution. And it is likely to help light a fire under Congress to get moving.”

But William L. Kovacs, vice president of environment, technology and regulatory affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said an effort to regulate greenhouse gases based on the EPA’s scientific finding “will be devastating to the economy.”

“By moving forward with the endangerment finding on greenhouse gases, EPA is putting in motion a set of decisions that may have far-reaching unintended consequences,” he said. “Specifically, once the finding is made, no matter how limited, some environmental groups will sue to make sure it is applied to all aspects of the Clean Air Act.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/23/AR2009032301068_pf.html

The first mandatory national system for reporting emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases produced by major sources in the United States has been proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

“Our efforts to confront climate change must be guided by the best possible information,” said EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, announcing the proposal on Tuesday. “Through this new reporting, we will have comprehensive and accurate data about the production of greenhouse gases.”

Greenhouse gases trap heat from the Sun and warm the planet’s surface. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, 87 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions are related to energy consumption. Since 1990, greenhouse gas emissions in the United States have grown by about one percent per year. In 2005, about 21 percent of the world’s total energy-related carbon dioxide was emitted by the United States.

Under the proposed rule, the federal government could collect emissions data to inform future policy decisions.

The new reporting requirements would apply to suppliers of fossil fuel and industrial chemicals, manufacturers of motor vehicles and engines, as well as large direct emitters of greenhouse gases with emissions equal to or greater than a threshold of 25,000 metric tons per year.

Most small businesses would not be required to report their emissions because their emissions fall below the threshold.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2009/2009-03-12-092.asp

“Selling allowances would not be happening if they’d had to pay for them in the first place,” he says.

“If everybody had to pay for the allowances on a pay-as-you-go basis, like other commodities they consume, the price for carbon allowances would have fallen anyway as a result of this recession,” he says.

David Victor, head of Stanford University’s Energy and Sustainable Development Program, says that between a third and two-thirds of CDM offsets do not represent actual emission cuts.

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7857771.stm?ad=1A crucial scheme to control greenhouse gases is under threat due to the recession. Under the Kyoto Protocol adopted in 1997, since ratified by 183 countries, industrialised nations agreed to reduce their emissions of gases such as carbon dioxide (C02) which cause global warming.

Among the measures introduced was the European Carbon Trading System, whereby governments put a price on the amount of greenhouse gases that can be emitted by any company.

By forcing companies to pay for the right to pollute, it was hoped they would be more inclined to clean up their act.

Companies are issued emission permits and are required to hold an equivalent number of allowances (credits) which represent the right to emit a specific amount.

The total amount of allowances and credits cannot exceed the cap, limiting total emissions to that level.

Companies that need to increase their emission allowance must buy credits from those who are willing to sell.

In effect, the buyer is paying a charge for polluting, while the seller is being rewarded for having reduced emissions by more than needed.

Three-quarters of the main polluting greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, comes from burning fossil fuels – oil, gas and coal.

The environmental group Carbon Trade Watch complains about imbalances in the sources of the burning of fossil fuels, as the world’s richest countries consume more per capita than countries with larger populations.

For instance the USA produces 24% of the world’s CO2 emissions yet has only 4.5% of the world’s population. Conversely India has 16.7% of the world’s population yet only produces 4% of the CO2 emissions.

It seemed like a market solution to global warming in Europe, but initially many of these permits were given away for nothing.

Now, as recession bites, industries like steel, cement and glass may be polluting less, but only because they’re producing less.

So companies are desperately selling off the carbon credits they no longer need to bolster their faltering balance sheets

That has led to a big drop in the market value of carbon permits, and as the right to pollute becomes cheaper, there is less incentive for companies to stop polluting.

Mark Lewis, a carbon analyst at Deutschebank, told World Business News that the recession has cast a spotlight on the frailties of emissions trading.

“Selling allowances would not be happening if they’d had to pay for them in the first place,” he says.

“Getting them free allows them to be sold on a risk-free basis and that is exacerbating the fall in the price of credits,” he adds.

Each year the cap on emissions gets tougher, but the price of the credits would have come down anyway as a result of the financial downturn.

“If everybody had to pay for the allowances on a pay-as-you-go basis, like other commodities they consume, the price for carbon allowances would have fallen anyway as a result of this recession,” he says.

In the past, Russia has managed to achieve its Kyoto targets without any pain because its industrial output has declined so sharply.

Critics of carbon trading maintain this proves the inherent weakness of such systems, but Mr Lewis does not think a straight tax on fossil fuels would provide a better solution.

“It might be simpler on one level,” he says, “you would know in advance what the price was but you wouldn’t get any certainty on the level of emissions reduction.”

Another measure introduced under the Kyoto Protocol to curb greenhouse gases is also coming into question.

This is the clean development mechanism (CDM), which allows industrialised countries to invest in projects that reduce emissions in developing countries – as an alternative to what would undoubtedly be more expensive emission reduction programmes in their own country.

However, in recent years, criticism against the mechanism has increased.

Offset projects under Kyoto are only supposed to qualify for carbon financing if they represent emissions reductions above and beyond what would have happened anyway.

In practice, large numbers of projects that were already well under way, are presenting themselves as CDM projects in order to gain an extra revenue stream, and these projects do not represent additional emissions reductions, Carbon Trade Watch maintains.

David Victor, head of Stanford University’s Energy and Sustainable Development Program, says that between a third and two-thirds of CDM offsets do not represent actual emission cuts.

If an offset project does not represent reductions and is being used to justify increased emissions at some other point, it actually represents a net increase in emissions.

If a high number of CDM projects are not additional, there is a real danger of a “carbon bubble”.

Scientists are adamant that CO2 emissions must be sharply cut in the next 10 years otherwise there will be irreversible damage to the planet.

Otherwise, it might be too late to repair the damage the planet has already suffered.

the EPA blocked California from enforcing its greenhouse gas emission standards for cars. It also delayed responding to the Supreme Court, which required that the EPA consider using the federal Clean Air Act to create a program similar to California’s program to reduce emissions from all the nation’s vehicles.

The new Obama Administration should use this opportunity to set a new foundation for American energy and climate security. Soon-to-be Administrator Jackson should immediately follow through with President Obama’s promise to allow California’s regulations to come into force. She should also begin the process to create a national greenhouse gas standard for cars based on California’s approach – a 30 percent reduction by model year 2016 – and establishing even greater reductions in the future.

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/01/22/first-100-days-obamas-first-climate-change-target/

With not a minute to lose, Lisa Jackson, the soon-to-be new head of the EPA, should move quickly to capitalize on the momentum of states that have so far been the leaders in fighting global warming. There is no better place to start than by establishing a national greenhouse gas emission standard for automobiles based on California’s landmark clean car law.

California has always been a pioneer in setting tough automobile emission standards. Our regulations paved the way for lead-free gas, the catalytic converter, and many other innovations that were later adopted as the national standard. As a result, we have eliminated 99 percent of harmful pollution pouring out of autos today compared to a 1960s era car, leading to clearer skies and cleaner air in our cities.

In 2002, California continued its track record of pioneering environmental legislation when it passed a law that directly addressed greenhouse gas emissions from cars. Personal vehicles produce 20 percent of the nation’s greenhouse gases, and so are increasingly being addressed by governments that are serious about averting catastrophic climate change. Thirteen other states have formally adopted and three states are considering adoption of California’s cost-effective and technologically doable program.

Despite these benefits, the EPA blocked California from enforcing its greenhouse gas emission standards for cars. It also delayed responding to the Supreme Court, which required that the EPA consider using the federal Clean Air Act to create a program similar to California’s program to reduce emissions from all the nation’s vehicles. Just last month, the outgoing administration failed to carry through on its promise to publish new CAFE rules – national fuel economy standards – as required by Congress.

The new Obama Administration should use this opportunity to set a new foundation for American energy and climate security. Soon-to-be Administrator Jackson should immediately follow through with President Obama’s promise to allow California’s regulations to come into force. She should also begin the process to create a national greenhouse gas standard for cars based on California’s approach – a 30 percent reduction by model year 2016 – and establishing even greater reductions in the future.

“…Dell counts the emissions produced by its boilers and company-owned cars, its buildings’ electricity use, and its employees’ business air travel…”

“…it is claiming carbon neutrality mostly by purchasing environmental “credits.” These are financial instruments that bankroll environmental improvements made by others, such as running wind turbines or planting forests. Dell reasons that these credits cancel out the bulk of its carbon footprint…”

“…Dell’s program is widely praised by environmental groups as one of the most comprehensive attempts by a major corporation to combat climate change. The strategy mirrors the one that scientists and politicians are now prescribing: boosting energy-efficiency, funding renewable energy and buying carbon credits…”

 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123059880241541259.html?mod=googlenews_wsj#printMode

The term may suggest a company has reengineered itself so that it’s no longer adding to the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases scientists say are contributing to climate change. The experience of Dell, one of the few multinational corporations to claim it already has achieved carbon neutrality, shows the reality often falls short of that ideal.

The amount of emissions Dell has committed to neutralize is known in the environmental industry as the company’s “carbon footprint.” But there is no universally accepted standard for what a footprint should include, and so every company calculates its differently. Dell counts the emissions produced by its boilers and company-owned cars, its buildings’ electricity use, and its employees’ business air travel.

In fact, that’s only a small fraction of all the emissions associated with Dell. The footprint doesn’t include the oil used by Dell’s suppliers to make its computer parts, the diesel and jet fuel used to ship those computers around the world, or the coal-fired electricity used to run them.

Dell’s announcement that it had achieved carbon neutrality didn’t go into these details. But in an interview, Dell officials estimate that the emissions produced by its suppliers and consumers each amount to about 10 times the footprint Dell has defined for itself. That means the company is only neutralizing about 5% of the greenhouse gases that go into the making and use of its products.

Moreover, while Dell is improving its energy efficiency, it is claiming carbon neutrality mostly by purchasing environmental “credits.” These are financial instruments that bankroll environmental improvements made by others, such as running wind turbines or planting forests. Dell reasons that these credits cancel out the bulk of its carbon footprint.

Yet some of those improvements would have occurred whether or not Dell invested in them, according to some of the companies involved. That suggests Dell isn’t ridding the atmosphere of as much pollution as it claims.

Regarding the environmental credits Dell has bought, Mr. Parker says they “meet the highest standards” that currently exist.

Indeed, Dell’s program is widely praised by environmental groups as one of the most comprehensive attempts by a major corporation to combat climate change. The strategy mirrors the one that scientists and politicians are now prescribing: boosting energy-efficiency, funding renewable energy and buying carbon credits.

“If this team can’t advance strong national policy on global warming, then no one can,” said Kevin Knobloch, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists, referring to Obama’s picks for the top energy and environment jobs in his administration, which takes office on Jan. 20.

President George W. Bush vowed to regulate carbon emissions when he campaigned for the White House in 2000, but changed course soon after taking office in 2001, and for most of his tenure voiced skepticism that cutting back on human-generated carbon dioxide emissions would solve the problem.

http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed2/idUSN22505340?sp=true

President-elect Barack Obama’s new “green dream team” is committed to battling climate change and ready to push for big policy reforms, in stark contrast with the Bush administration, environmental advocates said on Monday.

“If this team can’t advance strong national policy on global warming, then no one can,” said Kevin Knobloch, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists, referring to Obama’s picks for the top energy and environment jobs in his administration, which takes office on Jan. 20.

“This caliber of scientists in any administration would be a major headline,” Knobloch said by telephone on Monday. “But in contrast to the eight years of the Bush administration, where political appointees ran roughshod over science at a terrible cost to the truth, they stand out even more.”

Last week, Obama picked a Nobel physics laureate, Stephen Chu, to head the Energy Department; former environmental lawyer and U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar as Interior secretary; former New Jersey environment chief Lisa Jackson to head the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Nancy Sutley, deputy mayor of Los Angeles, to run the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

The president-elect tapped Carol Browner, who headed the Clinton administration’s EPA, to take a new White House position coordinating policy on energy, environment and climate change. For White House science adviser, Obama chose John Holdren, a Harvard University expert on climate change.

For the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which deals with weather and climate among other matters, Obama named Jane Lubchenco, a marine biologist who has been sharply critical of that agency for allowing overfishing.

5 MILLION GREEN JOBS

“Each one of them is not only experienced and capable … but also very, very committed to doing something on climate,” said Tony Kreindler of advocacy group Environmental Defense Fund. “They really get the connection between climate change and economic growth and how pursuing renewable energy can create jobs.”

Obama has pledged to create 5 million green jobs and break U.S. dependence on foreign oil, investing $150 billion in the next decade to build an energy economy that relies on renewable sources such as wind, solar and geothermal energy.

“None of this will be easy, because some of the powerful special interests and their allies still have their heads in the sand,” said Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters.

However, Karpinski said that with Obama’s “great new green dream team” and more members in the U.S. Congress who support action to curb climate change, a law to limit greenhouse gas emissions is more likely, as is a global agreement to succeed the current phase of the carbon-capping Kyoto Protocol.

Even most of those who disagree with Obama on climate change accept the qualifications of his appointees, but Myron Ebell of the pro-business Competitive Enterprise Institute criticized Holdren and Lubchenco as being “on the scientific fringe of global warming alarmism.”

Environmental groups have clashed repeatedly with the Bush White House on science policy, especially when that was at odds with energy policy.

President George W. Bush vowed to regulate carbon emissions when he campaigned for the White House in 2000, but changed course soon after taking office in 2001, and for most of his tenure voiced skepticism that cutting back on human-generated carbon dioxide emissions would solve the problem.

Under his stewardship, the United States has been alone among major industrialized nations in rejecting the carbon-capping Kyoto Protocol. Bush has refused to impose economy-wide limits on carbon emissions, maintaining that this would hamper U.S. competition with fast-growing, big-emitting economies like China and India.

Bush’s Environmental Protection Agency chief has balked at limiting climate-warming carbon emissions, even after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the agency has the power to do this.

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE4BB36720081212?sp=true

Europe secured the world’s widest agreement to battle climate change on Friday after paying east European states to accept changes that will punish their heavily polluting power sectors and ramp up electricity prices.

The historic deal to cut carbon dioxide by a fifth by 2020 was secured despite an economic crisis by allowing a myriad of exemptions for industry, sparking criticism from environmental groups.

“This is a flagship EU policy with no captain, a mutinous crew and several gaping holes in it,” said Sanjeev Kumar of environment pressure group WWF.

But French President Nicolas Sarkozy rejected that view, saying: “This is quite historic.”

“You will not find another continent in this world that has given itself such binding rules as we have just adopted,” he added.

The agreement came after a year-long battle dominated by a struggle between eastern and western Europe over the costs.

The nine east European nations were seen as the final blockage to agreeing a package of measures aimed at tackling climate change but which will ramp up costs for their highly polluting coal-fired power sectors.

Two swathes of funding will be distributed to them taken from around 12 percent of revenues from the EU’s flagship emissions trading scheme (ETS), which makes industry buy permits to pollute.

The money is partly framed as a reward for the massive drop in emissions they experienced when their industry collapsed in the wake of communism.

Their power sectors were also partially exempted from paying for emissions permits from the ETS on a sliding scale starting with paying for 30 percent of emissions in 2013, rising to 100 percent in 2020.

BAD GUY

Hungary had battled to the end of negotiations for more money, while Italy fought to protect its glass, ceramics, paper and cast iron industries, and eventually dropped a threat to block the deal.

“I can’t use any veto on the climate question because I can’t cast myself in the bad-guy role since the left would use this position to fight me politically,” said Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.

Measures were agreed to reduce the risk that carbon curbs would hurt European industry and reduce its ability to compete with less regulated rivals overseas. The biggest threats are seen for steel, aluminum, cement and chemicals.

European industries exposed to international competition will receive free emissions permits if they will see a 5 percent increase in costs, a measure that is viewed as covering over 90 percent of EU industry.

Britain came away having secured a boost to funding for innovative technology to capture and bury emissions from power stations underground in depleted North Sea gas fields.

“Gordon Brown made clear this was one of his priorities not only because of the environment benefits, but also because it offer Europe the opportunity to lead the pack, securing jobs and growth,” said a British diplomat.

Only companies in developed countries have UN-regulated limits for CO2 and other greenhouse gases, enforceable under the existing Kyoto global-warming treaty through 2012. Polluters may trim output domestically or, if it’s cheaper, do so in poorer countries using the UN’s Clean Development Mechanism, or CDM, a process for carrying out the offsets.

 http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=aWA35qYV_yqw&refer=europe

Negotiators at United Nations climate- change talks in Poland may broaden emissions rules to spur use of devices that capture carbon dioxide from power plants in developing countries and pump it into underground storage sites.

Two options being discussed would add the experimental technology to a list of UN-approved methods to limit the release of heat-trapping greenhouse gases, according to a document handed to delegates today at the meetings in Poznan, Poland.

The proposals would let industrialized nations or companies get credit for reducing their emissions if they pay for carbon- capture plants in developing nations, the document said. UN rules already allow pollution-offset investments in projects such as trapping methane gas from landfills or building wind-energy turbines in developing nations.

Delegates from about 190 nations are meeting in Poland through Dec. 12 to begin drawing up a new treaty to stem global warming for approval next December in Copenhagen. If agreed, a carbon-capture plan could take effect even before the new treaty is in place.

The International Energy Agency today called for 20 carbon- capture projects to be built. The technology to store industrial CO2 underground for eons is vital to the UN’s plan to halve worldwide emissions of global warming gases by 2050, the IEA said previously. The devices are designed to primarily remove almost all CO2 emissions from burning coal, the most polluting fossil fuel.

Only companies in developed countries have UN-regulated limits for CO2 and other greenhouse gases, enforceable under the existing Kyoto global-warming treaty through 2012. Polluters may trim output domestically or, if it’s cheaper, do so in poorer countries using the UN’s Clean Development Mechanism, or CDM, a process for carrying out the offsets.

Test First

The European Union said a test project should be conducted before such projects are approved.

“We think that we should do a pilot phase testing CCS in the CDM and then have a good evaluation of that pilot phase and then make a decision over whether to have it in CDM or not,” Artur Runge-Metzger, head of the European Commission’s climate and energy unit, told reporters today in Poznan. “You will find that reflected in the negotiation text.”

Negotiators in Poland this week are considering four options for carbon capture, sometimes called “clean coal,” according to the document. One would allow unlimited use of the technology. Another would hold to eight the number of carbon-capture projects approved under CDM by 2012. Two other options would disqualify the technology from CDM while researching its use further.

Using carbon capture in developing countries would only serve to export to poorer nations the risk of seepage of the carbon dioxide from underground chambers, Damien Demailly, climate campaigner for the environmental group WWF International, told reporters. He and Wael Hmaidan of the Arab Climate Alliance said CCS shouldn’t be allowed in the CDM.

“CDM is assistance from developed to developing countries for proven technologies,” Hmaidan said today in Poznan.“CCS is unproven. It’s a big risk to do testing for this technology” in developing nations

“After 8 years of foot-dragging, it is time for the EPA to reverse its shameful inaction on global warming and use its authority under the Clean Air Act to combat dangerous climate change,”

“…Make a determination as to whether greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare – as required by the 2007 Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA..”

http://www.imperialvalleynews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3472&Itemid=1 

California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. has urged the Environmental Protection Agency to reverse years of “shameful inaction” on global warming by using its authority under the Clean Air Act to combat dangerous climate change.

“After 8 years of foot-dragging, it is time for the EPA to reverse its shameful inaction on global warming and use its authority under the Clean Air Act to combat dangerous climate change,” Brown said.

Attorney General Brown today urged EPA action in two ways:

* Brown joined with thirteen other Attorneys General; the California Air Resources Board and four other state environmental agencies; the cities of Minneapolis, Seattle & Salt Lake City; and the New York City Corporation Counsel in writing a letter to EPA that lays out key principles EPA should adhere to in regulating greenhouse gases.

* Separately, Brown submitted a comment letter to EPA responding to the 500-page advance notice of rulemaking for regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act issued by EPA over the summer.

Both letters called on EPA to do the following:

* Make a determination as to whether greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare – as required by the 2007 Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA;

* Reverse the denial of California’s preemption waiver for California’s landmark greenhouse gas automobile regulations, allowing California and the thirteen other states that have adopted these standards to begin immediately enforcing the regulations;

* Adopt controls for large polluting sources such as coal-fired power plants, cement plants and refineries;

* Adopt controls for cars, trucks, aircraft, ocean-going vessels, and non-road engines that are responsible for more than one-third of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. Technology to reduce emissions from these sources is available and cost-effective.

In the joint letter to EPA, Brown and his co-authors wrote:

“The Clean Air Act is one of our most successful regulatory programs. It has a proven track record of effectively dealing with complex air pollution problems that implicate a multitude of sources and a wide range of economic activities, and it has done so without harming the economy. We strongly disagree with the claims by the departing Administrator that the Clean Air Act is ‘ill-suited’ to the task of regulating greenhouse gases. As the analysis by EPA’s professional staff in the ANPR repeatedly points out, the Clean Air Act provides EPA with flexibility to regulate through a variety of approaches, including performance standards, operational controls, market-based incentives and other measures, and also to tailor its traditional strategies to suit the particular challenges posed by GHG emissions.”

Attorney General Brown has been a leader in the fight against global warming by testifying before Congress, filing numerous administrative and legal challenges, and speaking at conferences throughout the state.

The Attorney General has filed several petitions with EPA requesting that it regulate greenhouse gases from ocean-going vessels, aircraft, and non-road vehicles; filed comments urging that EPA regulate emissions from power plants and other large polluting sources; and sued the Department of Energy for failing to require updated efficiency standards for appliances and other equipment.

In California, the office has reached path-breaking settlements with San Bernardino County and the City of Stockton requiring them to adopt Climate Action Plans for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and has filed over 40 comments letters on local land-use projects under the California Environmental Quality Act.

 ”Over the next two weeks [Gordon] Brown’s government will shape an international deal that could settle whether we conquer climate change, or let the planet cook. The UK needs to … lead all developed countries in committing to cutting their greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by 2020.”

“..Electricity generation is likely to be based on renewable energy, nuclear power and coal with carbon capture…”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/dec/01/carbon-emissions-electric-energy-climate-change/print 

Important decisions about the future of coal power in Britain are likely to be made today when the government’s climate change committee sets out plans to de-carbonise the economy.

The committee will publish its first report recommending how Britain can achieve its target of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050, which could eventually see the country ending almost all fossil fuel use to generate energy or run cars and public transport.

It will also urge quicker development of carbon capture and storage for coal power, and recommend whether government should allow coal plants to be built before the technology is fully developed.

Environmentalists hope the committee will set emissions standards from about 2020 which would force coal plants to fit at least some capture equipment, possibly with increasingly tough limits.

Critics believe such a move would make it too risky or expensive to proceed with a coal-fired power station at Kingsnorth, Kent, and up to seven others, unless the technology has been proved to work.

Jeff Chapman, chief executive of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association, said with enough government financial support there could be partial trials by 2015 and full capture in 2020.”We’ve talked the talk, now it’s walk the walk time,” he said.

Under the climate change bill, which received royal assent last week, Britain set the world’s first legally-binding target to cut emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. The climate change committee will recommend interim targets up to 2022, taking into account both the 2050 target and the EU’s pledge to reduce emissions by 20-30% by 2020. Friends of the Earth has urged the committee to ask for a 40% cut by 2020.

The report, Building a Low Carbon Economy – Britain’s Contribution to Tackling Climate Change, will set out a transformation of Britain’s economy, including widespread reliance on electric energy for homes and industry, and to power transport.

Electricity generation is likely to be based on renewable energy, nuclear power and coal with carbon capture.

The committee will suggest what proportion of cuts can be “bought” as credits for overseas carbon-reduction schemes, and how the interim targets should be increased to account for emissions from aviation and shipping.

An interim report this year estimated the cost of meeting the 2050 target would be 1-2% of GDP. Ministers are due to respond to the full report in March.

The report comes as international talks on a climate change treaty resume today in Poznan, Poland. The negotiations aim to set the stage for a deal in 2012 on global warming to succeed the Kyoto protocol, which needs to be agreed by this time next year at a meeting in Copenhagen. Insiders say the Poznan talks are not expected to produce a breakthrough, as negotiators will wait for the new US administration to declare its intentions.

Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the UN climate secretariat, said the Poznan meeting was not likely to be “exciting” but important progress could be made on issues such as how rich countries help the developing world cope with the impact of climate change.

“The whole issue of adaptation needs to be taken off the back burner and receive a lot more serious attention,” he said. The talks could also work out a way to pay tropical countries to protect their forests, as a cost-effective way to tackle rising CO2 emissions despite fears from green campaigners that a lack of land rights could see the money diverted.

The Poznan talks follow a meeting in Bali last December where countries agreed to formally negotiate a new treaty. Analysts say it needs to be agreed at Copenhagen for it to come into force by 2012.

De Boer said: “I think it is important that countries in Copenhagen reach a political agreement that is a response to what scientists tell us need to be done.”

Andy Atkins, executive director of Friends of the Earth, said: “Over the next two weeks [Gordon] Brown’s government will shape an international deal that could settle whether we conquer climate change, or let the planet cook. The UK needs to … lead all developed countries in committing to cutting their greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by 2020.”