“If the question is whether India will take on binding emission reduction commitments, the answer is no. It is morally wrong for us to agree to reduce when 40 percent of Indians do not have access to electricity,” said a member of the Indian delegation to the recently concluded U.N. conference in Bonn, Germany, which is a prelude to a Copenhagen summit in December on climate change.

Days after the Obama administration unveiled a push to combat climate change, Indian officials said it was unlikely to prompt them to agree to binding emission cuts, a position among emerging economies that many say derails effective action.

 ”Of course, everybody wants to go solar, but costs are very, very high.” India’s position goes to the heart of the vexing international debate over how quickly nations should try to phase out carbon-spewing fuels such as coal and switch to renewable energy sources such as wind and solar.

In India, the debate has been cast as a choice between pursuing urgently needed economic growth to reduce poverty and addressing climate change. More than 60 percent of India’s power is generated from coal. As India rapidly climbs the list of global polluters, analysts say coal will continue to fuel the economic demands of the country’s 1.1 billion people for two decades. But India has repeatedly said that it will not compromise on growth by committing to emission reduction goals set by developed nations, which it deems bigger culprits when it comes to pollution.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/12/AR2009041202452.html?hpid=sec-world

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

Economic pressure is changing the climate-change policy debate around the world—except maybe in the United States. President Barack Obama came out of his Feb. 19 meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper sounding remarkably similar to his predecessor. Obama resolved to pursue carbon-capture technology, a system that would allow industry to avoid cutbacks in energy use. He also stated that the participation of China and India are “absolutely critical” for the success of any worldwide energy pact, a position that echoes the Bush administration if not the existing Kyoto Protocol. Sagging markets are leaving large Kyoto-adhering European companies with loads of carbon credits to sell off without any need to alter their emitting practices. And the UN has warned that the global credit crunch threatens to dry up funds pledged from wealthy nations.

http://www.worldmag.com/articles/15081

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.

“…a Federal appeals court decision on July 11 of last year appeared to kill the long-term value of credits under what was called the Clean Air Interstate Rule, a set of markets for pollution credits created by the Environmental Protection Agency. At a stroke, some tens of billions worth of rights to emit noxious gases were slashed in value by the court’s ruling that the EPA had exceeded its authority…”

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/be0478b2-e692-11dd-8e4f-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1

The EPA, along with utilities and some enviros, asked the court to modify or reconsider its decision, and, unusually, the court had second thoughts. In late December, the court indefinitely stayed its cancellation of Cair, allowed the trading to remain in place, and told the EPA that it had to come up with a fix, sometime in the undefined future. That is the simple version.

So, the price of the right to emit one ton of sulphur over the next year, which had been up to $600-$800, fell back to as little as $100 after the initial decision, and has now, after the court’s reconsideration, risen to $150-$200. At $600, utilities found it economic to build new pollution control systems before they were required by law, since they could sell for a lot of money the emission credits they earned. EPA people say that in the past few years, a million tons a year of sulphur dioxide emissions have been averted by Cair.

So any new market-based emissions controls had better have more certainty than the flawed Cair. In leaving Cair in place, the court seemed to reason it would retain its effectiveness in reducing emissions over the next couple of years, but that is not the case. Instead, the EPA’s pollution allowance market people believe the low prices created by the uncertainty over the future of Cair will have the perverse incentive of inducing utilities to use up existing pollution allowances by emitting more than they would have, while postponing building new controls. Or so the agency’s economic models say.

The EPA might appeal to the Supreme Court, but that would be a long shot. It would be extremely difficult to fix Cair markets through new regulation, as the appeals court ordered. One possible fix would be “command-and-control”, non-market-based limits on emissions. Those are within the EPA’s powers, but wouldn’t help as a precedent for carbon cap-and-trade. However, the prospect of unpopular rules might motivate an otherwise preoccupied Congress to come up with a legislative fix that overrides the confused ruling.

The Cair mess shows that it is easy to get market design wrong. With mortgage and derivatives markets, that costs billions. With Cair, it costs shortened lives.

The incoming US president says meeting the challenge of climate change and ensuring America a secure energy supply are top priorities that can both be achieved by weaning the country off its dependence on imports of foreign fossil fuels.

California, where they are already test-driving some of Obama’s plans under the unlikely gaze of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. The state legislature has passed a key law to enact emissions reductions programs through regulation and carbon trading. The laws are intended as a model for federal action.

“It has a state plan for renewables; it has the technologists to deliver; and it has the venture capital,”

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8420

Europe’s leadership on fighting climate change seemed unassailable until just a few months ago. It had grabbed that position more than a decade ago, when Germany’s then environment minister, a former East German chemist named Angela Merkel, negotiated the groundwork for the Kyoto Protocol in Berlin in 1995. Two years later, Europe basically pushed Bill Clinton to send Al Gore to Kyoto to sign up to the first emissions targets – which were never ratified by the US Senate and subsequently repudiated by George W Bush.

Early last month, Merkel – now German Chancellor – signalled Europe’s retreat. She successfully lobbied on behalf of her coal-burning and car-making industries to water down European Union plans for carbon emissions trading in a new EU energy package. It is now unclear whether EU promises to cut emissions by 20 per cent by 2020 – and 30 per cent if other developed nations will go along – can be met.
The inauguration of Barack Obama now looks like the world’s best chance to break free of the climate trap. The incoming US president says meeting the challenge of climate change and ensuring America a secure energy supply are top priorities that can both be achieved by weaning the country off its dependence on imports of foreign fossil fuels.

Among the climate cognoscenti, the sense that a really important shift may be about to happen was accentuated when Obama announced in December that he had chosen Steven Chu as his energy secretary.

The Nobel prize-winning head of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory has helped pioneer research on energy efficiency, solar energy, and cellulosic “second generation” biofuels. Last year he announced a US$500 million deal with BP to fund a new Energy Biosciences Institute at Berkeley. “We are seeking industry partnerships,” he said then. “We seek solutions. We don’t seek, dare I say, science papers anymore.”

Chu is also an advocate of a national high-voltage electricity super-grid to distribute renewable energy across the United States. In 2005, he went to Washington to pitch the idea – none too successfully, it seems – to Bush’s energy secretary Samuel Bodman. And now it fits right in with Obama’s campaign promise to establish “a new digital grid … to make effective use of renewable energy.”

It also fits in as part of the new, green, job-creating, economy-reviving, American infrastructure that Obama promises – his 21st century version of the New Deal’s Grand Coulee and Hoover dams.

In September I visited California, where they are already test-driving some of Obama’s plans under the unlikely gaze of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. The state legislature has passed a key law to enact emissions reductions programs through regulation and carbon trading. The laws are intended as a model for federal action.

Even more striking are the green energy entrepreneurs tooling up in California. “If Barack Obama wins,” David Mills, the bicycling-mad boss of solar energy pioneers Ausra in Palo Alto, told me, “then it’s going to be boom time here”. He was cheering even louder with the news of Chu’s appointment.

Mills and Ausra are in the vanguard of what many believe will become the critical renewable technology for America – solar thermal energy. Unlike photovoltaics, which convert solar heat directly into electricity, solar thermal concentrates solar energy using mirrors to heat water, which is then used to drive conventional steam turbines. One of the advantages of solar thermal is that it allows the energy to be stored for when it is needed, in the form of hot water.

Mills, a Canadian, developed his system in Australia. But a couple of years ago, frustrated by government indifference there, he shipped out Solargenix to California. “It has a state plan for renewables; it has the technologists to deliver; and it has the venture capital,” he told me. Backers in Silicon Valley have pumped hundreds of millions of dollars already into start-up green tech companies like Ausra. In the fall, Mills opened a robot-run factory outside Las Vegas ready to cover the deserts of the American West with glass mirrors that catch the sun’s energy.

Emissions from power plants, manufacturers and oil refiners will be capped, and polluters must obtain a permit for every ton of greenhouse gases pumped into the atmosphere, under the plan. Those that exceed their caps will have to buy permits from emitters who reduce their output of greenhouse gases, under a so- called cap-and-trade program.

The group proposes slashing emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases 42 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=a9PC2Sccx9ao&refer=exclusive#

Rio Tinto Group, General Electric and U.S. electricity producers will present the proposal tomorrow to a Congressional committee and recommend “urgent” action, according to a copy of the report by the 32-member coalition obtained by Bloomberg News.

Congress will hear the plan five days before President-elect Barack Obtama takes office on a promise to cut the amount of greenhouse gases released in the U.S. by 2050 to 80 percent below 1990 levels.

The U.S. Climate Action Partnership’s’s proposal aims to strike a balance between the interests of industrial polluters and environmental activists, Duke Energy Corp. Chief Executive Officer Jim Rogers said in prepared testimony.

“No one got everything they wanted, but we all got what we feel is needed to ensure a sound climate-change policy is created,” Rogers said in testimony to be delivered before the House Energy and Commerce Committee tomorrow.

The group proposes slashing emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases 42 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.

Emissions from power plants, manufacturers and oil refiners will be capped, and polluters must obtain a permit for every ton of greenhouse gases pumped into the atmosphere, under the plan. Those that exceed their caps will have to buy permits from emitters who reduce their output of greenhouse gases, under a so- called cap-and-trade program.

CEOs Line Up Chief executives from Fairfield, Connecticut-based GE, the world’s biggest maker of power-plant turbines, and other companies are expected to testify to the Energy committee tomorrow, committee aides said.

Among them are London-based Rio Tinto, the third-largest mining company, Charlotte, North Carolina-based Duke, the third- biggest U.S. electricity producer from coal, as well as

PG&E Corp., Siemens AG and ConocoPhillips.

President Bill Clinton signed Kyoto, but the Senate in effect rejected it.

Will the new president pass a new Kyoto climate accord through Congress by sidestepping the constitutional requirement to persuade two-thirds of the Senate?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/opinion/05bolton.html

Candidate Obama promised to “re-engage” and “work constructively within” the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Will the new president pass a new Kyoto climate accord through Congress by sidestepping the constitutional requirement to persuade two-thirds of the Senate?

Draconian restrictions on energy use would follow. A majority of the Congress would be much easier for Mr. Obama to get than a supermajority of the Senate. A scholar at the Brookings Institution has already proposed that a new president overcome objections to this environmentalists’ holy grail by evading the Treaty Clause.

President George W. Bush resisted many efforts at global governance. But his administration still sometimes fell into the temptation to flout the constitutional requirement of a two-thirds majority in the Senate.

In 2002, the administration considered submitting the Treaty of Moscow, a nuclear arms reduction agreement, for majority approval of Congress. Vice President-elect Joe Biden, who was then the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, privately made clear that he would vigorously oppose such an attempt to evade the Senate’s constitutional prerogatives. The administration agreed to submit the agreement as a treaty, and the Moscow agreement cleared the Senate.

We hope the new vice president will not reverse his commitment to the Senate’s constitutional authority. But an administration determined to tie one hand behind America’s back might use Congressional-executive agreements to push the nation all too easily into quixotic and impractical global governance regimes.

President Bill Clinton signed Kyoto, but the Senate in effect rejected it. He also signed the Rome Treaty of 1998 that established an International Criminal Court, which would subject American soldiers and officials to unaccountable international prosecutors and judges for alleged war crimes (including, potentially, the undefined crime of “aggression”). Mr. Clinton did not even send this agreement to the Senate. Mr. Bush “unsigned” it. Mr. Obama might re-sign it and seek approval by only a majority of both houses of Congress

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/03/washington/03enviro.html?ref=us&pagewanted=print

As Mr. Obama seeks to find the right balance between his environmental goals and his plans to revive the economy, he may have to resolve conflicting views among some of his top advisers.

While Mr. Summers’s thinking on climate change has evolved over the last decade, his views on the potential risks to the economy of an aggressive effort to limit carbon emissions have not. But he now works for a president-elect who has set ambitious goals for addressing global warming through a government-run cap-and-trade system.