Climate Change

We looked at the Senate energy legislation from June 15 to 22.  (See various posts below.)  Now the ball is very much in the court of the House.  Yesterday, the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, led a press conference of leading Democratic committee chairs to “Announce America’s ‘Energy Independence Day’ Legislation.”  Frankly, the package, as it now stands, is a lot thinner than what we might’ve hoped for based on some of the earlier rhetoric from Pelosi and other leaders in the House.  The “Washington Post” in House Democrats at Odds Over Energy Bill Provisions talks about why the sights have been lowered. This package does have tougher efficiency standards for appliances, new buildings and lighting, and promotes incentives for a “smart grid” that would help residential and industrial customers use electricity more efficiently.  (I’ve written about this here under the theme of distributed generation.  See this from May.)

John Dingell, a most powerful and feared Democratic committee chairman (and I’ve referenced him and his history several times in these posts) took part in the press conference yesterday.  Here are his comments on the Committee On Energy And Commerce Markup On Energy Policy Legislation.  Unfortunately, he’s more than willing to lay important questions, such as the Renewable Portfolio Standard and the MPG question aside.  Dingell said:  “We are proceeding on legislation where there is a consensus. We have left issues such as motor vehicle fuel economy, coal-to-liquids, and a renewable portfolio standard out of the base text.”  Dingell says he wants to wait until the fall and a comprehensive bill devoted to climate change to address these issues.    Go back to the “Washington Post,” though, for more information on the House top leadership’s hopes to get MPG upgrades into draft legislation.  Pelosi Still Wants More Miles Per Gallon is the headline and in it we learn that “Pelosi said she and Dingell, who opposes tough economy standards for the auto industry, were ‘in conversation’ about how to handle the issue.” I noted last week that although the full Senate failed to adopt the Finance Committee’s excellent package of tax breaks and funding for renewables and improved energy efficiency, to be funded largely by the rescission of breaks for the oil and gas industry, the House Ways & Means Committee had approved a more modest package, H.R. 2776 – the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2007.   The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure also completed work on a great package of initiatives, H.R. 2701 –the Transportation Energy Security and Climate Change Mitigation Act of 2007.  It, among other things, would: 

• Reduce dependence on fossil fuels and mitigate carbon emissions by promoting greater public transit use;

• Provide additional funding for the use of green technologies by transit systems and railroads;

• Promote short-sea shipping as an alternative to land-based freight transportation.

So, the battles will intensify after the House reconvenes after the July Fourth recess.

And, in a largely symbolic vote, Reuters reports that Wednesday, as part of an environmental funding bill, the US House Passes Bill Affirming Global Warming Exists.  That’s a nice signal from the House, certainly, but more importantly, perhaps, the bill requires “oil companies to renegotiate faulty drilling contracts issued by the government in 1998 and 1999 that have allowed them to avoid paying billions in royalties, or be barred from receiving any new leases to drill for oil in the Gulf of Mexico.”  (We’ll see how that holds up in the conference committee.  President Bush has already threatened to veto it.) 

The Economist’s Technology Quarterly - This has got some interesting items with high-flying wind generators and an ingenious system of drawing cooling power from lakes for air conditioning.

After I posted last night, the Senate came back for a late session in which they approved a complete package.  The final result was that the CAFE improvements were in, as was a huge boost in ethanol production and a requirement for ethanol use in vehicles, a frankly feel-good provision on price gouging was included, the tax package was nowhere to be seen, and, very disappointingly, the Renewable Portfolio Standard was out.  Also, amendments for massive coal-to-liquid fuel and coal-to-syngas programs were disapproved earlier in the week.  See this from CNN:  Senate passes energy bill, boosting mileage standards.  Other provisions include:

• New appliance and lighting efficiency standards and a requirement that the federal government accelerate use of more efficient lighting in public buildings

• Grants, loan guarantees and other assistance to promote research into fuel efficient vehicles, including hybrids, advanced diesel and battery technologies

• Support for large-scale demonstrations that capture carbon dioxide from coal-burning power plants and inject it into the ground

The Senate website has the final vote here. 

In another story, from the A.P. again, via the Environmental News Network, we hear Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, in reference to the tax package being blocked (see earlier posts): 

“‘Big Oil seems to do pretty well here on Capitol Hill,’ Reid told reporters, making no effort to hide his sarcasm.”  (Senator Reid should read the magisterial Master of the Senate by Robert Caro to get a long-term perspective on that, or The Prize by Daniel Yergin, an extraordinary history of the oil industry.)   

Again, as I’ve noted before, the House package is forthcoming.  How it looks coming off the floor – and maybe even next week – will be important.  What really matters is how the final legislation emerges from the House-Senate Conference Committee later in the summer.  There will be some epic negotiations going on there no doubt.

Tax Package – An excellent bit of legislation came to a screeching halt on the Senate floor early this afternoon.  The Senate Finance Committee’s tax package for energy (see my item on this in the previous post), and passed by them 14-6 just two days ago, was held from a final vote on the Senate Floor when a sufficient number of Senators, 36 of them (and all but two Republicans), voted against ending debate.  Ouch.  The A.P. (via the “Boston Globe”) reported in Big oil companies spared tax hikes what seem to me to be two important points:  

• “Oil companies earned $111 billion in profits last year and at that rate stand to earn $1 trillion over the 10 years covered by the tax package, said Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., rejecting suggestions that ‘this is an undue burden’ on oil companies.”

• “Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., whose Finance Committee crafted the tax package, said the incentives for renewable and alternative fuels ‘will help wean ourselves away from OPEC … from these very high gas prices.’”

Nevertheless, 36 Senators have blocked this initiative. 

Okay, so here’s a news item that caught my eye tonight:  Climate change could hit homes, beaches, business.  “Economists at three North Carolina universities and Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany said the study showed that as climate change causes submersion of coastal areas and increased erosion, North Carolina will endure billions of dollars in property damage, lost tourism and disruption to coastal businesses.” 

So, how did North Carolina’s two Senators vote on the Finance Committee’s tax package?  You guessed it:  Against.  That’s what I mean by the disconnect between good public policy and business as usual. 

CAFE Vote –  Having worked out a deal behind closed doors, Senators announced a deal on MPG standards.  Senate Votes to Raise Car Fuel Standards says the headline from the A.P. courtesy of ABC News.  Here’s the whole story from Senator Dianne Feinstein’s website.  This new standard, upping the MPG requirement by 10 by 2020, will:

• Save between 2.0 and 2.5 million barrels of oil per day, nearly the amount of oil imported today from the Persian Gulf.
• Achieve up to 18 percent reduction of carbon dioxide emissions from anticipated levels, or the equivalent of taking 60 million cars off the road in one year.
• Save consumers $79-98 billion at the pump, based on a $3.00 gas price.

This is good public policy, folks.  Bill Nelson, whose impassioned speech on the CAFE issue I noted in yesterday’s post, was one of the drivers, as it were, behind this hugely important legislation.

Stay tuned, though.  There’s still the Renewable Portfolio Standard, there will be backfires set against the CAFE standards, hopefully there’ll be more to say about the tax package, and there’s all the legislation forthcoming from the House. 

In a hopeful sign there, the Ways and Means Committee today approved their “Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Act of 2007” and sent it to the floor for consideration.  The vote was 24-16.  Although not as aggressive as the Senate tax package, it leaves considerable room for hope that a much more aggressive approach will emerge from the final legislation when the conference committee puts out its final version.

Barry Commoner – The “NY Times” has a great offering this week in its science section:  A Conversation With Barry Commoner - At 90, an Environmentalist From the ’70s Still Has Hope.  In my post from April 5, Renewable Energy, I wrote “When I read Barry Commoner’s The Politics of Energy, published in 1979, I said ‘Of course, why not?’ to the thesis that the federal government should be invested in making the transition to a non-carbon economy.”

I had the privilege of meeting Barry a few years later and mentioned that I’d loved that book and we talked a bit.  I had the even greater privilege of working with him on a New York City mayoral campaign in 1989.  (Our candidate won.)  Here’s a guy whose work has been at the heart of some of the most important environmental advances in modern history, the nuclear test ban treaty and the ban on DDT among them.  His work on the air pollution dangers from incinerating garbage was the scientific crux of the argument that defeated a badly constructed plan for New York City in the 1980s.  I went to an all-day eightieth birthday symposium on Barry and his work ten years ago.  I remember in particular one of the leaders of the Italian Socialist party recounting how Dr. Commoner had taught them about the importance of the environment.  His brand of clear thinking is just the tonic that many of us, both within and from outside the environmental movement, have always found so useful.  If you want to have a better sense of the historic importance of Barry and his work, pick up the new biography Barry Commoner and the Science of Survival by Michael Egan.

The Senate Floor – Bill Nelson of Florida just gave a succinct, lucid, and compelling speech on the Senate floor calling today’s vote on the CAFE standards a “moment of truth.”  He recounted how America has raised concern about reducing dependence on foreign oil every time the price has skyrocketed and then shied away from this every time the price has gone back down.  We’ve “gone back to sleep” in Nelson’s words.  He talked about the instability of the regions from which we get our foreign oil, the oil that is 60% of our consumption.  Will we have the political will, he asked, to do what is technically easy to do – and the right thing to do – or will we revert to the default position of the oil companies and the auto companies:  business as usual?  It should be interesting to see if we have our “moment of truth” today and, if so, how it’ll turn out.

Right now, they’re working through various lesser amendments.  Go to C-SPAN2 for live coverage. 

The Auto Industry – An insightful article in today’s “NY Times,” Politics Forcing Detroit to Back New Fuel Rules, shows us more about how and why the auto industry is looking for a compromise on MPG standards.  They’ve been told, in a nutshell, they’re going to lose, and they should try to get what they can get.  Here’s an accompanying “Backstory” Backstory from “NY Times Radio” – an interview with Detroit Bureau Chief, Micheline Maynard.

Furthermore, we now know that, very differently from years past, one of America’s most important unions, the United Auto Workers, supports some form of tightening of standards.  This is a pretty critical development.  See this release from them:  UAW supports bipartisan amendment to boost fuel economy standards. 

Senate Finance Committee – The committee yesterday approved, by a vote of 14-6, a package of new taxes on Gulf of Mexico oil and gas leases - see this from Bloomberg News.  Because some lessees have been avoiding royalty payments, due to what the Interior Department’s Inspector General determined was a “mistake” in rules issued in the 1990’s, $10 billion in fees have not been paid.  The Finance Committee’s package makes up for this and levies some other taxes, and applies much of this to extending tax breaks for renewables.  This will be offered soon as an amendment to the Energy bill being worked through on the Senate floor.

P.S.  Remember that a separate energy package is slowly wending its way through the other Congressional body, the House of Representatives.  When both bodies have their proposals in place, then a “conference committee” will be appointed to reconcile the two packages, then the finalized legislation will go back to each body for approval, then the final bill will be offered to the President for his signature – or veto. 

Investment in Renewables – Here’s a great little news item today:  Renewable energy investment tops $100 bln, UN says.  Barry Commoner might’ve hoped for this headline ten or more years ago, and I referenced the fact that I wrote a memo to then investment banker James Wolfensohn in 1986 encouraging him to look into renewables and environmental technologies. (See my post from March 9, the section talking about venture capital.)  But in this case, it’s decidedly better late than never.  See the report itself from the United Nations Environment Program - Investors Flock to Renewable Energy and Efficiency Technologies.

Dingell v Pelosi — This is from the Center for American Progress today:  “Two senior House Democrats — facing opposition from their party’s top leader, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — have abandoned their legislative effort to block California and a dozen other states from regulating greenhouse gases from cars and trucks.”

Energy in the Senate – The floor debate and voting on the Energy Bill resumed today.  There have been two votes taken so far in which an amendment to underwrite a coal-to-liquid fuels program was defeated and also an amendment to provide a coal-to-syngas program was defeated.  You can go to C-SPAN2 to see this online and to get updates, or watch it on TV.  Up now is consideration of an amendment on liquefied natural gas facilities.  See this from CNNMoney.com for a comprehensive look at the issues and amendments as of today.

You may remember that the American Wind Energy Association commented the other day on my post on the Senate’s activities.  They had a convincing message on the national Renewable Portfolio Standard last week.  They reference a letter from May 24 of  broad support for a strong national RPS from a coalition including Fortune 500 companies, the United Steelworkers, and major environmental groups.  The groups include some folks with juice including GE, Google, BP America, the National Venture Capital Association, Pacific Gas & Electric, the Sierra Club and NRDC.  Also included in the mix are several religious organizations.  Here’s the letter which includes the full list of signers. 

The same folks who brought you the solar boat that crossed the Atlantic in May (see my post of May 14, Solar Boating and Green Building) have just had the inaugural “World Clean Energy Awards.”  This prestigious event had worthy folks such as Amory Lovins and Nicky Gavron as jury members (both of whom have been referenced here several times at the blog) and included awards for such projects as the development of a retrofitting kit for two-stroke engines in the Philippines and the building of a solar cell assembly plant in one of Nairobi’s slums, and seven other winners.  These projects are impressive.  See the whole program and the award-winning projects at the World Clean Energy Awards website. 

Energy in the Senate – Following up on my last post, on the energy debate in Congress, there were a couple of interesting developments yesterday.  In the Senate, an amendment offered by John Warner of Virginia to allow offshore drilling was narrowly defeated.  More importantly, an amendment offered by the ranking Republican on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Pete Domenici, to allow for a “Clean Portfolio Standard” that would have included nuclear and some coal technologies, was effectively defeated by tabling it.  (For our friends outside the U.S.:  “tabling” here means setting it aside, taking it out of immediate consideration and “laying it on the table,” as opposed to the meaning in most other legislative bodies in the world of bringing it forth for a vote.)  Energy Committee Chair Jeff Bingaman, however, could not find the 60 votes necessary to bring his amendment requiring a national 15% true Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) by 2020 to a vote.  See this story on yesterday’s activities from “Environmental Finance,” a British publishing concern. 

Bingaman will be back next week to try again.  Will the 39 voters for Domenici’s amendment, all of them Republican, serve as the core for a filibuster effort?  It seems unlikely but possible.  The argument being made against Bingaman’s 15% RPS is that some states, mostly in the South, couldn’t meet it.  I’m trying not to scream here.  What it’s about is that most Southern utilities are so wedded to coal and nuclear that they don’t want to see renewables.  Renewables could cut deeply into their considerable profits.  This whole country, very much including the South, could hit way above 15% by 2020 if the right incentives were in place.  Bingaman’s approach is precisely what’s needed for industries and the financial markets to make the shift.  If you want to find energy offshore, Senator Warner, why not start with windfarms?  Bingaman said the South has abundant resources for this standard, including plant materials for biomass.  Why not slice down all that kudzu for energy?  How about tidal power and run-of-the-river hydro and solar PV and geothermal, etc., etc.  Sen. Bingaman asked the federal Energy Information Administration to produce a report on the impacts of a 15% national RPS and they found, not surprisingly, some very positive numbers, including greatly increased biomass, wind and solar energy production and reduced costs for coal and natural gas, not to mention a 6.7% decrease in carbon dioxide emissions.

Southern Baptists – Meanwhile, the annual meeting of the 16.3 million member Southern Baptist Convention “… approved a resolution on global warming Wednesday that questions the prevailing scientific belief that humans are largely to blame for the phenomenon and also warns that increased regulation of greenhouse gases will hurt the poor.”  See this from the AP via the “Houston Chronicle.”  The Baptists’ concern for “vulnerable communities” in this flies in the face of the IPCC and the Stern Commission both of which document a continuing and deepening crisis precisely for those in the world least able to adapt.  I wrote about this in early April in “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability”.  Reuters had this to say then:  U.N. panel issues stark climate change warning, and the BBC had this informative interactive map by region and by area of concern.  I also wrote here, in late March, about the sharply countervailing view of the National Association of Evangelicals. 

Climate Savers Computing Initiative – The heaviest hitters in computers and the internet have launched an ambitious scheme to reduce power consumption.  The goal is “…to save $5.5 billion in energy costs and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 54 million tons per year” by 2010.  See Google backs green computer plan from the BBC and this press release.  (I referenced IBM’s $1 billion upgrade program in my post More Climate Summit.)

By the way, the “NY Times” had this little item yesterday, Putting Energy Hogs in the Home on a Strict Low-Power Diet, which, in a nutshell, tells you to use the power-saving functions on your computers.  I do that and I turn mine off at night.   

National Association of Manufacturers – Meanwhile, NAM, representing 11,000 large and small manufacturers in every industrial sector, comprising over 200,000 facilities throughout the United States, and the US Department of Energy have signed an agreement to boost efficiency.  See
NAM’s press release.  This builds on a successful partnership, the 2006 “Save Energy Now” campaign which had some pretty impressive results, including hundreds of millions of dollars in energy savings just for this relatively small pilot.

I have repeatedly hit here on the theme of efficiency.  It addresses the demand side and that’s the side from which consumers and manufacturers can agree are where immediate and tangible benefits can be found.  I wrote about this under “Markets” from April when I talked about 3M pathbreaking “Pollution Prevention Pays (3P)” program.  I wrote about this in my last post from Wednesday, referencing the graphic from Vattenfall, and the work of the RMI and USGBC. 

All we really need to do is to wake up and smell that coffee.

American College & University Presidents Climate Commitment – Last item today and it’s sweet:  Meeting this week in Washington at (yet another) “summit,” 294 higher education presidents signed on to an ambitious program “… in pursuit of climate neutrality.”  This initiative, aided and abetted by the student-driven Energy Action Coalition, is incorporating green design as defined by the LEED standards from the USGBC, and seeks to use ENERGY STAR products when and where universities can.  It seems to me that this particular thrust is hugely important because it institutionalizes the sort of progressive thinking on energy and the environment that university students, our future leaders, will now be seeing every day of their lives during their time in higher academia. 

After working in government for 11 years (in a state environmental agency) and having been an environmental and political activist for a fair number of years before, during and after that, I have come to have a healthy skepticism — okay cynicism — about the reach of good public policy in legislation and actual real world practice.  Looking now at the explosion of focus on Washington from the special interests as critical energy legislation is being drafted and debated, I want to shake my head.  “Plus ça change, plus ça la même chose.”  The “NY Times” noted the other day that “Congress Turns to Energy, and Lobbyists Arrive.”

Who’s at the trough?  The coal industry for one.  I touched on some of their views in my item, “Fear and Loathing in Coal Country,” from May 24.  See also “Lawmakers Push for Big Subsidies for Coal Process” from the “NY Times.”  To quote from the article:  “Prodded by intense lobbying from the coal industry, lawmakers from coal states are proposing that taxpayers guarantee billions of dollars in construction loans for coal-to-liquid production plants, guarantee minimum prices for the new fuel, and guarantee big government purchases for the next 25 years.”

I guess it doesn’t really matter that environmental analysts from far and wide universally decry the idea of intensifying our existing problems with greenhouse gases and air pollution by using coal as a feedstock for transportation fuels.  The Natural Resources Defense Council, for instance, issued a release the other day titled “Controversial Oil Substitutes Sharply Increase Emissions, Devour Landscapes.”  That’s succinct.  NRDC coauthored a report, Driving It Home - Choosing the Right Path for Fueling North America’s Transportation Future, that terms liquid coal “A ‘Clean Fuel’ Mirage.”  In a nutshell:   

Liquid coal poses disastrous consequences for global warming and local environments, according to the report. The energy required in the production stage of liquid coal would mean twice as much global warming pollution as ordinary gasoline. Mining would tear through natural habitats and contribute to air pollution. Displacing just 10 percent of our total oil demand with liquid coal would require a doubling in coal mining and the construction of hundreds of costly new production facilities – each with its own emissions issues.

The coal industry will very likely see significant funds dedicated toward carbon sequestration and storage research and development.  But is there any bang for the buck in this?  Here’s a revealing graphic from the recent special report from “The Economist” on Business And Climate Change.  (The graphic is courtesy of Vattenfall, the Swedish energy company that is solidly committed to addressing climate change.)

As you can plainly see, all the real bang for the buck is in increasing efficiency, what Amory Lovins has been proving to us for years from his Rocky Mountain Institute and what the U.S. Green Building Council has also been showing developers, architects and planners.  Thankfully, the proposed energy package from the Senate’s Energy and Natural Resources Committee addresses the need for efficiency upgrades across the board, as does the Senate Commerce Committee draft as concerns vehicle efficiency, namely the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards.  (The Vattenfall graphic is pretty clear about the usefulness of increasing vehicle efficiencies.)  Jeff Bingaman, chair of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, had a comprehensive summary of all the proposals the other day in his remarks on the floor.  He noted, for one thing:     

Meanwhile, economists take note of our energy policy’s fiscal implications, related to America’s global competitiveness. In 2005 and 2006, our dependence on petroleum imports combined with rising prices to add an estimated $120 billion to our nation’s trade deficit.

Bingaman also noted that:

In addition to the transportation sector, efficiency is a resource we can better deploy in end-uses throughout the U.S. economy.  For example, lighting and common household appliances can account for as much as two-thirds of an average American family’s electricity bills.  By improving a number of appliance efficiency standards, and streamlining and strengthening the Department of Energy’s existing program, consumers stand to collect $12 billion in benefits as a result of provisions included in the underlying legislation.

And, in a delightful and somewhat surprising development, the draft Senate legislation would provide for the conservation of 

… at least 560 million gallons of water per day — or 1.3 percent of daily potable water usage across the nation.  These savings result from provisions that establish the first ever, federal water conservation standards for clothes and dish-washers.

Bingaman said:  “Changing the trajectory of our energy policy is a top priority for this Nation.”  That’s the proverbial mouthful.  The problem is getting the changes through in the face of a massive onslaught of influence by special interests.

Here’s a good look at the issues and players as of yesterday from the “Washington Post.”

Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, gave a speech Monday at the Center for American Progress Action Fund in Washington in which, in describing the energy package being debated, he said:

Our bill takes several steps:  For the first time in 30 years, it raises CAFE standards for new cars and trucks – to 35 miles per gallon by 2020, with another 4 percent improvement every year thereafter.  I know that the auto industry is still wavering on this issue.  I met with the CEOs of the big three automakers last week, and here is what I told them:  The debate on raising CAFE standards should be over.  It will happen.  And perhaps if they had joined us instead of fighting us these last 20 years, they might not be in the financial mess they’re in today.

Okay, I’ve got to stop and hang my head mournfully.  It’s déjà vu all over again.  Every single time the auto industry has ever been asked to do something in the public interest, from installing seat belts to catalytic converters, to preventing onboard explosions to installing crash bags, and certainly to increasing MPG, they have whined and moaned, wrung their hands and said the consumers don’t want to pay more. 

But they’ve got powerful friends in Congress, not the least of whom is the formidable John Dingell, chair of the House Energy & Commerce Committee.  I wrote about Dingell under Politics in my post of March 30.  Dingell fought tooth and nail 20 years ago to keep acid rain legislation bottled up.  He would’ve succeeded too had not the first President Bush put his shoulder to the wheel on this issue.

So we’ve been hearing that Dingell has got religion and wants to fight climate change, yet now he wants to set aside the authority the EPA has to regulate GHG from vehicles.  In early April, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs seeking the establishment of just this principle.  I wrote that it was “… probably the most important climate change case to be adjudicated anywhere in the world.”  (See my post of April 3.)  I quoted Dingell then as saying:  “Today’s ruling provides another compelling reason why Congress must enact, and the president must sign, comprehensive climate change legislation.”  But Dingell and Rich Boucher, Chairman of the Energy & Air Quality Subcommittee, have offered a bill that would gut this authority and block the efforts by California and 11 other states to regulate GHG from vehicles themselves and offers weaker standards for fuel efficiency for vehicles than even the President’s limp proposal.  Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is not happy with these high-ranking and powerful members of her caucus.  “OMB Watch” has a good take on this.  The Attorneys General of 14 states plus the Corporation Counsel of New York City are also not happy with Dingell and Boucher, as evidenced by their letter of June 6. 

It will take some real initiative and creativity by Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Jeff Bingaman, and other stalwarts on this issue like Henry Waxman and Ed Markey in the House, and Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein in the Senate, to bring forth good public policy in an energy package.  If it’s a good package, and deftly framed for the public, it will be hard for George Bush to veto it.  Whether we have anything from the Congress before the July Fourth recess is anybody’s guess.  (I would guess not.)  Check your local listings and stay tuned.

Sorry that I’ve been off the air since early last week.  Wednesday through Friday, I was attending the annual conference of an international scholarly association, for which I am the newsletter editor.  I also gave a paper there.  Saturday, it was an all-day rugby tournament, a fundraiser for an injured clubmate of ours.  Yesterday, I observed the Sabbath for its original intended purpose:  Rest!

Last week, as you are no doubt aware, was a big week for the issue of climate change.  The big news was out of the G-8 Summit in Germany.  The summit followed on the heels of President Bush’s announcement on May 31 that he wanted a “long-term global goal” for reducing GHG and that he was going to invite the top fifteen industrial emitters, including China and India, to talks to find ways to reduce emissions.  In my post on this from June 1, The White House, I said that at least some of “the proof of the pudding” would be in the strength of the final communiqué on climate change from the summit.  Not surprisingly, German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s fervent wish to have firm commitments from the G-8 nations to a 50% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050 was not realized.  Bush derailed that.  What she essentially got was a commitment from the U.S. to try.  Bush has said and continues to say that he opposes any system that would cap emissions.  That has not changed and it appears it will not change.  So the U.S. Congress, it would appear, will have no shot to achieve a federal cap-and-trade system prior to Bush leaving the White House in 2009.  So, climate change, as I wrote on April 11 under Presidential Candidates, is a very big campaign issue.  (I will write next about the status of proposed federal legislation.)

On the question of how to get there, the EU and members of the G-8 and environmental groups all agree on the primacy of the U.N. process.  Talks are scheduled for this coming December in Bali to move to whatever regime will replace the Kyoto rules after they expire in 2012.  “The German Chancellor was very pleased that the G8 leaders were … in agreement that these joint efforts on climate protection should lead into a UN process.”  The Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Yvo de Boer, said “The green light has been given for negotiations to begin on a comprehensive, flexible and fair agreement…”

Merkel, a physicist by trade and passionately committed to obviating the threat of a climate change crisis, invited the leadership from the “G-5” countries of China, India, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa, the five biggest emerging economies, to talks.  Although these have resisted the call for binding targets for GHG reductions, they seem to be moving toward addressing the issue much more seriously than before.  The G-8 and the five developing economies will henceforward cooperate on an ongoing basis under the auspices of the OECD.  According to the G-8 release:  “The partners intend to achieve tangible results by 2009 … as regards climate protection technologies.”  The joint statement by Merkel and the five nations said:  “… we remain committed to contribute our fair share to tackle climate change in order to stabilize green house gas concentrations at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. To this end we need a flexible, fair and effective global framework and concerted international action.”  Technology transfer on energy efficiency and renewables will be at the top of the agenda for this particular initiative.

For the full text of the final G-8 communiqué, go to this pdf file.  The relevant material on “Climate Change, Energy Efficiency And Energy Security” can be found on pages 14 to 29.

Prior to the summit, China released its “National Climate Change Programme.”  This article from the Worldwatch Institute describes the plan:  “Rather than setting a direct target for the reduction or avoidance of greenhouse gas emissions …” the government “…aims to reduce energy consumption per unit of gross domestic product (GDP) by 20 percent by 2010,” and “…to increase the share of renewable energy (including large hydropower) in primary energy provision to some 10 percent and to cover roughly 20 percent of the nation’s land with forest.”  See also this from a “NY Times” article from June 4:  “‘Our general stance is that China will not commit to any quantified emissions reduction targets, but that does not mean we will not assume responsibilities in responding to climate change,’ said Ma Kai, head of China’s powerful economic planning agency, the National Development and Reform Commission.”

Meanwhile,  here’s an article titled “Indian PM sets up council on climate change.”  In sum:  “… while India sticks to its traditional stand of refusing to accept quantitative targets on reducing carbon-emitting greenhouse gas use, the government is slowly coming around to the idea that an agreement on reductions could be conditional on explicit subsidies on clean technologies from the developed world.”

This perspective, from “The Telegraph” in Britain, asserts that, perhaps ominously, India and China are joining forces to resist any efforts by the G-8, the UN or anyone else to cut back on their energy consumption at the expense of economic development.

In another important international development, Australia’s PM John Howard, has switched gears and now has announced a plan to create a national emissions-trading scheme by 2012.  See “Australia announces cap-and-trade plan” from EurActiv.com, a very interesting omnibus news service.  Howard is in the political fight of his life with the Australian Labor Party for control of the parliament in elections coming up this fall.  The ALP leader, Kevin Rudd, has made climate change one of his areas of expertise and he is pushing it very hard as an issue.  Peter Garrett, the rock star and Labor MP, are in the forefront on this and are clearly driving the debate forward.  See this recent article from them:  “Credible Credits: A National Standard For Carbon Offsets.”

So, it seems to me that the international pressure from governments like Germany’s and Britain’s, and the EU (see my post from March 14 on these), the push from the UN and the evidence from its scientists in the IPCC, and the overwhelming push from environmental groups and, not incidentally, general publics from all over the world plus the chorus of voices from the international business and finance communities – all this activity is driving even the recalcitrant ones, like the Bush and Howard administrations, and the monster developing economies of India and China and their governments, into the light of recognition that climate change and environmental protection are no longer to be ignored.  The scales are falling now from even some of the blindest eyes. 

* A novel from 1933 by H.G. Wells, who also wrote the screenplay for “Things to Come,” which was, according to one film historian, “a landmark in cinematic design.”  If you want to read the book, you can go here for an online edition.