Climate Change

This pungent article from yesterday’s “NY Times,” At Climate Meeting, Bush Does Not Specify Goals, has some quotes too good to miss.  (It also has an insightful “Back Story” from the reporter, John Broder.  It’s a great four-minute interview.  Plus, there’s a link at the article to excellent coverage on the presidential candidates’ views on climate change.)

The quotes, though:  A senior Brazilian official, Everton Vargas said “The whole agenda was set by the American government.  The American government didn’t bring any new ideas, any new proposals in terms of the American position.”

Or this from John Ashton, a special adviser on climate change to the British foreign secretary:  “We could have another 20 years of talking about talking.  We need to start deciding about doing.”  Ouch.

And from the very highly respected and influential Fred Krupp, the president of Environmental Defense:  “It was a lost opportunity.  America needs to lead, and we can lead, but now the spotlight shifts to the Congress because the president has refused to accept the only path that’s ever solved an air pollution problem — and that’s mandatory legal limits.” 

Pithy, useful insight.

While the White House was hosting talks in Washington, Bill Clinton had world leaders and worthies of every stripe in New York talking about, among other things, climate change.  The indispensable “Financial Times” has considerable coverage here on the Energy & Climate Change discussions at the Clinton Global Initiative 2007.  The “FT” has ongoing coverage on climate change in another of their “In Depth” sections here.

Of particular interest might be the remarks from U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, a former board chairman of the Nature Conservancy, who told people at Clinton’s gathering:  “There’s a huge scientific predicate that if we don’t do things today, we’re not going to be able to avoid the possibility of some very, very bad outcomes 30 or 40 years from now.”   

Meanwhile, in Washington, the two-day gathering of top officials called by President Bush to address climate change produced some strong words from U.S. Secretary of State Rice.  See Washington changes its tune on climate, also from the “FT.”  Rice said:  “It is our responsibility as global leaders to forge a new international consensus on how to solve climate change…”  Rhetoric?  Certainly.  But the mere fact that you’ve got the Treasury and State secretaries being more outspoken than anyone within the Bush administration has ever been is a sign of some progress.  (Here’s the release on the Washington meetings from the White House.)

“Aspirational goals” is the term they’ve been using for getting GHG down.  (See blog post on APEC below.)  Well, that doesn’t sound too stirring.  I continue to believe that real action will only take place from within our federal government when we have a new president.  That does not mean, as this blog has been noting for months, that real action isn’t already being taken by states, cities, foundations, companies and NGOs within this country.  In fact, we are continuing to see real leadership from many of these entities.  When the federal government finally gets on board, in reality, we may have an excellent chance to avert the worst of the looming climate change crisis – and create a new economic and energy paradigm for our planet. 

Speaking of which, Bill McKibben, the author of Deep Economy: The Wealth of Communities and the Durable Future, has a useful piece in the most recent “NY Review of Books” titled “Can Anyone Stop It?”  It is a review of several books, including the “skeptical environmentalist” Bjørn Lomborg’s newest book:  Cool It.  McKibben skewers this latest offering from the radical right wing’s favorite “authority.”  (See my reference to the Heartland Institute in Bits and Bobs – Autumn Edition below.)  Here’s a taste of McKibben’s disdain:  “But Lomborg’s actual arguments turn out to be weak, a farrago of straw men and carefully selected, shopworn data that holds up poorly in light of the most recent research, both scientific and economic.”  There’s more.  McKibben, as noted at this blog more than once, is an eloquent, lucid, passionate voice for sanity on this most crucial of environmental issues. 

There were about 1,300 articles listed by Google on the UN climate talks in New York.  (See previous post under “UN Climate Summit.”)  Here’s the take from the “FT” today - UN chief upbeat after climate forum.  Ban Ki-moon said:  “Action is possible now and it makes economic sense. The cost of inaction will far outweigh the cost of early action.”  Here is some good, in-depth coverage from “Environment News Service.”  Global co-operation vital says Ban in dig at US says the headline at the “Sydney Morning Herald.”  Here’s an op-ed in “The Guardian” from a UN official, Kevin Watkins.  He says, among other trenchant things:  “If talking could cut greenhouse gas emissions, then this would be a good week for international action on climate change.”  Watkins discerns an unfortunate lack of purpose, particularly from the U.S. 

Next stop, Washington:  The U.S. has invited high government officials from the principal GHG-emitting nations to discuss climate change tomorrow and Friday.  See the invitation from the White House and this today from the “LA Times” - It’s Bush’s turn to air greenhouse possibilities.  One prominent environmentalist expressed considerable skepticism about the meeting, the “LAT” reported:  “Philip E. Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust, dismissed the Washington conference as ‘a sidelight, not a process that leads to anything.’”

***************

By the way, if you need a basic course in the lexicon, or a refresher, this item from Reuters via “Canada.com” might be helpful:  Climate change debate coins new jargon.

Yesterday was the first day of fall.  It’s been gorgeous weather where we live, in NYC.  I haven’t been out as much as I’d like because I’ve been hugely busy with a new teaching gig.  This is hard work it turns out.  For all you teachers out there:  Salute!  So, let me try to get caught up a little on a few things. 

“Price Signals” – I wrote last week about the carbon tax.  I also wrote back in May about a presentation by Dr. John Llewellyn at a planning conference.  (See Urban Planning as a (Powerful) Tool Against Climate Change.)  Llewellyn is a senior economic advisor to Lehman Brothers and a very compelling voice on business and government’s need to address global warming.  He had an op-ed in the “Financial Times” last week:  It is time to get a grip on the cost of carbon.  He calls on governments, internationally, to come together to create “…a global policy approach.”  He reminds us that “Technology, regulation and cost have to be considered as a package.”  In a newly released report for Lehman Bros., The Business of Climate Change II, he and his colleague, Camille Chaix, tell us that “The price mechanism will be at the core of climate change policies.”  This is an important and cogent document.   

Adjustment to the Ozone Treaty – About a month ago, I mentioned another “FT” op-ed, from Dr. Mario Molina, one of the scientists who alerted the world to the dangers of stratospheric ozone depletion.  (See Meetings and Treaties, also “The importance of the Montreal Protocol in protecting climate” from March.)  Thankfully, the phase-out of chlorofluorocarbons and other ozone-depleting chemicals (ODCs) via the mechanism of the 1987 Montreal Protocol has also greatly mitigated global warming.  Now the 191 parties to the Montreal Protocol have reached agreement to strengthen the ozone treaty by speeding up the phase-out of HCFCs.  The agreement will both advance the recovery of the ozone layer by several years and will reduce GHG emissions by up to 25 billion tons of CO2 equivalent.  Here’s a release from the Institute for Governance & Sustainable Development and another from the UN’s Ozone Secretariat.  Achim Steiner, UNEP Executive Director, said:  “I believe the agreement and the spirit of Montreal can build confidence in the United Nations as a platform for negotiating effective agreements for addressing the environmental challenges of our time.”

UN Climate Summit – I really wish I could be at the UN today.  The Secretary General has convened a one-day meeting on climate change:  The Future in our Hands: Addressing the Leadership Challenge of Climate Change.  The programs are being webcast – go here today for access.  (The programs will be archived for later viewing too.)  This is an important event, taking place when world leaders are in New York for the General Assembly meetings.  It is also a prelude to the commencement of serious talks in Bali in December about how to proceed after the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. 

As a sidelight to the meetings today, here’s an article from last week from “The Prague Post” on how the Czech President, Vaclav Klaus, a climate change “skeptic,” is being highlighted in ads from the “Heartland Institute,” a “think tank” financed by the oil and tobacco industries.  It’s a message, the paper notes, that “… many see as anti-environmentalist and some Czechs say reflects badly on their country.”  See this comprehensive article from SourceWatch on the Heartland folks.  For more on Klaus and the Heartland Institute, see this blog post at “Truth & Progress.”

In any event, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon certainly has embraced this issue and will be bringing a lot of further pressure to bear to help the international community reach some useful agreement, in “the spirit of Montreal” as the UNEP director says. 

As noted immediately below, a leading British Conservative Party voice on taxes has (eloquently) explicated their view on “green taxes” – here we’re calling them carbon taxes.  I also pointed out John Dingell’s manifesto on this recently.  See Big John. 

Now a leading Republican Party economist, N. Gregory Mankiw, has stated, and quite unequivocally, why a carbon tax makes sense.  His op-ed, One Answer to Global Warming: A New Tax, appeared in business section of the “NY Times” yesterday.  Mankiw makes a comprehensive and strong argument.  In a nutshell:  “The scientists tell us that world temperatures are rising because humans are emitting carbon into the atmosphere. Basic economics tells us that when you tax something, you normally get less of it. So if we want to reduce global emissions of carbon, we need a global carbon tax. Q.E.D.” 

This cartoon, by David G. Klein, is great too.  But read the op-ed.  It’s worth your time.

Well, over there you have three major political parties fighting and clawing with each other to prove who’s got the better energy and environmental plans.  Over here, you’ve got two parties who seem to compete with each other at times to see who can hold us back.  I quoted Bill McKibben in my inaugural post back in early March about Congress’s record before this year:  “…twenty years of inactivity— a remarkably successful bipartisan effort to accomplish nothing…”  Well, even though one party, the Democrats, newly installed in the majority in both houses this year, have tried to advance progressive energy legislation, the fifth columnists in their own party representing oil and gas interests, the auto industry, and big coal, have been undermining this effort.  (See my last post, and numerous other previous posts from this summer and late spring.) 

So, in Britain, you’ve got one of the Conservative’s leading politicians writing an op-ed in the “Financial Times” entitled A strong case for switching to green taxation.  George Osborne’s piece concludes thusly:  “The case for a green tax switch is compelling, and I want to build a consensus across the political spectrum that it should be used alongside carbon trading schemes in the fight against climate change.”  His party is four square for vigorous, progressive approaches to combating the climate change crisis.  For more, go to their website:  Blueprint for a green economy.

Okay, now see this, Labour starts renewable energy drive to win back climate initiative, from the “Guardian.”  It appears that “…Labour is in danger of reverting to being seen as the least green of the three.”  I’ve noted how Tony Blair and his administration have voiced concern for climate change and pushed to get things done, and I’ve also talked about Ken Livingstone, London’s mayor, and the extraordinary leadership role he’s assumed.  But the question now is will the British government and the Labor party continue to forge ahead on renewables, energy efficiency and curtailing GHG.

Even the third party, the Liberal Democrats, are pushing hard.  Their manifesto on climate change is hard hitting and even, dare I say it, a little radical.  They have an extensive white paper that calls for a “ Zero Carbon Britain.”  They also are issuing a rallying cry to help lead the world on addressing global warming. 

Oh that some of this passion and clear sightedness would travel across the Atlantic and infuse the special interest politicians here with the realization that business as usual doesn’t make it anymore.  We are lobsters in a steadily boiling pot and we’re going to be nicely cooked if we don’t get the heat turned down soon. 

**********

Meanwhile, here’s a sobering perspective from the good folks at Architecture 2030:  “Think You’re Making a Difference?” 

In the immortal words of Daffy Duck:  “What a revolting development this is!” 

In a depressing “NY Times” article from yesterday, Hopes Dim for Measures to Conserve Energy, we are told “The prospect of a comprehensive energy package’s emerging from Congress this fall is rapidly receding, held up by technical hurdles and policy disputes between the House and the Senate and within the parties.”  As you will remember, I’ve written about the energy legislation extensively here.  It was the hope that the conference committee would meet early this fall to commence its deliberations in order to produce a final bill for the two houses to approve and to send to the President.  From “CNN” we have Democrats Challenge Each Other In Battle Over Energy Bill which is a little less pessimistic.  It highlights the differences between some constituencies within the Democratic caucuses from both houses – which we knew about – and it talks about getting a little later start for the conference committee then we might have hoped for, but it doesn’t insinuate that we’re going to be left hanging.  Here’s an AP story, courtesy of “Mlive.com” that’s got Nancy Pelosi’s view:  Pelosi sees higher mileage standards combating global warming.  This is more hopeful.  At the blogs, here’s some pessimism from “Climate Progress” - Energy Bill Hurdles Could be Fatal Obstacles. 

It’ll be interesting to see if Pelosi sticks to her guns.  She does seem to have a real passion for this legislation.  One wonders if she’ll get the support from important constituencies who support a strong energy bill like the one we could have if the conference committee incorporates the best of the two versions.  

The influential Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) “…brings together the governments of countries committed to democracy and the market economy from around the world to support sustainable economic growth, boost employment, raise living standards” and other worthy pursuits.  An “FT” headline from early this week proclaimed:  OECD warns against biofuels subsidies.  The OECD’s recent damning report echoes earlier concerns expressed in a study they did along with the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).  Growing bio-fuel demand underpinning higher agriculture prices reads the headline from the press release from April.  (I last wrote about this a few weeks ago under Biofuels – Boon or Bane?)

One of the problems here is that there is a huge amount of money and energy going into producing biofuels from food crops.  The “FT” articles says:  “The study estimates the US alone spends $7bn (€5bn) a year helping make ethanol, with each tonne of carbon dioxide avoided costing more than $500. In the EU, it can be almost 10 times that.”  Here’s a very interesting chart from Vattenfall that shows that biodiesel production falls into the range of the most expensive GHG-reducing tactics.  

Also, here’s an instructive short video from the OECD.

Meanwhile, in a wonderfully hopeful story from the “NY Times” – Mali’s Farmers Discover a Weed’s Potential Power – we learn the potential of jatropha as a biofuel crop that will produce fuel, save money, and increase agricultural productivity for food crops.  Hard to beat.  And in an article from the “FT” we also learn that the developing world has an interest:  Biofuel crops to transform landscape.  The landscape in question is Britain’s and “The government’s Rural Economy and Land Use (RELU) programme estimates that 15-20 per cent of Britain’s agricultural land may have to be devoted to growing biofuels to meet international obligations to reduce carbon emissions and improve energy security.”

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation or APEC is a grouping of countries that is “…the premier forum for facilitating economic growth, cooperation, trade and investment in the Asia-Pacific region.”  APEC’s 21 Member Economies are: Australia; Brunei Darussalam; Canada; Chile; People’s Republic of China; Hong Kong, China; Indonesia; Japan; Republic of Korea; Malaysia; Mexico; New Zealand; Papua New Guinea; Peru; The Republic of the Philippines; The Russian Federation; Singapore; Chinese Taipei; Thailand; United States of America; Viet Nam.

So there are some big hitters here, including the world’s two biggest economies:  the U.S. and Japan.  China is the world’s fastest growing economy and Russia is one of the world’s key energy suppliers.  Among these countries, the U.S., Canada, Australia and China have been the most conservative – or maybe reticent is a better word – on climate change. 

The APEC leaders have just concluded meetings in Sydney and have agreed on “aspirational goals” for climate change.  See this from EurActiv.com via the WBCSD.  The “Sydney Declaration” from the APEC members seems to be setting them on a collision course with the EU and other countries, and the UN, whose commitment to climate change appears significantly deeper.  This is a political issue in Australia, as elsewhere, and the opposition leader there, Kevin Rudd, seems poised to take the sitting PM, John Howard’s job whenever elections are held this year.  Rudd is a very active proponent of strong climate change action for both Australia and internationally. 

Meanwhile, back in the U.S., the “LA Times” called the conference a “festival of fakery” in an editorial:  Posturing on climate.  Ouch.  Greenpeace Australia Pacific referred to the “Sydney Distraction on climate change.”   

Next stop, the UN later in September.  (See Meetings and Treaties below.)  By the way, I had hoped to get to the UN’s 60th Annual DPI/NGO Conference on “Climate Change:  How It Impacts Us All” in New York last week, but I had “autre chats à fouetter” as the French say so disarmingly.

“Kind of broad at the shoulders, narrow at the hip.
And everybody knew you didn’t give no lip to Big John.”*

I’ve written about and referenced House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair, John Dingell, a good number of times here.  He’s the second-longest serving Congressman ever, highly respected and often feared.  There’s a fascinating piece in the “NY Times” today about him:  What Is John Dingell Really Up To?  It’s about Big John’s stance on a carbon tax, the alternative to a cap-and-trade system, favored by a growing number of people.  If Dingell is serious about advancing a carbon tax, and he appears to be, then that would be a big step.  Here’s Dingell’s op-ed from the “Washington Post” from last month:  The Power in the Carbon Tax.  What do you think?  It’s heady stuff, and politically difficult to achieve.   

The Carbon Tax Center has “…up-to-date information on the why and how of taxing carbon emissions to reduce global warming.”  They have good analyses, and media coverage as well, including this “Wall St. Journal” piece from August, A Carbon Tax Would Be Cleaner.

*monster Jimmy Dean hit from the ‘60’s