Climate Change

Bali and the UN meetings start next Monday, December 3, and run through midmonth.  These talks are to formally kick off the negotiations for a post-Kyoto regime on addressing the climate change crisis.  It seems like lots of folks are headed out there.  I’m now getting about 20 emails a day inviting me to “side events” put on by companies, institutes, environmental organizations, and the like.  I’d love to be there, but I’ll be in NYC enjoying the pretty autumn we’re having.  (I have to admit, I’d be way yearning to surf and scuba if I were out there.)

Business call for climate change framework reads the headline from the “Telegraph” in the U.K. Britain’s Prince Charles has corralled 150 of the world’s largest corporations into endorsing the “Bali Communiqué.”  The message to the leaders meeting in Bali is to, among other things, come up with “a comprehensive, legally binding United Nations framework to tackle climate change.”  This is a good strong effort by Prince Charles who has been a leader for years on the environment and historic preservation.  The Prince has an op-ed in today’s “FT” – Bali offers a vital chance to take tough decisions.  His Royal Highness – that’s the proper form of address, folks  –  makes a number of interesting points, among them:  “Of crucial importance is the role of big capital providers, such as pension funds and insurance companies, and their ability to direct their investments towards delivering a low carbon economy.”

I’ve written about efforts from just these critical entities under “Insurance Industry” here.  See also the webpage on climate change for Lloyd’s of London and the Investor Network on Climate Risk, a “$4 trillion network of investors that promotes better understanding of the financial risks and opportunities posed by climate change.”

Finally, don’t forget the classic Hope-Crosby-Lamour “road” picture:  The Road to Bali.  For hilarious clips, you can go here, at Public Domain Comedy.

The heads of government of the Commonwealth have just concluded their biennial meeting, having convened in Uganda.  On the subject of climate change, they have put forth a unified position.  It appears, however, that it is a watered-down position from what almost all of the 53 nations wished to say.  Why?  In the words of the fun-loving folks from South Park:  Blame Canada.

Canada, was represented by Prime Minister Stephen Harper.  See these articles:  Harper alone on climate change at Commonwealth summit from the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. and Harper defiant on climate change from the “Toronto Star.”  Harper was criticized for pressuring the meeting to remove “… any reference to binding targets or timelines, replacing them with a vague guarantee that all countries should work toward some undefined ‘aspirational’ goal.”  The final “Lake Victoria Climate Change Action Plan” calls for a post-Kyoto plan that includes “…a long term aspirational global goal for emissions reduction to which all countries would contribute.”  “Aspirational goals” was the term used at the APEC meetings in September and this phrase, not particularly “full of sound and fury” yet still “signifying nothing” were nearly universally excoriated then.  See my post, APEC.

Meanwhile, down in Australia, Harper was losing his only ally in the Commonwealth on this subject, John Howard.  Not only did Howard lose his position as PM, he also lost his Parliamentary seat.  (See my post on this immediately below.)

On to Bali and the UN meetings December 3 through 14 that are to formally kick off the negotiations for a post-Kyoto regime on addressing the climate change crisis. 

In a development expected for months, Australia’s Labor Party won the national parliamentary elections and will install Kevin Rudd as the new Prime Minister.  Rudd has been vocal about getting Australia into a much higher gear in dealing with climate change.  Here’s the story from AP:  Rudd makes global warming a priority.  Labor has ambitious plans for Climate Change & Environment, including a 20% renewable energy standard by 2020.  The likely new environment minister will be Peter Garrett, the frontman of the activist band Midnight Oil.

I wrote about Australia’s retrograde stance under outgoing PM John Howard at my post, APEC, in September.  It seems to me highly significant that Kevin Rudd is also a China specialist, having served in Beijing as an Australian diplomat, and speaks the language, and will therefore be positioned to help bring China along in the next few years on what it needs to do to address climate change.  Good on ya, Kevin!

The energy bills are under threat of having the tax credits for renewables and the renewable portfolio standard unceremoniously yanked by the Democratic leadership.  (See last post from November 10 immediately below.)  Here’s a good look, from RenewableEnergyAccess.com, at the what and the why of this:  Lessons from The Political Process: Energy Bill Woes.  See also this alert from the American Solar Energy Society.

Furthermore … Here’s an editorial, Where’s That Energy Bill?, from the “NY Times” today, Nov. 14.  It’s succinct, eloquent, and definitely what the Congressional Democratic leadership needs to hear.

And More … Investors managing more than $1.4 trillion in assets have called for the Congressional leadership to include a strong renewable energy standard (RES) – which is the same thing as the renewable portfolio standard (RPS) to which I’ve been referring – as well as strong energy efficiency standards and increased fuel economy standards in the final energy package.  See this from the Investor Network on Climate Risk (INCR).

Will Pelosi and Reid play politics as usual or will they make the play that most Americans, according to all the polls, want?  See some further insight from RenewableEnergyAccess.com here.  According to the article, “… because of increased pressure from industry associations, their members and other concerned citizens, Congressional leaders say they are still looking at all possible options for the energy bill and that a decision on final language probably won’t come until next month.”

The Energy Bills – First, before we get to the reading opportunities, there are rumors in the blogosphere that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are going to offer up the renewable portfolio standard and renewable tax credits as sacrificial lambs to the gods of fossil fuel and nuclear power.  See Bye, bye, Ms. Renewable Pie from the excellent “Grist Mill” and News Alert: If You Love Renewable Energy, It’s Time to Freak Out from the “Huffington Post.”  The American Wind Energy Assn. is so concerned that it’s sending out an action alert asking people to tell their Senators to keep these critical components of a progressive energy bill in! 

Pelosi has said publicly that she wants this legislation voted on soon.  See Pelosi to push for vote on energy bill from UPI.  As always, stay tuned.

World Energy Picture – The International Energy Agency issued their annual report this past week on the state of the world’s energy.  In the executive summary, we learn that demand for energy is continuing to rise steeply, driven in large part by the wildly burgeoning economies of India and China, and that “the world faces a fossil energy future to 2030.” 

The “Financial Times” has a really useful ongoing, “in-depth” section on energy security, and they covered the IEA story this week:  IEA sounds alarm over huge energy demands.  They also reported that the Asian energy focus shifts to renewables going “…well beyond the International Energy Agency’s expectations.”  Let’s hope so.

The “FT” – which I must say is an extraordinary news organization – has still more coverage of energy in this special report.  (You can register for a finite number of articles for free, or an unlimited amount for a fee – go here.)  The special report has over 20 articles on everything from wind to nukes, and covering areas from India, Russia and China to Venezuela and the Middle East. 

Tar Sands – The incomparable Betsy Kolbert has an article in this week’s “New Yorker,”  Unconventional Crude on Canada’s tar-sand boom.  Unfortunately, you actually have to buy this at the newstand.  Anything she writes is worth the cost of the magazine.  (If you have access to a library database and want to wait a few weeks, you’ll be able to get it there.)

Biofuels – Meanwhile, back at the “FT,” there was a compelling little op-ed by the director of the Center for International Development at Harvard, Ricardo Hausman, saying how “biofuels are set to transform the global economy.”  You can see his op-ed and sign up to ask him a question online this coming week if you go here.

“The Business of Green” – The “NY Times” had a special section this past week that has a number of great articles on, among other things,  a carbon tax versus cap-and-trade (something I’ve been covering here recently), nanoscience and energy, and nimbyism on nuclear waste. Finally, there’s also now a blog on the Business of Green from the “NYT’s” sister paper, the “International Herald Tribune,” and Dot Earth from the Times reporter, Andrew Revkin. 

(I referenced Revkin and his new blog in Important Miscellany, my post from Oct. 31.)

There’s lots and lots of great reading out there.  Set aside a couple of hours and settle in to catch up on some of this material.

I had the opportunity this summer to write on how American airports are embracing sustainability.  I found a pretty great story:  a really smart, passionate and committed corps of professionals are creating a very brave new world indeed at our airports.  See the story, The Only Way to Fly, from “Planning,” the magazine of the American Planning Association.

(See also my post on Green Flying from July.)

The BBC has released a poll showing that people “… are ready to make personal sacrifices – including paying more for their energy – to help address climate change.”  Support for carbon taxes (see previous post below) is very high when it’s framed that the money would go to help further renewable energy and energy efficiency programs.  Support is also quite high when the scenario becomes using the carbon tax proceeds to offset other taxes.  This is precisely the approach being promulgated by NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg and many economists.   

See more on this at the BBC and at World Public Opinion.

Meanwhile, for a nice summary of the issues involved in the carbon tax vs. cap-and-trade debate, go to The Real Climate Debate: To Cap or to Tax? from the “NY Times” the other day. 

Presidential Race – Two of the leading Democratic presidential candidates made their voices heard this week, with John Edwards calling global warming a “moral test” and Hillary Clinton saying:  “Tackling the energy crisis is the calling of our time. And when I’m president, it will be the calling of our nation.”  See this from AP on Edwards’s speech and see the Edwards website for more.  See the story here on Clinton’s plan from the “Des Moines Register” as well as her speech from the campaign website.

See also this comprehensive piece, Climate Is a Risky Issue for Democrats, from today’s “Washington Post.”

I’ve written about Big Apple Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s ambitious energy and environmental plans on a number of occasions.  See Congestion Pricing in New York from July and Mike Bloomberg’s Earth Day from April.  As someone who would’ve had a role working on environmental issues had Bloomberg’s opponent, Mark Green, won in 2001, I might be prejudiced about our mayor’s performance in this area.  I’m not.  Bloomberg’s done a nice job. (Green was the odds-on favorite to win on September 10, 2001.  Things changed the next day, very much including the politics of the mayoral race that year.  But that’s another story.) 

As a highly visible national figure, as a self-made billionaire, and as a passionate advocate for changing direction so as to avoid our impending head-on collision with catastrophic climate change, Bloomberg’s views have considerable heft.  The mayor attended the U.S. Conference of Mayors’ “Climate Protection Summit” this past week in Seattle.  (See the USCM website for news on the conference and their work on climate change.)  He unveiled his unqualified support for a carbon tax in a speech he gave at the conference.  He told us to “stop ignoring the laws of economics” in his smart, low-key and persuasive speech.  Here’s a video of the speech.  The carbon tax portion runs for ten minutes starting at around 17:30.

See also this article from the A.P. via the “Seattle Post-Intelligencer” and this press release from Bloomberg’s office.  The Carbon Tax Center, a group that has been providing a good deal of the intellectual foundation for the concept, was rhapsodic about Bloomberg’s speech.  (I’ve written about the carbon tax as recently as last week in “France’s Initiative” under More Quick Hitters below, and elsewhere.)

Will the carbon tax pick up steam and supplant cap-and-trade as the preferred method of addressing global warming in Congress?  Bloomberg kept emphasizing the political unpopularity of the concept at present.  Stay tuned.