After China and the US, which together contribute 40% of the world’s burden of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, you come to Indonesia and Brazil.  Why?  In a word, deforestation.  Japan, because of its industrial emissions, comes in 8^th overall.  So when there’s news on the intentions of these major economies on reducing their GHG, we should listen.

We’ve heard a fair bit about how the nations of the developing world - the Non-Annex 1 countries -  are resisting any commitments to quantifiable emission reductions.  Certainly China and India have been vehement on this score.  Some, however, are moving forward with ambitious plans.  At a conference I attended this week, I heard Nathaniel Keohane, EDF’s Director of Economic Policy and Analysis, cite Mexico, South Africa and Brazil as three countries that are progressing nicely on addressing their emissions.  (More about the conference in a forthcoming post or two.)

Brazil could adopt greenhouse targets: Lula is the story from Reuters.  Brazil’s President said his country, according to the article, “…was open to adopting targets for greenhouse gas emissions…”  His condition, though, was that developed countries had to take on more responsibility.  Destruction of the Amazon rainforest, 1½ times the size of India (or eight states of Texas), lying mostly in Brazil, is the main reason, by far, that Brazil is so high on the list of contributors to climate change.  That is also the reason that REDD is going to play so critical a role in the post-Kyoto international framework.  “The Economist” looks at Brazil and the Amazon this week in both this article and this leader.  Both note the efforts that Brazil is making and the incredible difficulties involved.  Brazil (and Indonesia and other rainforest nations) are up against some powerful commercial interests.  What is forthcoming on the international scene is a system for securing rainforests by creating economic incentives for preserving them.  As “The Economist” puts it:  Lay down that axe and you will get cash.  It’s crude, but you get the point.

Meanwhile, the proposal for GHG reductions from Japan’s Prime Minister, Taro Aso, received, at best, a lukewarm reception.  Some observers were manifestly not amused.  Aso pledged to cut emissions by 15% under 2005 levels by 2020.  Yvo de Boer, the UNFCCC executive secretary, was taken aback by the perceived lack of ambition from Japan.  The AP quoted him here:  “For the first time in 2½ years in this job, I don’t know what to say.”  Ouch.

Mr. Aso, however, told the “FT” that “The target we are using is for ‘genuine clear water’ or ‘mamizu’ as we say in Japanese - truly a genuine net effect of our effort to save and conserve energy.  Unlike the European Union, we do not include [purchased] emissions trading.”  He also noted that Japan will hit a target of 20% on renewables in the short term, partially by radically stepping up solar.  See the article and this transcript of the interview.

Some analysts are noting that Japan is only low-balling their commitment.  This seems perfectly plausible.  There is likely to be a bit of posturing as we approach December and the Copenhagen conference.

I’ve written about the truly heinous practice of mountaintop removal mining in Appalachia a number of times, most recently here and here.  An amazing activist, Maria Gunnoe, is featured in both the superb documentary, Burning the Future, and in the magisterial book Big Coal.  Now Gunnoe has garnered international recognition for her work by winning the 2009 Goldman Environmental Prize.  Read this interview with her and this profile of her in the indispensable Gristmill.

Photo: Tom Dusenbery

It is fitting that another champion of the forest who has had to fight against mining interests, Marc Ona Essangui of Gabon, has been similarly honored.

There’s a scene near the end of Burning the Future when Gunnoe and some of her colleagues are in New York for the Sustainable Development Commission meetings at the UN, and they visit Times Square at night.  She starts howling that all these gaudy signs and flashing lights are killing her community.  You can make the connection quite well by this point in the film and it’s a pretty bone-chilling moment.  I can’t go by Times Square anymore without thinking of her and the 500+ mountains they’ve destroyed.  We can do better - a lot - and because of folks like Gunnoe and Essangui, we will.  You can take that to the bank.

My colleague, Elizabeth Balkan, writing the other day at the FPA blog on Energy, had a good update on the state of affairs on REDD, forestry and climate change:  Seeing the Forest for the Trees: Shaping Financing to Prevent Deforestation.  She looks particularly at the Waxman-Markey draft and how it embraces this critical aspect of getting at addressing climate change.

Black Carbon in Waxman-Markey - As we’ve seen here, particulates from uncombusted materials - coal, diesel, and biomass - have a much bigger impact on the climate than previously recognized, not to mention the devastating direct health impacts.  (See under Soot here and at Black Carbon and Solar Cookers.)  It is entirely worth noting that the draft under discussion in the House (see last post below), addresses this.  The summary of Waxman-Markey says that black carbon “…is a major contributor to warming in the Arctic. EPA is directed in the draft to use its existing authority under the Clean Air Act to reduce emissions of black carbon domestically and study opportunities for reductions internationally.”

EPA was obviously on the same page.  They announced a program on Monday that will lead to significantly reduced emissions of particulates, and other pollutants, from marine shipping.  The EPA release on this says “These standards will cut sulfur in fuel by 98 percent, particulate matter emissions by 85 percent, and nitrogen oxide emissions by 80 percent from the current global requirements.”

I referenced the health burden here in July (see Shipping), and also talked about some ways of radically reducing the problem.  Here is a report from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation on some new work that further indicates the health and environmental impacts.  (You can also listen to the story in Real Audio and Windows Media and MP3 formats.)

Players - There is a series in this week’s “US News & World Report” that profiles some of the “…most influential energy and environmental policymakers in the Obama era.”  I’ve written about most of them here, but this is a concise further look at folks from Lisa Jackson and Steven Chu to Henry Waxman and Al Gore.  I haven’t written about Lisa Murkowski or Joe Romm, so let USN&WR bring you up to speed on these two.  (Romm and his blog, Climate Progress, are very influential indeed.)

Feel-Good Stories that Pack a Punch - First, DOE to Award $3.2 Billion in Energy Efficiency Block Grants is from the excellent “EERE Network News.”  This stimulus spending will get you more money back in the end than you put in, according to nearly every economic analysis you can find.  This is what we call investment.

The other story:  Billion tree campaign grows past 3 billion mark, says UN agency from the UN News Service.  They set out to plant a billion trees worldwide, have hit three, and are now aiming for seven by the end of this year.  Trees, by the way, are a pretty effective device for sequestering carbon.  Remember how that works?  Will the foresters and environmentalists win with this low-tech argument over the engineers and industrialists who are gaga over CCS, not to mention industrialized atmospheric carbon scrubbing?  We’ll just have wait to see.

Columbia Climate Center - I had the pleasure of guest blogging today at Nature’s fine blog, Climate Feedback, on the launch of an ambitious initiative of the Earth Institute.  It was an interesting event, highlighted by a conversation between Jeffrey Sachs and Ted Turner.

I've been so jazzed by the coup d'état in the House of Representatives (see last two posts below plus this from early this month) that I've neglected some other big stories.  There are some great ones out there. 

GHG Cap in the UK , MPs pass landmark climate change bill is the story from AFP.  Parliament is mandating an 80% reduction from 1990 levels.  This is the target that President-Elect Obama and environmental leaders in the Congress are seeking.  Not incidentally, the story reports that "Climate change minister Joan Ruddock said she had recently spoken to officials in the US Congress and they had praised the way British lawmakers worked together on such an important issue."  Ruddock heads the brand new Department of Energy and Climate Change.

The implications for this include the notion that Britain and the US, along with others, may go to Copenhagen next year very well prepared to negotiate serious GHG reductions for the international community as a whole.  The upcoming Conference of the Parties in Poland will be a critical stepping stone to the meetings in Copenhagen in December of 2009. 

Canada , Meanwhile in another key realm of the British Commonwealth, and a G7 country to boot , not to forget, the call has come out, finally, for a cap-and-trade regime.  Even better, Canada wants to create a single North American system.  See this from Reuters.  The Western Climate Initiative already includes four Canadian provinces as partners and one as an observer.  In addition, six Mexican states are observers.  (See the lists.)

It makes sense, given the existence of NAFTA and the groundbreaking work of the WCI that a full North American compact come into being.  Again, as with the British, should this take shape prior to Copenhagen, it'll be another convincing argument for a robust international agreement.

Macedonia , This small proud country, one of the former Yugoslavian states, made a bold statement this week.  Macedonians Plant Six Million Trees In Single Day is the scoop, also from Reuters' consistently excellent PlanetArk newsfeed.   Opera singer Boris Trajanov initiated this superb investment in his country's future and wants to expand the project to other Balkan countries.  He said:  "If Macedonia, a country of two million people, can plant six million trees, we can only imagine how many trees can be planted in other, bigger countries."  Bravissimo!

UNFCCC , The Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, Yvo de Boer, has lauded Barack Obama's recent remarks supporting strong energy and climate change legislation.  (See November 18 just below.)  In talking to, once again, Reuters, de Boer said of Obama's remarks:  "I think that will have a very positive influence on the negotiations.  He indicated that he intends to show national and international leadership.  I think that that statement will be seen as a huge signal of encouragement to the international community."  See the whole story here.

This is another instance of how the world is embracing the change in tone on international issues, from the world economy to energy and the environment, as we transition from the last days of the present administration to Obama's.  You've been seeing this in the international press consistently from Election Day.

Forests - I don’t think I’ve adequately covered the subject of forest loss and its extraordinary impact on warming.  20% of warming induced by people comes from forest destruction.  I mentioned the extraordinary losses in Borneo in the last post below.  We’ve also touched on some incredible potential for carbon sequestration in the heart of the Amazon rainforest in the nurturing of “terra preta” here in August.  We also looked at the REDD movement - “Reducing emissions from deforestation and ecosystem degradation.” - here and here in June.  The IPCC also looked at the GHG mitigation potential for forests here in their Fourth Assessment Report last year.

I mentioned the World Conservation Union’s meetings in October here in the context of species loss.  At the meetings, some important principles on forest loss, protection and restoration were also enunciated by an international coalition known as the Forests Dialogue (TFD).  In TFD’s press release, they claimed consensus had been reached by “250 representatives of governments, forestry companies, trade unions, environmental and social groups, international organizations, forest owners, indigenous peoples and forest-community groups in a series of meetings over 10 months.”  See also this article from the Worldwatch Institute.

Critical momentum has been building for some time on addressing forest loss.  Although the Kyoto Protocol did not address this key issue, the negotiators at the key international meetings in Bali last year did.  See Bali delegates agree to support forests-for-climate (REDD) plan.  Meanwhile, as I noted in my post on the House Energy and Commerce draft climate change bill here:  “Another noteworthy point is that the draft makes international reforestation and afforestation projects eligible for offsets.”  These two key constituencies, the UNFCCC negotiators and John Dingell’s powerful House committee, are going to have an awful lot of influence on the shape of federal and international law in the next couple of years.

Cities - I had a lot to say in May of 2007 on the C40 Large Cities Climate Summit.  This was a great conference with one smart, motivated, focused heavy-hitting speaker after another.  (Start here.)  The C40 group aims “to create long-term international collaborations among large cities in order to drive down carbon emissions and encourage cities to work with businesses and national governments to accelerate action on climate change.”  They’ve done great work in only just a few years.  They’ve been having a series of meetings this year in anticipation of the next summit, taking place in Seoul in May.  The latest meeting took place in Tokyo in October to discuss adaptation measures for cities.  See also this AFP piece:  Cities pledge action on climate change.

The C40 had a World Ports Conference in Rotterdam in July which I mentioned here.  (Shipping is a big issue and I talked about it here as well.)  The C40 also convened a workshop on airports in April in LA.  (I wrote about sustainability at airports for “Planning” last year.  See the article here.)

The C40 is not alone in their focus and effectiveness.  I mentioned the U.S. Conference of Mayors in my post below from October 26 and ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability has been doing great work for years, including with their Cities for Climate Protection (CCP) Campaign. I’m an old urban environmentalist and so I pay attention to these initiatives. So should you because there’s so much bang for the buck in our cities.

P.S.  The site of the next C40 summit, Seoul, is embracing bicycles in a big way.  See this from AFP.

European Union - The leaders of the 27-member EU met in Brussels last month and one of the critical discussions centered around climate change.  Keeping the EU’s ambitious renewables and climate change trajectory moving onward and upward is going to be difficult in the precarious economic times we’re in now.  Reuters put it this way in this article:  “The meeting in Brussels had been expected to focus on how the EU would reach its goal of cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 20 percent by 2020, but was overtaken by failing banks, plunging stock markets and warnings of recession.”  The EU issued a progress report on how the countries are doing on meeting the Kyoto targets saying they’re on track.

But it’s going to be very tough for some countries, particularly those in Eastern Europe that rely on coal.  See Uphill struggle for coal-fired Poland from the “FT.”  At the summit in Brussels, these concerns were taken into account.  “European officials argue that they have already taken into account the challenges faced by Poland and other members of the “coalition of the unwilling”. For example, the climate package calls for 10 per cent of the trading scheme’s auction revenues to be redistributed to poorer countries.”

I’ve belabored the point rather more than I perhaps should have here, but I’m going to do it again:  We have enormous opportunity now to change how we do business.  The sooner we make the transition to renewables and a low to zero-carbon world, the sooner we’re going to ease all sorts of economic and geopolitical pressures.  (Do a search at the blog on the word “opportunity” and you’ll see.  I do love that word!)

Here are some great stories from major media that merit a look.  Beyond these stories, these publications have consistently great coverage on climate change and matters directly relevant to our subject.  There’s also a book here for your consideration.

National Geographic - This old and universally respected magazine has had an increasingly high profile on critical environmental stories over the past several years.  Here is one startling and, frankly, depressing article about the decimation of Borneo’s rainforests in the service of producing palm oil for junk food.  At the NGM page for Borneo’s Moment of Truth, you will find a video, some of the stunning photography, and the article itself.

Borneo seems a microcosm of much of what’s wrong in the world:  our appetite for energy and cheap consumer goods, our disdain for biodiversity and the lives of indigenous peoples, and our indifference to rainforest destruction and how that relates to global warming.  The photographs and video remind me of the havoc wreaked in Appalachia, another breathtakingly wild and diverse environment, by mountaintop removal coal mining.  (See last post below.)

For more on palm oil, see this report from Greenpeace:  Forest destruction, climate change and palm oil expansion in Indonesia.

© Greenpeace / Natalie Behring Chisolm

There’s another compelling story at NGM, on light pollution:  Our Vanishing Night.  The excellent environmental writer, Verlyn Klinkenborg, writes about the surprisingly enormous burden imposed on wildlife by the lights of cities and industrial complexes , even fishing fleets.  As an urban dweller (a small metropolis called New York City), I can attest to the fact that we’ve got too much light.  The article references the work of the International Dark-Sky Association, a nonprofit “dedicated to protecting and preserving the nighttime environment and our heritage of dark skies through quality outdoor lighting.”  See also the Dark Sky Society.

I’ve noted the amazing, now-annual phenomenon of Earth Hour.  Light pollution not only disrupts the natural cycles of wildlife, it also sucks thousands of megawatts of  power, unnecessarily, from our grids, hugely exacerbating global warming.  Simple stuff, it seems to me.

Update:  See this article from the “NY Times” on efforts in the Big Apple to cut down on unnecessary lighting.

The NY Review of Books - This eminently intelligent and readable periodical has had, like NGM and many others, more and more to say about climate change.  Their go-to environmentalist is the incomparable Bill McKibben.  (See any number of references I’ve made to him and his writing at the blog, including talking about the “Step It Up 2007″ campaign.)

In the most recent issue, McKibben reviews Tom Friedman’s new blockbuster Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution‚ and How It Can Renew America.  The review is titled “Green Fantasia.”  McKibben both praises the book for some of its emphases and damns it for an overabundance of conventional thinking.  Indeed, the review opens by saying:  “Thomas Friedman is the prime leading indicator of the conventional wisdom, always positioned just far enough ahead of the curve to give readers the sense that they’re in-the-know, but never far enough to cause deep mental unease.”  Ouch.

An example of praise:  “His basic policy guidelines, and most of his specific suggestions, for managing this crucial transition are sound.”  McKibben here notes another useful insight:  “Friedman knows that innovation in the financial services industry will be almost as important as progress in engineering.”   But McKibben also derides Friedman for, for all intents and purposes, dismissing the important arena of international climate regimes:  What was finalized in Kyoto and what will be, ostensibly, finalized in Copenhagen in December 2009 to replace the existing protocol, are of utmost importance.

He also gets to the crux of the title of his review here:  “Does it ever occur to him, in the grip of a fantasia like this, that if the sun is shining brightly, or the breeze is blowing steadily, you could dry your clothes on a $14 piece of rope strung off your back deck, or for that matter on a foldable rack in the apartment hallway? And that since most of the world already knows how to do it, we might be smarter moving in their direction instead of insisting that they buy into our entire high-technology suburban dream?”

That’s been one of my thoughts, and occasionally an argument here:  Why don’t we try to get more bang out of the low-tech buck?  Solar-box cookers and, indeed, hanging the laundry out to dry!  I wrote about Galloping Consumption a while back.  I said then, in conclusion:  “Can we reduce our dangerous rates of consumption and maintain and improve our standards of living worldwide?  You bet.  Making Peace with the Planet will also make us happier.  You can take that to the bank.”

Great review.  Check it on out.

“Der Spiegel” - This venerable German periodical has a most useful section devoted to Climate Change here.  For a particularly good and well-informed look at what’s going on in Germany and Europe, you should check in here from time to time.

DK - Dorling Kindersley has a fabulous series of “Eyewitness” books that illustrate all sorts of important subjects with interesting text and eye-catching, vivid graphics.  When I visited the AMNH exhibit on climate change (see post below from Oct. 20), I picked up their new volume Eyewitness Climate Change.  This is great for kids, particularly, but it’s perfectly great reading for adults too.  It’s quite informative, very good at making some complex ideas accessible.  With a CD-ROM of clip art, and a great poster too, you can’t miss.

We were talking about the ocean.  Now let's talk about the earth.  More specifically, let's focus on the soil , that which gives us the food that all of us need.

There is a truly terrific piece in the latest "National Geographic," Our Good Earth.  It looks at all manner of good news and bad news in how we use the earth.  In the developed world, one way we degrade our food-producing soil, among a number of ways, is through compaction by great honking harvesters and other gargantuan machines.  In the developing world, we cut down the forests and grasslands for cropland.  This practice, of course has enormous implications for exacerbating global warming.  See Are Biofuels A Bummer?  But let's stick here now to the impacts on agricultural productivity. 

The NGM article says "In the first‚ and still the most comprehensive‚ study of global soil misuse, scientists at the International Soil Reference and Information Centre (ISRIC) in the Netherlands estimated in 1991 that humankind has degraded more than 7.5 million square miles of land. Our species, in other words, is rapidly trashing an area the size of the United States and Canada combined."  The article details some of the practices that have led to this massive degradation.

It also looks at some extraordinarily hopeful developments like the Keita Project in Niger sponsored by the Italian government, the use of cordons pierreux (long lines of fist-sized stones) to trap rainwater and silt, and the use of zaï , foot deep holes in the fields that are then salted with manure.  Read this great article and also see NGM's companion "geopedia" on soil for more information.

Perhaps the most fascinating focus in the article is on the terra preta do indio , the "black Indian earth" of the Amazon.  Wim Sombroek, the Dutch soil scientist, went to Amazonia in the 1950s and found hugely fertile pockets of soil in oases amid the acidic, poor soils of the rainforest.  Sombroek was something of a giant in his field, becoming director of ISRIC for a time and SG of the International Union of Soil Sciences (IUSS).  He devoted much of his life to studying the terra preta and fostering a movement to adopt the same approach to soil enrichment.   

What is terra preta?  It's the result of an ancient Amazonian practice of using charcoal and other carbon-rich inputs to build up the soil.  This soil retains its richness for centuries and is stunningly productive.  In an outstanding article from "Nature" in August of 2006, Black is the New Green, we learn all about the ins and outs of terra preta.  "Everyone agrees that the explanation lies in large part with the char (or biochar) that gives the soil its darkness. This char is made when organic matter smoulders in an oxygen-poor environment, rather than burns. The particles of char produced this way are somehow able to gather up nutrients and water that might otherwise be washed down below the reach of roots.  They become homes for populations of microorganisms that turn the soil into that spongy, fragrant, dark material that gardeners everywhere love to plunge their hands into." 

Sombroek saw so much potential in this that he created a movement for terra preta nova.  Research into this area has exploded since his book in 1966 on Amazonian soils, and scientists and others have been gathering force to help promote this approach not only for the wholesale restoration of degraded soils all over the world, but to sequester massive amounts of carbon.  In this Cornell University "Science Brief," Terra Preta:  Soil Improvement and Carbon Sequestration, we note that "Bio-char (biomass-derived black carbon) is highly stable in soil and can persist hundreds and thousands of years. It is much more stable than even the most stabilized carbon in soil.  It therefore constitutes a much longer carbon sink than most other sequestration options such as no-tillage, manure applications, or afforestation."  Cornell scientist Johannes Lehmann is doing a lot of work in this field.  For more, see his website.

Eprida, a "technology development company and social purpose enterprise," is doing cutting-edge work in developing this sort of approach not only to sustainable agriculture but to renewable energy production and carbon sequestration.  See their flash animation on the "Eprida cycle."  See also this "Scientific American" special report from last year.

This is but one more way for us to mimic nature's way.  As Stewart Brand noted in the Whole Earth Catalogue a good many years ago now, "We are as gods, and we might as well get good at it."  It has always seemed to me that the "godlike" approach to life is the simple one.  As you will have noted at this blog, the low-tech, decentralized, KISS (keep it simple, stupid) approach wins my heart more often than not.  (See my posts, for instance, on Habitat; Green Tech, Low Tech, Clean Tech, New Tech; and Black Carbon and Solar Cookers.)  I am, after all, one of those old hippies still dreaming of Aquarius and all that happy jazz.  But as no less a personage than Kevin Hydes, the chairman of the World Green Building Council, pointed out to me, the counterculture produced a tremendous amount of creative thinking that has borne fruit in many ways. 

Senate on Climate Change , In the US, the Senate began debate yesterday on legislation to address climate change. The "SF Chronicle" reports here that the opponents and proponents were so eager to start bare knuckling over the bill that they voted 74-14 to proceed to debate. The bill "would require about 2,100 major U.S. emitters - mostly coal-fired power plants, oil refineries and chemical plants - to pay for the right to emit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Proceeds from selling or trading those permits could total over $6 trillion over the next 40 years, and would be reinvested in renewable energy and rebates to consumers." Here's a graphic from the "NY Times" illustrating the geography of carbon emissions in the US.

S.3036 has been the focus of much debate already, both on the Hill and off. Here's one analysis of some of the policy and politics from the Center for American Progress. Another CAP, the US Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), a grouping of industry and environmental groups, agrees on six principles, but differs internally on critical issues such as to what extent permits will be given away or auctioned to industries.

As I've noted recently, we're not going to have a climate change law in the US this year. The debates on this legislation now are important, though, for staking out various positions, and putting the issue out before the public.

Solar Power Economics , The "FT" had a nice story the other day on the Silver lining in solar power storm clouds. (Remember, you may have to register, but it's free and otherwise painless.) The line that caught my eye was that, according to one industry analyst, "the global capacity for production of photovoltaic equipment - the biggest section of solar power technology which converts sunlight directly into electricity - is set to increase "dramatically,' from 3 gigawatts last year to 15 to 20 gigawatts of production in 2010. Much of the growth is coming from China." 2010 is right around the corner!

Take note also that "Abu Dhabi's Masdar Initiative intends to spend more than $2 billion to build a thin-film solar manufacturing subsidiary," according to the Dow Jones news service here. (I wrote about the Masdar project here last month.)

Two Important Conferences , The first of these is the meeting in Bonn that began yesterday. "More than 2,400 participants, including government delegates from 172 countries and representatives from business and industry, environmental organizations and research institutions are attending the two-week meeting of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)," reads this release. The AP reports "The Bonn talks are to go into the details of an agreement to be concluded in December 2009 and signed in Copenhagen, Denmark. The talks are based on an accord reached in Bali last December when the United States, India and China indicated they would take part in a post-2012 arrangement," said the AP here. You can follow all the proceedings at the UNFCCC website and at the International Institute of Sustainable Development (IISD) here. (I highlighted the IISD's "knowledge management project," Climate-L.org, on May 29 below.)

The other conference is the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) that began today in Rome. Billed as the "World Food Security Summit," there were more than 40 world leaders gathered at the emergency meeting and UNSG Ban Ki-Moon told them hunger breeds "social disintegration, ill health and economic decline," according to the "LA Times" here. See also this release from the FAO with details of their Director-General Jacques Diouf's impassioned speech. Diouf said "The structural solution to the problem of food security in the world lies in increasing production and productivity in the low-income, food-deficit countries." (I referenced the new, comprehensive report, "OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2008-2017," in the context of the food-biofuel controversy on May 30 below.) In the context of issues that we're looking at here, Diouf also said: "Nobody understands how a carbon market of 64 billion dollars can be created in the developed countries to offset global warming but that no funds can be found to prevent the annual deforestation of 13 million hectares, especially in the developing countries whose tropical forest ecosystems act as carbon sinks for some 190 gigatonnes," and "Nobody understands how 11 to 12 billion dollars in subsidies in 2006 and protective tariff policies have had the effect of diverting 100 million tonnes of cereals from human consumption, mostly to satisfy a thirst for fuel for vehicles."

The somewhat ubiquitous IISD is also in Rome. See their coverage here. Their coverage, by the way, can be found not only in English, but in French, Spanish and Arabic as well.

REDD , I referenced the movement for "reducing emissions from deforestation and ecosystem degradation" in my last post below. Here's a little more insight from "The Economist" going back to March. They mention projects that are trying to prevent rainforest destruction through various approaches to "voluntary" credits.

The smart money, though, is on a post-Kyoto, UN-administered system that will grant offset credits for forest projects. I wrote in my review of an important new book, Earth: The Sequel, "A post-Kyoto international regime that set a reasonable price on carbon ($30 a ton) would allow Brazil alone to realize $168 billion profit from protecting its rainforests while preventing emissions of six billion tons of carbon dioxide, according to the Woods Hole Research Center. (Pop quiz: After the US and China, which two countries are the biggest contributors to global warming? Brazil and Indonesia - because of rainforest destruction.)"

I sat in on the last day of this event in New York City on Friday, hearing two fascinating panels discuss "Corporate Strategies For Carbon Reduction" (in the context of federal cap-and-trade legislation) and Clean Tech's role in getting GHG's down.  The main sponsors of the summit were EcoSecurities, one of the world's largest developers and suppliers of emission reductions, and Baker & McKenzie, a law firm with a well-developed practice in renewable and carbon offset projects.  The event was run by Infocast.  They're covering an awful lot of ground these days on energy, the carbon markets, renewables, and other things. 

The focus of the first panel was how industry sectors are going to respond to federal climate change legislation.  The panelists represented the power production, transmission and distribution industry; the natural gas production and distribution industry; and insurance.  There has been a lot of analysis done in these industries, as you would expect, on the implications of a cap-and-trade regime in the US.  (See my notes on May 29 on the vehicle that's going to be discussed this week in the Senate, "Cap-and-Trade Bonanza" from May 16 below, and also Good Grief, More Carbon Markets from a year ago.)

The director of AIG's Office of Environment and Climate Change, Alice LeBlanc, was supportive of the idea of including reforestation and agriculture initiatives as eligible offsets in a US law, these areas accounting for nearly 40% of GHG emissions.  Bruce Braine, the Vice President for Strategic Policy Analysis of American Electric Power, talked about carbon capture and storage.  AEP is, by Braine's own admission, the largest coal-fired producer of electricity and carbon dioxide emitter in the US , so CCS would be high on their agenda.  See Braine's powerpoint on this from last fall at a UN meeting.  Nate Hanson, Florida Power & Light's VP in charge of renewables, noted that there is no real CCS system available now and so public service commissions are looking askance at new coal-fired projects.  FPL has, not incidentally, the largest portfolio of renewables in the US power sector.  (Go here for information on their environmental and sustainability programs.)  CCS , or more precisely the lack thereof , was the subject of the "NY Times" lead article I cited in my previous post below. 

The discussion of the climate change bill in the Senate by the panel revealed what seemed to me to be an alarming disconnect on the Hill between what the bill offers now and both what the international community has already created via the Kyoto Protocol and what's being negotiated now for a post-Kyoto regime.  I noted the other day that nobody realistically thinks legislation is going to be passed by this Congress, and that they're gearing up for a bill in 2009, but I was a bit shocked to see the lack of conformity to where the international community has already been and where we're going.  Witness LeBlanc's comment, for example, on the need to incorporate principles being ironed out on REDD , "Reducing emissions from deforestation and ecosystem degradation."  The critical UN meetings in Bali in December accepted the principle and there continues to be a lot of activity.  Let's hope the next Congress and the next President figure out the considerable bang for the buck in this.  They need, clearly, to think about all the international ins and outs of climate change. 

During the break, I asked EcoSecurities' US director, Eron Bloomgarden, about this.  He said that there were Congressional staffers who'd gone to Bali and they are aware of the international initiatives.  He also flagged the Presidential Climate Action Project to me.  The PCAP, modestly, " has developed a bold, comprehensive and non-partisan plan for presidential leadership rooted in climate science and designed to ignite innovation at every level of the American economy."  In talking to LeBlanc privately, she noted that the international community is itself very closely watching what's happening now on the Hill.

The other panel I heard had some fascinating insights on clean tech.  (See Green Tech, Low Tech, Clean Tech, New Tech and any number of posts on Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency.)   One of the panelists was Frank Alix, the CEO of Powerspan, a company that has advanced pollution control technologies for power plants.  They're developing a carbon dioxide control technology, not surprisingly.  Mitch Tyson is the CEO of Advanced Electron Beams.  AEB deploys its clean energy technology across a wide range of industrial applications, including pollution control.  Tyson is also involved in a number of regional initiatives including the New England Clean Energy Council and the Massachusetts High Technology Council.  He's extremely knowledgeable, as you'd imagine, about his industry, and passionate.  So is Al Forte, Director of Carbon Practice for Nexant, a high-tech provider to the energy and petrochemical industries.     

Forte talked about what he characterized as the best Renewable Portfolio Standard program in the country , Connecticut's.  It very effectively fosters renewables and energy efficiency, including the issuing of energy efficiency credits for eligible projects.  See the Connecticut Clean Energy Fund and the Connecticut Energy Efficiency Fund.  In the same vein, Tyson talked about the Cambridge Energy Alliance.  These folks are also fostering a considerable effort on reducing energy use.  This is all on the general theme of demand-side management.  Tyson pointed out that Massachusetts is moving to "decoupling" in which utilities are given incentives to promote energy efficiency.  I pointed out that New York State used to have it and it lapsed.

Another nugget:  Forte at one point said that there's 800 GW of generating capacity in the US and it's operating at an average of 28% efficiency.  He more or less characterized this as criminal and wondered why there isn't more use of cogeneration.   

For more, see Energy Efficiency and Energy Efficiency for Fun and Profit, items I've had here recently on this subject.