Update on international environmental agreements.

Interested in how the people of this planet attempt to govern there common interests in environmental integrity? Well, it's a complex area for the newcomer. One place to start might be with the MEA (Multilateral Environmental Agreement) bulletin.

The latest installment.

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Cap and Trade, Green Tax Switch, Ineqaulity and International Climate Funds.

A short time back i was asked to contribute one simple policy to a website called 'day one' that is seeking to concentrate suggestions for day one of the next US presidency.

My suggestion was:

"I suggested taxing pollution more and income less. Income tax would be
reduced most at the lower levels of income to overcome the regressive nature of a carbon tax. This 'green tax switch'is one no brainer that every country
should adopt in combination with other measures."

After all my recent reading and video watching on ineqaulity recently I think it's fair to say that i would go beyond simply balancing the regressive nature of a carbon tax with the progressive nature of income tax cuts for the poor. I would create a dramatically progresive system to counterbalance both structural economic feature disadvantaging the poor and the current tax system that steals from the poor to give to the rich.

I would like to thank Christopher Mitchel for passing on this link to me. The New Rules Project sketches out a cap and trade scheme based on an auction of permits with the revenues being recycled into the economy as suggested be me for a carbon tax.




It really dosent matter to me if this scheme is followed or a carbon tax approach is used for funding tax cuts for the poor. What i would say is that both a carbon tax and a cap and trade scheme are needed, and one of them will need to fund projects agreed on internationally. Adaptation and clean development in the global south require significant revenues. Politicians have proven appauling at looking through their domestic budgets and finding a little slack so they can fullfil their international responsibilities. However the EU ETS and some US cap and trade schemes are considering a hypothication of auction revenues for international commitments. I think that this is sensible and that as cap and trade systems are likely to all function under a post-kyoto framework it seems logical if not absolutely nessicary that they provide the funds and that a revenues neutral but progresive carbon tax recycling schemes can be a purely national matter.

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Review: EU approves energy and climate change package.

The EU Comissions has today announced (official statement) what it calls a 'climate change package'. These measures are the follow up from a previous meting (march 9th, Guardian) where a 20% reduction target for energy usage and carbon emissions was made alongside a pledge to increase European renewable energy penetration to 20% (from the current 8%). A two page citizens guide is avialable to explain the motivations behind the climate package and the elements that it is trying to balance.

The citizens guide is the straightest talking policy document i have ever seen:

What is the problem?

• The EU needs to cut its greenhouse gas emissions. This is not happening fast enough.
• Dependence on imports of oil and gas is growing. The EU needs to find new energy alternatives and to produce more of its own energy.

According to EurActiv some of the most significant issues are:

• Total EU industrial emissions in 2020 capped at 21% below 2005 levels which equates to a 1.7% annual reduction. [I thought the 20% was on 1990 levels is this back tracking?]
• The scheme will be enlarged to include new sectors, including aviation, petrochemicals, ammonia and the aluminium sector...around 50% of all EU emissions will be covered. [Road Transport, Shipping, Buildings, Waste, Agriculture and Forestry will remain excluded].
• In order to achieve an average 10% reduction of greenhouse gases from sectors not covered... the Commission has set national targets according to countries' GDP. Richer countries are asked to make bigger cuts – of up to 20% in the case of Denmark, Ireland and Luxembourg – while poorer states...will in fact be entitled to increase their greenhouse emissions in these sectors – by up to 19 and 20% respectively for Romania and Bulgaria. [Understandable but environmentally inadequate if this principal where to be expanded to the rest of the world at Romanian development levels...what we need is a deal where such countries take on these targets and the wealthy take on a portion of the costs]
• Smaller installations, emitting under 10,000 tonnes of CO2 per year, will be allowed to opt out from the ETS, provided that alternative reduction measures are put in place. [I see why--red tape--but i wonder how significant this is are we talking about double digit percentages that can opt out?]
• Industrial greenhouse gases prevented from entering the atmosphere through the use of so-called carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology are to be credited as not emitted under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. [I fully support this...its long past time such schemes where implemented]
• The proposal foresees a huge increase (up to 60% of total credits) in auctioning as early as 2013. It adds that "full auctioning should be the rule from 2013 onwards for the power sector", which is expected to lead to a 10-15% rise in electricity prices. In other sectors, free allocations will gradually be completely phased-out on an annual basis between 2013 and 2020. Nevertheless, certain energy-intensive sectors could continue to get all their allowances for free in the long term if the Commission determines that they are at significant risk of relocation to third countries with less stringent climate protection laws. [This increase in auctioned credits appear to me as the start of a serious emissions trading scheme, it is the most efficient way to do things and has the added benefit of brining in large revenues which if sensibly hypothicated to renewable energy projects, and --my personal favourite--paying for international climate funds e.g REDD, Tech Transfer, Adaptation, can go a long way to helping the world cope with and mitigate climate change.]
• The distribution method for free allowances will be developed at a later stage by expert panels within the Commission (through the so-called 'comitology procedure'). [It's going to be some kind of grandfathering but the good news is that this part is becoming rapidly less relavent]
• Competativeness concerns are a significant so decision on these issues has been put of untill 2011. Nevertheless, the text warns that if no global pact is reached by then, some sort of "carbon equalisation system" will be introduced – whether in the form of additional free allocations or by making third-country producers of carbon-heavy goods participate in the ETS in order to access the EU market. [Translation: shit gets ugly if we dont reach a global deal...is forced participation of foreign firms a tariff on high carbon goods? The avoidance of such tarrifs is apparently the reason the Kyoto protocol was initiated.]
• Assuming a global climate change deal is reached, member states will continue to be entitled to meet part of their target by financing emission reduction projects in countries outside the EU, although the use of such credits will be limited to 3% of member states' total emissions in 2005 –around one quarter of the total reduction effort. [This is still a significant amount of carbon trade, but it seems to me that markets and trade of all kinds in carbon makes this kind of limit hard to measure: how do personal and business offests work into this, or internal business trades...i think this is all getting murky we need a global treaty with a cap.]

The talk on competativeness and forced involvement in the EU ETS for foregin companies trading into europe brings up our old friend the WTO (past article). Commission President José Manuel Barroso:

"If our expectations about an international agreement are not met, we will look at other options such as requiring importers to obtain allowances alongside European competitors, as long as such a system is compatible with WTO requirements."

On the issue of cuts in emissions from industries not included in the ETS, national targets vary dramatically based on prosperity, but buy in large everyone has been hard done by; some have been more stoic but it's ammusing none the less. Germany's economy minister is quite typical:

"We really don't need this plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, it will destroy jobs in industries which consume a lot of energy"

The main points that i have seen made on this are 'its simply not good enough' and 'it's to far, its to tough on this country, why do we need to take orders from Brusselles.' The former has been the message of Rajendra Pachuri of the IPCC, and the science if you would care to read it, the latter is from the likes of the Times and other right leaning papers.

Related:

• Extensive coverage of this "climate change package" and its role in Eu climate policy can be found on the EurActiv website.
• The climate change package and associated documents.

Related General Articles:

• AFP "EU sets emissions targets to fight climate change"
• Earth Times "EU approves ambitious energy and climate change package - Summary"

Articles on the main issues:

• The cap and rate of cuts: WWF critical of draft EU climate law. CAN Europe reaction.
  
• New sectors included: Refineries, Airlines, Phased into ETS (Reuters)
  
• Distribution of Non-ETS emissions cuts: EU faces tough climate change road. (BBC)
  
• Increase in auctioning: EU's Barroso says pollution permits to be auctioned (Guardian) All carbon credits for EU ETS Phase 3 to be auctioned for power sector (Forbes)
  
• Carbon Capture and Storage: Could Carbon Capture Replace Cuts? (BBC)
  
• Competativeness: EU Threatens Trade Partners (AFP) Editorial (FT)
  
• Carbon trade with other nations: CAN Europe reaction.
  

[UPDATE]

• Celsias has just posted an article on this topic.
• Treehugger has also briefly covored the issues.
  

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Mobilising capital to save the planet.

A podcast with some positive and some negative aspects of moving money into climate change: mitigation (the positive part) and disaster preparedness (investments with a vaguely profiteering feel).Also, a very clear statement of the need for significant carbon pricing now! Mark Fulton.

Responsible Profit: Perspectives from Deutsche Asset Management

Bringing capital into play is the pragmatic and profitable response to climate change, says Fulton. Governments are creating a price for carbon, explicitly through emissions trading and implicitly through taxes, subsidies, and standards.

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Bali Climate Change Deal Reached

At Bali a dramatic one and a half hour period seperated the world from the effective brakdown of post-Kyoto talks. Based on a reading of the US position going into the talks, and on the complex beurocracy that exists at UNFCCC meetings the result was as good as we where likely to see. Based on the somewhat more important meter of physical reality progress is appalingly slow. There is still a question in my mind over weather the UNFCCC process will deliver substantial mitigation of climate change. Perhaps a more flexible meeting of major economies, led by a post-Bush USA will reach a deal? For the time being the process moves on and although its often difficult to decide weather to laugh or cry in this case the US u-turn put a smile on my face!

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

US U-Turn at Bali: The Dramatic Chronology

Midnight to 1:30am EST was a dramatic period in Bali! There was a lot of 'backing down' going on...all of it productive. Most dramatic event was the US U-Turn, but the EU also agreed to further technology transfer funding for India and China and neither Japan nor Australia got in the way of the final agreement. In the end the US delegation was entirely isolated both internationally and domestically: then came the U-turn. And perhaps some hope.

(Reuters)

12:00 a.m. EST - The two-week talks, meant to end on Friday, are deadlocked long into overtime. Developing nations led by India and China are demanding that rich countries do more to lead the way in fighting climate change. The demands arose overnight, partly after the European Union bowed to U.S. pressure and toned down calls for the final text to lay out clear 2020 guidelines for rich nations to axe greenhouse gas emissions.

12:20 a.m. EST - U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, making an unscheduled return after leaving Bali on Friday for East Timor, enters the conference hall with Indonesian President Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.

"I am disappointed at the lack of progress," Ban said. "Everybody should be able to make compromises."

"The worst thing we can do is for this project to crumble because we can't find the right wording," Yudhoyono said. "The world is watching anxiously and I beg you not to let them down."

Delegates strongly applaud both speeches.

12:44 a.m. EST- The European Union, which had opposed the developing nations' demands, immediately backs down and accepts the developing countries' text that gives stronger promises to share green technologies. Delegates applaud.

12:55 a.m. EST - Paula Dobriansky, under secretary of state for democracy and global affairs leading the U.S. delegation, reaffirms U.S. opposition, bringing boos.

A bit of emotion getting into the talks. Nice. I wonder how much damage this kind of atmosphere does to us interests around the globe? Diplomacy isn't a science but obstructing somethings as important as progress on climate change has got to be weaking US influence.

12:56 a.m. EST - Speakers from countries including Brazil and South Africa then make pleas on behalf of the developing countries. And neither Australia nor Japan side with Dobriansky. Papua New Guinea delegate Kevin Conrad wins wild applause by addressing Dobriansky and saying:

"We ask for your leadership, we seek your leadership ... if you can't give us what we want, please get out of the way."

(Would this have been the case if Howard was still in power? I think not. Australia has had a mixed performance at Bali but at least here it was not actively destructive...and thats and improvement. And
three cheers for Papua New Guinea!)

1:19 a.m. EST - Dobriansky backs down, saying "We will go forward and join consensus," triggering applause.

1:31 a.m. EST - Indonesian Environment Minister Rachmat Witoelar announces consensus on a deal to launch two years of talks on a new global treaty to succeed the Kyoto Protocol.

AFTERMATH

-- Dobriansky said she changed her mind because the developing country speakers convinced her that they were serious about acting to fight climate change. She said she did not consult Washington before changing her mind.

Other delegates hailed the U.S. reversal:

"The mood in the room exploded. The secretary-general and the president -- that just electrified the room," said Yvo de Boer, head of the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat.

The text that the us where resisting included the need for developed nations to take on a legally binding cap on emissions. Although the target was not specified this is still a major breakthrough in what the US is prepared to accept: the very notion of a cap has been fiercly resisted. Bill Hare sums up the unusaul nature of events.

Bill Hare of environmental group Greenpeace said he believed it was the first time since 1996 that Washington had won applause at a U.N. climate meeting.

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Kyoto: More Harm Than Good. Where next?

Almuth Ernsting
Biofuelwatch

One week at the Bali Climate Conference has cured me of any illusion that UNFCCC will solve the climate crisis, or that the annual gatherings of governments, industry and some NGOs will even remotely move us in the right direction.

This is not about saving the planet. It's quite simply a trade show, and all the different proposals are about making carbon trading more efficient or getting this or that industry or government to profit a bit more whilst we move ever faster towards mass extinction. I wonder if, in years to come, we'll look back on UNFCCC meetings as climate change profiteering conferences.

Outside the main conference, the Indonesian Civil Society Forum, supported by NGOs from many different countries, are holding their events and protests for climate justice and against false solutions. Those false solutions is what UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol are about: Carbon trading, now to include the proposed carbon trading in forests (REDD), agrofuels, etc. We will all pay the price for losing our last chance of preventing runaway global warming, but in the short term it's the people of the global South who are paying the highest price. At a side event organised by the Transnational Institute last night, speakers said that the Clean Development Mechanism is now widely called the Criminal Development Mechanism in countries like India. It funds not clean or sustainable development, but some of the most polluting and destructive industries in the South.

"I have read widely about CDM and carbon finance and looked closely at some
of the methodologies and I have seen nothing to suggest that destructive hydro
projects, payments for palm oil companies, industrial tree plantations, toxic
landfill sites, and polluting factories are anything other than the norm. This
carbon finance is all that Kyoto has brought us. Another 'stronger' Kyoto
Agreement will bring us even more of the same."

A representative of indigenous peoples organisations from Oceania told me of his distress that the governments of the Small Island Nations now ask for nothing but carbon finance to get some money for their drowning countries. They no longer even ask for real policies to reduce emissions. 15 nations in Oceania are about to drown. I asked the person whether he thought people would get out. Some, he said, will get to New Zealand, but for most there is no way out - nobody will take them. They will just drown. He said that several hundred people drowned in PNG just a few days ago, and on one of the islands, after a tropical storm one or two years ago, the whole lagoon was full of dead bodies and they just pushed them into the deeper sea because there were too many to retrieve and bury.

Just before the COP opened, I went to a Climate Justice conference organised by Friends of the Earth Indonesia and Via Campesina. A speaker from Sobrevivencia, Paraguay called for action and demonstrations - but to be very clear what we demonstrate for. If we hold up banners saying climate change kills and we want more govenrment action, the very power groups driving the destruction, she warned, will cheer and might give us even more carbon finance or agrofuels. Instead, she suggested, we need to mobilise against the false solutions and for real, meaningful actions that will actually cut emissions and deliver climate justice. I agree with her. The time for marching for 'global action on climate change' without denouncing the false solutions and the drivers of climate change is over.

There will be no magic bullet, no convincing framework proposal drawn up in offices of the Nothern countries which will save us. Greenhouse gas reduction targets will remain meaningless without realistic ways of delivering them.

"We need to engage with the climate justice movement of
the global South, learn about their reality and realise that, without climate
justice there will be no chance of slowing the pace of the climate
catastrophe."

And climate justice is not just about finding a framework that is fair on paper, but about stopping the carbon traders, the agrofuel companies, the trade mechanisms which are ensuring the ever faster destruction of forests and other ecosystems, the large hydro dams, etc. - and, of course, pushing for real and immediate reductions in emissions and consumption in the UK.

After Bali, we need to get together and decide where, as climate campaigners, we want to be going. Do we want to continue getting ever more people onto the streets calling for no particular solutions and, even worse, by implication lending legitimacy to the false solutions? Or will we reflect on what Kyoto and UNFCCC now stand for, engage with climate justice campaigners in other countries and start calling for the action which we need to stand any chance of not following the fate of the people in Oceania who have already lost their future?

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

I talk about the Bali climate negotiations and the surrounding politics.

I talk about the UNFCCC Bali climate negotaitions, the political setting and some good sources of related information.

Video 1 of 2


Video 2 of 2


The bali posts i refer to in the video are here.


.

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

UNFCCC Bali Climate Conference: Audio and Video Coverage

Audio and video will soon be flooding out of the Bali climate talks. I will post links to the various events and briefings here.

So far:

• The National Environment Trust have held an audio briefing 'Bali: What is at stake?'
• The World Business Council on Sustainable Development have created a youtube account for there events at the conference.
• Indonesia president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has stated that he wants to place indonesia at the forefront of climate mitigation.
• Joshua Busby, University of Texas on the key challenge of Bali.
• UNFCCC offical Youtube Channel with daily coverage of Bali conference.
• Enviromedia coverage 'Bali or Bust': updates live from the Bali conference.
• Tropical Forest Group vlog about deforestation and climate change from Bali.
• Live on demand webcast from the confernece!
• Video from Bali thanks to 'StepItUp' includes fossil of the day awards.

New Internationalist explores the global climate change situation (MP3).

1. Chandra Bhushan - Associate director and head of the Industry Unit at Centre for Science and Environment in Delhi, India - advocates how India can accelerate development in ways that minimize its emissions.
2. EcoEquity's Tom Athanasiou - argues that it's the countries of the Rich World, not the Poor World, which are responsible for climate change, and now it's their responsibility to pay. Tom outlines his plan, and presents the politics that await it at the UN Climate Change Conference.
3. Daphne Wysham - co-director of the Sustainable Energy and Economy Network - reveals why international institutions such as the World Bank are cashing in on the growing climate change market, and how this is hindering sustainable energy options.

Pick of the side event webcasts:

1. Al Gore urges progress without the US untill after Bush. Video.
   
2. UN Regional perspectives on climate change: Video + Notes
3. WHO Health and Climate Change: Video + Notes
4. UNEP Adapting to Climate Change and Political Commitment: Video + Notes
5. UNDP Climate Change and Human Development: Video + Notes.
   

Related: All Bali coverage on this blog can be found here.

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Bali Climate Talks: Campaigns & Lobbying; Leed Up; Blogs and Live Coverage

I have created a 'Backgrounder' for those interested in the UNFCCC Bali Climate Talks (COP/MOP).

Firstly i list some of the resources for information during the talks. Mainstream media are useless, usually absent or scant on details. I rundown a list of bloggers from the talks, along with the official coverage provided by International Institute for Sustainable Development and the Climate Action Network.

Secondly i run down the political developments and reports published in the run up to the conference.

Finally i highlight some of the campaigning and lobbying currently being organised by NGO's, businesses and wider civil society.

All posts on the bali climate conference can be found here.

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Leed up to Bali climate change negotiations.

The Bali climate talks are just around the corner and meetings between nations, between environmental and wider civil society groups, and between people who care, are underway around the world.

This post is going to be the place for updates related to the talks as and when it comes to my attention.

News so far:

1. Kevin Rudd is the new PM of Australia. He has stated that he will attend Bali and that siging Kyoto is his 'number 1 priority'. This is a boost to talks which clerly need all the energy we can give them!
2. Canada has managed to destroy a Commonwealth consensus on tough and binding targets on emissions cuts therby becoming my own personal least favourite national govornment.
3. The IPCC summary for policymakers is out in time for the conference, and sobering reading it makes...but will its warning be heeded?
4. The International Crop Research Agency predict an agarian crisis as a result of climate change in a recent report.
   
5. Israel has decided not to send a delegate to the talks!
6. Nancy Pelosi, majority speaker of the house, will be leading a Democrat delegation to Bali (it is rumoured).
7. The WWF has published a report outlinging the potential financial saving that china could make by increasing energy efficiency and embracing clean energy.
8. France and China have signed an agreement to improve cooperation on climate change adaptation and mitigation.
9. 2007 UN development report states that the poor will pay the price of a weak climate deal.
10. Brazil joins Indonesia in agreeing to limit deforestation if the wealthy nations of the world will fund the project.
11. US announces it's negotiation team and it's full of Neo-Conservatives including Paula Dobriansky and James L. Connaughton. Great.
    
12. EU warns member states, aviation must be included in climate policy.
13. New Zealand prime minister Hellan Clarke has given a determined speech in Germany about the importance of climate change and sustainablity as global issues this century.
14. In the run up to the UNFCCC climate talks Indonesia has started the planting of 79 million trees, which it aims to complete over the next few years. The general view of conservation groups is that a halt to active deforestation of biodiverse rainforest areas should be the priority.
15. Brazil has made clear its aversion to taking on binding targets. This can hardly be suprising as the wealthiest nation on earth still havent agreed to this! However, we will fail without this bitter pill being consumed. Funding for this clean develoment strategy will be required from the 'North'.
16. The Woods Hole Research Center is announcing technology that enables rapid analysis of estensive areas of vegetation. This makes a deal on deforestation avoidance more practical therefore acceptable to the international community.
17. It's time to save peatbogs and rainforests, in 1997 these two made up 40% of global greenhouse gas emissions! Surely these are the cheapest savings on the planet behind energy efficiency?
18. Climate change and trade dominate EU-India summit.
19. More than 150 major global companies have signed the 'Bali Communique' as created by the UK Prince of Wales' Corporate Leaders Group on Climate Change.
20. German Chancellor Merkel has stated that Germany must take a lead on climate change according to the International Herald Tribune."Merkel said Germany is prepared to announce a raft of measures it will undertake itself, and has set an ambitious goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 40 percent by 2020."
21. Dealing with illegal logging is key to fighting climate change according to the Sydney Morning Herald.
22. The Red Cross and Red Crecent have released there position, and also a very substantial report on the threat that climate change presents there mission with.
    
23. Greenpeace have release a briefing on Bali and the broader climate negotiations.
    
24. "Climate change is posing imminent threat to Viet Nam’s progress in human development, according to the United Nations Development Program (UNDP)"
25. International Institute for Environment and Dvelopment (IIED) publish a report on asian development and climate change 'Up in smoke? Asia and the Pacific'. Asia, due to its large population of small scale farmers is perticularly at risk from climate change.

(Photo:Up in smoke? Asia and the Pacific' ) Deforestation is a major contribution to climate change, to increased flooding risk, and in fact to a whole range of environmental and social problems.


Related: Bali climate talks covoured in depth daily by the professionals and by bloggers.

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

UNFCC Bali Climate Conference: Blog and Expert Daily Coverage

Blogs to be reporting from Bali


It's Gettig Hot In Here
Celsias
De Smog Blog
Bali Climate Change Conference Blog
Oxfam International in Bali
Climate Feedback
Climate Shifts
CarbonFund
Greenpeace International. (Policy Work)

[New blogs will be added here as they come to my attention, feel free to let me know about any others that should be included]


A new climate blog brought to you by US Youth Actavists: Bali Buzz
UNFCC Bali Climate Conference Official Blog
Global Voices special coverage of Bali
Alexia Parks of VoteLink has made the news for her blogging efforts.
Open Democracy coverage.
Greenpeace have a bali feed from several of the best blog.
UK Department of the Environment bali blog.
Enviromedia blog.
Tearfund blog from Bali.

News Wires:

UN Bali Climate Conference: Environmental News Network 'Climate Change'
UN Bali Climate Conference: Reuters Bali Coverage
UN Bali Climate Conference: ENDS coverage.

Coverage by the experts:


UN Bali Climate Conference: IISD Daily Conference Summary--Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB)

UN Bali Climate Conference: NGO Coverage with daily 'Eco' newsletter.

UN Bali Climate Conference: Offical Website.



All Bali Posts (Run Up, Protests, Side Events, Video, Audio, etc., et.,)

Climate Change Action on Bali


.

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Camp for Climate Action: Zero Carbon Britain Workshop

The Zero Carbon Britain project presented at the camp for climate action.



The primary policies advocated are Contraction and Convergence on the global scale and Tradeable Energy Quotas on a national scale.

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Cap and Trade or Carbon Tax?

With the Senate already having voted on an energy bill and the House expected to take up energy legislation this month, the next course of action expected after the August recess will be a debate on emissions reduction legislation. Will Congress favor a cap-and-trade approach or a carbon tax? Are there enough votes in the House and Senate to pass a climate bill? During today's OnPoint, Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, discusses Sens. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and Arlen Specter's (R-Pa.) recently introduced climate bill. She explains why she believes the safety valve option is not the best approach and compares cap-and-trade to a carbon tax.

Video.

Monica Trauzzi: Welcome to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. Joining me today is Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. Eileen thanks for coming on the show.

Eileen Claussen: My pleasure.

Monica Trauzzi: Eileen, Senators Bingaman and Specter recently introduced the Low Carbon Economy Act of 2007. It's a cap-and-trade approach, but it still takes the economy into account with their safety valve provision. How does this new legislation contribute to the overall climate discussion in Congress and what's your take on it?

Eileen Claussen: Well, I mean there are a number of different cap-and-trade bills that have been introduced, and I think the more that are introduced and the more different provisions there are in them the better the discussion will be and the better the bill that emerges will be. I think the Bingaman-Specter bill is important for a couple of reasons. One is that it does get the safety valve on the table and up there for discussion. The second thing it does is that it really provides incentives for carbon capture and storage and for other technology development. And I think that is a very positive thing that wasn't in any of the other bills either. So it may end up by being the right end of the debate, but it's a debate that we have to have.

Monica Trauzzi: The safety valve provision is very controversial on the Hill. What's your take on that?

Eileen Claussen: Well, I mean when you do a cap and trade I think you immediately assume that we are doing something for the environment, but because it's got a lot of flexibility built into it, it will be something that the economy can handle and handle well. But one thing about a cap and trade is that it really provides certainty on the environmental outcome. So when you set a cap, that's the cap you meet. And I think when you introduce a safety valve, particularly if it's a low one, and I would say the Bingaman-Specter safety valve at $12 a ton and going up, going up, but going up relatively slowly, still is something to be concerned about. What you're really doing is setting a price cap rather than an environmental cap. And you're essentially saying the environment, well, we'll get what we can, but only up to $12 a ton or $13 a ton or whatever it is. So you lose the environmental flexibility, but you do gain economic certainty. So, again, it's a trade. I mean from our perspective it's not a trade we should be making, but it is a trade.

Monica Trauzzi: So the other option for addressing climate change would be a carbon tax. If companies have to pay for emissions, won't they try to emit less? Doesn't it just make sense that way? Why don't you think carbon tax is the way to go?

Eileen Claussen: Well, a carbon tax, very much like a safety valve actually, sets a price. You don't know what the environmental outcome will be from setting that price. And it also basically says that the government can determine what the right price is to get to a certain environmental outcome. And, quite honestly, I'd rather put my money on the market, which is what a cap and trade does, because there the market sets the price. The government doesn't set the price. But beyond that, the tax is in many ways just like a cap-and-trade system. The prices will go up. You've got all kinds of people who will want all kinds of special favors. In a cap and trade they'll want you to give them more allowances. In a tax they might want to be exempted from the tax. All the same issues come up in both of these. But I think the final thing about a tax that it's important to point out is that as a political matter I think it's going to be much more difficult to try to get a tax through. So I'm for environmental certainty and something that we can actually make happen. And I'm not sure that a tax does either of those things.

Monica Trauzzi: Proponents of a carbon tax would say it's simpler to implement than cap and trade. It's less controversial once it's in place, individual industries won't be singled out. And also revenues from the carbon tax would go directly to the government. Doesn't that seem like a good deal?

Eileen Claussen: Well, I'd like to ask those people, when they fill out their tax returns how simple it really is, because the bottom line is that a tax is not simple. You have to decide at what levels. Is everyone at the same level? Do you exempt certain people from the tax? What do you do with the revenues? Who do you actually give them to? Those are exactly the same issues that you have in a cap and trade. There it's the allocation of allowances, here it's the amount of the tax and how you distribute it. So that argument, I think, really it's just the same. So, really I think, it comes down to this issue of cost certainty versus environmental certainty. And given what we know about the climate issue and what we know about what really needs to be done, I'd like to have a flexible cap and trade that gives companies a lot of ability to move things around and do what they can do. And those who can do it cheapest can do the most. I think that is actually the best deal for the environment and the economy.

Monica Trauzzi: What about in Europe? They haven't had much luck with the cap and trade there. Are you taking that into account?

Eileen Claussen: I guess I would dispute your assertion that they're not having much luck with it there, because I think we have to put it into perspective. The budget period under Kyoto doesn't actually start until 2008. What the E.U. did was try an early phase to see how to make it work and they didn't make it work perfectly, I mean in that sense. People who say, oh my God, look at it, they're right it didn't work perfectly. They didn't actually know how many allowances to distribute. They exempted certain kinds of people. They learned a lot. They didn't even have a good database to know where the emissions were to get started. But the actual program doesn't go into effect until 2008. And based on what I'm starting to see now from the E.U. they learned a lot from those lessons and I think it will be a system that really works.

Monica Trauzzi: Considering the fact that passing the Senate energy bill was a big battle, RPS didn't make it through, there were debates on CAFE, is this Congress weary of making changes? Are you confident that this Congress will be able to pass any emissions reductions measure?

Eileen Claussen: And my confident? No. Do I think there is a chance, a decent chance? Yes. And I say it understanding how complicated it is and how many people will pulled in how many different ways and it will make it very hard. In the House you only need a simple majority, but in the Senate you need 60 votes. And when I try to count up where the votes could be for a cap and trade it's not going to be a cakewalk. So, I'm not confident that we're going to get something in 2008. I am very confident that if we don't get it in 2008 we will get it in the next year or two after that. Don't forget, this is the first year where there's been a serious debate about how to design a cap and trade system. There have been 105 hearings on climate change since January. I mean we didn't even have 50 hearings in the 10 years - well, added up together, prior to this. Then there was debate about is climate change real and do you do something about it? Now it's about how you actually design a system that will work, so if not by 2008, almost certainly by 2010.

Monica Trauzzi: Chairman Dingell and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are seemingly going head-to-head on the climate issue. There's a lot of tension in that relationship and she's gone ahead and created a global warming panel to sort of lessen Dingell's impact. Is that proving to be successful? Dingell says that the panel is an embarrassment to everybody.

Eileen Claussen: Yeah. I don't think anything that raises serious issues about the climate issue should be an embarrassment. But that said, I think the bill that gets considered will come out of the Energy and Commerce Committee. And Representative Boucher and Congressman Dingell are the key players in those committees. And I think we look to them for the bill that's maybe changed as it makes its way through the house. But that's really where it's going to come from. But that said, I think the special panel is doing a good job of keeping climate change in people's minds, and that's really what it was created for.

Monica Trauzzi: And on the Senate side another head-to-head we're keeping an eye on is Bingaman and Boxer. They have very different and competing ideas about how we should approach the climate issue. How much of an impact do you think that these inter-parties debates have on the eventual passage of legislation? Does it make it more difficult?

Eileen Claussen: Well, I think it's interesting in the Senate that, yes, you do have the Sanders-Boxer bill, which is essentially the California targets in the California program. You now have Bingaman-Specter, which has been referred to Environment and Public Works. And you've got this effort by Senators Warner and Lieberman to also come up with a bipartisan bill, which I'm guessing is going to end up somewhere between Sanders-Boxer on the hand and Bingaman-Specter on the other. So the Environment and Public Works Committee, and eventually the Senate as a whole, will actually have an array of things to look at. I'm pretty confident that something will come out of Environment and Public Works in the fall. We'll have to see exactly where that middle ground is and what it looks like. But, again, 60 votes in the Senate is not going to be easy even when it comes out of committee.

Monica Trauzzi: Switching gears, internationally President Bush is planning a meeting for this year with the world's greatest emitters. Does this effort add to the discussion about what we should do post Kyoto? Or does it sort of muddy the waters a bit?

Eileen Claussen: I think it depends really on how the administration chooses to frame it. President Bush went into the G8 meeting with a very particular idea of convening this group of major emitters to talk about a long-range aspirational target. That is actually not exactly what came out. What came out is a discussion among the major emitters, and that is the important group to get together, but they're not only going to talk about an aspirational long-term target, they're going to talk about what the framework should be going forward. So, on the assumption that the Bush administration actually takes what came out of the G8 and makes that sort of the agenda for this coming meeting, which I think is going to be the end of October, and any subsequent ones, it could actually be a useful discussion. The President also said, and I think this is quite important, that what comes out of this process will go into the convention process. It won't be an attempt to do something outside and keep it outside. So, if something useful comes out of it, it could actually help the process. If nothing useful comes out of it, which is always an alternative, the process will continue.

Monica Trauzzi: All right. We'll end it right there on that note. Thanks for coming on the show.

Eileen Claussen: My pleasure.

Monica Trauzzi: This is OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. Thanks for watching.

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

To G8: Where is the agreement on contraction and convergence?

Tim Yeo, Conservative MP for South Suffolk,
Chairman of the all-party Environmental Audit Committee

The Independent on Sunday
10 June 2007

“Remember Neville Chamberlain. And don't forget Kyoto - the G8 summit's
inability to agree targets to cut emissions, represents a failure of
leadership.”

“Of course, action by the G8 countries alone won't avert climate change.
But it's almost certainly a prerequisite for getting other countries to
join in the solution.

Engaging China, with its rapidly expanding economy and determination to
use its coal, is essential.

The best way to do this would have been for the G8 to have accepted that
contraction and convergence.”

From The Independant on Sunday

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

A Climate of Change in Australia

Australia has finally decided to go ahead with a carbon trading system, to be set up by 2012. The rhetoric of economic peril, does however continue.



It is nice to see some progress in this area, but is is difficult to get past the perception that Howard is Bush's Mini-Me and that we would all be much better off without him in power. The fact that the Australian coal lobby has a more progressive policy than the prime minister speaks volumes!

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

John Riley Explains Contraction and Convergence

John Riley of Scottish Action on Climate Change explains Contraction and Convergence

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Free Two Day Climate Conference promoting International Day of Action (LSE, London)

During my time without a functioning internet connection I did manage to confirm all the speakers for an upcoming conference session.

In around two weeks Campaign against Climate Change and London School of Economics and Political Sciences are putting on a joint climate conference in order to promote this years international day of climate action.

More details on this free two day event, here.

My contribution is a workshop on campaign strategy and communication. The speakers will be Chris Rose (Campaign Strategy), Solitarie Townsend (Managing Director, Futerra) and Simon Retallack (Head of Sustainability, IPPR).

I`d turn up just for that workshop! But this is only part of one of the four sessions and two plenaries.

Saturday

09.00 - 10.00 Registration.
10.00 - 10.30 Introduction/Welcome
10.30 - 12.00 Seminar Session 1
12.00 - 13.00 Lunch Break
13.00 - 14.30 Plenary 1
14.30 - 14.45 Coffee Break
14.45 - 16.15 Seminar Session 2 (Includes: campaign strategy and marketing)
16.15 - 16.30 Coffee Break
16.30 - 18.00 Build up for the Global Demonstrations December 2007

18.00 - 21.00 Drinks/Social at the 'Square Pig' Pub
21.00 - late Party at the 'Square Pig' Pub with "Seize the Day" & other sounds...

Sunday

10.00 - 12.00 Plenary 2 (International)
12.00 - 13.00 Lunch
13.00 - 14.30 Seminar Session 3
14.30 - 14.45 Coffee Break
14.45 - 16.15 Seminar session 4
16.15 - 17.00 Coffee and Farewell

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Can Cap and Trade Cut Carbon? (New York Academy of Sciences)

Cap and trade is emerging as the de facto method of climate protection. But it has it's critics, can it really work at the rate required? How can it be implemented most effectively.

With one dynamic moderator and two dynamic speakers bringing valuable information and insight to the table, the November 9, 2006, panel held at the Academy would have been a success even if no questions had been invited from the floor. But questions were invited, and the invitation unleashed a vigorous response from attendees, who not only posed penetrating queries but also added strong views of their own. With those exchanges, the audience became a fourth important contributor to the proceedings.

Speaker one: Luis G. Martinez (Audio and Slides)

Speaker two: Véronique Bugnion (Audio and Slides)

Exchange with audiance (Audio)

Related publications can be found here.

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Europe Agrees Reneweable Energy and Climate Plan

Europe has agreed, to a renewable energy and climate plan.

The plan stets a target for 20% cuts in carbon emissions (based on the 1990 levels) by 2020.

As the EU has 456Million people, compared with 300 million in the US. Emissions from this group are therefore significant, if somewhat lower than the US. Impacts beyond direct emissions cuts are however more important.Will the US get on board, will the developed world move ahead and provide the leadership required to make this fight on climate change win able?

A separate but extremely welcome part of the overall movement has seen renewable energy receiving a major boost. 20% of all electricity [correction: primary energy not just electricity!] in Europe will have to be renewable by 2020. The current level is just 7% so this is a clear long term signal to clean-tech industries that they have a market. The deal involved much last minute wrangling but much to the relief of environmentalists the wording stated renewable rather than low-carbon, thereby avoiding the inclusion of nuclear and ccs. Any targets for these technologies will have to be decided separately.

One interesting aspect of the last minute wrangling is that not every nation will have to meet a 20% target but that the EU will negotiate burden sharing later. I find these complexities fascinating. If we imagine each European nation taking on a 20% target then the consequence overall would include some meeting the target, a few in non compliance doing worse, and probably quite a few doing better, due to domestic measures already commited to. The question therefore is how do you create an equivalent policy that represents the same gains? Most likely tough targets will be given to nations that are either already committed or are pre-disposed to. Whilst we can still reach the 20% per country average this way, we do not reach a 20% per country minimum. I feel like i could do with a diagram, but hopefully you get the picture. It is of course possible that there is less non-compliance along with lower numbers of countries exceeding there targets (which are ambitious where easily achieved) but it is still an interesting question. Perhaps it could be said that an aggregate target will allow the low hanging fruit to be utilised more completely due to the details of the agreement, but as these fruit are low hanging it is more than likely that they would have been picked anyway. The countries with pore renewable resources will not however aim high so in reality the effect will be less. Any thoughts?

Home del.icio.us Digg This!