by Alex Evans | Jun 26, 2009 | Climate and resource scarcity, North America
Bismarck once noted that “laws are like sausages: it’s better not to see them being made”. Were he around today, he might add that both laws and sausages are, in the US at least, based mainly on corn.
As I’ve just mentioned in a separate post, today is crunch time for the Waxman-Markey climate bill in the House, and so everyone’s watching the few remaining undecided Democrats, many of whom have big coal interests in their states. One set of Democrats that’s firmly in the ‘decided’ column, though, is the farm-lobby – who will be busting out cold beers and chucking ribs on the grill this weekend if the Bill passes.
Not long ago, the farm lobby were adamantly opposed to the bill, which they feared could increase their input prices, especially fuel for on-farm energy use. Moreover, the mighty corn lobby was especially unhappy that it wasn’t invited to the cap and trade party, as National Corn Growers Association President Bob Dickey made very plain on May 18th:
“After reviewing the legislation, we can see the bill does not clearly provide for a mechanism by which corn growers can sell carbon credits on the market. We strongly believe the bill will increase input costs without specific opportunities to offset those additions. We cannot support the American Clean Energy and Security Act in absence of the provisions that we have explained in some length to the Committee.”
Well, that was then. The bill now includes an amendment submitted by House Agriculture Committee chairman Collin Peterson, which will:
- create a market for agricultural offsets that allows the sector to take part in cap-and-trade;
- have this market regulated by the US Department of Agriculture, not the Environmental Protection Agency; and
- explicitly exempt agriculture from having an emissions cap of its own.
Oh dear. (more…)
by Alex Evans | Jun 26, 2009 | Climate and resource scarcity, North America
The Waxman-Markey Bill will go to the floor of the House today or tomorrow, so Obama and Pelosi are on a determined bid to round up the few remaining undecided Democrats (mainly from rust belt coal states). US environment NGOs have (apart from Greenpeace – quelle surprise) saddled up for a massive mobilisation, and staking every last cent of political capital on leveraging the outcome: the League of Conservation voters went so far as to write to House members saying,
“In light of the tremendous importance of this legislation, LCV has made the unprecedented decision that we will not endorse any member of the House of Representatives in 2010 election cycle who votes against final passage of this historic bill.”
If recent polling data is accurate, then the US public seems to be behind the case for tough action: a Washington Post-ABC poll conducted June 18-21, for instance, has nearly twice as many people approving of Obama’s handling of global warming as those disapproving at 54% vs 28% – a touch down on late April, when the ratio was 61% vs 23%, but still robust.
Better still, 75% of people thought the federal government should “regulate the release of greenhouse gases” vs 22% ‘should not’ – and wierdly, if the question is adapted to include “What if it raised the price of things you buy”, then the ratio widens to 80% vs 18%. That said, on cap-and-trade specifically, the numbers are far closer: 52% support vs 42% opposed, as compared to 59% vs 34% in late April.
But the really stand-out finding for me is about how American voters regard international cooperation on climate. The question put to them on this was as follows:
Do you think the United States should take action on global warming only if other major industrial countries such as China and India agree to do equally effective things, that the United States should take action even if these other countries do less, or that the United States should not take action on this at all?
Answer: 18% think the US “should not take action at all” [i.e. irrespective of what other countries may or may not do]; 20% think the US should “take action only if other countries do”; and 59% think the US should “take action even if other countries do less”. Last time that question was asked in this poll was July last year, when the same numbers were 13% / 18% / 68%. So there’s weakening, sure – but considering that last year was before the credit crunch really kicked in, what’s interesting here is how well the numbers have held up.
by David Steven | Jun 15, 2009 | Climate and resource scarcity, North America
US climate envoy, Todd Stern has tried to clarify exactly what the Obama administration wants from China on climate at Copenhagen (see post from Leo and me on the confusing signals the US has been sending out).
So here it is:
- “Very considerable” reductions on China’s business as usual emissions.
- These reductions to be binding, transparently measured and verifiable.
- No absolute emissions reductions but (preferably at least) a designated year when China’s emissions should peak.
- China’s commitment to be consistent with the world stabilising its emissions at around 450 ppm (“we don’t know whether it’s 445 or 460 or… but in that general range”).
- The package to be backed up by carbon offsets from the US to China – but these offsets should have “real environmental integrity” – and technology cooperation.
Obvious questions to ask Stern –
- Do you believe that President Obama’s domestic commitments on climate are consistent with a 450ppm stabilization target?
- Will the United States be pushing for a 450ppm target to be enshrined in the Copenhagen agreement?
- When does the United States think Chinese emissions should peak to meet 450ppm?
- When does the United States expect global emissions to peak?
by David Steven | Jun 12, 2009 | Climate and resource scarcity
The Guardian headline was unequivocal: “The US will exempt China from binding greenhouse gas targets.”
Guardian environment correspondent, David Adam, had had a chat with Jonathan Pershing, who leads the American climate delegation, and Pershing had told him that only developed countries need take on binding targets to reduce emissions. “We’re saying that the actions of developing countries should be binding, not the outcomes of those actions.”
Now, that’s a big deal. After all, back in 1997, the US Senate made it crystal clear that it had no intention of ratifying Kyoto unless the agreement included “new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions” for all developing countries, and China, Mexico, India, Brazil, and South Korea in particular.
Now, you can argue the toss about the merits of the US position (my personal view is that China should bind itself at Copenhagen to an agreed date by which its emissions will peak), but for Obama’s team to say at this stage – do a bit more on energy efficiency and renewables, and we’ll give you a free pass on targets – would be astounding.
Turns out Der Spiegel has a more detailed and much clearer interview with Pershing.
SPIEGEL: But the Chinese don’t want to accept legally binding reduction targets for CO2. Does the US still insist on such a commitment?
Pershing: Yes, definitely. We are still asking them to commit to legally binding CO2 reductions as part of a Copenhagen agreement.
SPIEGEL: With only five months left until the Copenhagen summit, do you think such a compromise will be possible?
Pershing: We are working very hard to achieve a good solution. The US remains focused on a legally binding agreement and on concluding that agreement in Copenhagen. We expect all developed nations to commit to comparable reduction targets and we want more countries to belong to the group of industrialized countries than today, for example Korea. Major economies with large total emissions like China should take additional steps, including a quantitative and quantifiable set of actions with a legal requirement to implement those actions.
So what gives? A fine line between ‘reductions’ and ‘targets’? Pershing going off script? Or sloppy reporting from the Guardian’s journalist?
(Via @tancopsey on Twitter – follow me @davidsteven.)
Update – And we have our answer – sloppy Guardian reporting. Its original story went up online at 14.53 BST, but was extensively revised and corrected at 18:31 (the old version simply disappeared, but there’s a copy below).
The new headline: “US says it will not demand binding carbon cuts from China.” So targets are still on the table; immediate absolute reductions are not (and they never were – the idea is utterly implausible).
(more…)
by Alex Evans | May 19, 2009 | Climate and resource scarcity
Today’s Guardian has a big splash announcing that “China and US held secret climate talks“. According to Suzanne Goldberg,
A high-powered group of senior Republicans and Democrats led two missions to China in the final months of the Bush administration for secret backchannel negotiations aimed at securing a deal on joint US-Chinese action on climate change, the Guardian has learned.
The report continues that the track 2 talks were orchestrated by the Carnegie Endowment’s Bill Chandler, who says that “My sense is that we are now working towards something in the fall… It will be serious. It will be substantive, and it will happen.”
Hmm. For all the breathless talk of “secret” dealings and “backchannel” negotiations about which “the Guardian has learned”, you have to figure that the talks probably weren’t that secret if Radio Free Asia was able to report fully two months ago that,
China has raised hopes for environmental cooperation with the United States despite differences that emerged during a Washington visit by leading officials this month.
On March 18, Xie Zhenhua, vice chairman of the National Development Reform Commission (NDRC), stressed a positive outlook for cooperation on climate change at a Washington meeting co-hosted by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Global Environmental Institute of Beijing. After years of disagreement over which country bears greater responsibility for global warming, Xie, China’s top climate negotiator, voiced readiness to discuss joint action.
If you’re wondering where Bill Chandler is coming from on climate change, then this 2007 interview with CFR is worth a look (n.b. his heavily sceptical view of Kyoto’s crappy Clean Development Mechanism); more up-to-date and in depth is this 2008 article entitled “Breaking the Suicide Pact: US-China Cooperation on Climate Change” (see also this summary on China Stocks Blog).
There’s a lot of good stuff in the article, with a particular focus on cooperation on best practice technologies and innovation in new ones. But here’s what gives me pause: “Both countries could reach a deal – without a treaty – that could unlock the global stalemate”.
Without a treaty? Hmm. Chandler’s article is full of sensible proposals for confidence building measures between the US and China. But none of these can substitute for a global system of binding, quantified targets, if the world wants to be sure of stabilising greenhouse gas concentrations at any given level. Initiatives like this are useful – but if we learned anything from the Bush Administration, it’s that there’s always the risk of them becoming figleaves.
