Many thought that the upcoming Copenhagen conference next month would lead to a global agreement on climate change.  However, it seems as though we will have to wait a little longer.

Last week, the major world leaders met in Singapore to discuss the purpose of Copenhagen.  Deciding to delay the establishment of a comprehensive and binding treaty, they instead agreed that the mission of the conference would be a less specific “politically binding” agreement.  According to a New York Times article, this agreement “punts the most difficult issues into the future.”

According to the leaders involved with this decision, this is for the sake of Copenhagen.  Michael Froman, the deputy national security adviser for international economic affairs, stated, “It is unrealistic to expect a fully internationally, legally binding agreement could be negotiated between now and Copenhagen, which starts in 22 days.”  According to Froman, forcing an agreement upon the world now would be counterproductive to global climate change cooperation.  

However, others can see through this argument.  An article in the Washington Post referred to it as a “pathetic spin.”  Copenhagen has been on the calendar for years and shouldn’t have surprised anyone.  We all knew it was coming, and we all should have been prepared.

Regardless of the validity of this argument, the delay is disappointing to all who were expecting great accomplishments from Copenhagen.  Now the comprehensive treaty discussion has to wait, at least until the second summit meeting in Mexico City.  Let us hope that a delay isn’t issued right before that meeting as well.

As the scientific community has united in its call for drastic action to reduce global warming, which is already claiming hundreds of thousands of lives, the U.S. and the international community seems to have reached a stalemate. This week, the Kerry-Boxer climate bill markup was boycotted by republicans, and in deciding to continue with the markup anyway, Senator Boxer may have antagonized republicans beyond repair. Talks about a new compromise bill in the Senate have already begun. While some in the US fear that pursuing 4-7% emissions reductions below 1990 levels by 2020 (as the Kerry-Boxer bill does) will harm the economy too much through the measures laid out in the legislation, countries abroad are staging boycotts of their own because they want the US to commit to a 40% reduction below 1990 levels by 2020. The math is easy: the gap between what the US seems to find acceptable and what the international community seeks is immense.

These issues came to light as the climate talks in Barcelona drew to a close this week. Developing countries repeated their demand for assistance from developed countries in taking environmental action. They argue that developing countries used cheaper, quicker, and environmentally degrading methods to boost growth. If other nations are to be denied this opportunity, they want the first polluters to compensate them. But debates in the US Senate bring up the other side: that strong measures in one country alone will not solve the problem. Calls are being made in the US Senate for a bill that does not kick in unless other countries also commit to binding emissions reductions. On the other end, the G77, a coalition of developing countries, said:  "Individual pledges (of the industrialized countries to reduce their GHG emissions) add up to only 11-18% below 1990 levels by 2020 if we include US. Such a low level is unacceptable. It takes us on a dangerous path. We need a real change of heart and mind by developed countries. It has to be demonstrated by (putting up) figures. It is not sufficient to have progressive and noble rhetoric which is empty." To focus attention on this, fifty African countries boycotted part of the Barcelona summit.

To pass a climate bill, the Senate needs 60 votes. To pass an international treaty, the Senate needs 67. Now, many fear that the US will not be able to go into the Copenhagen climate talks next month and make any firm commitments because it could not even pass domestic legislation. Senator Kerry, the bill’s co-author, admitted: "We have to be honest in the process and deal with the realities that we don't have time in these four weeks to put the language together and flesh out every crossed t and dotted i of a treaty."

Where does this leave us now? Of course, it would have been ideal to have a bipartisan piece of US legislation to boast when going into Copenhagen. But there is still common ground to be sought. Fighting climate change is in everyone’s interest: rich countries and poor countries, republicans and democrats. On their own, both developed and developing countries have taken significant steps to combat climate change- whether by boosting wind power in China or by committing to high emissions reductions in the EU. On their own, both republicans and democrats have introduced and championed climate change legislation. At this time of seemingly severe divides, perhaps we need to take a moment to start from scratch and rebuild the dialogue and rhetoric with a strong foundation: that of what we have done individually, and what will happen to us all if we don’t do more together.

A key component of the Boxer-Kerry Bill is a policy called “cap-and-trade.”  “Cap-and-trade” is a method that provides an economic incentive for the greenhouse-gas-emitting entities to reduce their emissions.  More specifically, the policy identifies the entities and gives them a set allowance for their emissions.  The sum of all the greenhouse gas emitted by all the entities equals the national cap. In return, the entities are allowed to trade their allowance credits amongst themselves for a profit. 
 
While the Boxer-Kerry Bill includes this policy, it shies away from the term “cap-and-trade,” referring to it instead as the “pollution reduction and investment” program.  Why did they change the wording of the policy? A historical analogy of the policy to the Slave Trade Act of 1807 may provide a clue.  This act abolished the Atlantic slave trade, yet did not abolish the act of slavery itself.  Thus, no more slaves could enter America, but the preexisting slaves could be traded amongst the plantation owners as much as they pleased. Sounds very similar to a “cap-and-trade” policy.  This allows a possible comparison between the two, as they could be viewed as easy ways to deal with external pressure while really ignoring the larger issues at hand.  This analogy may explain why the Boxer-Kerry Bill has avoided the term “cap-and-trade.”  Avoiding the term may mean avoiding the comparison.  And they don’t want to be viewed as taking the easy way out. Smart move.
 
Yet, despite the negative associations with the term “cap-and-trade,” it is important to note that the policy has the potential for success. There are several historical examples of successful “cap-and-trade” policies, including the Clear Air Act Amendments.  These were passed in 1990 by George H.W. Bush in an effort to reduce sulfur emission as the effects of acid rain were brought to the public’s attention.  Just like in the Boxer-Kerry Bill, each sulfur producing entity was assigned a cap, but they were allowed to trade or sell unused allowances for a profit. This program was extremely success. It received 100 percent compliance in reducing sulfur dioxide emissions and by 2002, sulfur emissions were 41% lower than in 1980.
 
Thus, the “cap-and-trade” policy of the Boxer-Kerry Bill has great potential for success.  Past “cap-and-trade” policies on the environment have been very successful, despite certain negative historical associations with the term.  It is important to look past the term and see the policy in all its potential.  Yet, the bill faces strong opposition that does not need more fuel for its fire.  Using the term “pollution reduction and investment” rather than “cap-and-trade” definitely won’t hurt.  After all, no bill wants to be compared to a slave law.

The global community has a moral obligation to reduce its greenhouse gases. Climate change talks in Copenhagen are set to begin in slightly over 46 days. And yet the United States is far from passing any legislation that would truly curb our greenhouse gas emissions below the scientific recommendations of 25-40 percent of 1990 levels. The House passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. This bill, also known as the Waxman-Markey bill, proposes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by only 17 percent of 2005 levels, or in other words: 4 percent of 1990 levels. Additionally, the Boxer-Kerry bill in the U.S. Senate has requested a reduction of 15-20 percent of 2005 levels, only 7% of 1990 levels. Both of these goals, according to the legislation, would be reached via a cap-and-trade program; thus using the all glorious (see: sarcasm) market forces to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. However, those opposed to the bill are now referring to this as "crap-and-trade" Good for them, using the same language as a five year old. This really furthers the debate in our country.

There is a moral imperative to stop the search for bi-partisanship if it does not advance the U.S.'s responsibility to reduce our carbon footprint. In an op-ed written by Senators Graham and Kerry they announced their efforts to find bi-partisan support for climate change legislations. Sen. Lindsey Graham suggested that republicans would be willing to sign a bill if it included drilling, "clean coal" technology, nuclear power, and carbon capture and sequestration. While I personally support nuclear power, there are many things that do not make sense. There have been attempts to find any excuse to drill for oil, and here is another one. How does this advance our carbon reduction and environmental protection? Carbon capture and sequestration is a science that is not completely understood. The earth has a well developed system for regulating itself and converting pollutants, thus we do not know what will happen to our system if we start burying pollutants underground. They have to go somewhere, just because you can't see them doesn't make it go away. Additionally, "clean coal" is a minimalist effort and gives the green light to coal-fired plants.

Although some jobs, in particular sectors and constituencies- may be lost, it does not negate our greater responsibility to our general citizenry, and the global environment. The Atlantic Slave trade employed thousands of people, from ship builders, sailors, capturers, traders, auctioneers, and more. However, the United States eventually decided to end slavery because our sense of justice and morality outweighed the fear of job loss. However, we were grossly behind Britain and other European nations in abolishing slavery. Now we look back on our participation and we are ashamed, particularly because we were not the first to abolish the slave trade. I am afraid the same thing will happen here. I am not equating those working in the coal industry-particularly the hard working blue-collar Americans-with slave drivers. I use this example only to illustrate that the time has come for the United States to take a principled stance. We are already grossly behind Europe once again, and just a few generations from now they will look back and ask "what were they thinking? Didn't they see their own hypocrisy?" We claim to be a world leader yet are continually following in shadows. Everyone's lives are in danger with as climate change is accelerated. We DO have a moral obligation. The idea that our children will have a better future than we had will not come to fruition if we ignore our environment. They will not have the same bio-diversity, their air will be dirty, their water polluted, their rivers dried, and their cities flooded.

"We refuse to accept the argument that the United States cannot lead the world in addressing global climate change."

This is the kind of support that the climate debate needed from members of Congress as the Kerry-Boxer bill introduced in the Senate battles for time on the heavy legislative agenda. Giving momentum to climate legislation once again, Senator John Kerry (D-MAS) and Senator Lindsey Graham (R- SC) published an op-ed in the New York Times making a strong statement in favor of the U.S. assuming a leadership role in climate change mitigation.

Though they come from opposite sides of the aisle, Senators Kerry and Graham found much common ground as they called for bipartisan support for climate change. They said: "climate change is real and threatens our economy and national security. That is why we are advocating aggressive reductions in our emissions of the carbon gases that cause climate change... We are confident that a legitimate bipartisan effort can put America back in the lead again and can empower our negotiators to sit down at the table in Copenhagen in December and insist that the rest of the world join us in producing a new international agreement on global warming. That way, we will pass on to future generations a strong economy, a clean environment and an energy-independent nation."

The innumerable harmful effects of climate change do not respect borders or political ideologies- they affect us all. This is why we all have to come together in search of a solution.

Act NOW to support strengthened climate legislation in the U.S.!

After passing through the House, The American Clean Energy and Security Act, H.R. 2454, has continued to attract much attention and controversy as it awaits Senate vote. Opponents have tried to brand it as a tax-raising, economy-shattering piece of legislation. But this is not so.

Hearings have begun to discuss the climate legislation under the leadership of Senator Boxer and partnering chairs of other Senate committees.  Many different views have been expressed, and some have stood out. One such view promotes establishing a cap-and-trade system and imposing a price on polluting.  The climate bill puts in place powerful incentive possibilities to spur investment and research in energy technology. Senator Kerry noted that the energy market is a 6 trillion dollar market with about 4.5 billion eligible users. This represents enormous opportunities, and explains why China is currently investing aggressively in alternative energy development. Whoever pushes through this industry and establishes themselves first will be the winner, and this climate bill creates the incentives to make that happen in the U.S.

The provision of allowances, whereby certain companies would be given pollution permits instead of having to buy them, has also come under heavy fire. But these allowances, if distributed carefully, constitute an important method to secure the economic feasibility of the bill. Energy intensive industries vulnerable to international competition need such provisions to help them transition to a new, green economy. Otherwise, they would be tempted to move production to another country with lower standards, instead of reducing their emissions. Visit Robert Stavins' blog to see how the allowances have been allocated beneficially.

Witnesses also advised against playing industries off each other, and framing some (like coal) as losers and others (like wind energy) as winners. This must be seen as an economy-wide attempt to transition to a fair and healthier form of development. Further, improvements in energy efficiency- boosted by the right kind of legislation- are in the financial interest of every company. Dow Energy has demonstrated this by making energy efficiency investments that saved the company over 8 billion dollars and made energy efficiency gains equaling all the power used by every home in California in a year since 1994.

On the other side of the bill, senators have raised a broad range of excuses for opposing it. Senator Inhofe has employed scare-tactics, which shouldn't be surprising considering his history of questioning the reality of global warming. Many have continued to harp on "India and China," insisting that the U.S. must wait for them to do something significant. Senator Kerry, who recently returned from China, pointed out the China is willing to constructively engage on the issue after seeing U.S. leadership. Other countries are also looking forward to U.S. leadership ahead of the international climate talks in Copenhagen this December. Experts have testified that the threat of international competition with respect to India and China applies to limited exports, so there is room to work around it. The developed and developing world can't keep waiting for each other to act and get stuck in a chicken-and-egg situation. The point is, there is technology available to reduce domestic and overseas emissions, and the right kind of legislation is needed to help proliferate it.

The old method of development, and the fear of "India and China," has not helped. Our old industries have failed to create the amount of jobs needed in the economy, and have contributed to global warming, causing a range of health hazards. Stimulating an energy efficient economy will create much needed investment and create new jobs, like the production of wind turbines and solar panels. It's time for the Senate to see the light.

For more information, click here

Thomas Friedman said of the Waxman-Markey Bill: "It stinks. It's a mess... Now let's get it passed in the Senate and make it law."

So why does he want this stinky, messy bill to become law?

In the New York Times, Friedman explained that this bill, for all its imperfections, is "the first comprehensive attempt by America to mitigate climate change by putting a price on carbon emissions. Rejecting this bill would have been read in the world as America voting against the reality and urgency of climate change and would have undermined clean energy initiatives everywhere."

To muster enough support for the bill to be passed through the House, the bill had to include provisions that would weaken it. Still, it creates incentives for businesses to cut costs by going green: "weaving carbon emissions into every business decision will drive innovation and deployment of clean technologies to a whole new level and make energy efficiency much more affordable." Through the bill, new buildings and appliances will be more energy efficient, forests will be conserved, and mindsets will change- factoring in pollution as a production cost will change the way we make things.

Let's heed Friedman's final words of wisdom: "Now that the bill is heading for the Senate... we must, ideally, try to improve it, but, at a minimum, guard against diluting it any further."

* ACT NOW in support of strengthened environmental protection policy!

To read the full article, click here

For more information on the legislation, click here

To learn more about climate change, click here

On June 26, 2009, the House succeeded in passing the Waxman-Markey Bill, which takes important steps towards addressing climate change. The bill narrowly passed with 219 ayes and 212 noes: we commend all the representatives who voted in favor of this key legislation, and urge the Senate to pass the bill before December 2009, when countries will be meeting in Copenhagen to discuss an international environmental agreement to succeed the Kyoto Protocol.

The Congressional Budget Analysis Office found that 1.7 million jobs will be created with the implementation of the legislation through the growth of clean energy jobs. Low income families will receive a $40 benefit from using more solar and wind energy in place of foreign oil. U.S. dependence on foreign oil will be cut, along with the hazardous effects of pollution- all for the cost of about one postage stamp a day for every family.

There are concerns about compromises made along the way to secure support for the bill. For instance, the Agriculture Committee has secured rights over the Environmental Protection Agency to oversee implementation among farmers, and pollution permits have been given for free to coal-burning utilities, oil refineries, automakers, and manufacturers struggling to compete with overseas production.

By imposing a higher price on carbon emissions, incentives are created to invest in green technology within the U.S. The bill is not strong enough to sufficiently thwart climate change, but it is an important step in the right direction, and a symbol of changing mindsets and modes of development. If even the current bill could not be passed, hopes for stronger measures tomorrow would be dampened significantly.

* ACT NOW in support of strengthened environmental protection policy!

To watch Obama speak on the passage of the bill, click here

For more information on the legislation, click here

To learn more about climate change, click here

On June 15, 2009, the White House released a comprehensive report on climate change, explaining that its affects are already being felt. It acknowledged the role played by humans in causing the phenomenon, and warned that coastal U.S. waters are already suffering. Heavy downpours, temperature increases, rising sea levels, melting glaciers, altered crop seasons, and other such effects are attributable to global warming. Such impacts on the U.S. are projected to grow. Drought, floods, and water quality problems are expected to be major concerns. Crop and livestock production will be compromised with the increase in heat, water stress, diseases, weather extremes, and more favorable conditions for pests. Erosion, flooding, and property destruction are severe risks due to sea-level rise. Human health will also be harmed by heat stress, water-borne diseases, poor air quality, extreme weather events, and pest-borne diseases. To this end, we must reduce emissions of heat-trapping gases and particles, and work to adapt to current changes.

For more information, visit the website of the U.S. Global Change Research Program.

On the 16th of June, the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars hosted a panel to discuss healthy solutions to climate change with Dr. Paul Esptein and Dr. Amanda Staudt.

The first issue raised was the realization that the current development path exceeds worst-case scenario models that were previously projected. The developing world's emissions are growing faster than was expected, and the efficiency of carbon sinks (oceans and forests) is less than what was thought. At this rate, the south-west U.S. and other places are on track to become arid, and 50% of the world's wildlife species will be extinct in the next few years. Dr. Staudt warned that this was the critical moment to avoid many of the irreversible effects of climate change, and she called for solutions such as the provision of wildlife corridors to allow species to migrate when their habitats are threatened, and support for H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act.

Dr. Epstein elaborated on these effects by discussing how they negatively impact our health. Extreme weather events, like droughts and floods, affect the water, soil, animals, and insect breeding grounds, which indirectly harm our health. Increased carbon content reduces crop yields, increases weeds, and also makes some plants poisonous. Other harmful consequences include the release of methane (a greenhouse gas far more potent than carbon dioxide) from the permafrost in the Arctic, which occurs when the ice melts. The adjoining image shows a professor digging through arctic ice and lighting a flame to demonstrate the methane content in the ice.

Dr. Epstein recommended that we stick to solutions that have been insured against harmful side effects. These include plug-in hybrid electric cars, smart grids, wind energy, solar energy and conservation tillage. However, alternatives such as biofuels, nuclear fission, and carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) should not be developed until further studies and safeguards have been established. For instance, the production of biofuels releases harmful ozone by-products, and CCS leeches arsenic and lead, and disintegrates limestone.

In conclusion, the speakers stressed the urgency of the situation and called for regulation, public-private partnerships, and set rules. Dr. Staudt called this period a historic opportunity for us to change the course of development, and we hope that their perspectives and information on ways to address climate change will be heeded.

For more information, click here.