by Citizens for Global Solutions | Oct 22, 2009 | Climate Justice, Global Cooperation
The United Nations Climate Conference in Copenhagen is set for December 7th through December 18th 2009. The main goal of this conference is to create an international treaty that establishes a global climate agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol which expires in 2012. The target of the Kyoto Protocol was to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 5.2% of 1990 levels by 2010.
The Kyoto Protocol was important because it set international standards and commitments for greenhouse gas emissions which demonstrated an international effort to protect the environment. It is crucial that the U.N. Climate Conference in Copenhagen ends with a treaty because the work that has been started to combat global warming is not yet over. Without a comprehensive and binding treaty, it cannot be possible to expect countries to commit to long-term emission reductions.
The United States has an especially important role in the Copenhagen conference. The U.S. has the chance to be a leader at this conference. However, the legitimacy of this leadership is heavily tied to domestic policy in America. It is important for the U.S. to pass domestic legislation that sets targets for emission reductions before Copenhagen. However, any legislation passed should show a serious dedication to cutting emissions. The American Clean Energy and Security Act, passed in May 2009, aims to reduce emissions by 4% of 1990 levels, and the Boxer-Kerry bill has proposed to cut emissions by 7% of 1990 levels. But, the scientific community has asserted that a 40% reduction of 1990 levels is necessary to really make a difference. While it is important to see the U.S. taking steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the proposed reductions are a very small margin of what is actually needed to effect global climate change. For the United States to take a real leadership role in the battle against climate change, higher emissions reduction commitments are absolutely necessary.
The United States is one of the highest emitters of carbon dioxide in the world; however the effects of climate change are ever-present in developing countries that have very small emissions. The upcoming conference in Copenhagen will hopefully yield positive results, but it is critical for the U.S. to ratify and enforce any new treaty that is created. It is time for the United States to take responsibility for the damage it has done and commit to more significant reductions in emissions.
by Citizens for Global Solutions | Oct 21, 2009 | Climate Justice, Global Cooperation
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.
by CGS Blog Archive | Oct 21, 2009 | Climate Justice, Global Cooperation
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.
by Komal Hiranandani | Oct 16, 2009 | Climate Justice
“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.!
by Robert Enholm | Oct 14, 2009 | Climate Justice, Global Cooperation
Ron Brownstein has an interesting article in The Atlantic (October 2009) that describes California’s efforts to create sensible energy regulation and promote green technologies:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200910/california-energy
As the United States and the world attempt to make meaningful progress in addressing climate change and moving toward renewable energy, the ideas underlying California’s energy regulatory system may be ever more important points of reference.
(Full disclosure: In 1976 and 1977, immediately after college, I worked as a staff economist for the California Energy Commission and witnessed the beginnings of the regulatory movement described here.)
Robert A. Enholm
Executive Vice President
Citizens for Global Solutions
by Citizens for Global Solutions | Sep 25, 2009 | Climate Justice, Global Cooperation
Multilateralism is again the focal point for American foreign policy, in a way that has not been seen in a number of decades. The new U.S. engagement is manifesting itself in both word and deed. President Obama’s whirl-wind tour of multilateralism is a refreshing sight. President Obama started his tour with a speech to the U.N.’s Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon’s Climate Change Summit. In his remarks, as he repeated in his address to the General Assembly, he stated that the U.S. is ready to address global problems on the global stage. He recognized that, while the U.S. and other Western states have contributed the most to climate change, the least developed States will bear the greatest burdens. He pledged that the U.S. will do more to combat climate change and help mitigate the effects, but reaffirmed that all nations must make legitimate commitments to reverse greenhouse gas emissions. His words were strong and forceful but more importantly his deeds are echoing more forcefully. Domestically the U.S. is making progress to reduce our emissions.
Next, the President spoke to the General Assembly. His speech covered many topics, but emphasized the U.S.’s commitment to engagement and finding comprehensive solutions to global obstacles. He focused on disarmament, peace building, environmental protection, and economic development. However, the U.S. has not only spoken wisely about multilateral policies, the U.S. has taken important steps to ensure cooperation. The U.S. has taken bilateral and unilateral steps to this end. The administration signaled its willingness to sign new treaties with Russia and has unilaterally withdrawn plans to station missile interceptor systems in the Czech Republic and Poland. The following day he chaired the Security Council as he forwarded a new resolution calling on all member states to increase their nuclear non-proliferation regimes, and reinvigorated the IAEA’s role in nuclear arms control.
The multilateralism tour has yet to cease. He is now meeting with the G20 to address climate change initiatives, economic recovery and development. These issues must not be fractionalized/ compartmentalized. The U.S. and political leaders in every state must spend the necessary political capital to ensure that economic growth is also environmentally sustainable.
Click HERE to see our full page on all of Obama’s speeches at the 64th General Assembly of the U.N.
