by Citizens for Global Solutions | Jun 11, 2007 | Climate Justice, Global Cooperation
As I was sitting here this morning, taking in my daily dose of caffeine and energy headlines, something caught my eye. A top Chinese official spread the word that China may put an end to projects that convert coal to oil.
“Liquefied coal projects consume a lot of energy, though the successful industrialization of liquefied coal could help reduce the country’s dependence on petroleum,” the official said.
If this turns out to be the case, China will be taking a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, Congress does not seem ready to move in a similarly enlightened direction. Several Members of Congress remain enamored of this technology, which is a dead-end in terms of both energy security and global warming.
Controversy over converting coal into transportation fuel was at the center of the schism that broke out last week among Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. A dozen Members (quite rightly) sent a letter to Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich) and Energy and Air Quality Subcomittee Chairman Rick Boucher (D-Va) objecting to “harmful policies” included in a bill drafted by the two Congressmen. Support for coal-to-liquids was among these toxic measures.
President Bush often cites the inaction of emerging economies such as China as an excuse for our own inaction on global warming. It seems that when it comes to coal-to-liquids the shoe is on the other foot…
by Citizens for Global Solutions | Jun 8, 2007 | Climate Justice, Global Justice, News
Washington, D.C. — Citizens for Global Solutions welcomes the compromise reached on climate change at the G8 Summit, but is disappointed by the G8 countries’ failure to keep their promises in the fight against poverty and disease in Africa.
This year, the G8 took an important step towards an effective international response to global climate change. President Bush’s commitment to work within the U.N. framework to achieve a new climate agreement by 2009 is a critical shift in U.S. policy. However, the absence of binding emissions targets and the president’s continued opposition to such targets remain cause for serious concern.
On Africa, the G8 failed to take meaningful action to achieve the goals set at the Gleneagles summit in 2005.
Following is a statement from Citizens for Global Solutions’ Rebecca Mbuya-Brown, Program Manager for Global Health, Poverty & Environment at our organization:
“After more than six years of denial, obfuscation and opposition on climate change, President Bush has finally said that he will bring the U.S. back to the negotiating table. This is an important step forward. Yet, unless he ends his opposition to binding limits on greenhouse gas pollution, this will lead nowhere.
“When it comes to climate change, the only effective solutions are international solutions. The President’s commitment to work through the United Nations is critical. The U.N. is the only body capable of addressing challenges – like climate change – which occur on a global scale and can only be overcome through cooperative international action.
“G8 leaders missed a golden opportunity to prove they are serious about keeping the promises made to Africa two years ago. Instead, they produced a set of recycled, non-binding, non-specific commitments and backed away from achieving universal access to HIV/AIDS treatment by 2010.”
by Citizens for Global Solutions | Jun 7, 2007 | Climate Justice, Global Cooperation
This afternoon, G8 leaders reached a compromise on climate change. The agreement comes after weeks of tension between the U.S. and European members of the G8 over establishing goals for international action to combat global warming.
Yesterday, President Bush made it clear that the U.S. would not reconsider its opposition to including a concrete global emissions target in the G8 communique.
What’s in the Agreement : The leaders of the G8 countries
-
agree that there is a need to substantially reduce global greenhouse gas emissions
-
agree that there is a need for a global goal for emissions reductions
-
are committed to working within the framework of the United Nations to achieve a post-Kyoto agreement by 2009
-
agree to keep in mind the target proposed by the EU, Canada and Japan of halving greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 when negotiating global emissions goals
What’s Not in the Agreement:
Tony Blair and Angela Merkel, both welcomed the agreement. I’ll let Tony Blair sum it up:
“The important thing is we now have an agreement – one; that we need a new worldwide agreement on climate change,” he said.
This is groundbreaking? That we now have an agreement that we need an agreement? Unfortunately, it is. Until today, the Bush administration has categorically refused to consider participation in a post-Kyoto climate agreement. Bush statement earlier today that: “The U.S. will be actively involved — if not taking the lead — in a post-Kyoto framework” represents a relatively giant step forward.
But I for one am not ready to break open the party poppers and green confetti. I’m deeply concerned that the bar for political progress on global warming is still being set so low. I’m delighted (and relieved) to hear President Bush committing to work within the UN framework to come up with a new climate agreement. This is an important step forward. But in terms of actual commitments, actual tons of greenhouse gases being taken out of the atmosphere… today’s agreement to agree means nothing.
Okay – It’s worth lighting one or two celebratory sparklers – after all how many times has President Bush said the word UN in a positive context over the past seven years? But tomorrow I’m getting back to the hard work of raising that bar – I hope you will be too.
Check out this Guide to the G8 to see what’s on tomorrow’s agenda
by Citizens for Global Solutions | Jun 7, 2007 | Climate Justice, Global Cooperation, News
Reuters reports that the G8 leaders have agreed to “substantial reduction of greenhouse gases,” and a recommitment to UN climate negotiations, but the final G8 communique will not include the firm emissions targets sought by Europe.
The G8 ‘sherpas’ met late into the night last night to hammer out new draft language on climate change. According to the Financial Times, the new draft includes a commitment by all the G8 nations, including the U.S. to negotiate a UN climate agreement by 2009.
“The U.S. will be actively involved — if not taking the lead — in a post-Kyoto framework.” President Bush, speaking this morning at the G8 summit in Heiligendamm, Germany
If this language remains in the final communique, it would represent a significant policy shift for the Bush administration, which has consistently opposed U.S. participation in the Kyoto Protocol, and refused to participate in UN climate negotiations.
Speaking after a meeting with Bush this morning, Prime Minister Blair was waxed optimistic about the outcome.
“I think that it is possible that we?ll leave the summit with a commitment on the part of everyone to a substantial reduction of greenhouse gases by 2050 as a global target that is of the order of the type of figures the Europeans are talking about,” said Mr Blair.
Negotiations on climate change will continue this afternoon…
by Citizens for Global Solutions | Jun 6, 2007 | Climate Justice, Global Cooperation
The G8 summit started off with a bang – the sound of President Bush slamming the door on Germany’s global warming proposal. The President’s chief environmental adviser, Jim Connaughton, dashed whatever faint hopes remained that the administration would accept the goal proposed by its European counterparts – cutting carbon emissions by 50 per cent by 2050 in order to prevent temperatures rising by more than 2’C (which scientists have identified as earth’s climate tipping point) – when he announced this morning that the U.S. would reject the proposal.
German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, will not leave entirely empty-handed, however. Her consolation prize is a commitment from President Bush that the U.S. will work within the existing United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to seek a successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol. This is a much-needed reassurance, after the President’s announcement last week, which seemed to indicate the U.S. would sidestep the UN process to launch its own set of bilateral and multilateral discussions on climate change.
I suppose a little bit of something is better than nothing… But I still think we should expect better from the U.S.
by Citizens for Global Solutions | Jun 6, 2007 | Climate Justice, Global Cooperation
While G8 leaders get together in Heiligendamm today through Friday to discuss climate change, aid and international economic issues, another headline should be giving us pause. Today’s front page article in the FT‘suggests that OPEC is beginning to panic about the increasing emphasis the US and Europe are placing on biofuels (energy from corn/sugar). The head of OPEC said that the cartel may be forced to reduce investments in oil production in anticipation of the switchover to biofuels. He suggested that this may lead to dramatic increases in oil prices, especially if the biofuels technology is not able to keep up with demand–a risk that is also linked to food demand.
In my mind, this news story clearly demonstrates why the current debate on energy independence, blogged about by Scott Paul last week, is problematic. The economies of most members of OPEC are entirely driven by oil. A conversation about shifting away from fossil fuel dependence, and oil in particular, must include OPEC. I remember having a conversation with my colleague Raj Purohit early last year about this very issue–how would OPEC economies cope with reduced oil consumption because of global warming worries etc. They stand to lose tremendously from this needed shift and a truly global conversation about energy and climate change must acknowledge that those countries that are almost solely dependent on oil will face challenges that they cannot meet alone–it is time to engage them on how they can transition their economies away from oil dependence too. Many of these countries are also politically weak and potentially unstable. It is crucial that investments are made to create economic opportunities for the people of these countries so that they are prepared to live in a world where having oil under your feet is no longer that valuable.
The energy independence rhetoric is couched in national security terms–we need to reduce our dependence on oil from unstable, unsavory regimes–but by not thinking of energy in global terms, in interdependent terms, the situation in those countries could worsen. And that would be bad for our national security.
