| Energy and Global Warming News for October 1st: A mad dash for smart-grid cash; Toyota's two-faced stance on warming; Senate bill replaces "cap-and-trade" with "pollution reduction and investment" Posted: 01 Oct 2009 09:48 AM PDT A Mad Dash for Smart-Grid Cash By the time the late August application deadline had expired, a Department of Energy program to distribute $615 million to fund projects demonstrating smart-grid technology had attracted 140 proposals requesting a total of $2.3 billion.
"The response is very encouraging," said Jen Stutsman, a spokeswoman for the Energy Department. "We expect some very competitive projects."
With companies required to chip in 50 percent of the cost, the $615 million in grants will support at least $1.2 billion in smart-grid projects.
The term "smart grid" covers a number of approaches to modernizing the nation's aging electrical infrastructure. Innovations run the gamut, from home thermostats that automatically adjust in response to overall demands on the grid, to advances in power transmission and energy storage, which will help integrate resources like wind and solar into the nation's electrical mix.
The aim of the Energy Department program — part of the $3.9 billion in stimulus funds targeting the nation's electrical system — is to take smart-grid technologies out of the laboratory and test their wide-scale viability and cost-effectiveness.
Toyota's Two-Faced Stance on Climate Change
As the old saying goes: "You can't have your cake and eat it too." Or in the case of Toyota: "You can't have your green and fight it too."
With a well-earned reputation as a leader in the development of fuel efficient cars it boggles my mind that Toyota continues to be a supporter of the US Chamber of Commerce – an organization that is leading the charge against President Obama's clean energy agenda. Other big supporters of the Chamber of Commerce have been distancing themselves from the organization over their archaic standpoint on the issue of climate change….. If Toyota is genuinely committed to sustainability as they say they are, then they can can take their lead from Nike, Exelon and others and stop supporting the US Chamber and their attack on the Obama administration's clean energy and climate change reforms. If they don't leave the US Chamber, then we know where their motivations truly lie.
Senate climate bill drops "cap and trade" term Senate Democrats tried out a new catch phrase Wednesday to sell their global warming bill: pollution reduction and investment, or PRI….
The idea to remake cap and trade into pollution reduction and investment came from Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., author of the bill unveiled Wednesday. He came up with it about a month ago to refocus attention on what the bill would do, not how it goes about doing it.
"Cap and trade doesn't mean anything to people, " Kerry said in an interview, insisting that "this is an actual description of what's happening here."
At a news conference on the bill, cap and trade, the legislation's centerpiece, got nary a mention. Instead, the buzz words were "national security," "economic growth" and "jobs from clean energy development." Kerry and Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., the other key sponsor, entitled it The Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act.
"We are here and we introduced this legislation because of one word — security," said Kerry. "It is time to reinvent the way Americans use energy."
The words "cap and trade," "global warming" and "climate" also didn't appear in a White House statement responding to the bill's introduction..
"With the draft legislation … we are one step closer to putting America in control of our energy future and making America more energy independent," Obama said. "My administration is deeply committed to passing a bill that creates new American jobs and the clean energy incentives that foster innovation."
Cap and trade is still the centerpiece of the Senate bill, as it is in the House-passed version. Under cap and trade, emissions of heat-trapping gases from power plants, refineries and factories would face increasingly more stringent limits, or caps. Companies could then invest in pollution-reducing technologies, or buy and sell permits to meet the cap — the trade portion.
The bill calls for a 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2020, and an 80 percent cut by mid-century.
Boxer-Kerry Bill: It's Still All About Jobs At last, the definitive version of the Senate's first stab at energy and climate legislation is out. Here's a quick summary, a section-by-section breakdown, and the whole beast. We'll dive into some of the details later, but for now what's interesting is how the bill's biggest supporters are pitching what, if enacted, would be one of the most sweeping pieces of legislation in U.S. history.
For co-sponsor Barbara Boxer, chairwoman of the committee on environment and public works, the "Clean Energy Jobs and America Power Act" addresses the "major challenges" facing the country:
"protecting our children and the earth from dangerous pollution;
putting America back in control of our energy future;
creating the policies that will lead to millions of new jobs; and
Through our example, inspiring similar actions around the world to avoid an unstable and dangerous future."
She highlighted some of the main differences between the Senate bill and the one passed by the House in June. That includes tougher short-term targets for emissions reductions; greater use of carbon offsets and a "price collar" to keep the cost of the program in check; and more investment in natural gas and nuclear power.
But the big selling point, Sen. Boxer said, is jobs. She cited a new study from the University of California at Berkeley that concluded that energy and climate legislation could create as many as 1.9 million jobs by 2020 and increase—not shrink—national GDP by 0.2% to 0.7%.
San Francisco Plan Promotes Urban Wind Power Mayor Gavin Newsom (D) unveiled plans yesterday for installing turbines on rooftops around the city, with a goal of commercializing small-scale wind power and bringing down the cost of renewable electricity.
The plans envision turbines on public and private buildings, as well as at Ocean Beach and Treasure Island. Newsom said demonstration turbines could be placed on the W Hotel, outside City Hall and on a new Public Utilities Commission building.
"We want to challenge the perception that wind is a rural or suburban phenomenon and not an urban resource," Newsom said. Small-scale wind power could contribute significantly to the city's goal of generating 50 megawatts of electricity from renewables by 2030, he said.
The plan offers 29 recommendations for promoting turbines, including easing permitting costs and shortening approval times for turbine manufacturers and producing maps of wind potential highlighting neighborhoods and individual buildings.
"The key issues are siting, installation cost, permitting and wildlife," said Todd Pelman, CEO of turbine manufacturer Blue Green Pacific.
About 40 turbine manufacturers have been certified by the International Electrotechnical Commission, which certifies their models' qualifications for state rebates. The American Wind Energy Association and the Interstate Renewable Energy Council are working on a joint certification process that will start accepting applications later this fall for turbines under 65 kilowatts.
Consumers need more third-party evaluations to compare models, the report says. It recommends that manufacturers create information labels similar to the federal Energy Star program for appliances and adhere to the pending industry standards to ease certification.
Pelman said he was heartened by city officials' approach to permitting. "Even if we come up against any boundaries or barriers, everyone's on board to work through it," he said. Blue Green Pacific's 150-pound rooftop turbine, which generates a maximum of half a kilowatt, is already at three sites here, including the San Francisco Zoo.
The report recommends refunding manufacturers' permitting costs and studying small-scale turbines' effect on birds and bats, for which little information exists.
Newsom cautioned that it is too early to discuss financial incentives for wind projects on the municipal level, but he said homeowners might be able to pay for their turbines through their property tax bills, a financing method first introduced by the city of Berkeley for solar installations.
Endangered yellow taxi? US climate bill could turn them green The sweeping legislation unveiled in the U.S. Senate today aims to curb climate change, arguably one of the biggest tasks ever undertaken on this planet. But it's a bill that runs to more than 800 pages, and hidden in its folds is a provision that could turn a noted symbol of New York City — the yellow taxicab — green.
And it wouldn't just be in New York. Boston, San Francisco, Seattle and other major U.S. cities would be able to create taxi fleets made up entirely of hybrid vehicles under the proposed Green Taxis Act of 2009.
Offered by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who now fills Hillary Clinton's former seat in the Senate, the measure aims to cut greenhouse gas emissions by more than 296,000 tons in New York City alone, which its sponsors say would be like taking some 35,000 cars off the road and save drivers $4,500 annually in gas costs.
"By creating an all hybrid taxi fleet, we can improve air quality and lower carbon emissions," Gillibrand said in a statement. "As a mother with an asthmatic child, I believe this is a win-win for our children and our efforts to combat climate change."
How will climate change affect agriculture? "Agriculture is extremely vulnerable to climate changes," notes a new study from the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) that looks at how climate change will affect food production around the world by 2050.
"Developing countries are likely to be hardest hit by climate change and will suffer bigger declines in crop yields," said Gerald Nelson, lead author of the study and an IFPRI research fellow, in a conference call with journalists on Tuesday.
Temperatures will rise to "intolerable levels" for some plants, he noted, while higher temperatures will encourage proliferation of weeds, insects, and crop diseases.
And those negatives won't necessarily be offset by an increase in carbon dioxide concentrations. In the laboratory, plants generally respond favorably to higher levels of CO2, but the story is different in farm fields. There, higher concentrations can cause more insect damage.
Overall, says the study, "Climate Change: Impact on Agriculture and Costs of Adaptation," the effects of climate change on agriculture and the world's food supply are likely to be negative.
South Asia will see large declines in crop yields, the study predicts through "detailed modeling of crop growth under climate change with insights from an extremely detailed global agriculture model, using two climate scenarios to simulate future climate." Sub-Saharan Africa will also fare poorly.
China, northern Russia, and Canada should see some improvement in their ability to grow more crops, but that won't be enough to offset what happens in the rest of the world.
By 2050, wheat prices will have increased by an estimated 170-194 percent, rice by 113-121 percent, and maize by 148-153 percent because of climate change..
This leads the researchers to suggest that 40 years from now, the impact of climate change will cause 25 million more children to become malnourished.
|
| Feinstein endorses EPA decision: "Hopefully, this will encourage the Senate to pass a comprehensive climate change bill quickly. If it does not, the Obama Administration should be commended for having the courage to protect our environment and our Earth." Posted: 01 Oct 2009 09:31 AM PDT Yesterday, EPA announced a new rule to require use of best technologies to reduce greenhouse gases from large facilities when "constructed or significantly modified." Today, Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), chair of the Senate Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations subcommittee, released a statement: "The Environmental Protection Agency has determined that greenhouse gas emissions pose a real threat to public health and safety, and has proposed a carefully targeted plan to regulate large industrial and commercial facilities under the Clean Air Act. I fully support EPA's actions to require that the nation's largest stationary emitters, responsible for roughly 70 percent of America's carbon footprint, take appropriate steps to contain these harmful emissions and improve energy efficiency. Those who recognize that the Earth is in jeopardy, that global warming is real and that the climate is warming more quickly than anticipated, understand the urgent need to take action. We cannot lose time. Hopefully, this will encourage the Senate to pass a comprehensive climate change bill quickly. If it does not, the Obama Administration should be commended for having the courage to protect our environment and our Earth."
Hear! Hear! |
| What's in a name? That which we call "Kerry-Boxer," by any other name would … Posted: 01 Oct 2009 07:47 AM PDT Okay, the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act ain't Shakespeare — and it ain't perfect. 
Still, there is much confusion about its name. I heard it straight from the primary sponsors themselves that it is "Kerry-Boxer" and not the other way around. The House bill is Waxman-Markey, and it would be inappropriate (and confusing) to call it Markey-Waxman. It may not seem like a big deal, but this minor brouhaha actually made it into E&E News PM (subs. req'd) last night with a Shakespearean sub-head: What's in a name?
Many observers in the climate debate were caught off-guard by the fact that Kerry is now listed as the lead sponsor on the bill, rather than Boxer.
Boxer explained that she had always planned it that way. "This bill has been Kerry-Boxer from day one, from the first day that we've ever started to get together," she said. The California Democrat cited last year's Senate debate on a climate bill that had both Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John Warner (R-Va.) listed as original co-sponsors. "I'm not an egotist when it comes to my name on a bill," Boxer said. "The important thing is to get it done. And by the way, it's going to be a Reid bill on the floor." Cardin said he, too, had long expected Kerry to be the lead sponsor. "What was presented today wasn't the committee bill," he said. "It was a bill from the two leading architects of the global climate change energy bill. That's how we see it. We see both as the leading figures in the U.S. Senate on this issue."
'nuff said. |
| People reluctant to book Sarah 'Four Pinocchios' Palin for speaking engagements because "they think she is a blithering idiot." Posted: 30 Sep 2009 05:28 PM PDT  When we last left GOP quitter-in-chief Sarah Palin she had written a falsehood-filled piece attacking climate action and clean energy for, who else, the Washington Post. Then Senators Boxer and Kerry debunked her piece, pointing out "The governor's new refrain against global warming action reminds us of every naysayer who has spoken out against progress in cleaning up pollution."
At the same time, Newt Gingrich called her a conservative leader on energy issues, asserting "Her knowledge of the energy issue is very real." In fact, Palin is so ignorant of energy, so practiced at repeating falsehoods, that during last year's presidential campaign, the Washington Post itself gave her its highest (which is to say lowest) rating of "Four Pinocchios" for continuing to "to peddle bogus [energy] statistics three days after the original error was pointed out by independent fact-checkers." Now Think Progress reports Palin "has signed on with the Washington Speakers Bureau, hoping to cash in on her fame. While Palin did do one speech — to mixed reviews — in Asia recently, she is reportedly having trouble getting booked for more":
Palin's bookers are said to be asking for $100,000 per speech, but an industry expert tells Page Six: "The big lecture buyers in the US are paralyzed with fear about booking her, basically because they think she is a blithering idiot." Many big lecture venues are subscription series, "and they don't want to tick people off," said our source. "Palin is polarizing, and some subscribers might cancel if she's on the lineup." Other lecture buyers are universities, which have a leftist slant, and corporations, which dislike controversy. "Palin is so uninteresting to so many groups — unless they are interested in moose hunting," said our insider. "What does she have to say? She can't even describe what she reads."
The real idiots are anyone pays Palin 100k to speak. A Palin primer: |
| Reid: Senate floor action before Copenhagen remains on agenda, Cantwell: "We're happy the bill is moving. That's the key thing, because we all want to put a price on carbon," Graham: "It's a start." Posted: 30 Sep 2009 03:47 PM PDT Buried in the E&E News (subs. req'd) story this morning about the Kerry-Boxer bill is this piece of news: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said floor action this year remains on the agenda. Asked yesterday whether the Senate is on track to pass a climate bill before December's international climate talks in Copenhagen, Denmark, he replied, "Yup."
While I don't think it's crucial, I certainly would like to see a fast track for the bill. Two guesses as to whether these comments by Reid get anywhere near as much attention in the status quo media as his earlier comments that the bill might not get to the floor this year. Kerry and Boxer intentionally left out the details of key provisions needed to bring along moderates and Republicans, including a nuclear title and final negotiations on coal with carbon capture and storage. Still, the reaction wasn't as bad as I had feared:
Plans to include new natural gas incentives drew attention as lawmakers last night began digesting the long-awaited bill. A new "clean energy" provision rewards companies that switch from power sources with higher emissions than the 2007 power sector average — such as coal-fired or oil-fired power plants — to cleaner fuels including gas. The plan received high marks from Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) who said it is a "positive step." "Anything we do to promote natural gas would be a very, very smart thing to do," Landrieu said. "The leaders are hearing from many different parts of the country how much natural gas is out there." Landrieu was among nine senators who sent a letter last week to Boxer lobbying for greater incentives for natural gas. Natural gas producers have been aggressively lobbying senators to win greater incentives for the fuel and have garnered support from some swing votes, including Sens. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Arlen Specter (D-Pa.). Natural gas power plants could potentially qualify for the incentives as a fuel that emits 50 percent less carbon dioxide than coal and 30 percent less than oil, as a backup power source for wind, solar and other renewable energy and as a fuel that could utilize CCS technology.
But the provisions on their own appeared quite unlikely to bring Landrieu on board. "I'm still not convinced that the cap-and-trade framework is the best way to create a carbon constrained future," she said. "I am not committed to cap and trade under any circumstances."
Hmm. That last sentence is confusing. I'm going to take the positive spin that he means there are some circumstances under which she could support a cap-and-trade pollution reduction and investment bill. Still, she's pretty doubtful. Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Graham both said they are seeking major incentives for building new nuclear power plants. The draft circulating yesterday contains a nuclear energy research title to boost ways of expanding the life of current plants. It also calls for new research to improve spent fuel management and increased grants for nuclear industry work force development. "This bill does not get us where we need to go on nukes, but it's a start," Graham said, adding he plans for more talks with Kerry on the issue. McCain said he is seeking provisions on fuel storage, recycling and greater loan guarantees for nuclear facilities. He said that the draft bill's 2020 emissions target would be impossible without a substantial nuclear power title. "Frankly, I don't see how significant reductions are obtainable unless you have nuclear power, so I don't pay much attention to the goals," he said.
That seems not fatally negative. Assuming the bill on the floor has slightly weaker targets and a substantial nuclear power title, it would seem to me that McCain is gettable, especially if Obama were to lobby him personally and ask for his help, which would certainly be worth it if McCain can bring Graham with him. Some Democrats, like Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), are pushing legislation they say would empower the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to implement robust rules to prevent manipulation and undue speculation. But others — notably Sens. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) — who say regulators have been far too lax in policing energy derivatives trading say these markets should not be allowed at all for carbon. "I'm not a big fan of trading in general in carbon markets," Cantwell said. But the senator said she nonetheless welcomed the release of the legislation. "We're happy the bill is moving. That's the key thing, because we all want to put a price on carbon."
Cantwell's gonna vote for the bill. I'll bet that Dorgan will at least vote for cloture, to end the inevitable and immoral conservative filibuster — but again, Obama will need to personally intervene. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) put out this tough statement: "The climate legislation proposed today by Senators Boxer and Kerry is a disappointing step in the wrong direction and I am against it. "Requiring 20 percent emission reductions by 2020 is unrealistic and harmful – it is simply not enough time to deploy the carbon capture and storage (CCS) and energy efficiency technologies we need. Period. "Our nation cannot survive without energy from coal and any viable climate policy must solidify our future by focusing on technology to make coal cleaner faster. "I will continue studying the bill and all of its implications for our state and the coal industry. This is by no means the defining word on climate legislation in the Senate. "I remain adamant in my conviction not to support any bill that might threaten the economy, workers or families across West Virginia. "We should take the time to approach these issues with absolute care and diligence – they require nothing less."
So the final bill will move in his direction. I think he'll support it. Heck, I'm such an optimist I think there's a 50-50 chance Byrd will vote for cloture. |
| Breaking: New EPA rule will require use of best technologies to reduce greenhouse gases from large facilities when "constructed or significantly modified" — small businesses and farms exempt Posted: 30 Sep 2009 02:34 PM PDT LOS ANGELES – U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson will announce today in a keynote address at the California Governor's Global Climate Summit that the Agency has taken a significant step to address greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the Clean Air Act. The Administrator will announce a proposal requiring large industrial facilities that emit at least 25,000 tons of GHGs a year to obtain construction and operating permits covering these emissions. These permits must demonstrate the use of best available control technologies and energy efficiency measures to minimize GHG emissions when facilities are constructed or significantly modified. The full text of the Administrators remarks will be posted at www.epa.gov later this afternoon.
This is from an EPA press release. I will phone in to the press call shortly and add any interesting updates. It's great to see that the EPA nd the Obama administration have not been intimidated by the efforts of Lisa "fiddle while Alaska burns" Murkowski to block EPA regulation. I'm told that the Murkowski amendment came as a big shock to the White House — and that, ironically, it may put the Kerry-Boxer bill on a faster timetable, so the Senate doesn't give her another chance to repeat her hypocritical effort (see Murkowski amendment to undermine the Clean Air Act is dead — for now. Feinstein says "we can't afford to bury our heads in the sand on climate change"). The two biggest myths about the EPA's efforts to regulate CO2 are, from the right, that EPA will be regulating everybody, including small businesses and farmers, and, from the left, that the EPA's endangerment finding can somehow stop dangerous warming if the climate bill dies. What they will mostly be doing is new sources, although if Congress fails to act on CO2 regulations, they will no doubt pursue stricter regulations than they otherwise would. Here's the rest of the EPA release:
"By using the power and authority of the Clean Air Act, we can begin reducing emissions from the nation's largest greenhouse gas emitting facilities without placing an undue burden on the businesses that make up the vast majority of our economy," said EPA Administrator Jackson. "This is a common sense rule that is carefully tailored to apply to only the largest sources – those from sectors responsible for nearly 70 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions sources. This rule allows us to do what the Clean Air Act does best – reduce emissions for better health, drive technology innovation for a better economy, and protect the environment for a better future – all without placing an undue burden on the businesses that make up the better part of our economy." These large facilities would include power plants, refineries, and factories. Small businesses such
as farms, restaurants and many other types of small facilities would not be included in these requirements. If the proposed fuel-economy rule to regulate GHGs from cars and trucks is finalized and takes effect in the spring of 2010, Clean Air Act permits would automatically be required for stationary sources emitting GHGs. This proposed rule focuses these permitting programs on the largest facilities, responsible for nearly 70 percent of U.S. stationary source greenhouse gas emissions. With the proposed emissions thresholds, EPA estimates that 400 new sources and modifications to existing sources would be subject to review each year for GHG emissions. In total, approximately 14,000 large sources would need to obtain operating permits that include GHG emissions. Most of these sources are already subject to clean air permitting requirements because they emit other pollutants. The proposed tailoring rule addresses a group of six greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). In addition, EPA is requesting public comment on its previous interpretation of when certain pollutants, including CO2 and other GHGs, would be covered under the permitting provisions of the Clean Air Act. A different interpretation could mean that large facilities would need to obtain permits prior to the finalization of a rule regulating greenhouse gas emissions. EPA will accept comment on these proposals for 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
The proposed rules and more information: http://www.epa.gov/nsr
For more, see Wonk Room. |
| Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act an improvement over House bill on offsets Posted: 30 Sep 2009 02:05 PM PDT With respect to offsets, the Kerry-Boxer bill is a distinct improvement over the ACES [Waxman-Markey]. It allows a relatively strong approach to offset integrity, avoiding negative social or environmental effects, and facilitating possible integration with other systems. It also addresses some issues that will be important to the functioning of a trading market, but still leaves some uncertainties that could cause problems in the market.
One of the weakest features in both the House and Senate climate bills is the large quantity of offsets that polluters are allowed to buy in place of purchasing allowances or reducing their own emissions. I have spent a lot of time talking to leading experts and analyzing the international offset market, which has led me to realize that large-scale, inexpensive international offsets don't exist nor will they (see "Do the 2 billion offsets allowed in Waxman-Markey gut the emissions targets?") — whereas large-scale inexpensive domestic emissions reductions strategies do (see "the 2020 Waxman-Markey target is so damn easy and cheap to meet"). Moreover, CBO projects that roughly half of the domestic offsets will come from actual reductions in U.S. emissions (in uncapped sectors). As for international offsets, they aren't as bad as many people think (see "The CDM: Rip-offsets or real reductions?"), they haven't gutted the Europe's Kyoto targets under their trading system (see "Europe poised to meet Kyoto target: Does this mean the much-maligned European Trading System is a success?"), and lots of countries want to join the market (see "Japan's carbon cuts may include offsets"). That said, they need greater supervision (see "UN suspends largest CDM auditor — Copenhagen needs to clean up the Clean Development Mechanism, Senate should keep House's tough offset language"). The good news is that the Senate bill seems like a genuine improvement over the house bill in this key area, according to my guest blogger, Victor B. Flatt, the Taft Distinguished Professor of Environmental Law at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill School of Law, and the Distinguished Scholar of Carbon Trading and Carbon Markets, Global Energy Management Institute, University of Houston, Bauer College of Business. His post, "Kerry-Boxer an Improvement over ACES on Offsets," was first published by the Center for Progressive Reform here.
With respect to offsets, the Kerry-Boxer bill is a distinct improvement over the ACES. It allows a relatively strong approach to offset integrity, avoiding negative social or environmental effects, and facilitating possible integration with other systems. It also addresses some issues that will be important to the functioning of a trading market, but still leaves some uncertainties that could cause problems in the market. Probably the most important difference between the bills is that the Kerry-Boxer bill does not specify which agency would be in charge of administering and ensuring the integrity of any offset program. In the House bill, a last minute compromise switched all of the administration of biological sequestration offsets to the USDA from the EPA, a change widely criticized by environmentalists because of the belief that the USDA would not be as effective in regulation. The Kerry-Boxer bill doesn't specify any agency, instead referring to the executive branch actor only as "the President" (which means it could be delegated to one or more different agencies). Of particular interest is that in the 801-page draft which leaked out yesterday, the program was administered by the EPA, but that this provision was dropped from the proposed bill. This might indicate that Senators Boxer and Kerry prefer the EPA as the offsets administrator, but that they are willing to have some ambiguity on the issue if it helps win farm state votes. With respect to offset integrity, Kerry-Boxer makes accounting for offset reversals (when the anticipated amount of offsetting fails to occur) a key part of the bill; and unlike the Waxman-Markey bill, reversals are to be avoided and accounted for in all offset categories, not just biological sequestration. This is very important as it closes a huge loophole which could have destabilized the system and market. Though expanding the accounting for reversals to all offset categories, Kerry-Boxer does generally follow the lead of Waxman-Markey in dealing with offset reversals. Section 734(b) requires that the President require offset developers to either contribute offset reserve amounts to a central account registry equal to the probability of reversal times the total offset credit amount, or to hold insurance that would allow for the purchase of offset or emission allowance credits for any offset failure. The offset reserve option also features the requirement that the reserve be replenished by the project offset developer with half of the lost credits for an unintentional reversal or all of the lost offset credits if an intentional reversal. One could suppose that since unintentional reversals could be fully accounted for in the initial reserve requirements (since unintentional offsets should coincide with statistically likely failures) having a replacement of only one half of the loss would be more than sufficient to preserve the integrity of the system. The truth is that reversal probability calculations are so unknown at this time that we cannot be sure about the ratio of reserves to failures. Requiring a one-half replenishment might be more than sufficient or not enough. It is really a guess at this point, and though the statutory requirement of one-half is pretty specific, other provisions of the bill would allow the President to take actions to preserve the integrity of the required reductions. The bill also embraces the notion that offsets should not cause impacts on the environment or other important social interests in many different bill sections. Just as in Waxman-Markey, the offsets advisory board, which is to make recommendations on offset categories, is to also give advice and recommendations to the President on "ways to improve or safeguard the environmental integrity of the programs." (731(c)(6)). But in addition to considering environmental issues with respect to offset categories, the bill also requires the president to act (including rejecting individual projects) "to avoid or minimize, to the maximum extent practicable, adverse effects on human health or the environment resulting from the implementation of offset projects under this part." (Sec. 732(c)). This gives the President or implementing agency authority to create regulations about environmental harms from offsets or reject offsets outright, and this is a very important recognition that offsets may create environmental or other harms.. The President is also given broad leave to require that project developer's applying for offset credit provide information about environmental or other effects of the offsets, by having a catchall phrase that the President can require all offset verification reports to have "any other information" that he believes necessary to fulfill the requirements of the Act. (736 (c)(6)). With respect to the emissions allowance market, the offset parts of the bill have some positive attributes. It pulls back from the initial offering in Waxman-Markey of whole categories of already approved offsets (which the project developers wanted), replacing it with a requirement that the advisory board come up with the first set of categories within a year, but does then specify particular categories which the advisory board should consider. This basically ensures that the Advisory Board can approve these initial categories very easily without too much delay, which should increase the overall market liquidity. There is still the problem that the President is given power to assign offset reversal compensation to anyone (734(b)(1)), which means that in theory, the underlying inherent (not speculative) value of an offset could be decimated without warning, creating a toxic asset which could infect other commodity classes.. However, when read with the other reversal provisions, which require insurance or reserves of the offset project developer, it seems unlikely that the holder of an offset would be required to account for reversals. Even if this is true, since it is so important to the market that holders of approved offsets do not bear the risk of arbitrary reversal, the bill should be changed to specifically hold only the offset developer responsible. This bill comes a long way in ensuring integrity, recognizing relations to international systems (a provision requiring that forestry offset credits be able to meet international standards under the UNFCCC), and accounting for the important environmental impacts that offsets can cause. If it can make corrections to assist the market, this will be an excellent offset system to work with.
I have taken the liberty of changing "Boxer-Kerry" to "Kerry-Boxer" throughout this reposting. |
| Nike runs fast and loud from the incredible, shrinking U.S. Chamber Board over its global warming denial Posted: 30 Sep 2009 01:14 PM PDT 
Nike has put on its running shoes and bolted from the incredible, shrinking industry group's board, like so many others (see "Will last company to leave the Chamber's Boardroom please turn off the lights!" and "Nation's largest utility pulls the plug on the Chamber over climate denial"). Think Progress has the details: In the past couple weeks, three energy companies have ditched the reeling U.S. Chamber of Commerce over its opposition to global warming action. Although Nike has publicly expressed its frustrations with the Chamber's anti-science positions, it hasn't started to sever ties with the organization — until now. Facing increasing pressure from activists, Nike today announced that is resigning from the Chamber's board of directors: It is important that US companies be represented by a strong and effective Chamber that reflects the interests of all its members on multiple issues. We believe that on the issue of climate change the Chamber has not represented the diversity of perspective held by the board of directors. Therefore, we have decided to resign our board of directors position. We will continue our membership to advocate for climate change legislation inside the committee structure and believe that we can better influence policy by being part of the conversation. Moving forward we will continue to evaluate our membership.
The New York Times has an editorial today criticizing the Chamber for being "way behind the curve":
The United States Chamber of Commerce's Web site says the group supports "a comprehensive legislative solution" to global warming. Yet no organization in this country has done more to undermine such legislation. [...]
The chamber has now declared war on the Environmental Protection Agency's plan to use regulatory means to control emissions — beginning with one official's ill-advised (and since apologized-for) demand for a "Scopes monkey trial" questioning the science behind the agency's preliminary finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger human health.
Enviroknow writes that two questions remain: 1) "When will Nike formally end its membership in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce?" and 2) "Which of the following 17 corporations — which are on the record in support of federal climate legislation yet sit on the Chamber's Board of Directors — will be the next to part ways with the chamber?" The Chamber itself is trying to run from its far-out-of-the-mainstream denialism, but it can't outrun the truth — see Chamber of Horrors: The incredible, shrinking industry group falsely claims "We've never questioned the science behind global warming." |
| Governors' Global Climate Summit webcast Posted: 30 Sep 2009 01:06 PM PDT Webcast is here. EPA's Lisa Jackson is up next. Tony Blair on Friday midday (I'm guessing 12:15 MST). Worth watching, I think. Vague schedule here. |
| Energy and Global Warming News for September 30th: Indonesia pledges CO2 cut of 26% to 41% by 2020, "We will change the status of our forest from that of a net emitter sector to a net sink sector by 2030." Posted: 30 Sep 2009 11:17 AM PDT 
Yet another major emitter in the developing world pledges to dramatically change their emissions trajectory. Indonesia pledges CO2 cut of 26% to 41% by 2020 Environmentalists on Tuesday welcomed Indonesia's pledge to substantially cut the growth of its greenhouse gas emissions, saying the promise could help talks on crafting a broader global pact to fight climate change.
Indonesia is the world's third largest greenhouse emitter and steps by big developing nations to curb their emissions of planet-warming greenhouse gases are a key focus of U.N.-led climate talks under way in the Thai capital until Oct 9. Delegates from about 180 countries are trying to narrow differences on emissions reduction targets, climate finance and transfer of clean-energy technology before a December deadline to try to seal a tougher pact to replace the Kyoto Protocol. In a speech to G20 leaders on Sept. 25, Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono said the government was crafting a policy that would cut emissions by 26 percent by 2020 from "business as usual" (BAU) levels. The policy would be a mix of stepping up investment in renewable energy, such as geothermal power, and curbing emissions from deforestation and changes in land use. With international support, he said he was confident Indonesia could cut emissions by as much as 41 percent. "This target is entirely achievable because most of our emissions come from forest-related issues, such as forest fires and deforestation," he said during a working lunch in the U.S city of Pittsburgh. Reuters obtained a copy of his speech on Tuesday. "We are also looking into the distinct possibility to commit a billion ton of CO2 reduction by 2050 from BAU. We will change the status of our forest from that of a net emitter sector to a net sink sector by 2030."
Yes, this commitment is against business as usual growth, but that is the top priority for developing countries, and these cuts are still a big deal from the third biggest emitter in the world. US official: China could lead in electric vehicles
China's fast-growing electric car producers could take the lead in the global industry if the United States fails to invest heavily in the technology, a U.S. energy official said Wednesday.
Electric vehicles are a priority in U.S. energy policy but China is also investing aggressively in development, said David Sandalow, an assistant energy secretary. He spoke after attending a U.S.-Chinese forum on electric vehicles, which he said was attended by 80 Chinese and 60 American companies. "They have the potential to be ahead if the United States does not invest heavily in this technology and in this industry. The Chinese are well positioned to be global leaders in the electric vehicle industry," Sandalow told reporters.
For more, see "World's first mass-market plug-in hybrid is from … China, for $22,000?" Climate on Agenda for Obama's China Trip Climate change will be among the top issues when President Obama visits China in November, a U.S. official said Wednesday. China and the U.S., the world's biggest and second biggest emitters of greenhouse gases respectively, have made energy cooperation a keystone of their relationship even though their differences could still derail an international climate change treaty in talks to be held this December in Copenhagen. Still, the Obama administration is hoping the president's trip here, just ahead of the Copenhagen talks, will result in some concrete steps on energy and technology cooperation.
World Bank Forecasts $100 Billion Annual Climate Cost Developing countries will need as much as $100 billion per year until 2050 to adapt to climate change, an amount that would nearly double current foreign aid flows from developed nations, the World Bank said. Poorer nations need between $75 billion and $100 billion annually to "enjoy the same level of welfare in the future world as they would have without climate change," the World Bank said in a report today released in Bangkok, where envoys met to discuss a global environmental accord. Rich countries gave a record $119.8 billion in aid last year, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. "The World Bank study makes plain that taking action in favor of adaptation now can result in future savings and reduce unacceptable risks," Bert Koenders, the Netherlands' minister for Development Cooperation, said in a statement. "At this point, the costs this will entail can still be borne by the international community."
Investors ready for forest carbon market if Copenhagen and countries supply certainty A survey of investors with approximately US$7 trillion of assets under management has shown significant support for an expanded carbon market mechanism which would address the estimated 20 percent of global carbon emissions due to deforestation and forest degradation. But the 2009 Forest Carbon Investor Survey, conducted by the Brunswick Group on behalf of the WWF Forest Carbon Initiative, found investors looking for initial public financing viable policy frameworks, and more certainty from both international agreements and national legislation, before private funds can be mobilized. The investment community is looking to December's UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen to add substance to REDD (Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) as the over-arching policy framework for combating forest related emissions.
Pa. Rep. Doyle on getting blue-collar support for a climate bill During last week's G20 Summit in Pittsburgh, Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Penn.) was out and about networking with climate-action advocates and talking up the city's green cred. A southwestern Pennsylvania native, Doyle comes from a steelworking family and has been a friend to the industry during his nine years in Congress. But he's also an outspoken proponent of the greening of Pittsburgh, where environmental cleanup, green jobs growth, energy-efficient building, and cleantech R&D have transformed a dying steel town into a lively pioneer of 21st century urban revitalization. Doyle, a senior member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, was an early critic of the Waxman-Markey climate and clean energy bill. But he eventually emerged as a major supporter of the legislation, brokering components that would benefit the industrial and manufacturing sectors and whipping up votes that helped the bill squeak to passage in June. With Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.), Doyle crafted a compromise measure that in the bill's first 10 to 15 years would give away a mass of greenhouse-gas pollution credits to heavy industries facing intense overseas competition (such as steel, natch), as well as to power distribution companies serving local electric utilities.
In a speech to G20 leaders on Sept. 25, Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono said the government was crafting a policy that would cut emissions by 26 percent by 2020 from "business as usual" (BAU) levels. The policy would be a mix of stepping up investment in renewable energy, such as geothermal power, and curbing emissions from deforestation and changes in land use. With international support, he said he was confident Indonesia could cut emissions by as much as 41 percent. "This target is entirely achievable because most of our emissions come from forest-related issues, such as forest fires and deforestation," he said during a working lunch in the U.S city of Pittsburgh. Reuters obtained a copy of his speech on Tuesday. "We are also looking into the distinct possibility to commit a billion ton of CO2 reduction by 2050 from BAU. We will change the status of our forest from that of a net emitter sector to a net sink sector by 2030." |
